Sitting of 20 July 1994

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

    GREATER NOTTINGHAM LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT BILL
    Ordered,
    That in the case of the Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill, Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Lords amendments accordingly considered

  Clause 57

    NOISE INSULATION
    Lords amendment: No. 88, in page 44, line 26, at end insert—
    "(c) The following provisions of this section are without prejudice to this subsection".
    Amendment made to the Lords amendment: after "subsection" insert—
    "and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, an application for a grant to which provision is required to be made by this subsection shall not be invalid by reason of the fact that it is not made on the date specified in accordance with subsection (4)(d) below if it is made during a period beginning with the opening to the public of the part of the LRT system to which the application relates and ending five years thereafter".
    Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Regional Development
    Mr. Bates: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the regional development organisations.
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the work of the regional development organisations.
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr Heseltine): The regional development organisations make a significant contribution to the overall success of the United Kingdom in attracting inward investment. In 1992–93, the last year for which figures are available, they were significantly involved in attracting 54 investment projects by foreign firms to the United Kingdom, involving some 6,000 jobs.
    298
    The work of the regional development organisations will be further strengthened by my recent appointment of a senior business man as head of the Invest in Britain Bureau.
    Mr. Bates: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in thanking the Northern Development Company in particular, which has succeeded in attracting some £3.5 billion-worth of inward investment to the north-east, creating or safeguarding some 35,000 jobs? Will he compare its successful efforts at industrial regeneration with the record of the National Enterprise Board, which made 100 investments, 35 of which went bust and 37 were sold at a loss to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is wise to remind the House of the disastrous experience of the National Enterprise Board, but he is also right to point out that the north-east has been particularly successful in attracting inward investment to this country, a significant amount of which I have had the privilege of seeing.
    Mrs. Lait: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the north-east shares with areas in the south-east the problem of endemic long-term unemployment. When he considers the regional development map in due course, will he bear in mind the fact that the causes of that regional endemic unemployment will not have been solved because we will not have the new roads? Will he ensure that the Department is generous in the timing of a new map?
    Mr. Heseltine: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We are obliged to review the map from time to time and we will do so, but against a statistically accurate background. I know that my hon. Friend will share my pleasure at seeing the overall levels of unemployment now falling consistently month by month.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the President of the Board accept that, despite the recent difficulties of the Welsh Development Agency, in the period from 1976 until now it has performed a remarkable job? It now needs every support, not only from the Welsh Office but from the Minister's Department and the Treasury, to maximise inward investment into Wales and the UK generally and to help self-regenerative growth within the area?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the great success that the Welsh Development Agency has had, but he will remember that it has enjoyed that success against the background of fiscal policies that have made this country extremely attractive to inward investment. The most constructive thing that he and his party could do is support the Government's determination to avoid the on-costs of the social chapter, which would undermine Welsh competitiveness.
    Mr. Gunnell: Will the President of the Board of Trade acknowledge the good work done by the Yorkshire and Humberside development corporation, particularly in south Humberside, where he will recall opening the Kimberly-Clark plant? Will he guarantee that, whatever boundary changes the local government review comes up with, the Yorkshire and Humberside development corporation will still have responsibility for attracting inward investment to south Humberside and Scunthorpe, where it has had so many successes?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the considerable success that Government policy has had in attracting inward investment to this country. I assure him that we will continue with those policies. Indeed, we are increasing our efforts to support them.
    Mr. Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the number of overseas companies that have decided in the past six months to invest in Devon and Cornwall has risen sharply compared to previous years, thanks largely to the efforts of the Devon and Cornwall development bureau? Does he agree, however, that that is not just a reflection of growing confidence in the UK economy but a new recognition that the south-west, with its skilled work force and improving communications, is now firmly open for business?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes a remarkable and eloquent point on behalf of the south-west. I have visited his part of the country recently. The transformation that has taken place since I was last a Member of Parliament for that area is remarkable.
    Mr. Beggs: The President of the Board of Trade will be aware of the excellent work done by Scottish Enterprise. Recently, jointly with a constituent of mine in manufacturing, it had identified major possible small hydro projects in Vietnam. Unfortunately, no overseas aid was available. Would the President welcome greater influence over the distribution of overseas aid in his Department?
    Mr. Heseltine: I should certainly welcome any increased influence if it were available, but that does not mean to say that I shall be allowed to get it.
    Mr. Bell: We welcome the presence of the President of the Board of Trade today and congratulate him on keeping his post. It must be the first Government reshuffle that prepares for opposition.
    However, the Opposition heard nothing but smugness and self-satisfaction from the Dispatch Box in response to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). The hon. Member could have referred to the inward investment of Dupont on Teesside. It bought the ICI fibre business to close it down and move to France, and 520 jobs were lost. Eight hundred and twenty jobs were lost at Pontypool by the same firm. When we speak about the north-east of England, Swan Hunter has just been, or will be, closed down. How is that for smugness and self-satisfaction?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is playing the traditional Labour party game—singling out an example of something that has gone wrong in order to generalise, to the maximum damage of the British economy. Unemployment is decreasing in the north-east, as it is in the economy at large. Instead of trying to find ways of explaining that away, the hon. Member should get to his feet and praise it.

    Gas Interconnector
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy on constructing an interconnector for gas between Britain and the continent of Europe; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): We want freer trade in gas throughout Europe. I believe that a
    300
    private sector gas interconnector between the United Kingdom and Belgium will play a major role in achieving that.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the private sector is keen to finance its own pipeline to the continent? Does he agree that it is about time that the European Community moved towards a single market on energy?
    Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no suggestion of Government funding contributing to the building of the interconnector, although I recently met my Belgian counterpart to begin negotiations on a treaty between the UK and Belgium to cover the interconnector.
    As for my hon. Friend's comments about the European Commission, I do think that the Union needs to move towards a single market in energy, in the same way as we have moved towards a single market in goods and services.
    Mr. Salmond: If the Minister believes in a free market in gas throughout Europe, why is his Department preventing other Norwegian fields from going through the Frigg delivery system and landing at St. Fergus in my constituency? Does not that reveal an inconsistency in his approach, or is he just against St. Fergus as a landfall point for gas?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am committed to the continuation of St. Fergus as a major terminal for gas, whether it be from Norway or from other sources. I recently had representations from the chairman of the Banff and Buchan Conservative association, urging that Britannia gas should arrive at St. Fergus.
    As for the discussions that are going on with the Norwegians, those are difficult matters, which are important for the future of the UK gas industry, and doubtless we shall resume the discussions when we hear next from the Norwegians.
    Sir John Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that the introduction of full competition in the gas supplied to the domestic consumer could result in a drop in prices of about 10 or 11 per cent. to them? Will he therefore introduce a full liberalisation of the gas market to domestic consumers, and allow independent companies to come in and compete with British Gas?
    Mr. Eggar: I am well aware of the point that my hon. Friend makes. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced that legislation would be brought forward, subject to the availability of parliamentary time, in order to introduce competition.
    Mr. O'Neill: I want to return to the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on the subject of Norwegian gas. Are we going to have to wait until Norway is in the European Community before the matter is resolved? Will it be resolved on the basis of Britain being in a minority of one once again?
    Mr. Eggar: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman—I am not surprised at the Scottish nationalist Member. We are in negotiations with the Norwegians and want to support Britain's best interests. I find it extraordinary that

    301
    the official Opposition should urge a collapse on our part to agree to whatever requests the Norwegians make. That is not looking after Britain's best interests.

    Steel Industry
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the British Iron and Steel Producers Association to discuss prospects for the steel industry; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the British Iron and Steel Producers Association. I spoke after its annual general meeting on 3 December last year, since when I have had a number of meetings with the industry and my officials keep in regular contact with the association.
    Mrs. Jackson: Is the Minister aware that the cost of electricity for major energy users using the electricity pooled price system continues to place a great burden on the major steel industry in this country? Will he respond to the report that he received from Stephen Littlechild on the subject only yesterday or the day before, and say today that he will allow trading outside the pool system for major energy users such as steel workers in my constituency, so that they can carry on making the best special steel in Europe for many years to come?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that those are matters for the director general, who is reviewing the position. They are issues which my officials and I regularly discuss with the association to ensure that we and, if necessary, the director general are fully aware of its views.
    Sir Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can in government and Europe to get rid of the remaining subsidies that so many European firms still give to their steel industries and which damage the British economy so much? Will he continue to press for what is probably one of the most important European issues—to get the market in steel operating on a fair basis?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I agree with my hon. Friend that achieving a level playing field and getting rid of state subsidies is a prime objective and the best way to ensure that efficient British producers can benefit from a single market. It is an objective to which I have given a great deal of time and I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to press for progress. I think that progress is being made, albeit more slowly than we should like.

    Electricity Supply Industry
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the regulation of the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Eggar: Effective regulation, together with the introduction of competition, is bringing considerable benefits to consumers. Domestic customers, for example, have seen a 7 per cent. reduction in prices, in real terms, over the past two financial years.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that it is a scandal that about £12 million has been awarded by themselves to
    302
    the chairmen of the electricity supply industry? Does that show that the regulatory bodies act in the interests of the consumer or in the interests of the electricity companies?
    Mr. Eggar: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the Government's view on salary increases clear. On the subject of the future of electricity prices, the Director General of Electricity Supply is currently conducting a review of the distribution price mechanism. I understand that he is likely to report within the next two or three weeks.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister accept that it is an expressed view of the Electricity Consumers Council that the benefits of privatisation have been passed on to the shareholders, but not in full to the consumers and that, in its view, electricity prices are at least 5 per cent. too high? What action will the Government take to ensure that the benefits that they claim come from privatisation are passed to consumers in the form of lower prices?
    Mr. Eggar: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment. It is slightly unfortunate that he did not listen to my initial response. I made it clear that there had been a 7 per cent. reduction in real terms in prices for domestic consumers over the past two years as a direct result of privatisation.
    Mr. Robin Cook: What will the Minister do when he is faced with a proposal from the electricity companies to sell the national grid? Does he remember that when the Government sold all the electricity companies, they made £5 billion? Is not he surprised that the electricity companies now expect to get back £4 billion of that just by selling the national grid? Does not that suggest that the price of privatisation was a bad bargain? Will he demand that the public, who built the national grid, get some of the money, or will the electricity companies make a windfall profit at the expense of a public already thoroughly fed up with paying for bigger boardroom salaries?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman is so blinded by socialist dogma that he will not recognise the considerable benefit to domestic consumers as a direct result of privatisation. There has been a 7 per cent. reduction in electricity prices in real terms and there are likely to be further reductions. There have also been significant reductions for all industrial consumers other than the very large ones.
    On the hon. Gentleman's initial question about the national grid, unlike him I shall listen to the proposals made by the regional electricity companies, if they make any. I do not make up my mind until I have heard the facts.

    Gas Consumers Council
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evaluation he has made of the impact of the reduction in the Gas Consumers Council's budget in the months of April, May and June on its safety advisory services to senior citizens and others.
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of how the reduction in the Gas Consumers Council's budget will affect its service to (a) people with disabilities and (b) others.
    Mr. Eggar: The Gas Consumers Council has indicated that it will continue to be able to carry out all its functions including services to the disabled and to senior citizens.
    Mr. Cummings: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the cuts, the Gas Consumers Council will not be able to afford to reprint its leaflets on gas safety? That is happening at a time when many elderly people have defective gas appliances. Is it not both a folly and a disgrace to remove those resources from the leading organisation responsible for informing customers of gas safety?
    Mr. Eggar: I am not aware of any proposals by the GCC to cut back on its literature, whether relating to safety or otherwise—
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It is a disgrace.
    Mr. Eggar: Is the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) really suggesting that the Government should not seek in any way to control expenditure on the GCC? Is it alone to be exempted from expenditure restrictions?
    Mr. McKelvey: Does not the Minister understand that, of the £209,000 savings, only £2,000 will be saved by the Department of Trade and Industry? In fact, we have spent that. £2,000 by asking these two questions. The other £207,000 will be savings for the gas people. Can we have a guarantee that that £207,000 will not go into the hip pocket of the chairman of British Gas?
    Mr. Eggar: At the end of the day, additional costs to British Gas effectively mean that consumers have to pay more for their gas. The Government have a duty to restrict expenditure, in an equal way, across the consumer bodies as a whole. There is no reason why the GCC should be exempted from that.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why does not the Minister simply tell the House the truth? If he speaks to Captain Ian Powe, who heads the GCC—which the hon. Gentleman obviously has not done—Captain Powe will tell him that he is no longer able to reproduce the key gas safety leaflets for tenants, senior citizens and others advising them about the perils of gas and of not maintaining gas appliances.
    Why will not the Minister be frank with the House and say that the Government have cut the GCC's budget by £209,000, that they have done so because the Treasury demanded it, that consumers will get a poorer deal and that old-age pensioners, tenants and others with gas supplies will now get a far poorer service? Why does not the hon. Gentleman tell us the truth for once?
    Mr. Eggar: Scaremongering may come naturally to the hon. Gentleman, but it does not make a sensible contribution to an important discussion. My understanding is that the Gas Consumer Council is fully confident of being able to carry out all its functions.
    Mr. Cummings: Not true.
    Mr. Eggar: It is true. But, like other consumer councils, it is having to absorb a small reduction in its budget. It is right that it should have to restrict public expenditure as do similar bodies.

    Local Development, Cumbria
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next intends to discuss with representatives of the West Cumbria development agency the future of local development.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has no plans to meet West Cumbrian representatives in the near future. Officials in the Government office for the north-west are in regular and close contact with the West Cumbria development agency. As the Minister with responsibility for the north-west, I go there frequently and I should be happy to see those representatives if the hon. Gentleman were to request it.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I raise the issue that I have raised repeatedly during the past 12 months in the House —the empty 500,000 sq ft former Volvo factory in Workington. What is happening in the Department? What efforts are currently being made to try to find either a tenant or a new owner on the international market of footloose industry that is interested in coming to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hamilton: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have shown willingness to help Cumbria in many respects in recent years. During the past three years, £12 million has been invested in projects designed to provide improved facilities for business and commerce alone, and that is part of a continuing programme spear-headed by English Partnerships.
    Current Government investment in Cumbria for economic development runs at some £65 million per annum. Of course I hope that the site will be utilised in due course. With the economy on the up, I am sure that the prospects for that part of the region are much better than they have been for many years.

    Sub-post Offices
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about security of sub-post offices. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Security in sub-post offices is an operational matter for the Post Office in conjunction with the individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who own them. The Post Office takes security throughout the post office network very seriously and keeps it under constant review.
    Mrs. Roche: Given the alarming number of attacks on the staff of sub-post offices, including the recent tragic murder of a sub-postmaster on the Archway road in my constituency, will the Minister give an assurance that he will have urgent talks with the Post Office about the funding of vital security measures such as alarm systems and closed circuit television?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The whole House will wish me to express condolences to the family of the hon. Lady's constituent who was murdered. The Post Office pays for safes, alarm systems, including panic buttons, and counter security screens. The cost of additional security measures

    305
    that are deemed necessary is a matter for the individual post office. I will closely consider what the hon. Lady has said in this case, but the facts are still under investigation.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a serious matter, and that in my constituency a few years ago a sub-postmistress was murdered in most tragic circumstances? Is my hon. Friend further aware that many attacks are carried out, particularly in remote areas, by people who have first committed car crimes? In one case, thieves towed away a safe using an agricultural vehicle. Will my hon. Friend tell the Home Office that we expect a much more robust attitude from it to the whole question of car crime?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's concerns to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. As my hon. Friend will know, the Government, in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, have taken a number of measures which show their determination to crack down on crime and those who commit it.
    Mr. Hain: In respect of the long-term security in the sub-post office network, the Minister will be aware that I am opposed to the privatisation proposals, which we will fight every inch of the way, but may I seriously appeal to him not to break up the Post Office? If the Government are determined to privatise it, may I urge them to keep the Post Office together, as every other post office in the world has been kept together? I realise that there is no accounting cross-subsidy, but there are considerable organisational cross-subsidies and a synergy between the different elements of the Post Office which must be maintained.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman does not like the fact that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has devised a scheme that is warmly welcomed by the people who run post offices. It is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman opposes our plans for privatisation in this case. He has never supported any of the others. If he had supported this, I would be very worried.

    Japanese Investment
    Mr. Booth: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made of the contribution of Japanese investment in the British car industry in securing jobs.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Needham): Japanese inward investment to the United Kingdom car industry has been very substantial, with total planned investment of more than £2 billion, creating more than 7,000 direct jobs. The wider benefits have also been significant, particularly among components suppliers.
    Mr. Booth: Britain and the Government have enjoyed wide and considerable success in attracting Japanese investment, with nearly half of all that made in Europe in the last 10 years coming to this country—as is evidenced by the successful business men who have chosen Finchley in which to live. To what does my right hon. Friend ascribe that success? Is it the Government's low corporate taxation, the welcome that we give such companies or the success of the DTI's efforts? None of those would be offered by the Opposition.
    Mr. Needham: It can primarily be ascribed to a Conservative Government who welcome Japanese investment and who introduced the industrial relations reforms that mean that Japanese companies setting up in the United Kingdom can operate as productively and profitably as in Japan, and to the fact that Britain does not have a Labour Government.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Putting to one side the Minister's juvenile remarks about the reasons for investment in Britain, is he aware that it is widely welcomed throughout the country? The increasing level of local manufacture is also much welcomed. If the Minister can get down to industry and leave silly politics to one side, should not his next step be increasingly to concentrate design and development in the UK, which has many outstanding skills ready for exploitation? What will the Minister do about that?
    Mr. Needham: I realise that the hon. Gentleman does not like political reality coming into his long and distinguished industrial career. However, he is right to say that we must maximise research and development facilities and our ability to design cars, which is formidable. He is also right to emphasise that we must give British industry the back-up and support to meet all its needs, which will ensure that the British automotive and components industries continue the success that they have enjoyed over the past few years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as long as we are in government, we will continue to do that.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Amess: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further responses he has had from companies to his White Paper on competitiveness.
    Mr. Heseltine: British businesses have been very positive about the White Paper on competitiveness. Its analysis has been accepted and its new initiatives welcomed.
    Mr. Amess: Does my right hon. Friend agree that only by companies continuing to improve their competitiveness, as set out in the White Paper, will the United Kingdom economy continue to enjoy growth, will living standards continue to improve and will unemployment fall—as is happening throughout the country and in my constituency in particular? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the politics of envy and unfairness as espoused by the socialists on the Opposition Benches would destroy the competitiveness of UK companies?
    Mr. Heseltine: I heard what my hon. Friend said. I wholly agree with the thrust of his observations, which is why one takes such satisfaction from the most favourable set of economic statistics that we have enjoyed for many a long year.
    Mr. Caborn: I welcome the White Paper, but it is unfortunate that there was an absence of Treasury involvement. Will the President of the Board of Trade make representations to his colleagues on the Treasury Bench for time to be made available for a full debate on the competitiveness of British industry, the backcloth being both the White Paper and the Select Committee report on the same subject?
    Mr. Heseltine: I welcome the opportunity to debate the competitiveness White Paper, and the Government ensured that such a debate took place the other day. Conspicuously absent from that debate was any Labour Member.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent report by the Institute of Economic and Social Research? It showed that whereas UK manufacturing productivity lagged badly behind Germany in the 1970s, we out-performed Germany's growth in the 1980s; and that whereas we lagged behind other G7 members in the 1960s and 1970s, we were ahead of most of them in the 1980s. Does not that show that our supply side reforms in the 1980s helped to close the gap with our competitors? The period that we were in real danger of becoming a skivvy economy with Mickey Mouse jobs was not under this Government but under Labour.
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the lesson that, in productivity, we significantly caught up our European competitors during the 1980s, as a direct consequence of the supply side reforms that the Government introduced. My hon. Friend is also right to refer to the fact that we still have not yet achieved the productivity levels of some of our European competitors, and we must achieve that if we are to be truly competitive.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do Ministers approve of the predatory pricing policies of Rupert Murdoch and The Times?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not approve of predatory pricing policies, and if they offend the law, we are under a responsibility to examine them, but he would not expect me to make specific comments about the matters to which he referred unless they had been properly considered and reflected on.
    Mr. Butcher: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the depth and, indeed, the width of his White Paper on competitiveness, which has been warmly welcomed by broad sectors of industry, but might not a bit be missing? The White Paper is silent on the supply and price of capital to the capital-intensive small and medium-sized manufacturing sector. Given the growing worldwide shortage of risk capital, making Britain the most attractive place for mobile international risk capital would in turn help our manufacturing and small firms sector. Will he make representations to the Treasury on that so that we may be competitive in that regard as well?
    Mr. Heseltine: I know of the interest that my hon. Friend takes in the matter. He will know that the White Paper referred to those issues—indeed, specifically to inquiries that are now being conducted in the Treasury as part of its normal responsibilities and budget-forming judgment. The White Paper did not avoid the issues. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry referred to page 99 and following pages. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a glance at that important part of the White Paper when he has a moment during the long recess.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Would it run counter to the White Paper if Railtrack were allowed to push up the costs of transporting by rail the coil and the raw materials for British Rail plc? Will he look at that matter? Does he agree that, unless Railtrack holds back, British Steel plc may find it hard to keep open some of its smaller plants?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the prime responsibility for Railtrack falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. My Department is always interested in matters of competitiveness, but not, however, in those that are hypothetical and put in a scare technique method, long in advance of the risks having materialised.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the competitive Ford workers in my constituency who yesterday helped to secure Ford's investment decision to place its largest industrial research plant at Dunton? Ford UK placed it there because of the Ford workers in my constituency and because labour relations in Britain are now so attractive that we are the most competitive country in the whole of the Ford spectrum for that massive investment.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am delighted to support my hon. Friend's welcome for that important decision. I had the pleasure, just this week, of discussing with the chief executive officer of Ford the long-term plans for his company. He stressed to me that there were considerable opportunities for the United Kingdom, provided that we can achieve the competitive standards that would then attract his board to back the United Kingdom as a base in Europe.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Is the President aware that yesterday's report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development put Britain bottom in Europe for rights at work, with a mark of zero out of 10? If he is aware of that, will he confirm that that report could find no evidence that the social chapter had destroyed jobs in any of the countries that applied it? But it did find that Britain spent less on training than any other major European country. In the light of that report, will not even this Government now recognise that the key to competitiveness is a secure, skilled work force, and that we will not build the best work force in Europe on the basis of the worst rights in Europe and the poorest training in Europe?
    Mr. Heseltine: The key to competitiveness is running an economy that enables our companies to win and attract people to base their investment here. The hon. Gentleman would do far better to recognise that the most important aspect of the job market is the fact that this country's economy is generating jobs faster than are the economies of most of its European competitors, because its climate is working economically and helping it to lead Europe out of recession. That is the Government's important achievement, and nothing that the hon. Gentleman says by way of selective quotation will undermine it.

    Post Office Green Paper
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received on his Green Paper on the Post Office.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—
    Mr. Tony Banks: A reshuffle!
    Mr. Heseltine: I can tell the House that the result that I am about to announce is just as good as the result that the reshuffle will produce.

    309
    The Green Paper was published on 30 June and responses are invited by 30 September. I have therefore understandably received relatively few responses to the document to date.
    Mr. Marshall: At a time when the Post Office is facing increased international competition, and when the German and Dutch Post Offices are being privatised, would not it be entirely wrong to handicap British industry by denying it the advantages of privatisation and access to the capital markets?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend would not expect me to make any premature decisions. We are consulting widely on the future of the Royal Mail, and we have published an excellent Green Paper. Although the Green Paper expressed preference for the Government's proposal, we will listen carefully to what all right hon. and hon. Members, and people outside the House, have to say before we reach a final decision.
    Mr. Barnes: Is not it pretty disgraceful that the chairman of the Post Office should jump on board the privatisation proposal in the Green Paper in the way that he has? Nearly all the chief executives and other officials who have been involved in the privatisation of gas, electricity and other utilities have responded similarly, rather than by recognising their public responsibility to operate public services. Has not that something to do with the Government's policy on monetarism and the private market?
    Mr. Heseltine: That is one of the most preposterous statements that I have heard from an Opposition long famed for making preposterous statements. Every Tom, Dick and Harry in the trade union movement seems to be entitled to have his view paraded in the House as though it were the ultimate document; when the chairman comments, what he says is regarded as an insult and an abuse. I do not understand what democracy means to Opposition Members.
    Mr. Dunn: In running scare stories about the future of sub-post offices, are not the Labour party and its socialist allies the Liberal Democrats in great danger of crying wolf just once too often, given that the future of the sub-post offices has been secured in the Green Paper?
    Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend enables me to make the same point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) made a few moments ago. The proposals for the sub-post offices have been warmly welcomed by representatives of the owners of those post offices, which shows once again that the Government have got it right and the Labour party has got it wrong.
    Mr. Cousins: Will the President of the Board of Trade admit that 40 per cent. of the business of sub-post offices consists of the payment of cash benefits, and that a secure system for such payment is long overdue? Will he give the House and the sub-post offices a guarantee that they will not be charged for access to any new technology that may be introduced for secure payment and that banks and supermarkets will not be allowed access to that system, thus destroying the livelihood of those running sub-post offices?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands that the sub-post offices already provide some
    310
    banking services. The issue is whether they should be allowed to provide wider banking services. Nothing so characterises the difference between the Government and the Labour party as the fact that Labour wants to stop people from doing things, while we want to expand their opportunities.
    Mr. Jenkin: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on local authorities that are already launching an anti-privatisation campaign—for instance, my local authority in Colchester, which is controlled by a Lib-Lab alliance? Are not those local authorities wasting their time in running unnecessary scare stories and should they not concentrate their efforts on keeping their council tax down?
    Mr. Heseltine: That would be extremely attractive to local tax payers. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that I shall have to listen extremely carefully to all the representations and judge them on their merits before recommending to my colleagues the way in which we should proceed as the Green Paper consultation period comes to an end.

    Competitiveness
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet representatives of the TUC to discuss his White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win."
    Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the TUC. I had a discussion with the TUC in the run-up to the competitiveness White Paper. We are always ready for a constructive exchange of views with the TUC.
    Mr. Chisholm: Why does not the Minister accept the recommendations of the Select Committee report on competitiveness in relation to a training levy, encouragement of research and development and restraint of dividend payments? Will the Minister reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about yesterday's OECD report on training, which showed a dramatic decline in the 1990s in this country so that expenditure is now a quarter of that in Germany? Will the Minister respond to a recent report, sponsored by his own Department, which pointed out that the top 200 international companies spend three times as much on R and D as on dividend payments whereas the top 362 companies in this country spend twice as much on dividend payments as on R and D? What will he do about those problems?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied carefully the White Paper on competitiveness and we welcome the interest, even from the Opposition, in this important subject. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the White Paper responds significantly to the recommendations of the Select Committee report and gives particular emphasis to the importance of training and education. It includes a wide range of new initiatives costing £300 million further to strengthen and build on what we have already done to improve our standards of training and to raise the quality of education—measures which were opposed consistently by the Opposition parties.
    Mr. Fabricant: When my right hon. Friend meets representatives of the TUC, will he point out to them that the infrastructure of the United Kingdom is important for our balance of trade? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of British Steel is now saying that, because of what has happened today, last week and the week before, he will now have to reconsider the means by which steel is transported in the United Kingdom? It is not just the passengers who are being affected by the rail strike but freight.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an obvious point clearly and strongly. It is extraordinary that it is a point not appreciated by the Labour party, which has consistently failed to condemn the unnecessary dispute.
    Mr. Hardy: A few minutes ago, the President of the Board of Trade said that British industry should continue efforts to catch up with our European competitors. Is he aware that many industries, not least the engineering steel industry, have not only caught up with, but have surpassed, their European competitors, but that has done them little good in the face of unfair competition? Quite a few months ago, the Minister told the House that he had secured a guarantee that the unfair competition would be monitored. What has been the result of that monitoring and when will industry and the trade unions be aware that the monitoring has taken place?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the achievements of the privatised British steel industry. He will surely recognise that the improvement from over 13 man hours to produce a tonne of steel to under four hours, which is the latest figure, is as a result of the productivity gains achieved by the private sector management. I share with the hon. Gentleman concern about achieving a level playing field. We are making progress, as I told the House earlier, and the Commission has made it clear that it is prepared to open proceedings against any companies that breach the agreement reached on 17 December.
    Mr. Batiste: If the TUC genuinely wants competitiveness and wants British business to win, would not the best thing it could do today be to tell its union members that industrial action in pursuit of inflationary wage demands is undermining everything that British industry will need in the years ahead to fight in an increasingly competitive world environment?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an eminently sensible suggestion. I can only add that another useful and sensible thing that it could do to help the competitiveness of British industry and its own influence would be to sever its links with the Labour party.
    Mr. Clapham: In the light of the OECD report published yesterday, which cited trade unions, consultation and collective bargaining as being good for labour market efficiency, will the Minister be urging on business the extension of trade union rights and trade union recognition as a way of improving British competitiveness?
    Mr. Sainsbury: No. We shall leave those matters to be decided by management in consultation with their own work force.

    Post Office Counters Ltd.
    Mr. McFall: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what would be the cost of running Post Office Counters Ltd. as a separate business.
    Mr. Heseltine: Since 1986, Post Office Counters Ltd. has been run as a separate business, negotiating arm's-length contracts with clients and suppliers. On this basis, the company has been consistently profitable.
    Mr. McFall: The Minister will know that the Post Office directly subsidises 10,000 post offices to the tune of £30 million a year and that those post offices are to be found in rural and small urban areas. Given that they are the areas that will suffer any losses, will the cross-subsidy be maintained in future? If not, will not it mean an accelerated death for rural and small urban post offices?
    Mr. Heseltine: The House knows by now that we have made clear the value that we place on the maintenance of the network of sub-post offices. If we had not been able to satisfy the sub-post offices of our good intentions, they would not have welcomed our proposals in the way that they have.

    Departmental Suppliers (Unpaid Bills)
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the amount of money owed by his Department to suppliers in 1992 and 1993 which remained unpaid after 30 days from the presentation of invoices.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: The information in the form requested by the hon. Gentleman could be made available only at disproportionate cost. However, the Department's annual surveys of its payment performance showed that in 1991–92, 80 per cent. of invoices were paid either within 30 days or within the agreed credit period. The corresponding figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 were 90.5 and 90 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Michie: Talking about disproportionate cost, what about the firms that are struggling because they have not been paid? Why does not the President of the Board of Trade ensure that his Department pays its bills promptly or within 30 days instead of setting a bad example to other firms which are also dragging their feet paying suppliers? Is not this just another case of, "Physician, heal thyself"?
    Mr. Hamilton: I have just told the hon. Gentleman that there has been a substantial improvement—from 80 to 90 per cent.—in the Department's practice in paying its bills within 30 days or according to the period set out in the contract. We hope to do better still, but the hon. Gentleman should recognise that there is not unanimity, even in the small business sector, about the argument for making compulsory the payment of debts within 30 days or any other period because many people fear that such legislation could be used by big companies against small companies.
    Mr. Forman: While the figures that my hon. Friend has just given clearly show the good example being set by his Department, which is very important, does he agree that options are open to firms of all sizes—for example, the granting of discounts for cash—that encourage prompt payment, and we do not necessarily have to have recourse to unwieldy law?
    Mr. Hamilton: As the Minister with responsibility for deregulation, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there may be market solutions to the problem that are better than centralised regulation. I am grateful to him for the interest that he takes in this matter and for his useful suggestions.
    Mr. Purchase: Would not the President of the Board of Trade be doing British industry in general a service if he were to encourage all Government Departments to meet their responsibility to make early payment right across the place? I am sure that he recognises that cash management problems, especially in small businesses, are extremely acute at the moment and likely to continue to be so. Therefore, will he have a word with colleagues in other Departments and ensure an evenness of policy?
    Mr. Hamilton: There have been two questions implying that I am now the President of the Board of Trade —I am afraid that I have not seen the most recent news on television.
    Of course the DTI is concerned to ensure that the payment practice of all UK companies and organisations that have to pay bills is improved. That is certainly the best practice that we should like to see, but whether it is best achieved by imposing regulation is very questionable. As I said a moment ago, there is by no means unanimity, even among small firms and their representative organisations, about the way forward. We believe that the package of measures outlined in the White Paper on competitiveness will be a useful step forward. We will keep it under review and we have said that in two years we shall examine how things have gone and if we are required to do more, there is no doubt that we shall do it.

    Regional Selective Assistance
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any plans to change the criteria relating to regional selective assistance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sainsbury: The Government keep the criteria relating to regional selective assistance under continuous review to ensure that we get the best value for money and that the RSA scheme makes an effective contribution to the competitiveness of British industry.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does that mean that the Minister agrees with the DTI spokesperson who said that there was increasing emphasis on the quality of the jobs created, and is he therefore looking for excuses to cut regional selective assistance—yes or no?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that, because of her interest in the subject, the hon. Lady will be aware that expenditure on regional selective assistance last year was substantially greater than expenditure the previous year. We expect expenditure this year to be further increased.

    Manufactured Goods (Exports)
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest information he has on the level of exports of manufactured goods.
    Mr. Needham: In the latest three months, manufactured export volumes were 8 per cent. higher than those of a year earlier, and were at an all-time record level.
    Mr. Hendry: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the fact that exports, manufacturing output, productivity, retail sales and business confidence are up, while we are keeping down the social costs on business, the rate of strikes, interest rates and the rate of inflation, gives us the best opportunity for increased growth, new jobs and rising living standards for everyone?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the key needs are to ensure that that confidence is maintained and that business in this country realises how good the news is. It would be helpful if, from time to time, Opposition Members supported us in that aim.
    Mr. Tony Banks: When did the United Kingdom last have a balance of payments surplus in manufactured goods?
    Mr. Needham: We last had such a surplus at the end of the 1970s. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The fact is, however, that the proportion of manufactured goods as a percentage of the economy of this country is no lower than the proportion in France or in Italy. Our surplus on invisibles is growing. Our volume of manufactured trade and exports has stabilised since the mid-1980s; the decline that continued remorselessly when the Labour party was in power has stopped.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that engineering employers in East Anglia have recently reported a considerable improvement in export performance? Is not that good news? As our exports to the European Union are rising faster than our exports to countries outside the Union, is not it vital that, as a Government and as a country, we continue to work at the heart of Europe?
    Mr. Needham: Of course my hon. Friend is right. Furthermore, the manufacturing deficit continues to decline. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) used to be always on his feet saying that it was a danger and a disgrace that the deficit in manufactured goods was likely to increase, but now that it is falling he sits on his hands and looks at his feet.

    National Consumer Council
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect of the reduction in the National Consumer Council's budget on its work in 1994–95.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am confident that the National Consumer Council will continue to promote and safeguard the interests of consumers as a whole.
    Mr. Jamieson: Does not the Minister consider that reducing the budget of the NCC by £430,000 a year will seriously impair its ability to represent consumer interests? Is that reduction being made because the NCC's recent report has embarrassed the Government? For example, it showed that single pensioners in the south-west have to spend 9.1 per cent. of their income simply to pay their water bills.
    Mr. McLoughlin: We take no lessons from the Opposition on the funding of the NCC. In 1976–77,

    315
    funding was £452,000. The latest figure is £2.47 million which is an increase in real terms of 46.5 per cent. so we will shall take no lessons from the Opposition.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any plans to visit the steel industry in Rotherham to discuss the impact of subsidies to other EC steel industries.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit the steel industry in Rotherham.
    Mr. MacShane: If the President of the Board of Trade were to visit any of the steel plants in Rotherham, he would find a strong sense of partnership and co-operation between trade unions and managers, contributing to the success of the British steel industry. Does the Minister agree that the
    316
    demotion of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the most anti-partnership and right-wing Minister in the Cabinet —to the Department of Employment shows that the partnership policies needed to make British industry a success have no chance at all until the next election?
    Mr. Sainsbury: If the hon. Gentleman were to visit any section of British industry, he would find now a much greater sense of partnership between management and work force; they are not two sides, but one side of industry. That is, of course, a result of the reforms of industrial relations introduced by this Government, which were consistently opposed by the Labour party, which the hon. Gentleman supports. Those reforms have contributed substantially to the increase in productivity and to the improvement in the performance of British industry of which we should all be proud, rather than constantly denigrating it as the Labour party does.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Now that you have had a chance to look at yesterday's Hansard, does it occur to you that it was just a little bit presumptuous of the Prime Minister to assume that permission to ask the private notice questions which he recommended to all of us would necessarily be granted by you? On the basis of the Prime Minister's attitude, have you, by chance, had a request from him to make a statement to satisfy us in relation to Mr. Santer's statement yesterday in Strasbourg?
Madam Speaker: No, I have had no information from any members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, that they seek to make a statement. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, although I am often tempted by the questions put to me about private notice questions, I do not discuss them, or my decisions about them, across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) made a suggestion to the Government at Question Time about the possibility of keeping the Post Office together rather than splitting it up. I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. The Under-Secretary of State for Technology roundly rejected that suggestion in spite of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade had said that a consultation process was in hand. The House is rising tomorrow—
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not want an argument. I am not involved in political argument. I simply want a procedural point to be put to me.
Mr. Bruce: The point is that the House will rise tomorrow and will not meet again before the consultation process has been concluded. What avenues are available to hon. Members to ensure that we get guidance from the President of the Board of Trade about which Minister is in charge of the consultation?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Order Paper, which shows that we are due to have a three-hour motion on the Adjournment which, if I am allowed to, I shall get to fairly shortly.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Looking at the Order Paper for today, I see that the business of the day has been changed as a result of an hon. Member's action yesterday. In consequence, Back-Benchers' time in the Adjournment debates under the Consolidated Fund Bill debate will be limited and it may not be possible, because my debate is No. 16—[Interruption.] It has been changed, I understand, to No. 15 as a result of the withdrawal of a debate by an hon. Member. However, it may not be possible for the House to discuss the very important matter of saving the Royal Marines school of music in Deal before the recess. Could we not have some arrangement whereby Back Benchers' matters are taken into account better than they have been?
Madam Speaker: Over the past few weeks, I have heard the hon. Gentleman raise on many occasions the matter to which he refers. I am sure that his constituents are delighted by the methods he uses to bring the matter to the House's attention.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Gordon McMaster, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Sir David Steel, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mrs. Irene Adams, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Adam Ingram, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. William McKelvey, Mrs. Maria Fyfe and Mr. Don Dixon, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Scotland, discrimination against disabled persons on the ground of their disability; and for connected purposes: 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 159.]

  Sale of Teesside International Airport &c.
  3.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Bates: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the sale of Teesside International Airport to the private sector, and to make other provision in respect of the sale of municipally owned airports.
  I am grateful to have this opportunity to introduce a Bill which would make provision for the sale of Teesside international airport and all other municipally owned airports. Currently, Teesside international airport is jointly owned by Cleveland county council, which has a 60 per cent. stake, and Durham county council, which has a 40 per cent. stake. The annual report of accounts shows that they have invested some £19 million of council tax payers' money in the airport recently.
  I shall present four reasons why I believe that the sale would be in the best interests of the current owners, council tax payers, the airport itself, local business and air travellers. The first reason is the rapid growth in air travel. Teesside international airport was opened in 1964 and its first flight took place on 18 April, carrying some 10 passengers to Manchester. During the first year, passenger movements numbered 14,258. This year, the airport will achieve in the region of 500,000 passenger movements and is projecting, on its figures, an increase to some 1 million movements towards the end of the century. Clearly that growth in air passenger transport could not have been envisaged.
  I turn to my second reason, which is one of the reasons why that growth has taken place: the new opportunities in air travel which have been brought about by the Government. At this stage, I pay a tribute to the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who, as Secretary of State for Transport, played a tremendous role in being the architect of the third air transport liberalisation package which gave European Union carriers free access to any international airport within the Community and allowed airlines to set their own fares. That competition will ensure that fares continue to fall and that air travel, with all its benefits, is made more accessible to more people.
  My third reason is that, following the welcome decision of the local government commissioners, which was endorsed by the High Court recently, Cleveland county council is due to be abolished, and there will be substantial changes to Durham county council. At present, the board of Teesside international airport consists of councillors from the two authorities. These decisions will ensure that in future, if the airport is not sold, the board of an international airport in a highly competitive and technical field will be made up of representatives—councillors—from six authorities. The probability or possibility of that being an asset to the excellent managing director and the highly motivated and highly professional staff at Teesside international airport is unbelievable.
  That brings me to my fourth and final reason—the opportunities that exist for the development of Teesside international airport. The airport stands on a huge 720-acre site. With investment of about £3 million, a new road could provide access to the southern side of the airport, with 250 acres of land ripe for development. That would bring much-needed jobs and investment to the area.
  Improvements to the rail link, with the east coast main line only a few miles away at Darlington, is another
  320
  significant investment which is long overdue. The hotel and conference centre could also be improved. At present, the hotel is the former officers' mess. In the latter part of the 21st century, an international airport should have a level of investment and a hotel and conference centre befitting the thriving hubbub of commercial activity which is Teesside.
  Also, if our regional airports are to be able to compete in this new and exciting highly competitive market, they will require massive investment in runways, hangars, hotels, terminals, baggage handling and security. The big question arises: who will pay for all that while the airports remain under local authority control? I venture to suggest that, if my constituents from Loftus, some 40 miles away, were asked whether they should provide funding for repairs to a runway, they would point, rightly, to the parlous state of the roofs on their council homes, or to the school with its temporary prefabs which have now been there for 30 years. Local authority investment should be channelled into such work and not into an international airport, which could attract private capital and do a far better job in the process.
  The councillors and aldermen who took the courageous decision in 1964 to convert RAF Middleton St. George into Teesside international airport could not, in their wildest dreams, have anticipated the growth in air travel that has occurred. That growth demands investment. The world has also changed and regional airports have outgrown the authorities that own them. If those authorities continue to cling on to them, they will stifle those airports' development, but if they set them free they can take pride in the role that they have played.
  3.39 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates). It was interesting to listen to the spirited way in which he expressed his wish to take from our local community another asset that is one of our family heirlooms. As the Earl of Stockton said, privatising a nationalised industry is equivalent to selling the family silver.
  The hon. Member for Langbaurgh pointed out how successful Teesside international airport has been since 1964 and then gave a trailer not only for its privatisation, but for the privatisation of all the municipal airports. One can see how the Government are scraping around trying to find other assets to privatise. I predict that, once they have discovered that those airports represent an asset to be sold for profit, they will look at municipal golf courses.
  The doctrine of privatisation has not been the success that the Government like to claim it has been. United Kingdom plc used to own revenue-earning, income-earning, profit-earning assets, but they were taken away from it. [HON. MEMBERS: "You must be joking."] British Telecom made profits, did it not? British Gas and the electricity companies made profits, did they not?
  All those profits went to the state—United Kingdom plc. The day that those companies were privatised, that revenue was lost to the state. As a consequence, the Government are now looking for additional revenue to supplement that lost revenue, so we have ended up with VAT on fuel. When one privatises an asset, one deprives

  321
  the state of its income and tax revenue and ends up taking that lost money from pensioners' pockets. That is a travesty.
  The hon. Member referred to the people of Loftus, but if we asked those people whether they wanted to contribute to their local economy or wanted to pay VAT on fuel, I know what the answer would be.
  Durham county council and Cleveland county council have successfully managed Teesside international airport. They have demonstrated how local municipal councils can create a success story. Those councils should not be replaced by yet another quango, not least because, as quango after quango has been established, 70 per cent. of our revenues are handled by them rather than elected bodies which are democratically accountable.
  The hon. Member, who is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, is looking for promotion to the Front Bench. Although it may be easy to get to that Bench, he will learn that it is even quicker to go from it to the Back Benches, as his hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) can tell him. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh is trailing yet another privatisation for the Government. The Treasury views the outcome of that privatisation as it did the privatisation of our ports—it sees little pots of gold that it can keep, and why not? With a £38 billion deficit to cover in its Budget per year, those pots of gold are very attractive.
  Conservative Members live in a dream world. They have built an image for themselves of a successful economy and of a successful series of privatisations. What they have created, however, is a series of monopolies, which have ended up taking more money from the pockets of our people than was ever taken from them when those industries were nationalised.
  We should oppose not only the proposal to take a local asset from Teesside, but the idea of privatising our municipal airports and the entire concept of privatisation. The family heirlooms have been sold, North sea oil has been used and we have a deficit of £38,000 million. That is a failure, not a success. I ask the House to oppose the Bill.
  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):—
  The House divided: Ayes 63,Noes 132.

  Division No. 300]

  [3.44

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Gale, Roger

  Ashby, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Booth, Hartley

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Butcher, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dicks, Terry

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

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

  Duncan, Alan

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Dunn, Bob

  Lidington, David

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Fabricant, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  322

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Thurnham, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shersby, Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilkinson, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the AYES:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Michael Bates and Mr. Charles Hendry.

  Stern, Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Alton, David

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Jamieson, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Jowell, Tessa

  Beggs, Roy

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

  Keen, Alan

  Bell, Stuart

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Berry, Roger

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Blunkett, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Boyes, Roland

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Burden, Richard

  McFall, John

  Byers, Stephen

  McKelvey, William

  Callaghan, Jim

  McMaster, Gordon

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  MacShane, Denis

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Mahon, Alice

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Maxton, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Milburn, Alan

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Cousins, Jim

  Mullin, Chris

  Cox, Tom

  O'Neill, Martin

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dafis, Cynog

  Pendry, Tom

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Darling, Alistair

  Pope, Greg

  Davidson, Ian

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Purchase, Ken

  Denham, John

  Radice, Giles

  Dewar, Donald

  Raynsford, Nick

  Dixon, Don

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Dobson, Frank

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Eastham, Ken

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs. Barbara

  Fisher, Mark

  Salmond, Alex

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Fyfe, Maria

  Sheerman, Barry

  Gerrard, Neil

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

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

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Spellar, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Straw, Jack

  Grocott, Bruce

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hanson, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Hardy, Peter

  Trimble, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Tyler, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Vaz, Keith

  Henderson, Doug

  Wallace, James

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Walley, Joan

  Hoey, Kate

  Wareing, Robert N

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hoyle, Doug

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Hutton, John

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Illsley, Eric

  Wilson, Brian

  Ingram, Adam

  Winnick, David

  323

  Wise, Audrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Dennis Skinner.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting,—
  (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House), the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House shall not lapse at Ten o'clock and may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eight o'clock in the morning, at which hour, unless proceedings thereon have previously been concluded, the Motion shall lapse; and
  (2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Speaker shall, not later than one and a half hours after the Motion in the name of Mr. Greg Knight relating to Privileges has been entered upon, put the Question already proposed from the Chair and, if that Question is for the Amendment of the said Motion, then put forthwith the Main Question or the Main Question, as amended; notwithstanding the practice of the House, the Motion shall be regarded as a single Motion; and the said Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

  Adjournment (Summer)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House, at its rising to-morrow, do adjourn
  until Monday 17th October.—[Mr. Newton.]
  3.56 Pm
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: The House should not adjourn for the summer recess without having an opportunity to consider the National Audit Office report of 29 June 1994, dealing with the policies of the Department of Transport on the acquisition, management and disposal of land and property that has been purchased for road construction. Once again, the Department appears to be seen in a poor light, showing inadequate management and an apparent indifference to the anxieties and suffering of individual people living in their own homes.
  On the schemes examined by the National Audit Office, the Department median average time to announce the preferred route was 10 years from the time of the original announcement, and a further six years to reach the compulsory purchase stage. Two schemes that the National Audit Office examined took 20 years or more.
  The only part of the National Audit Office report in which the Department receives some encouragement is from section 2.24 onwards, concerning informing the public, but even there there are shortcomings, which are identified in section 2.26:
  "In April 1994 the Highways Agency published their acquisitions charter statement, 'Your Home and Trunk Road Proposals', which aims to provide homeowners with clear and straightforward information on the type of compensation available for those whose property is affected and the stages at which they can claim. The charter statement does not commit the Highways Agency, however, to publicising on individual schemes the point at which discretionary purchase applications will be considered."
  That is important.
  Part 3 of the National Audit Office report gives the main cause for concern up and down the country, particularly in my constituency. It is the part dealing with the management of land and property. Section 3.4 of the informative report states:
  "The Internal Audit examination in 1991 (paragraph 1.6) noted that the managing agreements then in force lacked clear guidance and objectives on rent levels, rent arrears, maintenance expenditure and vacancy levels. Although the Department issued further guidance on these matters in 1992, five of the 14 agents responding to the National Audit Office survey considered that the guidance still lacked clarity on some areas such as security costs."
  On the important subject of monitoring performance, paragraph 3.6 states:
  "The Department do not analyse and compare the performance of regions and agents and they do not, therefore, have information to identify variations and to help focus on particular problem areas. The Department's lack of computerised information until recently has also severely hampered their ability to monitor achievements."
  On the subject of vacancy levels, section 3.9 states:
  "The National Audit Office found that at 31 March 1993 for all land and property owned by the Department there were rent arrears of £2 million or 21 per cent. of total collectable income"
  for that particular year.
  In paragraph 3.11, the report states:
  "The National Audit Office found that by 31 March 1993 for the 2350 residential agent managed properties, rent arrears of £1.2 million had accumulated, or about 20 per cent. of total collectable income for 1992–93. This compares with 17 per cent. one year earlier and 14 per cent. at 31 March 1987."
  In my constituency, the problem has been exacerbated. Behind all the statistics produced by the National Audit

  325
  Office lie real life stories. One example involves an address at New Haw in my constituency—41, Pinewood avenue. A letter sent to me by the chief executive of Runnymede borough council stated:
  "A particular property at 41 Pinewood Avenue provides a graphic illustration of the sorts of problems that local residents have to tolerate. It was acquired in 1993 and squatters broke in in October/November 1993. The terrified family next door contacted the agents many miles away in Guildford but received no response. Numerous telephone calls to the Department of Transport at Dorking and letters also resulted in no response. During this time the squatters arrived at any time day and night with loud music and drug pushing. Police patrolled but squatters used rear access along the motorway to escape raids. The Department of Transport officials at Dorking were very defensive and unco-operative, often with an unpleasant attitude with little or no concern for the problems of residents and their quality of life. Endless further delays and finally court action resulted in the squatters being evicted at the end of May this year, some six/seven months of absolute misery for local residents. As though this was not enough the Department of Transport and their managing agents left this property unsecured even after eviction and squatters made further attempts to break back into the premises."
  Only after representations by the local authority and myself was priority given to the particular property—short-let tenants have now been installed.
  Many people are surprised at the attitude of the Department of Transport to the public and local authorities. It seems to make little attempt to be user-sensitive or to try to understand the anxieties of local people. The upheaval caused by the planning and construction of a motorway is a traumatic experience for anyone. To add to that trauma, the problems of squatting, vandalism and drug-related activities is completely unacceptable in this day and age, and all the more so when those activities result from mismanagement on the part of the Department.
  What Runnymede borough council finds so extraordinary about the whole matter is that it has devised a scheme to cope with homelessness in its area. It has developed an effective private partnership scheme under which private landlords make their properties available for families who would otherwise be homeless. The properties are handed back at the end of the tenancy agreement and the families are rehoused in other suitable properties. The properties are well looked after, there are no voids, there is a sensible income and homeless people get somewhere to live. All that shows a well-managed housing policy, and Runnymede offered to provide that service to the Department of Transport for the usual fees. No reply has been forthcoming.
  Sir Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend and I have the pleasure of sharing Runnymede borough council, which crosses our two constituencies. It really is a pleasure most of the time, but it has not been a pleasure during the planning stage of the link road. It has caused absolute havoc for people living in Thorpe and Egham—a very nice village and a very nice town. Many properties have been blighted and I hope that my right hon. Friend will mention that in his speech. It is almost impossible for people to move. People with a growing family who need an extra bedroom for the children find it impossible to get rid of their houses at anything other than knock-down prices. Devastation has been caused and the Department of Transport should be doing something about it.
  Sir Geoffrey Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who draws attention to the problems that his constituents share with mine. Over both our areas, about 120 properties have been acquired by the Department.
  A local authority with a proven record on managing housing stock well and to the advantage of all concerned has been spurned by the Department. That has led to the problems and mismanagement that I have described anti to the additional costs to the public purse that have been highlighted so well in the National Audit Office report.
  4.7 pm
  Mr. Alfred Morris: It is difficult to know whether to congratulate or commiserate with the Leader of the House on surviving this morning's slaughter in Downing street.
  I want to refer in this debate to two important decisions of this House still awaiting implementation, about each of which we are entitled to at least an oral ministerial statement before we rise for the summer recess. The first concerns the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which, since I first presented it to the House for First Reading in 1991, has had over 40 hours of parliamentary debate. I am told that that is rather longer than it took to dispatch King Charles I.
  In an attempt to end what is now being called the "filibuster of the century", the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) moved a motion on 29 April in the following terms:
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Ministers should provide sufficient time on the floor of the House before 27th May 1994 to allow all remaining stages of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to be completed, and that sufficient time be provided before the end of the Session for the consideration of any Amendments to the Bill which may be made by the House of Lords."—[Official Report, 29 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 497.]
  Like the Bill itself, the motion had strong backing in all parts of the House and it was approved, after nearly five hours of debate, without a single vote against.
  A speech on the motion from the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People left the Bill's supporters here and all across Britain with high hopes that its Report stage, due the following Friday, was being approached by the Government in a spirit of honest endeavour to reach common ground with the Bill's all-party sponsors. Unless words had lost their meaning, it was said, the Minister was at the very least committed by that speech to ensure fair play at the Bill's Report stage on 6 May. But then came a rude awakening.
  It was discovered that in fact the Minister, even before he spoke on the hon. Member for Exeter's motion, had already given instructions for the Bill to be destroyed. Within four days of the Minister's speech, 80 new amendments to the Bill were tabled en bloc, all in the names of five Conservative Members. The amendments were drafted for them, at taxpayers' expense, by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on instructions given by the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 20 April, nine days before his speech of 29 April on the motion of the hon. Member for Exeter. Inevitably the effect of the amendments was to ensure that the Bill would be talked out on Report.
  There were attempts at first to give the impression that the 80 amendments had been drafted by the five Members themselves. That impression was corrected by the Leader of the House in a parliamentary reply to me on 6 May, in which he confirmed that all the amendments were drafted

  327
  by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Subsequently there were two statements of unreserved apology for misleading the House in proceedings on the Bill: one by the Minister himself, and the other by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). But their statements were scant consolation for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. For them, as they have since made clear to all Members, the wrecking of the Bill was an unforgivable act.
  They feel deceived and betrayed. They point out that the Bill had the support of a clear majority of Members; that it had been given a Second Reading in the House of Lords on three occasions and completed all its stages there as long ago as November 1992; that the Bill's sponsors had consulted both very widely and in detail about its provisions; and that the response to that consultation had been strongly positive. They recall the motion of the hon. Member for Exeter and they regard the Government's failure to implement it as contemptuous of this House. Above all, they ask why, if the Government felt that their case was even remotely defensible, there was so much deceit and deception in responding to the Bill at a time when the Prime Minister was stressing his determination to restore
  "the highest standards in public life."
  The Leader of the House may say that we have now had the Minister's statement of last Friday and seen the consultative document. But that is no answer to disabled people who ask, in anguish and with anger, what trust they can ever have in Ministers who promise consultation while continuing even to ignore the opinion of the House of Commons itself. If they can ignore the House, whose preference for the Bill over all the alternatives was clearly expressed in its approval of the motion on 29 April, then whose opinions are they ever likely to accept if they differ from the Government's own? That is the question leading representatives of disabled people are asking after the Minister's statement last Friday. They complain bitterly of being forced to trade a good and viable Bill for a promissory note of little face value, let alone real value.
  As Leader of the House, the right hon. Gentleman has a duty in this debate to respond to the very deeply felt concern among disabled people, more especially about the apparent futility of the parliamentary process when, as it seems to them, the decision taken by this House on 29 April has been so unceremoniously dumped by the Government and without any attempt at justification.
  The right hon. Gentleman must know that the motion the House approved on 29 April was by no means extravagant. To opt for extravagance is not the way of the hon. Member for Exeter. All that his motion sought was an hour or so of parliamentary time to meet the strongly reaffirmed call from disabled people for full citizenship, and, as the hon. Member for Exeter said in moving the motion:
  "We are not asking for the impossible or even for the original. Between 1951 and 1985, private Members' Bills were given Government time, of which 33 were granted extra time by Conservative Governments. Library records show that, between 1979 and 1986, four private Members' balloted Bills were given Government time. All those Bills show that, where there is a parliamentary will, there is a parliamentary way."—[Official Report, 29 April; Vol. 242, c. 505.]
  328
  It is still not too late for the Government to make the only worthwhile apology for their scandalously indefensible treatment of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. They can do so by honouring the decision taken by the House on 29 April. Time can still be found for the Bill's remaining stages before this Session ends, and I implore the right hon. Gentleman now to accept the will of the House as expressed by its approval of the motion of the hon. Member for Exeter.
  The Government's treatment of that motion is not an isolated case. There is now the further case of the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on the welfare of the ex-service community, which the House approved on 1 July 1994. It is a motion in which I have an interest to declare, but not a financial one, as honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion. My hon. Friend's motion was in the following terms:
  "That this House, mindful of the increasing needs of the United Kingdom's ageing ex-service population and the many problems of younger members of the ex-service community in direct consequence of 'Options for Change', considers that there is now a pressing need for a sub-Department of Ex-Service Affairs within an existing Ministry and with a designated Minister to be responsible, as the only fundamental and long-term solution for the case and welfare of ex-service people and their dependants; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to respond positively to the Royal British Legion's urgent call for a sub-department to be established."
  The issue addressed by that motion is one about which the ex-service community feels very strongly. This year's Royal British Legion conference, which spoke for 800,000 legion members, voted unanimously to press the Government to establish the sub-department.
  At a time when bits and pieces of responsibility for ex-service affairs are scattered all over Whitehall, ex-service organisations want someone in Government to focus attention on all their concerns: a Minister in an existing Department who can provide full access to the whole Government through a single Whitehall door. They do not seek to emulate other countries with full-blown departments of state for veterans' affairs, but simply to make life easier for the ex-service community here in the UK—not least the war disabled and war bereaved—by achieving a modest and common-sense change in the machinery of government.
  For ex-service organisations, in representing their members' interests, now to have to deal with 17 different Ministries is bureaucratic and inefficient, costly to the taxpayer, damaging to the reputations of Whitehall and Westminster, and hurtful to the ex-service community. Who can doubt that all the tension there was recently between the Government and the ex-service community over the 50th anniversary of D-day could have been avoided if there had been more sensitivity to and awareness of that community's wishes than could be achieved under existing arrangements?
  In a parliamentary question to the Prime Minister, I asked
  "if he will be meeting representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the approval by the House on 1 July of the resolution on the welfare of ex-service people; and what representation he has had from the Legion in regard to a meeting".
  His answer was:
  "We welcome continuing close contact with the Royal British Legion and other service organisations. A request for a meeting has been received from the Royal British Legion and is being considered at present."—[Official Report, 14 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 712.]

  329
  My question gave the Prime Minister an opportunity to assure the ex-service community that the Government recognise the importance to them of the decision taken by the House on 1 July; but his reply ignored the decision, even though the Royal British Legion's request to see him was expressly for the purpose of discussing that decision.
  Not content with his response, I tabled a further parliamentary question to the Prime Minister requesting a clear statement of the Government's intentions. I asked him
  "if it is his intention at present or at any time in the future to implement the Resolution of the House of 1 July on the welfare of ex-service people".
  His reply of 15 July was:
  "We have no such plans at present".—[Official Report, 15 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 778.]
  That reply will be widely seen, and not only in the ex-service community, as grossly unsatisfactory. It does nothing for the Government's reputation and is demeaning of this House. The Leader of the House, who made plain his respect for the ex-service organisations here last Thursday, must surely now recognise the concern provoked by the Government's contemptuous dismissal of the decision taken by the House to help their members. What on earth is the use of allocating parliamentary time for private Members' motions when, if they are approved, the Government act as if they had never been debated? Is that not to denigrate and diminish this House?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman now arrange very urgently for oral ministerial statements on the Government's response to the motions approved both on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on 29 April and the welfare of the ex-service community on 1 July? In discharge of his responsibilities to all Members of the House, will he also do his best to ensure that the response in each case is both positive and worthy of the people whom the two motions sought to help? After all, they are people whose claims on the attention of this House deserve the highest priority.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I welcome this opportunity and am grateful for the fact that I can make a speech about my constituency. The subject that I wish to address is important to my constituents, and, indeed, many hon. Members, on both sides of the House—local government reorganisation and the unfolding reports of the Local Government Commissioners.
  As far as Hereford-Worcester is concerned, in the old county of Hereford, there is considerable concern about that. The detail of that concern can be made clear to the House, and I, and other hon. Members, hope to participate in the debates, which, I dare say, will come during the next Session and next year. But at this stage, in terms of the background of the 1972 reorganisation, before we get on to the present one, nothing produces such strong feelings—few things do—as interfering with people's local government boundaries. Within parties, it divides—Conservative against Conservative, Labour against Labour. It generates an awful lot of feeling across the country. We have been brave enough to embark on a further reform, and the message that I am giving is that, now that we have done so, we will have to finish it.
  The county of Hereford was merged with Worcestershire in 1972. There was great uncertainty about before that time with the Redcliffe-Maude commission
  330
  under the previous Labour Government. The intensity of feeling as a result nearly caused the loss of two Conservative seats. It is a relevant warning for the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) has championed the cause of Herefordshire and, indeed, is associated with much of what I have to say. We need to know where we stand. We intend to conclude the inquiries and recommendations on which we have embarked. I would be grateful for any ministerial assurance that can be given along those lines.
  The existing county of Hereford-Worcester has had a comparatively brief local government life of 20 years. It has worked very well. I am the only cross-border Member of Parliament, in the sense that my constituency is two thirds Herefordshire—the old county—and one third Worcestershire. Worcestershire has four times more people than Herefordshire and has been a very great support, not least over rural schools and libraries. All those things and the finance that comes from a good base in that regard can be used to support the rural areas.
  My tribute to the existing county is very relevant to the proposals for change. The Local Government Commission has now delivered its first report; its recommendation, and two further options for the county of Hereford and Worcester, are in favour of a unitary authority of Herefordshire. A geographically vast and, indeed, beautiful area on the Welsh border—it has a population of some 162,000, while neighbouring Worcestershire's population is more than four times larger—will have everything except an obvious financial base.
  Let me make two points to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, one specific and the other general. I shall not discuss the proposals for Worcestershire, save to say that my constituency includes Tenbury Wells, which —with the surrounding area—is affected by the proposals of the Local Government Commission.
  I anticipate that Tenbury Wells will want a rural connection; in the context of the recommendations for Worcestershire, it may go for a two-tier Worcestershire authority, which would mean its being part of a Malvern Hills district council. I merely encourage Tenbury Wells to speak out to the commissioners. Household after household is currently receiving the recommendations, and being invited to participate in consultation.
  The county of Herefordshire is cohesive and extremely historic. As I have said, it has everything but a good financial base. It is a vast area, and will clearly incur expense in delivering county services, however resourceful and ingenious the new council may be. If we create the new county—everyone wants it, including me—we shall have to finance it, which will mean a central. Government grant formula that caters for the smaller and, in particular, the rural counties that we are creating.
  I think—dare I say it—that this is a matter on which both sides of the House must agree: I have observed during my parliamentary life that a change of Government can mean an infinitesimal touch on the tiller, leading to a diminution of resources from the centre to, for instance, rural areas.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I hesitate to interfere in matters concerning Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Some of us, however, spent 177 hours in Committee Rooms 12 and 14 considering the Local Government etc.

  331
  (Scotland) Bill. Many of the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes are just a year ahead, and how we are suffering.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: This is not the first time that Scotland has been the precursor in terms of various local government events—if I may use suitably neutral phraseology. I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's speeches, and I shall certainly try to read some of the proceedings on the Bill that he mentions.
  In fact, the hon. Gentleman's intervention reinforces my view. I fear that if—for political or other reasons, some of which may be somewhat emotional—we create entities and are then not prepared to show the colour of our money by financing them, there will be nothing but trouble for the areas concerned. A rural area with a weak financial base is extremely vulnerable. I have said that locally, and I now say it nationally. There is little or no local padding when it comes to making up for any deficiency in central Government grant.
  We have started the process; let us finish it. Whatever entity we create, if our creation depends on the centre it is the obligation and duty of the centre to finance it.
  4.29 pm
  Ms Kate Hoey: I want to raise a couple of issues that relate not just to my constituency but to the country generally. They are issues that should be brought to the attention of the House before it rises for the summer recess. We are about to begin what many members of the public assume will be holiday and leisure time for Members of Parliament. We know that most of that time will be spent working in our constituencies. Those of us with London constituencies do not leave this place very often, even during the summer.
  One thing that many hon. Members may wish to do during the summer and which many people do is play cricket. Surrey county cricket club, which I am privileged to have in my constituency is currently doing extremely well, and I hope that it will go on to win something this year. I have just come from the Oval, where the House of Commons and the House of Lords cricket team is playing a South African ambassador's team as a celebration of South Africa being brought back into the international cricketing world.
  An important development in Surrey county cricket club is the way in which it has increasingly tried to do more for young people in the area who want to get involved in playing cricket. In inner-city areas, cricket has sometimes been seen as an elitist game, but Surrey county cricket club is trying to ensure that it is not viewed in that way, but is seen as a game that many of our young people, particularly from Afro-Caribbean backgrounds, can play. There have been good developments at Surrey on that.
  The freehold of the Oval is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. That means that the Duchy of Cornwall—indeed, the heir to the throne—has a great deal of control over what the cricket club can do. Surrey county cricket club has been trying for some time to purchase the freehold, because it would like to have control of its own destiny. It is a famous ground and it should be able to develop further, in the interests of cricket locally and nationally and for the good of the local community in my constituency.
  332
  Unfortunately, the Duchy of Cornwall is not keen to sell the freehold. It is not that it is not used to selling things. Since I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Vauxhall in 1989, the Duchy has sold off all its housing in Kennington. Admittedly, it has sold it to a housing association, and a large amount of that housing has stayed in social ownership. I pay tribute to the Duchy for the way in which it handled that sale. However, it refuses to enter into negotiations about selling the Oval freehold.
  Early-day motion 1552 has been tabled today with cross-party support. It has nearly 50 signatures already, and we hope that, by the end of the week, it will have substantially more, because we feel that, in this day and age, as we move into the next century, it is quite wrong for an individual and the Duchy of Cornwall to have control over whether Surrey county cricket club wishes to put on a new door handle, put a screw in a particular place or build something new in the interests of local people. Every time it wants to do anything, it has to obtain Duchy approval, Duchy architects have to be paid for and the costs are increasing. It is disgraceful.
  I hope that, by my bringing this to the attention of the House, all those people who love cricket will use whatever influence they have to persuade the Duchy to sell the freehold to Surrey. If that happened, Surrey county cricket club would be able to celebrate its 150th anniversary next year with a present from His Royal Highness Prince Charles.
  The second issue I want to raise is also a leisure activity, but not something with which I am involved. Those who know me may find it unusual that I intend to raise the issue of pubs, publicans and the brewery industry, because I am not known to frequent the bars of the House. However, I have many pubs in my constituency, and I recognise what a focal point they are in the community for social activity. I was delighted to sponsor the Vauxhall "pub of the year" award.
  Luckily, or unluckily, many Members of Parliament live in my constituency, and when they are not busily engaged in their duties here, they frequent the pubs there. As the House rises for the summer recess, thereby giving hon. Members a greater opportunity to visits pubs in their own constituencies, I draw to the House's attention the plight of many landlords and landladies who are picked on and exploited by the major breweries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has been actively pursuing this issue, and many hon. Members have been lobbied by pub tenants. A large public meeting was organised recently by the very effective South London Licensed Victuallers Protection Association. Publicans from all over south London attended to find out how they could lobby more effectively.
  Under the beer orders that the Government introduced a few years ago, the number of properties tied to each brewery was supposed to be limited to 2,000. The orders were intended to reduce monopoly control of the market, increase competition and diversity, and benefit the customer and the long-term interests of the industry. Those measures have clearly failed.
  The brewing giants have effectively invested their money in lawyers and corporate strategists not only to get around the intention of the beer orders but to tighten and further restrict the operation of high street pub retail outlets. The situation now is even worse than before the introduction of the beer orders, which at best have been

  333
  woefully ineffective and at worst have colluded in aiding the interests of the brewers against those of the pub tenant and customer.
  Although breweries were supposed to be limited to 2,000 tied houses each, they found a convenient way to get around the law. Grand Metropolitan swapped its brewing interest, Watney Truman, for the estate of Courage. It set up Inntrepreneur Ltd. and became a 50:50 partner in some 15,000 pubs. Whitbread and Bass also started leasing companies. Many times the supposed 2,000 limit for tied houses are still contractually tied to the same brewery—but now, under even more draconian, unfair and anti-competitive practices.
  Publicans face absurd minimum purchase orders, despite the current recession in the pub trade, which is especially acute in areas such as that which I represent. If pub tenants fail to sell an often unrealistically large amount of their brewer's beer, they have to pay a heavy cash penalty—about £83 a barrel in many cases.
  That loophole has led to the absurd situation of one publican I know having had four different corporate landlords in just five months even though he is still tied to the same brewery, paying the same extortionate rent and the same minimum purchase order penalty. The price that pub tenants have to pay for the beer they do manage to sell is also often far higher than that at which the same sales representative of the same brewery sells to neighbouring pubs.
  Rents for tied houses are also skyrocketing—increases of 100 to 150 per cent. have been common on south London, and some are even greater. The rents are out of proportion to the declining value of properties and the market rents for similar sized shops or other businesses. Because of dubious valuations, one estimate of the worth of Grand Metropolitan's share of the pub empire is £150 million more than its real market value. That suggests to me that, in a world of high finance, there is another motive for continuing the anti-competitive monopolistic practices.
  To use a pun, the only reason that tenants continue to put up with this appalling situation is that the breweries have them over a barrel. Tenants have often invested their life savings in their businesses; to walk away would be to invite bankruptcy, abandon all they have worked for, and make themselves homeless. For many people in their fifties, it could mean being unemployed for the rest a their lives. Even so, bankruptcy and financial ruin are common, as breweries drain the last drop of cash from vulnerable tenants. Typically, suicide among publicans is on the increase.
  I would usually give more details of the heavy-handed, bully-boy tactics of the brewery giants, but some tenants who attended meetings in the House were shortly afterwards visited by brewery managers, who threatened them for making trouble with their Members of Parliament. Test cases are currently before the courts, disputing the legality of some of the anti-competitive practices, so I shall not go into further detail of individual cases. The European Commission has also been considering a number of complaints, and is firmly of the opinion that the responsibility for sorting out the mess lies with our national Government.
  I hope that, before the summer recess, the Government will get the message that a full review of the legislative and regulatory framework of the brewing industry is urgently needed. The beer orders have been tried, and have been seen to fail. I call on the Government to investigate
  334
  minimum purchase orders, excessive rent increases, over-valuation of properties, and the monopoly exploitation of tied house contracts.
  When hon. Members visit pubs in their constituencies in the summer, they should ask the publican what is happening to him. I believe that they will then return to the House determined to get the Government to do something about the wholly unjust beer orders.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey), who has conjured up summery pictures of cricket fields and of the consumption of beer. Like me, she is clearly in favour of a summer Adjournment, and of leisure—even if we do not always get as much of that during the recess as others may think. I am happy to follow her down that route.
  I am a fan of Martyn Lewis, who is a proponent of good news—as some hon. Members will know, he spoke to the all-party media committee not long ago—and I welcome the opportunity to refer briefly to one or two encouraging trends over the past few months. That should counterbalance much that I—and, I am sure, others—have found negative about current political debate. I do not criticise any particular organisation or party, but I have detected a slight negativity, so in my short speech I shall refer to one or two positive factors.
  First, I compliment the Government on the "Front Line First" announcement earlier this week. It contained good news for all of us who are keen on the reserve forces. Having read in the press that there might be further cuts in the reserves, we have now heard that their numbers will be held to 59,000, which is most welcome.
  Originally, I had hoped to have the opportunity to debate that subject at greater length later tonight, with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Unfortunately, that will not now happen—for two reasons. First, my calculations show that there will not be time. Secondly, my hon. Friend may now have other things on his mind. I wish him well in his new appointment, which we have heard about today—and a very important appointment it is, too.
  The announcement about the reserve forces was good news, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will get the message through to the Secretary of State for Defence that it was much appreciated. Will he also ensure that the promised legislation on the reserve forces, which has been written about during the last few months, will be introduced in the Queen's Speech?
  If we are to encourage the reserve forces, we need to re-examine the employment implications, in terms both of employment security and of encouragement for employers to release people who are doing that worthwhile job, as members of our Territorial Army or our other voluntary reserves. I hope that my right hon. Friend will do all he can to ensure that there will be an announcement in the Queen's Speech about a Bill to update the law on the reserve forces. I trust that that point will be taken on board and passed on.
  I shall now deal with something totally different. Over the past two years I, like millions of other people, have been encouraged by the success of the radio station Classic FM, which is now two years old. I see that my hon. Friend the Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household is shaking his head. He may not be in favour of Classic FM—[HON.

  335
  MEMBERS: "Radio 1."]—but I am, and I am willing to debate with anyone the virtues of Classic FM and the appalling nature of Radio—[Interruption.] No; my hon. Friends will be encouraged to hear that I shall be brief.
  Classic FM now has about 5 million listeners; that is good news. The point that I wish to make—not at length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although it is well worth making—is that, even in the commercial world, there is scope for success when the taste of the British public is respected rather than despised. Trendy individuals from places such as Islington, and other places that I have never visited and do not really understand, seem to have rather a low opinion of public taste, but the success of Classic FM shows what happens when public taste is respected.
  People in this country have a real interest in good music, in good art, and in science, which is my particular interest. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) for all the excellent work that he has done for science and the scientific community while he has had ministerial responsibility for science. When I move among the scientific community, I have no doubt that there is much support and respect for his work in that area. I hope that that remark has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Dalyell: In the view of many of us, it is absolutely absurd—so long as there is a Conservative Government —to move the right hon. Gentleman from that post at this stage in developments on the White Paper. Why on earth shift him at this stage?
  Mr. Thompson: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down that road, but I do not retract my remarks about the work that my right hon. Friend has done for science.
  In a scientific context, there is no more popular subject than astronomy. As a schoolteacher for many years, I was involved in running astronomy societies. Hon. Members may ask why I move on from science to refer to astronomy. The reason is straightforward. This week we have seen newspaper headlines about the collision caused by the comet Shoemaker Levy, travelling at about 135 mph, crashing into the planet Jupiter. That is a remarkable event, and I could talk about it at length, but hon. Members on both sides of the House will be relieved to know that I shall not do so.
  My point, which links with what I said earlier about music and art, is that the study of astronomy and of other sciences is popular at all levels in society, and that that encourages a rational approach to the problems of society. That provides a counterbalance. I remember, when I was young, reading that when there was an eclipse of the sun, people in Africa banged drums to drive the evil dragon away. I regard that as equivalent to the nonsense about astrology that we can now read in the tabloids every day.
  I favour the rational approach of astronomy, which is why I mention all the news about the comet and about Jupiter, which I find of great interest. However, hon. Members need not worry; I shall not speak for too long, but the subject is important—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Member for Walsall, North well enough to know that he will support what I say about a rational approach to society's problems.
  Mr. David Winnick: Yes.
  Mr. Thompson: It is part of the process of education to encourage detached observation and analysis of phenomena. If that had not taken place over the years, civilisation would not have progressed; and that progress will not continue unless we all encourage a detached, scientific analytical approach to the problems that we face. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recognise, even if no one else does, that I am making a serious point—and one that is also valid in the context of our parliamentary debates.
  I do not want to make too much of my final comment, but it is sad that observation of the parliamentary process by the media now seems to be propelled by forces other than the detached approach that was taken in the past—in 1948 or in 1958, for example. I have done some research and made comparisons, using The Times, The Guardian and all the other newspapers. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I am not going to go into all that research in detail, but I have studied the approach in 1948, 1958, 1968, 1988 and 1994.
  There has been a change from that detached approach. Dare I say that gossip, and ego trips for some journalists in the privileged surroundings here, seem to have taken over? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in a recent letter to The Times, appealed for the restoration of that newspaper as a newspaper of record. I fear that, under its present ownership, there is little prospect of that.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: This week sees marches and rallies in this country and in many countries throughout the world in remembrance of the brutal invasion of the island of Cyprus by the Turkish army 20 years ago. I am sure that every hon. Member is aware that Cyprus is a member of the British Commonwealth, and that we are one of the guarantor powers for that island.
  I know that there are hon. Members on both sides, to their credit, who have been deeply involved in Cyprus since that invasion. They, like me, have seen the continuing talks over the years, during which hopes were built up that, at long last, there would be an honourable settlement, only to see those hopes destroyed—due, without doubt, to the attitude of Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot spokesman, and the attitude of the Turkish Government in Ankara.
  During all these years, we have seen action after action by Mr. Denktash to delay and to destroy any discussion that would lead to the unification of the island. We have seen the actions he has taken and the actions that he still supports. There are thousands of Turkish troops in the occupied northern area of Cyprus and many thousands of Turkish settlers have been brought into northern Cyprus.
  Some years ago, we saw the establishment of the so-called "independent state of Northern Cyprus", a state that is recognised only by Turkey of all the countries in the world. To the credit of this Government, they have never been prepared to recognise that independent state created by Mr. Denktash.
  Recently, we have had the confidence-building measures under the leadership of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Sadly, they have got nowhere. Recently, the Secretary-General has clearly said whom he blames for the lack of progress in the talks for which he has been responsible. Against that background of 20 years, one

  337
  has the right to ask where the British Government stand and what action they will take so that meaningful progress can begin to be made.
  I am a member of the Council of Europe. Two years ago, a Spanish deputy, Mr. Cuco, a member of the Council of Europe, was requested by the Council to produce a report on the illegal settlers in northern Cyprus. He clearly stated in his report that the presence of the illegal settlers in the north of the island would make a settlement far more difficult. He also clearly said that the people brought from mainland Turkey were deeply resented by true Turkish Cypriots.
  Despite that report, and despite all the years during which the Turkish mainland settlers were brought to northern Cyprus, what did the British Government do? The answer, clearly and regrettably, is nothing.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: The hon. Gentleman above all is the great champion, quite rightly, of this good cause. Does he agree that the island must be united to be properly economically viable, and that the Turkish Government should now heed international public opinion? The sooner the island is reunited, the better for all of us.
  Mr. Cox: I totally agree with the hon. Member. He also has a superb record on Cyprus. He has given me the opportunity to make this point. Whichever party we belong to, we work for a united Cyprus. We do not work for the benefit of the Greek Cypriots. We work for a united Cyprus for the benefit of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots whose home is on the island of Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman is so right in his comments.
  I recently attended a meeting in Strasbourg of the political affairs committee of the Council of Europe. The committee had invited representatives of the political parties in Cyprus—the Greek parties and the Turkish parties—to come to Strasbourg to outline what they saw as a possible settlement.
  It was extremely regrettable that, within moments of the Turkish Cypriot representatives starting to speak, it became clear that they did not want a settlement. They made comments such as, "Turkish troops under no circumstances will leave the island." They also said that, if Turkey became a member of the European Union, the Turkish Cypriots would do everything in their power to obstruct and cause problems if Cyprus was allowed to become a member of the European Union.
  I have to say that the Prime Minister's statement in the House on the recent Corfu summit, on 27 June, in which he replied to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), has given great comfort to Mr. Denktash and to Turkey. The Prime Minister said that, unless there was a settlement, Cyprus would not be supported in its application for entry to the European Union.
  I shall read out a few brief quotations that will clearly show the House the attitude that Turkey repeatedly takes on the issue of Cyprus. The speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, addressing a meeting of the Ankara Chamber of Commerce on 25 April this year, said:
  "Turkey's rights in Cyprus stem from International Law and the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus is a consequence of this. Turkey cannot endanger itself with regard to the Cyprus issue without any return."
  338
  Mr. Denktash, to whom I have already referred, said of the Greek Cypriots on a radio programme on 10 May this year:
  "If they become EU members then as of their membership date we join Turkey and the issue ends there. The Turkish Grand National Assembly should enact a resolution and declare our union with Turkey the very moment that the Greek Cypriots become an EU members. There is no other alternative."
  The final quotation is from Mr. Ecevit, the leader of the Democratic party of Turkey. He said in an interview on 25 June this year:
  "On 20 July 1974 peace came to Cyprus. As far as the Turkish Cypriots are concerned the problem was solved that day."
  Against that background, what action are the Government to take? I again remind the House that we are one of the guarantor powers of the island of Cyprus. For years, many of us, irrespective of party, who have questioned the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary of the day have been told that the British Government fully support the efforts of the United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations recently expressed his views. Do we support those views? If we do, surely now is the time for the Government to act and to support his work.
  In a decision by the European Court of Justice taken earlier this month, bans were imposed against any Turkish Cypriot citrus fruits and potatoes being allowed into countries of the European Union. I ask the Leader of the House whether the British Government support that ruling. If they do, I hope that they will say so, loud and clear.
  Twenty years have passed. Cyprus is the only country in Europe that is still divided by a wall: that is the tragic indictment of the lack of meaningful progress over those long 20 years in resolving the tragedy of Cyprus. When shall we hear the Government's views and their proposals for ending the tragedy? When shall we see the reunification of the island of Cyprus?
  As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said, and as I said in my reply to him, all of us in the House who are interested in the future of Cyprus are interested in the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish Cypriots. We look for answers from the Government to end this continuing tragedy, which has brought such appalling poverty and problems, certainly to northern Cyprus, and which has brought great heartache to the people of Cyprus. When will that tragedy end, and when will the island of Cyprus be reunited? When will the prosperity that it can achieve start to be developed?
  4.59 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: While not agreeing with everything that the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said, I must say that no hon. Member has fought so vigorously over many years for his Cypriot constituents as the hon. Gentleman.
  Before the House rises, I wish to raise a matter under the Financial Services Act 1986. As the House will recall, the Act was, in the words of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury as recently as 3 May 1994 in a letter to me:
  "to provide a high standard of protection for investors".
  Under the Act, the Securities and Investments Board was set up as the overall umbrella, and a whole series of self-regulating organisations such as FIMBRA—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—were set up under that board.
  Recently, a new body to embrace all those self-regulating organisations—the Personal Investment

  339
  Authority—was set up. After a rather shaky start, it began operating on only Monday this week. It has received 3,666 applications for membership, and I have been told that 1,139 firms have been admitted. I am glad that a firm in my constituency, Stuart and Verity, was one of the first to be admitted.
  The problem arises over a firm which describes itself in an advertisement as:
  "Britain's Leading Retirement Income Specialists".
  I refer to the firm of Knight Williams and Co. Ltd. The company says that it handles £500 million-worth of investments for 24,000 people. I should make it absolutely clear at the start that I am not making any accusations whatever of any dishonesty on the part of that firm. However, I wish to draw attention to the difficulties that a great number of people have experienced over the years, having used the firm's services.
  In advertisements in 1989 and 1990, the firm made statements such as:
  "We can help you earn a high regular monthly income"
  and
  "We can show you how to provide for the capital growth you will need to keep pace with the cost of living over the coming years".
  A nice Larry cartoon showed a post man trying to put a fat cheque through the letter box and the key point made by the firm was that it would provide income, growth and peace of mind.
  On the basis of those advertisements, my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Jordan, a retired couple, invested some £32,500 in January 1990, and also paid £5,500 in initial charges. After four and a half years, their investment is worth £27,300, so they have lost substantially on any basis. They are deeply concerned about, and have investigated, the way in which Knight Williams conducts its affairs. That has attracted the attention of the press.
  In February 1994, The Sunday Telegraph carried out a considerable investigation and pointed out:
  "An IFA"—
  independent financial adviser—
  "is meant to recommend products from across the market. But most of Knight Williams' new business ends up in its own unit trusts. These carry some of the highest charges in the unit trust industry—6.375 per cent. initial and 2.5 per cent. annual".
  A minute from the firm described how its salesmen should operate. One of the categories of salesmen listed was:
  "the 'Clever Dick' who 'sells non KW', is 'disruptive' and a 'compliance nightmare'."
  The minute says that the way to deal with such salesmen is to make them toe the line. The article in The Sunday Telegraph included the view taken by a leading stock broker:
  "It must be difficult for a Knight Williams salesman not to recommend in-house products. These funds may perform well in spite of high charges but are they a function of independent financial advice? I fear not".
  Lest it should seem that I am engaged in an attack on a rival of any sort, I declare an interest in Barclays bank which is a financial adviser. But there is no question whatever of any competition or rivalry in that respect; it is entirely a constituency matter which I am raising.
  My constituents referred the matter to the SIB and FIMBRA, but the only course that could be taken under the rules was to go to arbitration. In his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, Mr. Jordan said:
  "The process of arbitration is a veritable minefield fraught with difficulties for lay people. It is, for better or worse, an adversarial
  340
  procedure which means that independent financial advisers defending a complaint from a lay member of the public are able to flex their legal and financial muscles because only they have the necessary economic resources to do so."
  If the unfortunate investor fails before arbitration, the SIB can only suggest that he has recourse through the courts, which is enormously expensive. The SIB can give orders to FIMBRA only if it has breached its rules, and FIMBRA can punish the company in question only if it has breached the rules. My constituent therefore ran up against a brick wall.
  Since then, more than 40 Members of Parliament have received similar complaints from their constituents about Knight Williams. Most of the constituents are elderly retired people who are seeking to provide for their old age by following the advice given by that firm. So far as I could work out from letters from hon. Members, nearly all the constituents have suffered financial losses in the process. I have taken the matter up—as, indeed, have more than 40 hon. Members—with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who has taken a close interest in the matter. The Treasury Select Committee has also taken a close interest in the matter, and it has had evidence, certainly from my constituent, which it is carefully considering.
  As a result of the concerns expressed not only by me but by many other hon. Members, an early-day motion was tabled yesterday in the name of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and other distinguished hon. Members, expressing the House's concern at the number of complaints received by hon. Members from their constituents, many of whom are retired people, and the apparent inability of SIB and/or FIMBRA to bring full light to bear on the subject. I should make it clear that although the PIA is now operating, it is not taking over earlier cases; they must be cleared up by the old self-regulating organisations. Early-day motion 1545 also urged the Government to institute a thorough inquiry into the whole matter.
  Without making any accusations of dishonesty, I am asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to urge the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to pursue his inquiries to bring light to bear on the whole matter in the interests of a large number of constituents, to examine the way in which the Financial Services Act is operating and to question whether there is any better way in which redress can be obtained for these unfortunate constituents.
  5.9 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Before the House adjourns, I should like to urge upon the Government the need for a strategy for breast cancer, both at health care and research level.
  I am the joint chair of a newly formed all-party group on breast cancer. During the past few months we have taken evidence from some of the most eminent clinicians and scientists. Their evidence has led me to conclude that the interests of patients would be best served if the Government took the approach of establishing a national action plan on breast cancer, similar to that established in America last year.
  Breast cancer is a major killer of women in this country. One in 12 women are affected by it and nearly 30,000 new cases are diagnosed every year, which is about 480 a week. Nearly 16,000 deaths occur every year, which is equivalent to one woman dying every 30 minutes. Worldwide, the

  341
  figures are no better. It is the biggest cancer killer in the world, with 250,000 deaths a year from breast cancer. Those are devastating statistics.
  What is even more worrying is the growth in that disease. Some weeks ago, Professor Baum of the Royal Marsden hospital told our committee:
  "We are losing the war against breast cancer. Any modest improvements in case survival or mortality rates are being eclipsed by the real increase in the incidence of the disease. Sadly the foot soldiers in this war are the women themselves and I am convinced that if the battle is to be won in the long term then the lay public have to be reminded well in advance of them developing the disease that the responsibility for seeking its cure must be shared between the public and the profession alike."
  This week, Professor Gusterson of the Institute of Cancer Research and Professor Adrian Harris of the John Radcliffe hospital, Oxford, put to the all-party group the case for a national action plan on breast cancer and they were extremely convincing. They referred to what happened in America after a petition from 2.6 million Americans calling for a comprehensive plan to end the breast cancer epidemic was presented to President Clinton.
  Shortly afterwards, President Clinton announced that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, would convene a conference to develop a national action plan on breast cancer. From its inception, that conference was intended to involve the whole spectrum of individuals, groups and organisations concerned with this awful disease.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most alarming things that the professors told us on Tuesday was not only that the money spent on research into cancer in Britain was less than that spent in America and other European countries, but that although the majority of funding in those countries is provided by their Governments, only one tenth of British funding is provided by our Government while nine tenths comes from charity? Is that not appalling? It is also borne out in Scotland, where, of 11 consultant oncologists—too small a number in itself—seven are funded by charities.
  Mrs. Mahon: I agree with my hon. Friend. All those consultants should be funded by the national health service if they are treating national health patients.
  Invitations to the conference in America were sent to 150 representatives from advocacy groups, consumers, academics, scientists, educationists, health care specialists as well as to people who had suffered from breast cancer. The participants worked together in a unique, unprecedented partnership and produced an excellent policy document entitled "A National Action Plan on Breast Cancer", containing eminently sensible suggestions which make an effort to tackle the epidemic.
  Even more exciting was the fact that, following the conference, the United States Department of Defence produced a grant of $210 million for a breast cancer research programme and within a short time that plan was up and running. What a wonderful way to spend the peace dividend—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) has said, the comparison with the amount of money devoted to research in Britain should make us ashamed of the pittance that is offered here.
  The problem with funding research in Britain is, as my hon. Friend said, that it is mainly offered by charities and is not supplied by the Government. In any event, that source of Government revenue is badly affected in a recession. An added problem has been caused by the
  342
  introduction of changes in the NHS and the fragmentation of a national comprehensive service. Professor Harris told our group that another worrying factor for people who want to conduct research into this killer disease is that trusts are now reluctant to store material from biopsies in pathology laboratories because of the cost of storage. That valuable material will, however, be needed urgently for future research.
  I hope to persuade the all-party cancer group that we should launch a national petition to get the Government to adopt a national plan on breast cancer. Something urgent needs to be done to combat a major killer of women in this country. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise this important matter before the House adjourns.
  5.16 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: A year ago, on the last day of the summer term, I raised in an Adjournment debate the immense problems facing the British brewing industry —in which I declare a modest interest—arising from, among other problems, the ridiculous burden of excise duty on beer which our European competitors do not have to carry. That burden is seriously weakening the industry.
  Since that debate, I must unhappily report that the situation has not improved. The industry—of which my Burton constituency is, of course, the centre, with great names such as Ind Coope, Marstons and Bass—employs 3,000 of my constituents directly and many thousands indirectly. It also plays a vital part in Britain's economy because, in all, it employs about 900,000 people—more than the number employed in the construction industry, three times as many as in the energy and water industries and five times the number in the motor industry.
  Consumers spend £13.5 billion a year on beer, which is more than they spend on cars, clothing, electricity, gas, coal and all sorts of other durable goods. The industry provides Government with £4.3 billion a year, which is equivalent to 3p on income tax. The British pub is a national institution, which is patronised by one third of adults once a week, and 70 per cent. of tourists prefer the British pub to their own bars back home.
  The British brewing industry has doubled its output in the past five years; yet we are penalising it—and ourselves —excessively and unjustly. Alarmingly, as beer sales through the on-trade have fallen by 27 per cent.—from 38 million barrels in 1979 to 28 million today—beer duty has gone up 36 per cent. and the sales taxes beer by 59 per cent. while wine and spirits have enjoyed an almost equivalent decrease in tax and beer duty paid by our European partners has remained static.
  We in Britain consume 21 per cent. of all the beer drunk in the European Community; yet we pay 55 per cent. of the Community's beer duty. That is preposterous. There is no doubt that taxation is a major cause—I accept that it is not the only cause—of the decline in the market. Germans pay only 4p a pint in beer duty, the French and the Belgians pay 5p and 8p respectively, but we in Britain are required to pay 33p. That enormous differential and the fact that the limit for personal imports from France and elsewhere on the continent has risen to 110 litres—that is the amount that each of us can bring into the United Kingdom for personal consumption—has brought about the phenomenon of cross-border shopping.
  Passenger car movements via Dover rose by 12 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. More people than ever are

  343
  buying their beer abroad. Truckloads of beer, purchased by Britons in Calais, are being brought back to the UK and British beer sales in pubs throughout the country have fallen by 1 million pints a day. It appears that 39 per cent. of licensees believe that the importation of beer has affected the use of their pubs; 26 per cent. of them have seen a decrease in their trade, 31 per cent. of them say that if the problem continues and grows they will reduce staff hours, 24 per cent. say that they will work even longer hours and 18 per cent. say that they will move out of the business.
  Even more alarming is the growth of criminal bootlegging. On 18 May The Independent quoted a Customs and Excise investigator who said:
  "When the single market opened up on 1 January 1993 the trade in cheap beer was carried out by young Jack the lads flogging the stuff at car boot sales. But now organised criminals are involved with outlets at nightclubs, off licences, working mens' clubs and illicit drinking dens."
  The seriousness of that aspect was confirmed last week to the Select Committee on Home Affairs by the head of the national criminal intelligence service, whose main concern is organised crime. This new situation is serious and it is becoming worse.
  The Government have helped a little, but hardly enough. In the past year, since my previous short debate, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was worried by cross-border shopping, has ensured that there has been no increase in duty on beer or spirits. He took that decision in last year's Budget, when there was only a 1.9 per cent. increase in duty on any alcoholic drink. The Government have also been trying to increase the harmonisation of excise duties at the Council of Ministers. Realistically, however, any plea to other countries to raise their excise duties to the levels which prevail in the UK is unlikely to fall on receptive ears. Nor do we want to remove from nation states the right to fix their own tax rates.
  What can be done to stop the decline in our brewing industry? My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General told me in a letter that I received two days ago that Customs and Excise has calculated that a reduction in excise duty to French and German levels would lead to Revenue receipt losses of between £3 billion and £4 billion. Clearly that could not be countenanced.
  The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association—the successor to the Brewers Society—commissioned the Henley centre to establish the accuracy of the Customs and Excise assessment. The centre found that a 50 per cent. reduction in duty to 16p would lead to a price reduction which would reverse the downward trend in the beer market and substantially increase revenues other than beer tax by, for example, increasing employment in brewing, clubs and pubs as well as in the supply of goods and services by a total of about 90,000 by 1999.
  At the same time, it would reduce the duty lost to the UK by payments of duty to France, Germany and elsewhere and generate an additional £300 million for the Government by 1997. It would benefit the Exchequer by £1 billion by 1999. The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association and the brewers themselves have observed that when on two previous occasions this century Governments
  344
  reduced beer duty to revive sales—by 37 per cent. in 1933 and 28 per cent. in 1959—the beer sales market turned up and the industry returned to long-term growth.
  Before the House rises for the summer recess, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Customs and Excise to look again at their figures in the light of the work undertaken by the Henley centre and to consider whether it is possible to reverse the decline in the brewing industry by a 50 per cent. cut in beer duty. Apart from the gratitude of the industry and of my constituents who depend on the industry, they would have the thanks of the all-party beer group, whose members care very much about the problem.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: As we are soon to embark on a long summer recess, it would surely have been appropriate for the Prime Minister to make a statement about the likely new President of the European Commission. I see in their places my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), who raised the matter in points of order. It seems that they agree with me.
  The Prime Minister made much of the fact that he vetoed the candidate he did not like, the Prime Minister of Belgium. He gave the impression that that candidate's views were unacceptable. It is interesting that the person who is now likely to be the new President has made it clear that he shares entirely all the views of the candidate who was vetoed by the Prime Minister, including those on a single currency, more integration and a federal Europe.
  Those are the views of Mr. Santer, who is likely to be the new President. If he holds views identical to those of Mr. Dehaene, who was vetoed—he admits he does—why should he be approved by the British Government?
  We can come to the conclusion only that as on so many other matters concerning the European Union the Government are prepared to give in—in this instance they did so within a few days—after a display of opposition.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the most recent development? I gather that, within the past few minutes, the British Labour group has voted to reject Mr. Santer.
  Mr. Winnick: It will be interesting to see the reaction of the Government. As I have said, if one candidate has been vetoed because of his views, there is no reason why someone else who holds identical views on the future of the European Union should be supported. The attitude of the British Labour Members of the European Parliament may be somewhat different from mine in some respects, but in this instance there may be some consistency. The Government show no consistency.
  As we go into the long summer recess, we know that the Government's standing—certainly domestically—is extremely low. We saw that clearly in the Euro and local elections. No one would dispute the fact that the results were not good for the Government.
  The Government no doubt think that the reshuffle will help them, but most British people could not care less who is the Minister for this or the Secretary of State for that. They are concerned only about policies and their own position. As most people have been penalised in the past 12

  345
  or 18 months by all kinds of extra expenditure, including tax increases, it is understandable that they do not look favourably on the Government, and are unlikely to do so in the future.
  Those who earn the most are increasingly rewarding themselves with even more money. Signal workers would have been willing to settle for about 5 per cent., but the Government vetoed that. Had they agreed to it, the dispute could have been settled and today's disruption to train services avoided.
  The Guardian index of top executive pay shows that, in the past year, top directors have received average increases of nearly 25 per cent., and even more in some cases. Seven directors receive more than £1 million a year. Last year, Mr. Peter Wood of the Royal Bank of Scotland received £18.5 million. I hope that he somehow manages to make ends meet.
  The chief executive of SmithKline Beecham receives some £2 million a year while Glaxo, Barclays, Tompkins, and Kingfisher pay their top directors more than the £1 million mark. The chief executive of Cadbury Schweppes must have felt hard done by, because he received a percentage increase of just under 100 per cent. last year and now gets £852,000 a year. Top directors also receive performance bonuses, generous pensions contributions and share options, which sometimes amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
  The comparison is so obvious. While those in the public sector have had increases of some 2 per cent.—many people in the private sector have not received much more, and some have had no increase whatever—those on the highest incomes have received substantial increases, despite the fact that the Prime Minister said that he did not approve of them. It seems all the more unfair when the Government are pursuing a wage restraint policy against signalmen and others in the public sector.
  Nor should we forget that some of the top earners receive generous assistance when they leave their posts. Only last week, it came to light that the former managing director of Midlands Electricity departed with a compensation and pension package of some £655,000 and share options worth an additional £483,000—over the £1 million mark. Can such generous treatment be justified? The former chairman of the water authority in my area received, on leaving the company, £230,300, plus £500,000 more in compensation for early retirement.
  That shows only too well that those with substantial incomes not only receive generous pay increases but, when they leave, they receive the sort of sums that I have mentioned. It is understandable that there is a lot of resentment. Some people may say that it is purely Labour envy but, while the Conservative Members are so strenuously against any form of minimum income and repeat time and again that it is out of the question, they appear to have no objection to maximum incomes. They never deplore the increases in pay to top earners in British industry. Indeed, they show no concern whatever.
  The Low Pay Unit found that more than 44 per cent. of the work force in the west midlands were on low pay. That is 4 per cent. higher than the national average. The fact that some 855,000 employees in the west midlands earn less than the low-pay threshold helps to explain the poverty and near-poverty in which hundreds of thousands of people in our community are forced to live.
  It is wrong that there should be such a gulf between those who are penalised by unemployment, when
  346
  employers simply say, "Take it or leave it," while at the other end of the income scale the fat cats reward themselves, often without justification, with increases such as I have described. Once again, it illustrates the Government's philosophy: indifference to the plight of those on low pay and total opposition to a minimum income policy, but no willingness to take action against those on the highest incomes. I felt that it was only right to raise such matters before we go into the summer recess.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I wish to speak briefly about the problem of deregulation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard me speak on this matter too often to find it amusing.
  I was on the Committee that discussed the deregulation Bill upstairs for many days, and in the Chamber on Report and Third Reading. Throughout the Bill's Committee, Report and Third Reading stages, I fully supported all the Bill's objectives. It was a first-class attempt by a Conservative Government to do exactly what we should be doing—strip out some of the more absurd and idiotic regulations. I welcomed, as did many other people, the power which the Bill gave the state to take away those regulations, and I make no excuses for thoroughly supporting that great concept. Hon. Members should be ever vigilant against the over imposition of regulations.
  That important Bill is now going through another place. During its passage through this place, I raised the plight of small businesses, and suggested a remedy that had not been included in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and I raised the matter both in Committee on 28 April and on Report on the Floor of the House. I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the new clause that we tabled on Report, which appears in the Official Report of 23 May in columns 45–46.
  The new clause sought to give business men and women redress against the unfair imposition by officials of regulations which lead to the eventual closure of their businesses. It also sought to give them redress against the imposition of such financial stringency that their businesses either become uncompetitive or eventually close down because, over a prolonged period, those excesses prevent them from trading competitively.
  Sometimes that is the result of a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of a regulation, but at other times it is because a regulation has been wilfully imposed on them without any regard for the true nature of the regulation. Either way, the reality remains the same—that regulations result in great difficulty, especially for small business men and women throughout the land.
  The argument that I made then, and which I make no excuse for making again, was that those small business men and women are the ones who are least able to speak for themselves. They are the ones on which we dump so much paperwork and regulation that we smother them. The medium-to-large businesses can cope with all that; they simply get another person along to deal with it. They can survive that extra imposition; they have a bit of slack in their cash reserves.
  However, the small business men and women do not have those resources. They are the ones to whom we must look to provide the future employment for so many people

  347
  who are unemployed throughout the land. We must be extra-specially careful, therefore, not to allow regulations to have that effect on them.
  Taking full regard of that, we introduced the new clauses simply to give those small business men and women the right to appeal to a magistrates court against such an unfair imposition. We thought it a reasonable device, and we presented it as such. It would have given the Bill the second leg that was necessary. The first leg was to strip away excess regulation, and the second leg would have been to guard against unfair imposition of regulation.
  We were given certain assurances by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who was at that time speaking for the Government, when summing up on Report. He said:
  "I wish to try especially to provide an appeals mechanism that is quick, effective and cost-effective and will not create a new bureaucracy".
  He went on to say:
  "If my hon. Friend withdraws his clause and the matter goes to another place, the basis of the debate there will consequently be more informed. I fully support what my hon. Friend wants to achieve".—[Official Report, 23 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 69 and 70.]
  Being the very decent man that he is, my hon. Friend did just that, and we therefore complied and withdrew the new clause, on the basis that the Bill would be improved by the addition of such a clause during its passage through the other place.
  I therefore draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the problem that appears to exist at the moment in introducing the new clause.
  True to his word, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton passed the matter to the deregulation task force, headed by Francis Maude—who was a colleague and who, I hope, will return to this place as a colleague—to consider the possibilities. The task force has considered it, and it appears it has handed the matter over to an official, to go away and put together a mechanism that could be properly implemented.
  I understand that the official is now complaining that, first, there may not be enough time to put that mechanism into the Bill, and secondly, that there are some worries about the judicial approach. I also understand that the deregulation task force has essentially decided that the only way to solve the problem is to take the course that we proposed—the judicial route. It is simple and effective, and does not require extra bureaucracy.
  I do not pretend to try to re-argue the case. All I am trying to do is to say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, in all good faith, men and women throughout the land had looked to us to find some form of redress.
  We presented the Government with an opportunity. The Government, decently, said that they would consider it. I am worried that, if officials are allowed to say that it may be too difficult, we might not eventually include that mechanism in the Bill. If we do not, it will be a great failing for us here in the House, because we shall have failed the very people that we were sent here to support—the job creators, the people who will do the great job we want in providing new employment.
  I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, please, please, would he speak to everyone who is concerned with that matter, and give them a sense of
  348
  urgency? If we do nothing else but put that into the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, we shall represent that vast group of people out there, the ones who cannot speak for themselves, the small business men and women. They will thank us, and rightly. It will be the right thing to do. I urge my right hon. Friend to do just that.
  5.44 pm
  Mr. John Denham: I suggest that the House should not adjourn before we have had further opportunity to discuss the gathering crisis that hangs over the pensions of many people who depend on personal pensions. I should declare an interest in that subject, as a small part of my research assistant's salary is funded by the National Union of Insurance Workers.
  As the Financial Times commented in an article on 15 July,
  "It has not been a good year for personal pensions".
  That is an understatement. In the past year, there has been a series of damaging revelations about the personal pensions industry. It has become obvious that up to 500,000 people may have been wrongly advised to opt out of occupational pension schemes, and that more than 2 million people may have been wrongly advised to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme.
  The pensions industry companies have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Personal Investments Authority, whose birth this week has, to say the least, been surrounded by almost complete scepticism. Merely a brief examination of the Order Paper of the past few days will show that there are no fewer than three early-day motions, tabled by Members on both sides of the House, highlighting failures in the regulatory system. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) referred to one of them earlier.
  A succession of firms with household names, such as Norwich Union, Legal and General, Nationwide and now Barclays, have either had to suspend their sales staff for retraining or have been fined by regulators for the blatant mismanagement of sales practices.
  It is therefore not surprising that, in the first quarter of this year, there was a dramatic drop in the sale of personal pensions—a fall of nearly 160,000 compared with the same quarter in the previous year.
  The rows about bad management of the industry and ineffective regulation can obscure an even more fundamental problem. There are, in my view, sound reasons for most people to plan their pensions as a combination of state and non-state provision. The reality today is that many—probably most—working people who are outside secure occupational pension schemes will not be making sufficient provision to ensure that they receive a pension that they or anyone else will regard as adequate when they retire.
  State pensions, including the SERPS element, will be too low for most of those people who depend entirely on them. Half the people who opted out of SERPS for appropriate personal pensions have an income so small that they would almost certainly have been better off in SERPS, and of all those with an appropriate personal pension, 60 per cent. are only putting in their national insurance rebate and are not making any additional contribution from their income.
  Not only are many people with personal pensions underprovided; they often do not persist with the policy. As long ago as 1991, the Securities and Investments Board

  349
  revealed that a third of personal pensions are terminated or paid up within two years. At that time, the Consumers Association calculated that losses to investors through front-loaded commission charges and early penalty surrenders were running at £250 million a year—the equivalent of an annual Maxwell scandal. That was as long ago as 1991.
  I recently completed a survey of 44 of the top pensions companies, asking about their lapse rates and termination rates. Of those 44 companies, only 13 were prepared to provide any information about the early cancellation of their policies, and all those that did so emphasised that there is still no industry-wide standard for providing that information. Of the 13 who were prepared to speak about the lapses in their policies, almost all said that one in five of their policies lapsed in some manner after two years. For most, between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. of all the personal pensions that they sold lapsed in the first five years.
  That highlights several serious problems. First, the difficulty of getting hold of that information from most companies means that one of the most useful indicators of the quality of the pension policy and the quality of the advice given by the insurance company is not available to the consumer.
  A second problem is highlighted. We keep hearing Government statistics that 5 million people have personal pension policies, which implies that those policies will be kept until they mature and the policyholders will be able to retire on their proceeds. But it is clear that only a minority of those who buy personal pension policies see them through to full term. Many people with personal pension policies will keep them for only a short time, will lose a great deal of money on them and, ultimately, will not have adequate pensions.
  There are, sadly, few signs that the Government have even begun to grasp the scale and scope of the problem. Attempts have been made, very belatedly, to tighten up the regulatory structure, with the formation of the Personal Investment Authority, but I believe that that authority will turn out to be only a staging post on the route to a more satisfactory system of statutory regulation. My concern is that regulation of the industry, however it is conducted, is still approached purely as an attempt to control the way in which products are sold. The regulation does not cover the quality of those products.
  It is clear that many people who buy personal pensions buy policies that, for one reason or another, they cannot continue to full term, so they lose much of the money that they had hoped to put aside for their pension. Our regulation needs to focus far more on the quality of the products sold, establishing minimum standards of quality to protect those people who will depend on them for their pensions.
  I raise my concerns about the personal pensions industry not because I seek to rubbish the industry, but because I recognise that there will be, for the foreseeable future, a category of people who cannot obtain occupational pensions and who would be ill advised to rely purely on state pensions. An essential element of future pensions policy must be to ensure that the personal pensions industry is run correctly.
  There are several spheres in which the Government have not shown sufficient energy or action. They must assume responsibility for ensuring that people are properly covered by future pension provision. The Government
  350
  have wasted the best part of £10 billion on encouraging people to opt out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. Many of those people will be no better off, and some will be worse off, as a result of opting out. Many of them will be entitled to opt back into SERPS, so the £10 billion will have produced little benefit to anyone.
  The Government have not yet highlighted to individuals how much money they should be putting aside towards some form of non-state pension if they want to achieve a certain level of retirement income. The time has come for the Government to take responsibility for giving an indication of those figures, which would have two benefits.
  First, it would raise awareness of the cost of pension planning and shatter the complacent view held by too many people that simply having a personal pension must mean that it will generate sufficient retirement income for them. Secondly, highlighting the cost of private provision would encourage a better and more reasonable debate about the balance to be struck between tax-funded state pensions and non-state provision funded from people's incomes.
  In addition, the Government should regularly conduct a national representative survey of the pension provision that individuals have made for themselves and, from that, project the level of pensions that people will receive. That is not done at present, but it would give us a much clearer idea of what those people's pensions will be in 20 or 30 years time, and could provide the basis of future policy development.
  The role of regulation should be broadened so that we not only regulate how policies are sold, but ensure that the quality of policies is consistently pushed upwards.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: It will be no surprise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hear that I intend to raise yet again the subject of the channel tunnel rail link. First, and significantly on this day, I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) who had the political courage and intellectual strength to reject Union Railways' proposal for a tunnel under Pepper Hill at Northfleet in my constituency. Thanks to the public campaign run by the residents of Northfleet and the conclusions of a geological survey on noise and vibration, a strong case was developed, which I took to my right hon. Friend who was then Secretary of State for Transport, and to which he gave careful consideration.
  It would have been in the personal interest of my right hon. Friend to take a strong, firm decision at that stage to announce the route of the channel tunnel rail link from London St. Pancras to the channel tunnel at Cheriton. He could have taken a firm decision and told my constituents at Northfleet to lump it, but he did not. He understood the intellectual case put to him and told Union Railways to go back to the drawing board. That has resulted in an improved route, which skirts Pepper Hill, and I believe that that new route will be one of my right hon. Friend's lasting mementos. I also pay tribute to the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who was Minister of State throughout the saga.
  A number of problems remain. I want to highlight the site of special scientific interest at Ashenbank wood and Cobham park—the latter is part of our national heritage and was laid out by Repton. I recently convened a meeting at Cobham hall of local councils and environmental

  351
  organisations at which we considered environmental mitigation. We have now been advised that Union Railways has redesigned the route at that point to a level 4 m lower and has agreed to our request to carry out a geological survey, which we believe will prove that United Railways' plans in that terrain of loose gravel and combustible lignite would not be wise.
  Gravesham borough council will, at our request, provide professional consultants to assess the situation. I should like the tunnel to be designed through the chalk beneath because that would overcome the engineering problems caused by the geology as well as the environmental desecration that would be caused by the current proposal. The cost of that environmental improvement and other lesser improvements should be assessed.
  I pay tribute to our previous Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Ben Patterson, who, over 15 years, was an excellent member of the European Parliament. Until the European elections, he led an effective campaign to harness significant grants under the environmental programmes of the European Commission. I expect his Labour successor as Member of the European Parliament to see that campaign through. I have written to that gentleman, Mr. Skinner, and to date he has been conspicuous by his silence. He has not even had the courtesy to acknowledge my letter, let alone do anything about the problem.
  Another problem is the fact that the safeguarding is drawn far too tightly. The boundary of the safeguarding zone at Gravesend skirts five properties—four at Longview, in Henhurst road, Cobham and the Lodge at Scalers hill. That is unfair as it leaves the houses, which are sandwiched between the A2 motorway and the proposed channel tunnel rail link route, in a position that will become progressively more unbearable. The properties should be included in the safeguarding zone now. In the interim, I thank Union Railways because, following my strong representations, it has agreed to buy out two of the properties at Longview on compassionate and health grounds. I wonder why it will not put the whole matter in order by including all five properties.
  I should like there to be a noise assessment of the channel tunnel rail link crossing at the Wrotham road, A227, and its effect on the village of 'stead Rise and the houses at the tollgate. If we are to have such a major project we must ensure that we make the right decision now.
  We still await an announcement adopting Ebbsfleet as the intermediate international station. That is an obvious location because it would serve well travellers resident in south-east London, Kent, Essex, Surrey and Sussex. Were the proposal for Ebbsfleet international to go ahead, it would mean thousands of new jobs for Gravesham and new roads for Northfleet. Northfleet town would effectively be bypassed and it would give my constituents better house values. Until now, the channel tunnel rail link has marked down house prices in that area of Northfleet. I believe that the announcement of an international station at Ebbsfleet would mark them up.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: My hon. Friend referred to Pepper Hill. Like him, I hope for an early announcement of an international station on the Ebbsfleet site. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern that the construction of
  352
  the rail link and the infrastructure connected with the Ebbsfleet station will cause immense problems for the local roads infrastructure, not least disruption to the A2, with the consequent movement of cars on to the lanes of Southfleet at Longfield, New Barn and Betsham. Will my hon. Friend join me in pressing the Department of Transport for a proper plan and timetable for infrastructure improvements?
  Mr. Arnold: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. If we are successful in getting the international station for the Ebbsfleet valley between our two constituencies, there will be further challenges—for example, the work sites and how construction will be carried out with minimum disruption. There will also be the challenges of ensuring that we protect the environment at the Ebbsfleet water course, that archaeological studies of the Roman remains are carried out in advance and that the sports facilities at the proposed location for the station are fully replaced to serve the public in that area.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), I want briefly to comment on local government reforms. We must not lose sight of the fact that the objective of the reforms is local delivery of services, subject to local decision taking and at the best manageable cost. Against that criterion, I believe that Kent county council is inevitably found wanting, stretching as it does from the London boundaries to Thanet and Dover and southwards into the Weald. It is far too remote.
  To the credit of the council's previous Conservative administration, it recognised the problem and set up local area offices. In my area of north-west Kent it set up an administrative office at Gravesend. Nevertheless, decision taking at Maidstone remains far too remote. The present Liberal and Labour-controlled council has taken some very insensitive decisions and there has been much neglect.
  There are some dreadful examples of that. The council is currently bulldozing through the Wainscott bypass in the face of opposition from the people of Higham. It is neglecting the people of Old Denton by the failure to build the east Gravesend access road, which would take lorries out of Old Denton and provide good access to Comma Oil, the Norfolk road industrial estate and Denton wharf. It is neglecting the people of Northfleet by not building the fourth phase of the Thameside industrial route, which would effectively provide a Northfleet bypass.
  The council has opposed every application for grant-maintained status for schools in the face of votes in favour as high as 90 per cent. among the local parents. Therefore, I welcome the decision announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education to approve the application by St. Joseph's Roman Catholic school at Northfleet.
  I should like there to be a unitary council for north-west Kent, based on Gravesend and covering the existing area of the education and social services and also of the health district. That would achieve real local government, a unitary council with no confusion of responsibilities, minimum transitional disruption for the principal local government services—education and social services—and, at last, local decision making on our side of the north downs.
  Some self-seeking local councillors concerned with their own personal bailiwicks have suggested that a north-west Kent unitary council would drag us into London and cover our green belt with concrete. That

  353
  self-interested scaremongering is absolutely shameless. Those claims could not be further from the truth. Kent is an historic county. We have our traditions—our Lord Lieutenant, our High Sheriff, our cricket team and our 101 voluntary organisations. There is no proposal from anyone to extend the county of Greater London. Indeed, Kent-wide co-operation can be achieved by a revitalised Kent association of district councils.
  The metropolitan green belt is safeguarded by law, by planning decisions and even by the east Thames corridor study. In Gravesham it is well and truly laid out and safeguarded south of the A2, to the east of Riverview park and Chalk and to the south of the former. We shall be robust. Gravesham borough council is robust, and a north-west Kent unitary council would be likewise.
  I oppose the favoured proposal of the Local Government Commission for two unitary councils, North-West Kent and Medway Towns, with the remainder of the county based on two-tier administration. That option of the Local Government Commission is a half-measure and a soggy compromise. We should have a proud county of Kent served by six unitary councils, co-operating in a revitalised Kent association of district councils. I hope that my constituents will join me in pressing for the Local Government Commission's third option.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Cynog Dafis: It would be inappropriate for the House to adjourn before it has had the chance to consider the need to reduce road traffic, especially in view of the recent report on the increase in cases of asthma and the likely link between that and air pollution.
  That issue has concentrated people's minds on road traffic. Indeed, it has been suggested that asthma levels among children have doubled over the past 10 years—the same period over which there has been a doubling in the number of private and light goods vehicles on the road. That cannot be entirely coincidental.
  It is clear that the advantages in personal mobility and convenience of increased road traffic are being vastly outweighed by the negative effects. Indeed, the advantages are already cancelled out by congestion. If current predictions of a 35 per cent. increase in road traffic by the year 2000 and a doubling by the year 2020 are fulfilled, road traffic will be a monster running out of control. That monster must be tamed.
  Asthma is only one of the health effects of the constant increase in road traffic. A Lancaster university report estimates that up to 15 million people in Britain could be suffering from health problems as a result of road traffic near their homes. That is a figure that we do not remember often enough. At the same time, there are almost 4,000 deaths each year on our roads and 40,000 throughout the European Union. Those are horrific figures. There is no conceivable ethical justification for allowing such carnage. The financial cost of road accidents is estimated at £8 billion annually—a huge sum.
  The environmental effects of increasing road traffic are already very serious and they are set to become disastrous. We know about the loss of open countryside, the loss of habitats and therefore the biodiversity that constitutes a great part of the wealth of our planet.
  Road traffic is an increasingly significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. By the year 2000, road traffic
  354
  will be emitting 23 per cent. of the United Kingdom's carbon dioxide, very effectively undermining the Government's commitment to stabilise at 1990 levels by the year 2000. That commitment is a hopelessly and, in my view, grotesquely inadequate response to the immense threat posed by global warming and the need recognised internationally to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. in the near future.
  Road traffic is also a profligate consumer of resources. It takes up 80 per cent. of the energy used in transport, which in turn is responsible for 33 per cent. of all energy consumption in the United Kingdom. Together with domestic energy, the total comes to more than 50 per cent. It imposes massive costs in terms of road building and insufficiently recognised costs in terms of the quality of community life.
  There are costs too in terms of social inequality. After all, 35 per cent. of all households do not have access to a car and 53 per cent. of women do not have a driving licence. Those categories of people are disadvantaged by the inadequate provision of public transport which is exacerbated in turn by the fact that other people who have access to a car over-use it.
  Something needs to be done, but what? Technology can play its part in reducing some of the environmental damage, but that reduction is bound to be limited. There is no bucking the need to reduce the use of the car and other forms of road transport.
  How can that be done? It is clear that we need a United Kingdom-wide strategy with targets set by the relevant Secretaries of State. Stabilisation by 2000 at 1990 levels would be both modest and achievable, although many would say that that was an inadequate target, with a 5 per cent. reduction by 2005 and a 10 per cent. reduction by 2010.
  The principle of target setting is supported by the CBI and increasingly supported even by people who have in the past been associated with the road lobby. According to a recent survey in the Observer, Michael Roberts, the CBI's transport policy adviser, said:
  "Traffic growth produces congestion which produces further roads which produces more growth and more congestion. It is a vicious circle that must be broken."
  Achieving such targets would involve a major cultural change. That needs to be understood. It would have far-reaching implications for economic policy in an economy which is so strongly dependent on growth in car production, and so on. But it is the kind of change that would bring Government policy and economic policy more into line with the Rio idea of sustainable development. I am glad to see that the Labour party's environment policy published today begins to address the need for a change of direction.
  Such a cultural change can be brought about only through widespread public involvement and community debate. Cultural change must involve collaboration and debate between people in the communities. That process should be led by our local authorities. They are or will soon be drawing up their local Agenda 21s, part of the Rio process. They will be considering how to move towards sustainable development at a local level.
  Transport policy and reduction in road traffic should be integral to the process of drawing up local Agenda 21s. It should be a statutory requirement for local authorities to show how they propose to meet the specific traffic reduction targets in their areas.

  355
  There is no shortage of ideas about how that can be done. Certain German cities, such as Frieburg and Bextehude, have managed significantly to reduce car use and the accompanying pollution which car ownership has increased. Greater ownership reduced use.
  Local authorities and the Government would benefit from study of the excellent document of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, "Wales needs transport not traffic", which sets out a broad range of policy proposals from revamping existing cost-benefit analysis assumptions to provisions such as encouraging cycling and improved integrated timetabling of public transport. A great deal can be done at local level in a practical way.
  Everything is to be gained from an active debate at local level on the need for change in transport policy, but the Government must give a lead. That is why I presented recently to Parliament the Road Traffic Reduction Bill, prepared and supported by the Green party, Friends of the Earth and Plaid Cymru. It is a subject to which I shall be returning during the recess and after when I return to traffic-jammed London in the autumn. I hope to find wide support for the Bill from all corners of the House. That support can currently be registered by signing early-day motion 1520.
  I am confident that this is an idea whose time has come. It is a theme that needs addressing now. I am confident that there will be widespread support for it throughout society. I hope that we shall have a positive response from the Government. I hope that we shall not find the same lack of vision and obsession with short-term considerations that we saw with the Energy Conservation Bill which was destroyed by exactly the same process as was described earlier by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in relation to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. We need a more progressive and illuminated approach than that.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, I suspect, all other hon. Members, I am looking forward to the recess, not least because it gives us the chance to have a holiday and the opportunity to pursue other things, whether within our constituencies or in other areas of special interest that are more difficult for those of us with constituencies a long way from London to pursue when the House is sitting.
  However, another reason why I am looking forward to the recess is that I believe that during the next three months there will be yet more economic good news. We shall see low inflation maintained, continuation of the steady economic growth that we are now enjoying, and the further shrinkage of the dole queues, with unemployment falling. All that, I hasten to suggest, particularly if the good weather that we are enjoying at the moment continues, will lead to a continuing improvement in the Government's fortunes.
  But that is not what I wanted to say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. That is just a little warm-up for something that will not be quite so welcome in certain sections of the Government. I want to refer to my growing concern about the funding of education in North Yorkshire.
  356
  The most important of all changes in our Government that have been announced so far today is the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) as Secretary of State for Education. I cannot think of anyone better qualified to do the job. She was an education officer for many years in Norfolk and then was the local education authority chairman. I am sure that she will bring into play her vast experience of funding schools in a rural area such as Norfolk, which is not that different from north Yorkshire.
  The needs of education funding in our shire counties are not being given the importance that they deserve. Only last week, the Select Committee on Education published its report on the disparity in funding between primary and secondary schools. Much of what I read in that report seemed to coincide with and reflect the growing concerns expressed to me by head teachers, particularly in the primary sector, during the past three or four years.
  One reason why education funding in large rural counties such as North Yorkshire is a problem is that the standard spending assessment does not reflect the needs of sparsity. In a nutshell, the problem is that we have to fund a large number of small primary schools in rural areas. It is all very well to suggest that a number of those schools should close, but some are several miles away from each other and it would cost a great deal of money to carry on with the policy that we began a few years ago of closing three or four small schools and opening one new one. That policy has been successful where it could be carried out, but while small rural schools exist—they are extremely popular with parents and local communities—they are a significant drain on the education budget, with the result that the funding of some of the larger primary and junior schools is significantly less than it is in inner-city areas.
  The consequence is there for all to see. The primary school in the village in which I live, for example, has 395 pupils on roll. Interestingly, that was the number in 1988 when the school had a complement of 16 teachers. This year, the number is down to 13.6 and is likely to fall further. At the same time, the school has accumulated a £21,000 deficit through local management of schools. The LMS formula in North Yorkshire is partially to blame, and that is recognised by both the department of further education and the local education authority—there are moves afoot to redress the balance.
  Four factors fall more within the Government's purview than that of the LEA, and I will target three of them. Under LMS, funding is given for average rather than actual salaries. That creates a serious problem in North Yorkshire, where many schools still have the same teachers in post as when LMS started—and they have higher than average salaries. Secondly, year after year we continue to lose out from area cost adjustment. I see no virtue in persisting with that scheme, which is supposed to reflect the higher cost of schools in London and the home counties, and a large percentage of expenditure goes on salaries—and they are fixed nationally. That only piles one agony on another.
  Another problem is the growing population and increasing school rolls. Those pupils are growing older, yet no extra money is given. The extra cost must be met from the budget increase, which was only 1.8 per cent. last year for the whole county. I do not underestimate the difficulties of dealing with such problems at a time of financial stringency. They are not easily resolved. One could say much more about the funding of North Yorkshire county council, and we will be making representations to

  357
  Ministers at the Department of the Environment. That has a knock-on effect on education funding, given that the standard spending assessment is the starting point.
  Schools will reopen before the House returns from the long summer recess, and I dare say that many hon. Members will have the opportunity to visit schools and to talk to head teachers. I hope that my remarks will help to inform Ministers when they come to consider how to resolve the problems that I mentioned. Some decisions will be taken soon after the House returns, so I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey my concerns to Ministers in the relevant Departments so that greater fairness may be established for schools in shire counties throughout our land.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Four issues will not wait until October. The first is the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority report. On 12 April, in a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, I interrupted the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) to ask this question:
  "Has the hon. Lady had any discussions with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority? Some people believe that research would be affected. Is the hon. Lady absolutely sure that it would not?"
  She replied:
  "Absolutely sure. I have had discussions with the authority. It knows what my intention is, and why."
  I have a different version of events from members of that authority, but I will let that pass for reasons of time. The hon. Lady continued:
  "I want to send a message out to scientists that there is no point in spending any more time on research in that area, or in messing about with aborted mouse eggs, rat eggs or anything similar. The end product from using aborted human eggs for fertilisation purposes will simply not be allowed to be used. There are occasions when the House must assert its authority and make it clear that scientists sometimes go too far."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 158]
  I was shocked by that, but nothing like as shocked as when I heard the Secretary of State for Health assent to all that drivel.
  After consulting the British Medical Association, I ask whether, in the light of the HFEA's recent conclusion that the use of foetal ovarian tissue in research is acceptable, the Government will give the reassurance that the hon. Lady's amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill regarding the use of foetal ovarian tissue in fertility treatment will not in any way restrict valuable research in the causes and avoidance of infertility, birth defects, miscarriage and related areas. I am familiar with the distinguished research conducted at Edinburgh, and that matter is urgent.
  Secondly, I have repeatedly raised the issue of the Lockerbie disaster and Pan Am 103. A letter to me from the Lord Advocate dated 8 July states:
  "The investigation remains open and we will, of course, look into anything relevant to the case; we cannot comment on particular investigative steps which may be taken."
  I have thought for a long time that the Crown Office does not have the evidence that it claims. Nevertheless, I take at face value its desire to have a trial.
  On 26 March, the Arab League backed a Libyan proposal to send to trial in the International Court of Justice, with Scottish judges and under Scottish law, the two Libyans suspected of the Lockerbie boming. The Arab League's resolution urged the UN Security Council to take into consideration
  358
  "this serious and new proposal in the search for a peaceful solution to prevent any escalation that could increase the tension in the region".
  There are 5,000 British nationals in that area, which is also valuable to British industry. For reasons of right and wrong and to try to bring an end to that deeply unsatisfactory situation, I plead with the Government once again to think of holding a trial under Scottish rules in the Hague.
  The third issue is Iraq. I quote from Riad El Taher of Friendship Across Frontiers, with whom I went to Baghdad and to the valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates last year. He has learned from independent travellers that the health situation there is diabolical due primarily to extra shortages of medicine and the desperate situation concerning water pumps and filters. The Leader of the House will know that I saw the Prime Minister about that matter. In the sweltering heat of this summer, I told him that there is a humanitarian aspect that ought to be resolved.
  Finally, there are urgent questions for the Government in respect of cross-media ownership. Can The Times at 20p seriously be expected to make money without at first killing off at least one other broadsheet newspaper? If the answer is no, is not Mr. Murdoch's policy of The Times at 20p a clear case of predatory pricing? If so, why is it allowed? My question No. 9 to the President of the Board of Trade this afternoon was not fully answered.
  Are the Government aware of the alleged view of Rupert Murdoch, expressed to David English, that Britain is over-papered by national newspapers, and that Mr. Murdoch foresees a situation in which we have only The Times, the Daily Mail and The Sun as national newspapers?
  Are Ministers bothered about the extent of foreign ownership of the British press—The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and, perhaps soon, the Daily Mirror and other papers?
  Mr. Murdoch is, in effect, giving The Times away. Of 20p, 17½p goes to the wholesalers and retailers who distribute and sell the paper. The 2½p that comes back to News International does not even begin to cover the cost of printing the paper—about 15p a copy. That is a £30 million a year subsidy.
  Is Mr. Murdoch determined to use his virtually unlimited resources to rearrange the market to suit his own convenience? He is a cynic about human nature, believing that price will always overwhelm values, particularly the civilised values that he despises.
  Parliament can do something about this matter. If we have the collective will, we can do something about cross-media ownership and follow the American example, where many states ask owners to choose between making money from television stations and their ownership of the press. That is a clear choice that can be made, and was indeed made in the case of Roy Thomson and the Scottish newspapers that he owned. He was made to give up STV.
  The issue is the quality of democracy. I believe that Mr. Murdoch must be made to choose between his newspapers, the television station and BSkyB. Indeed, there is a strong argument, such is the ownership from abroad, for limiting ownership of the British press to Europeans. That is a truncated view, to which we will return tonight on the Consolidated Fund.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, I wish to raise two brief points. The first is a local matter and the second is

  359
  international. There was a time when I felt that the whole of the United Kingdom wished to visit my constituency of Basildon—I really mean journalists and politicians. Judging from the results of the local government boundary review, it seems that, at the moment, Basildon is somewhat unloved. My district council very much supports unitary status. We wanted either to be a unitary authority on our own or part of a large unitary authority.
  The result of the Local Government Commission review is that my constituents are given three options: option one is Basildon with Thurrock, while option two is Basildon with Thurrock, as is option three. That does not seem a great choice for my constituents. The chief executive of Thurrock council has said:
  "Thurrock's population is distinct from that of the rest of Essex. They shop locally and socialise locally. The strongest social, cultural and economic ties are with London."
  I have nothing other than good will—as have my constituents—to direct to the residents of Thurrock, but as I have already described, Thurrock wants very much to be a London borough. As ever, the Labour party's position on the matter is quite extraordinary. The socialist leader of the Labour group on Basildon council, who was my Labour opponent in the general election, gave public evidence about the redistribution of the constituencies. On that occasion, the Boundary Commission wished to destroy my constituency and put part of it with Thurrock, and my Labour opponent said that we had nothing in common with residents of Thurrock and argued that Basildon should be kept in its entirety. When it came to the local government review, however, he argued that we had a great deal in common with the local residents of Thurrock.
  I feel that my constituents have been hard done by in the commission's review. I very much hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, when he considers those matters with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will look at Basildon's case for a unitary authority on its own.
  My final point concerns Kuwait. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for all that she has done in trying to bring to the attention of the House the Kuwati prisoners of war. All hon. Members—bar, I think, about 56—supported the war to liberate Kuwait. At the end of the war, I felt that there was an unfinished matter—the fact that Saddam Hussein was still ruling Iraq in a most evil manner. The 625 prisoners of war seem to have been completely forgotten. The Iraqis also detained foreigners from nine nations that were sympathetic to the Kuwaiti cause.
  It is very hard for us to understand the scale and anguish that the Kuwaiti people feel about their missing prisoners of war. Late at night, young people of 14 were rounded up out of their beds and taken away. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will resist the call to lift sanctions on Saddam Hussein. We should insist also that United Nations inspectors of biological and chemical weapons establishments should be permitted, with the International Committee of the Red Cross, to visit the prisoners of war in their gaols. It is an absolute disgrace that, for whatever reason, we seem to have forgotten them. I hope that the British Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House will keep up the pressure to achieve the freedom of those people.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I think that the whole House will have much sympathy with what the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has said. As always with these brief debates, in the three hours available to us, we seem to be able to cram a quart into a parliamentary pint pot.
  At the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) congratulated the Leader of the House on surviving what he described as the slaughter—a reference to today's Cabinet reshuffle. I am sure that the whole House is pleased to see that the Leader of the House is still with us. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] He has a place in the affections of Opposition Members. I do not know whether the reshuffle could be described as a slaughter. It certainly was not a slaughter of the innocents.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, as he did in a previous Adjournment debate, made a determined case for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. He has the support of many Opposition Members for what he had to say. Similarly, his reference to what is now the pretty vexed issue of ministerial responsibility for veterans affairs commands much support from Opposition Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) spoke of the affairs of Surrey county cricket club and its perfectly reasonable desire to own the freehold of its premises. I suggest that she sponsor a Bill to vest the freehold. The local authority could then make a gift of it to the Surrey county cricket club. After all, if urban development corporations, set up by the Government, are allowed to vest the land of local authorities then hand it over to private sector business interests, surely in such a good cause it is open to us to consider proceeding in the same way.
  My hon. Friend also had something to say about the relationship between publicans and their brewers. As I know a bit more about that, I feel that I am on safer territory there than I am when talking about cricket. There is widespread support for what she said.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about the plight of Cyprus, which has been divided now for 20 years, and the attitude of the British Government. It is a feature of these Adjournment debates that my hon. Friend raises an important foreign affairs topic. He has campaigned vigorously on behalf of Cyprus, and, indeed, has a strong constituency interest in the matter. I congratulate him on his speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) drew our attention to the important issue of breast cancer, and the need for a national action plan. As she pointed out, one woman in 12 may be affected by the disease.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—seeking, I suspect, to show support for the Prime Minister's views, which is unusual for him—made some comments which I hope that the Leader of the House will find helpful and convey to the Prime Minister, who will no doubt receive them ecstatically. If the views of the rejected President of the European Commission are shared by the accepted President, surely Members of the European Parliament should consider carefully whether our Prime Minister would approve of the appointment of such a person.

  361
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North also referred to inequalities in the treatment of those who work for a wage and the position of top managers who are able to set their own wages and conditions—including, all too often nowadays, very generous share option schemes. This is not the first occasion on which the House has considered an issue that is clearly very divisive, not just in the House but in society as a whole.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) spoke of personal pensions and in particular the inadequacy of provision, especially for those who opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, without, I suspect, fully appreciating the consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) drew our attention to four separate topics—the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the importance of protecting those engaged in legitimate research; the Lockerbie tragedy, and his continued campaign for a trial to be held according to Scottish rules; Iraq; and the newspaper price war. I note that that last subject will be debated again later tonight.
  Let me mention two other matters. First, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Leader of the House and I are engaged in discussions aimed at securing a package arising from the Jopling report. I am not yet in a position to state formally the views of the parliamentary Labour party, but I can say that discussions are proceeding well and have been very thorough. I hope that we can soon put proposals to the House that may well apply in the next Session, and I know that my view is shared by the Leader of the House.
  I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman personally for the courteous and constructive manner in which the negotiations have been conducted. There has been a genuine willingness to make progress, on the basis that the balance of advantage between Government and Opposition should not be disturbed: the arrangements that we make should be for the convenience of the House, and no attempt should be made to score party points.
  Finally, let me make a plea for Swan Hunter. It has become almost traditional—in what has been a sad and difficult year for Tyneside, for my constituents and for those in the neighbouring constituencies of Wallsend and Jarrow who work in the shipbuilding yard—for me to make such a plea, and to ask the Government to give Swan Hunter an order so that it can survive. As the House will know, yesterday the vital procurement order relating to the Sir Bedivere, which could have secured a private sector solution to Swan Hunter's problems, was placed with Rosyth. That decision almost certainly means the closure of Swan Hunter and the end of shipbuilding on the Tyne.
  Let me give the House an idea of the scale of the problem on Tyneside. Before the receivers came in, Swan Hunter's wages bill was just over £1 million a week. That went into a pretty concentrated economy in the communities represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and myself. We stand to lose all that.
  Although most of the domestic industry had ganged up against us—for reasons that may have seemed commercially sound to those involved—we had managed to secure a foreign shipyard, Constructions Mecaniques de Normandie, which was interested in taking our yard over, to compete for work not just in the British procurement programme but in the middle east. It believed that the work could be done on Tyneside. If the bid had been allowed to
  362
  proceed, we could have added something to the British economy, foreign investment and overseas work; we would not be taking work from others. That strikes me as particularly unfair.
  Our community has been hit by heavy engineering redundancies at NEI Parsons, by pit closures in County Durham and Northumberland and by the complete closure of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry in neighbouring Sunderland. If the blow delivered yesterday is fatal, as it almost certainly will be, I do not think that we shall be able to sustain it. I am sure that the Lord President is not unsympathetic; he realises how desperate is the plight of Tyneside people. Will he arrange for a representative of the Department of Trade and Industry, or perhaps the Prime Minister himself, to announce an aid package for Tyneside—an economic development package —to ameliorate the dreadful circumstances in which we now find ourselves? I hope that that can be done before the House rises for the recess.
  6.46 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for his kind remarks about me personally; I also thank hon. Members for their warm response to those remarks. I am certainly pleased to be continuing in my present role, not least because of the exposure that it brings me, in debates such as this, to what might be described as the rich tapestry of House of Commons life—ranging from the impact of fragments on Jupiter to a number of other events rather closer to home.
  I congratulate the House on the way in which it has conducted its business over the past three hours. I cannot recollect as many as 16 or 17 speeches being made in this debate before. That number will make it even more difficult for me to reply to all who have spoken as fully as I should like. Let me add, however, that in cases of which I can only take note I shall ensure later that points deserving further reply from my ministerial colleagues will be drawn to their attention.
  I well understand why the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East mentioned Tyneside and Swan Hunter. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) would echo many of his views, and I will ensure that the points that he raised are drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and others who may be concerned with such matters. As the hon. Gentleman knows, five or six years ago I was for a year the Minister with responsibility for shipbuilding, and I had much to do with shipbuilding on Tyneside. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising the issue.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned our discussions on the Jopling report. As I have repeatedly emphasised, the eventual package must pay due regard to the interests of all involved. The need for such a balance makes the task complex, and it must necessarily proceed on the basis that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. A good deal of detailed work remains to be done, and—as the hon. Gentleman said—neither of us can become drawn further into the matter today; but I too can say without reservation that our discussions have been friendly, positive and constructive.

  363
  We believe that we have made good progress in identifying a package that offers the prospect of achieving wider agreement on changes that could be made in the next Session, probably on a trial or experimental basis. I hope to work further towards that end during the recess and perhaps I might reciprocate the kindness of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East by saying that I hope that he will be able to continue to work with me in the positive and constructive way that we have achieved so far.
  I hasten to make some comments as best I can on some of the speeches that have been made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) drew attention to the National Audit Office report on property owned by the Department of Transport. My right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department are seeking to ensure that the properties are let quickly, which would appear to be the best preventive measure. I am sure that they want to look carefully at the points that he made.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) predictably, but I would not say unreasonably, went over ground that has become fairly well trodden. I hope that he will understand if in the brief time available I do not add to what has been said about the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of provision for ex-service people. During that debate, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said:
  "The debate is intended for hon. Members to bounce ideas off one another".—[Official Report, 1 July 1994; Vol. 245, c. 1078.]
  That did not give quite the impression that the right hon. Gentleman sought to convey in his remarks. The Government's attitude was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who was previously the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The resolution was approved by the House and is a decision of this place. That must be an important matter.
  Mr. Newton: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point, but my point about the spirit in which the hon. Member for Thurrock approached the debate and the point that he made does something to weaken the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and a range of other hon. Members on both sides of the House made a number of points about the local government review, local government expenditure and so on. I have been given a briefing note which says that I should say that the Government are in a listening mode. I can tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that both I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are listening carefully to what they say.
  I have a line that is barely more helpful for the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) who spoke about the freehold of the Oval. It says that it is not for the Government to intervene in a matter between Surrey county cricket club and the Duchy of Cornwall. I am cautious about going beyond that. I have been the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but that is somewhat different. I am sure that those at whom her remarks were directed will want to consider carefully what she has said and what is in the early-day motion. I know that my right
  364
  hon. Friend the Prime Minister is interested in Surrey county cricket club, and some of the hon. Lady's remarks may have aroused his interest.
  The hon. Member for Vauxhall and others raised the issue of pubs. I am advised that there are not seen to be grounds for the Government to take action against Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd., except possibly for abuse of the English or French language, because there is no evidence that the company has breached the beer orders or undertakings. Again, I am sure that the hon. Lady's remarks will be carefully studied, not least by those Ministers who will be relieved that presumably the purpose of her speech was to ensure that somebody did not need to be here at about 5 am to listen to the debate in which she had intended to raise that matter.
  I congratulate the House generally on the ingenuity that has been shown. I calculate that about half the speeches that I have listened to in the past three hours have been a way of hon. Members avoiding the need to be here at extremely inconvenient hours during the night. I am sure that that purpose will be warmly endorsed by my right hon. and hon. Friends who might have had to be here.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that those who brief me assiduously have failed to give me any up-to-date information on the situation on Jupiter. To be honest, they have not come up with anything useful on Classic FM either. One of my hon. Friend's questions was directed at me and concerned the content of the next legislative programme, which is a matter in which I have an interest. As my hon. Friend will know, part of the way in which that interest is expressed is in a traditional phrase saying that one cannot anticipate the next Queen's Speech. However, I note what my hon. Friend said.
  I can tell the other hon. Members to whose contributions I shall not be able to respond that I shall genuinely look at what they have said, not least at what was said by those who raised health service issues, some of them going back to my time at the Department of Health. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) may recall—if she does not, I intend to remind her—that I was the Minister who launched the breast cancer screening programme some eight years ago. It made us the first country in the European Community to launch such a programme. We are always concerned to find ways of building on that initiative and improving the way in which we deal with that problem.
  I apologise to those hon. Members on whose speeches I have not been able to comment, not least the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who raised some powerful points. I invite the House—I hope to obtain its assent—to pass the motion on the Order Paper.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 74.

  Division No. 301]

  [6.56 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bates, Michael

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amess, David

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Arbuthnot, James

  Booth, Hartley

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bowis, John

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ashby, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bright, Graham

  Atkins, Robert

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  365

  Burt, Alistair

  Lord, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Luff, Peter

  Butterfill, John

  MacKay, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Cash, William

  Malone, Gerald

  Clappison, James

  Mans, Keith

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mates, Michael

  Coe, Sebastian

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Conway, Derek

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Merchant, Piers

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Mills, Iain

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Nelson, Anthony

  Devlin, Tim

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Dover, Den

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Norris, Steve

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Dunn, Bob

  Patnick, Irvine

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Dykes, Hugh

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Elletson, Harold

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Forman, Nigel

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Sackville, Tom

  Forth, Eric

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  French, Douglas

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Soames, Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Gorst, Sir John

  Sproat, Iain

  Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Steen, Anthony

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Stephen, Michael

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Stern, Michael

  Hague, William

  Streeter, Gary

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Sykes, John

  Harris, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Hendry, Charles

  Thomason, Roy

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Walden, George

  Jack. Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Wallace, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ward, John

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Watts, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Wells, Bowen

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Whittingdale, John

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

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Legg, Barry

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Tellers for the AYES:

  Lidington, David

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Lightbown, David

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bennett, Andrew F.

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Boyes, Roland

  366

  Byers, Stephen

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Clapham, Michael

  McMaster, Gordon

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  McWilliam, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mahon, Alice

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cox, Tom

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Morley, Elliot

  Dafis, Cynog

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Mullin, Chris

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Pope, Greg

  Denham, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Don

  Rendel, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Salmond, Alex

  Eastham, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Foulkes, George

  Simpson, Alan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Hanson, David

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Hardy, Peter

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hoey, Kate

  Wilson, Brian

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Winnick, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Wise, Audrey

  Illsley, Eric

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Jamieson, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Harry Barnes.

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House, at its rising to-morrow, do adjourn Monday 17th October.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to draw to your attention something important that has happened today following the laying before the House some hours ago of the accounts of the Welsh Development Agency. They stated, without reference to the House, that all loans and grants from the WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales to small and medium-sized firms have been suspended forthwith. I draw it to your attention, Madam Speaker, because on 7 July the Secretary of State for Wales made a statement on the legality of grants and loans from the DBRW and the WDA but did not mention the fact that they had been suspended. Without reference to the House, it has been decided that, for at least 10 months, small and medium-sized firms in Wales are to receive no grants or loans.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. I can rule only on the procedure of the House, and on our Standing Orders. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) appears to have an argument with the Government, but it is not a matter for the Speaker of the House.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that this is a point of order, although it arises from the same matter, because it relates to the fact that we are about to adjourn for the summer recess. The accounts were put in the Journal Office only today, and will not be available to hon. Members until tomorrow, by which time it will be too late to do anything about a matter of considerable importance, not only to rural

  367
  Wales—because of the development of rural initiative, venture and enterprise grants—but to those concerned with the industrial valleys grants. Companies will be left in limbo for three months or longer, so that is a matter of considerable concern. Through you, Madam Speaker, may I invite a Minister to come to the House tomorrow morning to address the issue?
  Madam Speaker: If any Minister wishes to make a statement on the matter, and to give information to the House, the House will be here tomorrow morning and I shall be in the Chair to hear any such statement.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5744/94, relating to local government elections; welcomes the principle expressed in that document that the laws of Member States should apply as far as possible; and endorses the main policy objectives of the Government as expressed in paragraph 22 of the Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Home Office on 22nd April 1994, in particular the Government's view expressed in paragraph 11 of the Memorandum that proposals for the attestation of non-national candidates at local government elections by their home Member State are unworkable in the United Kingdom, and the view expressed in paragraph 15 of the Memorandum that the provisions of the Directive should be reviewable.

  TRANS-EUROPEAN TRANSPORT NETWORKS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7073/94, relating to the development of trans-European transport networks; and endorses the Government's proposed approach to negotiations on the proposal in the Council.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Question agreed to.

  Privileges
  7.10 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Tony Benn, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Bill Michie, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Tony Newton, Sir Cranley Onslow, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir James Spicer, and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Privileges.
  The original motion on the Order Paper has been amended because a new position has arisen. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), whom we had intended to nominate as a member of the Committee, is expected—I have to put it in those terms at the moment —to take up another appointment that would be incompatible with his membership of the Committee. I have therefore suggested to the House an amended motion containing the name of Dame Jill Knight, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I am prepared and content to accept a motion moved in that form, with the name of Dame Jill Knight substituted for that of Mr. John Ward. I also inform the House at this stage that I have selected a manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to leave out the name of Sir Marcus Fox.
  Mr. Newton: I intend to speak only briefly to the motion, as I did on the original motion to establish the Committee—and for the same reasons. The nominations reflect established and accepted precedents in providing for the inclusion of myself as Leader of the House, the Attorney-General and the shadow Attorney-General, the chairman of the 1922 committee and the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, and 12 other senior Members from both sides of the House. Eight members of the Committee—slightly fewer than half—are Privy Councillors. I believe that that will be a Committee whose experience and judgment will command the respect of the House, and in which it can have confidence concerning the discharge of the responsibility that the House has laid on it.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I shall be brief. My manuscript amendment calls upon the House to delete the name of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). I have attempted to give the hon. Gentleman notice of the amendment. I left a note for him on the Board some hours ago, and telephoned his office, but he was not there. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was probably at a board meeting."' However, as his name appears on the Order Paper the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to be surprised that the business is being dealt with this evening.
  I have nothing personal against the hon. Member for Shipley. I do not question his integrity in any way. But with the best will in the world, I do not accept that someone so weighed down with directorships and consultancies can creditably serve on a Committee of that nature. I took the opportunity to look in the Register of Members' Interests and saw that the hon. Gentleman has quite a long list of remunerated directorships.
  For example, there is Westminster Communications, whose clients include British Gas, the Builders Merchants Federation and Standard Life. There are also the Care Services Group, which is a contract cleaning services
  370
  company; McCarthy and Stone Ltd., which deals in sheltered housing; the Bristol Port Company; the Illingworth Morris group, which is a wool textile group; Hartley Investment Trust, a group investment company; the Yorkshire Food Group, a food processing company; and Pubmaster Ltd., which owns public houses.
  The hon. Gentleman has other remunerated employment, too. He is a consultant to 3M (UK) Ltd.., a manufacturer of industrial, consumer, commercial and health care products; to Shepherd (Construction) Ltd., which is an industrial and commercial builder; and to Gratte Brothers Ltd., electrical engineers. Clearly the hon. Gentleman is an extremely busy man, quite apart from anything else. The question even arises whether he will have time to fit in service on the Committee between his other engagements.
  However, that is not the point of my amendment. I believe that the Committee must not confine itself to the alleged foolishness of the two hon. Members whose actions caused it to be set up, but should address the wider issue—the fact that Members of Parliament are sent here to serve their constituents, not to enrich themselves. If the Committee failed to deal with that question, it would undermine not only its own credibility, not only Parliament's credibility, but the credibility of the democratic process.
  Many of our constituents feel strongly about those issues, which reflect on all of us. So many people want to believe the worst of Parliament, and we all have an interest in ensuring that they believe the best. I am most anxious that people should not be able to allege that the Committee has been stitched up because it is too deeply in hock to vested interests to tackle properly the questions that it should address.
  The hon. Member for Shipley is not by any stretch of the imagination the only Member who is weighed down with directorships and consultancies. It is cynical of the Government to stuff the Committee with Members who so obviously have an interest in ensuring that nothing will change. They have badly misread public opinion, and misread the mood in the House of Commons, too.
  It is no part of my argument to say that there are no Tory Members fit to serve on the Committee. There are plenty of Tory Members of proven integrity who have no directorships or consultancies, and who share the Opposition's concern about the credibility of the democratic process. I should like to see some of those people on the Committee, and I am puzzled as to why the Government have chosen not to add any of them. They should take the names on the Order Paper away and come back with others.
  My amendment asks the Government to delete only one name and to find just one Tory Member who is completely free of vested interests and can be relied upon to uphold the integrity of the House and to tackle the wider issues that the Committee should address.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on the issue of removing one hon. Member from the Committee. He will be aware that I tabled an amendment, which was not selected, which requested that three hon. Members be removed and be replaced by three women. The Government have now tried to correct that serious error and they have put a woman on the Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is absolutely

  371
  disgraceful that the Government simply see men in grey suits with lots of consultancies, and the rest of the human race is totally ignored.
  Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As Chairman Mao said, women hold up half the sky. They should be properly represented on the Committee.
  I repeat that I have nothing personal against the hon. Member for Shipley. I just want the Committee to command credibility not only with the House, but with the public. I want it to hold a proper inquiry which addresses an issue that has been a running sore for many of our constituents for many years. The fact that the situation has been allowed to continue for so many years does us no credit at all. I ask that the name of the hon. Member for Shipley be deleted from the list of Committee members.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: It may be appropriate for me to begin by declaring my own outside interests. I am on the advisory board of the Union Bank of Switzerland, I work for Bywater International and I work for British Gas and British Global Gas. There is one other confession that I should make to the House which is appropriate to this debate: on one occasion, I received £1,000 in the Palace of Westminster in circumstances that some of my constituents—I hope not many—might regard as reprehensible. I placed a wager with an Opposition Member on the result of the 1992 general election. He was unwise enough to bet on a Labour victory and I was able to pocket £1,000. I hope to show the House that this incident is relevant to the motion.
  Mr. David Harris: Opposition Members want complete openness; that is the whole point of the manuscript amendment. Surely, therefore, it is incumbent on my right hon. Friend to name the Opposition Member who handed over £1,000 to him.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall come to that point in a moment. I mention the incident because, although it is true that some of our constituents would condemn gambling in any shape or form, the fact is that most of our fellow citizens indulge in an occasional flutter. The House—this is the point that I wish to make in reference to the members of the Committee—would be vastly diminished if those of us who make up its membership did not reflect not only the hopes and ambitions of our constituents, but their whims and foibles. There is a footnote to the wager.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Ms Jean Corston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: When I have concluded this point, I shall give way to hon. Members who wish to intervene.
  There is a footnote to the wager—and this answers the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). The Opposition Member concerned, who paid up promptly and honourably, asked me not to go public on the matter and that is why I do not propose to reveal his name. In fact I told a number of my close colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the very eve of the election and I have told a number of friends in the
  372
  House about the incident since, always making it clear that it was not for public consumption. I am delighted to tell the House that it has never appeared in public print. I do not—
  Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall finish the point and then I shall certainly give way. The hon. Gentleman need have no fears about that.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Was it the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: It was not.
  I do not know why the Opposition Member concerned wants to keep the matter to himself. Perhaps it is partly for domestic reasons. If I had come home having lost a general election and £1,000, Mrs. Garel-Jones would have been exceedingly displeased with me. The hon. Member concerned may think that the puritan element of the Labour party—perhaps I should now call it the Christian socialist element—would find it distasteful that a member of the Labour party should be able to wager a considerable amount in that way. Whatever his reasons, I have thought it right to respect them.
  I hope that the House and our constituents will think that neither of us comes out of this incident with any particular discredit. I also hope that punters across the country will wish that they had concluded, as I did and still do, that John Major is a good bet.
  I make one final point on the matter. The House should know that the £1,000 was invested in a very pretty frock for Mrs. Garel-Jones and I am sure that Opposition and Conservative Members would approve of that.
  Mr. Salmond: There is no disgrace in losing money backing one's own party, but there is some disgrace in winning money by betting against one's party. The right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) said that he wanted the Committee to be composed of those who reflected the range of foibles of hon. Members. By the same logic, would the right hon. Gentleman advocate that a criminal trial should take place in front of a jury of convicts?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I can answer both questions. I would advise the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), if he is placing bets, to bet on John Major and not on his own party. Curiously enough, the best bet at the general election, which I did not make, was 50 to one on the Tories getting more seats in Scotland, which as the hon. Gentleman will recall, they successfully did.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman, with respect, that we are not talking here about a criminal trial. We are talking—I now come to the more serious part of my speech—about a very serious matter—the reputation and conduct of hon. Members and the reputation of the House itself. We are not talking about a criminal trial.
  Ms Corston: I suspect that my hon. Friends and Conservative Members may consider that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are something of a smokescreen. He referred to a wager between himself and another hon. Member as a little flutter. Is he suggesting that having 18 consultancies or directorships, or accepting money for tabling questions is the same as a little flutter which is immediately honoured?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Lady. I am coming to the main thrust of my speech. I was simply making the point—it is a fair point—that the House is not just a body of high-minded legislators, although I hope that it is that, too, but a group of men and women who, I hope and believe, broadly reflect not only the aspirations and hopes of the British people, but their whims and foibles. I hope that the House thinks that the illustration I have given is fair and that it does not reflect to the discredit of the Opposition Member concerned or myself.
  In your statement to the House on 12 July, Madam Speaker, you indicated your thoughts to the House. The motion moved the following day by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), which followed from that, has led to the nominations, with one amendment, in the motion today. The nominations have been made in the usual way by the two main parties, with one representative from the minority parties.
  The task we are asking our colleagues to undertake is a difficult one. They have to examine not only the specific incident complained of, but what you, Madam Speaker, referred to as the conduct of the newspaper concerned, the wider aspect of our relationship with the press and the even wider topic of the lobbying of Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. CampbellSavours)—I have considerable respect, even affection, for the hon. Gentleman—has told the House that he regards the nominations as a stitch-up, a phrase repeated just now by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). It is the view of the hon. Member for Workington that no hon. Member who has any outside interests at all—not even, to be fair to him, because he has made it clear, Labour Members sponsored by trade unions or those with other outside interests—should be allowed to serve on the Committee. I think that that broadly is his view.
  In fact, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South are attempting to bring about a sort of reverse stitch-up of their own and, furthermore—I would contend—one that would irreparably damage the House and turn it into a refuge for unemployable people, third-rate people, one or two millionaires and a few perfectly admirable, if rather evangelical, campaigners.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What a definition of the Tory party.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sorry that hon. Members are treating this debate with such levity. There are evangelical campaigners on both sides of the House who make a significant contribution to the House, as does the hon. Member for Workington. However, I do not believe that the interests of the House or the country would be served if the House was made up of evangelical campaigners with a sprinkling of millionaires and a few unemployable people.
  I very much hope that the House will support the motion on the Order Paper and brush aside the amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, which is an attempt to stack the Committee in a way which accords with his view, and that of the hon. Member for Workington and perhaps some other Labour Members present, of the world.
  As to the Committee as nominated, I have every confidence in both the Labour and Tory Members named that, between them, they represent a proper cross-section of today's House of Commons. As I said, the task that we are
  374
  asking our colleagues to undertake, if the motion is carried, is a difficult one. The specific incident complained of is not one which reflects credit either on the hon. Members concerned or on the press and our relationship with them.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that our pay and allowances are inadequate to encourage people of quality to come here. If so, does he recall that we decide our own pay and allowances, and the two hon. Members who are the subject of this debate voted against the increase in our allowances two years ago, as did 50 other Tory Members who have substantial interests? If we decide the levels of our pay and allowances, we should set them at an adequate level, and we would not need to prostitute our work and time here to bodies outside.
  Madam Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) will not be led down that road because as he realises, and as does the House, all that we are discussing tonight is the motion on the Order Paper, which is a group of names.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: I most certainly did not come into the House because I was attracted by the pay or, indeed, the conditions.
  What I hope the nominated Members will not do is allow the hostile feelings that all of us sometimes feel towards the press to run away with them, and take measures against access to the press and so on which the House may, with hindsight, regret. I also hope that the Committee will not overreact to the foolish rather than wicked conduct of our colleagues. It will be for them, by their future conduct in the House, to regain and re-establish their reputations, and I am sure that that is what they will wish to do.
  Finally, I hope that the Committee will not be over-prescriptive. We need new guidelines, but they should seek to strike a balance—I am sure that the names before us today will be the proper people to do this—between reinforcing the generally honest and open way in which hon. Members conduct themselves, and at the same time ensuring that the House continues to reflect the nation at large and to attract men and women who are capable of doing that. I hope that the House approves the motion, and I wish the Committee well in its deliberations.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). It is the sort of speech that one would have expected him to give in the circumstances.
  There was an interesting editorial in The Sun this morning. It is not a newspaper that I normally read, but I thought that I might commence my modest contribution this evening by quoting it because in many ways it sums up the dilemma in this debate. I quote:
  "Fair's fair. Nine Tories are on the Committee investigating the 'questions for cash' affair.
  Between them they hold 18 lucrative directorships and nine consultancies.
  They will say that makes them eminently qualified to judge the issue.
  We do not for one moment doubt their integrity.
  But they must realise that many people fear a whitewash. If they are happy to investigate fellow MPs, we have a suggestion for them …
  Why not let the"
  Murdoch-owned

  375
  "Sun decide the guilt of the"
  Murdoch-owned
  "Sunday Times."
  In many ways, that sums up what the argument is all about.
  What I intend to do tonight is to put the case for those Tory Back Benchers who were not considered for the Committee, a number of whom are present in the Chamber. Over the past week, the House of Commons has made an ass of itself: all over the country, people are wondering why the Government allowed themselves to be drawn into this appalling mess and why they allowed Parliament to be discredited. People want to know—as, indeed, do I and many of my hon. Friends—why, out of something like 320 Tory Members, it was impossible to find nine good men or women free of commercial influences and capable and competent enough to sit on the Committee of Privileges.
  I will read out to the House the names of all those hon. Members who, clearly, were not considered. They have no commercial interests and would have made fine Members of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle), for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), for Beverley (Mr. Cran), for Cheadle (Mr. Day), for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg), for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), for Waveney (Mr. Porter), for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend), for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) are all free of commercial interests; all are able, I presume; and all are good Tories. Why were they not considered?
  Among that list are four former Ministers, and as I look around I see that three of them are in the Chamber this evening. Why could not those hon. Members be put on the Committee? Why did the Government load the Committee with Members who have commercial interests?
  Mr. Garel-Jones: How does the hon. Gentleman know that those hon. Members were not considered?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If they were considered, why were they rejected? Is there something that we are not to be told—that they are not competent? I see the hon. Member for Dartford, who is a former Education Minister; I understand that he had six years in the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Eltham had five years in the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Six.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman was a Minister of State.
  Mr. Garel-Jones rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I could seek the protection of the Chair, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Garel-Jones: Many Conservatives are astonished that the hon. Member has not been nominated by his party. Was he considered and was his name rejected? Did he refuse to serve?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) would have been a keen supporter of my nomination. I did not want to be a member of the Committee: I wanted to give evidence—I want to influence events.
  I also believe that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) should give evidence to the Committee; he has a lot to say and a formidable case to make as he clearly believes in all the consultancies. He needs the money, so why was he not given the opportunity to give evidence to the Privileges Committee when he could put the case for perks? As it is, he will be wrapped up, behind closed doors, in conditions of private deliberation by members of the Committee. Unless the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is carried, the hon. Member for Shipley will be unable to speak freely on this matter, so that the public can hear what he has to say.
  We heard what the hon. Member for Shipley had to say some years ago, in 1989, when the Select Committee on Members' Interests held an inquiry into lobbying. The hon. Members for Shipley and for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) gave evidence. What the hon. Member for Shipley said was extremely interesting. It might be useful to the House to be reminded of that evidence, because it reveals why many of us have a problem with the hon. Gentleman's membership of the Privileges Committee. We believe that he has a conflict of interest with the terms and remit of that Committee.
  In 1989, the hon. Member for Shipley was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about the activities of his consulting company. The hon. and learned Member asked:
  "Can I ask you a more specific question: you tell us that you have been to see a Minister once in recent times"—
  I wonder whether the hon. Member for Eltham remembers that meeting, as he was the Minister concerned—
  "did you go in your capacity as a Member of Parliament leading a delegation, or in your professional capacity as a director of the company?"
  The hon. Member for Shipley replied:
  "I took the deputation as a director of Westminster Communications and they were a client. That was made quite clear to the Minister"—
  the hon. Member for Eltham
  "I took very little part, apart from introducing the people, who were far more knowledgable about the industry than I was. I certainly took no part in it in the role as a Member of Parliament."
  The hon. Member for Eltham seems to have forgotten that meeting, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley will recall it.
  Mr. Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do not worry: I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy—
  Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member is making a number of references to me, among others, which are not all accurate. It would be a kindness if he could make the points that he wants to make without necessarily dragging in everyone else. To describe the meeting is fine, but to say what I did or did not know is not right. The hon. Gentleman would be doing the House a service if he got on with what he is trying to say.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, but if the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) wishes to catch my eye to rebut anything now being said, I will certainly be able to call him.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I presume from that point of order that the hon. Member for Eltham does recall that meeting and what he said at it.
  At the 1989 inquiry, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East went on to ask the hon. Member for Shipley:
  "Do you think it was easier for you to obtain that meeting because you were a Member of Parliament who happened to be a consultant as well?"
  The hon. Member for Shipley replied:
  "Well, it would not be any hindrance".
  That reply is what worries some of us. We are genuinely concerned that someone who feels that that is the way to conduct himself as a Member of the House of Commons —by running a public relations company, having access to Ministers and arranging meetings for clients—should serve on the Privileges Committee and work its procedures in defence of a principle that we find quite unacceptable. We reject that approach.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) referred to eunuchs in the House of Commons. Many of my hon. Friends may not be pleased by what I am about to say, but I do not believe that hon. Members should not be directors of companies or consultants to companies if they so wish. It is their choice. If they want to do that, it is their choice and it is for their electors to decide whether they should be free to do so.
  What I object to is the fact that, under the current rules, those hon. Members can use parliamentary proceedings to arrange the very meetings to which I have just referred, to table motions, to ask questions, to lobby civil servants and to lobby their colleagues. I object to them using all the privileges that the House offers to further the interests of their clients, customer companies and consultancies.
  Dr. Robert Spink: The hon. Gentleman has not referred yet to trade union sponsorship and membership of the Privileges Committee. Does he draw a distinction between trade union sponsorship and consultancies and directorships?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: For the umpteenth time in the past week, I will explain what that sponsorship means. I am one of those creatures who are sponsored, but in those nine years of sponsorship I have never received one penny from the trade union. I do not receive money now from it and I will never receive money from it. There are no conditions in which the trade union would ever dream of offering me any money. If the hon. Gentleman can imprint it on his grey matter, that sponsorship means that there is a relationship between Unison and my constituency party whereby the trade union transfers a sum of money to the
  378
  constituency party, which is used to serve people and their complaints about employment, social security, housing, the Inland Revenue or whatever.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I am in no doubt about the hon. Gentleman's position, which he has made quite plain, but I am in some doubt about how he feels about those hon. Members who write articles for newspapers, appear on television and on radio and are well remunerated for it. Does he put them in the same category as those who are directors, as the former frequently peddle their form of prejudice and try to promote various causes? Does the hon. Gentleman put them in the same category?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: No. If the hon. Gentleman does, he shows a misunderstanding of the debate. It is interesting that last weekend I was denied an interview on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme because the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) told the programme makers that he would not appear on television with me. He was obviously scared stiff of being asked critical questions about what was on the transcript of his conversation, which in my view he has misrepresented to the House. That, too, is a matter for the Committee to deal with.
  It is important to consider the remit that you set for the Privileges Committee, Madam Speaker, and how it can conduct its inquiry. In your statement to the House, you said:
  "I should like to make it clear that the Committee will have power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but into the facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it, and into the principles of the law and custom of privilege which are concerned. I hope that it will use that power for the assistance of the House in a difficult area."—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 829.]
  I believe that that was an excellent remit because it was wide and covers all the area of concern that many of my hon. Friends wish the inquiry to consider.
  We know that the inquiry will cover the question of entrapment—there are varying views about whether that took place—and the two hon. Members concerned, but I believe that there is another issue of far more importance that than specific matter. I do not believe that the hon. Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) are particularly relevant to the debate. We have moved on from them. They have been punished by their constituents and perhaps even by their local associations. Of course, the Committee will want to take a position on that, but the central issue now is what we do in future about the rule which gives Members the right to sell themselves to the highest bidder in a way—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I must bring the hon. Member back to the motion, which concerns the names being put forward to form the Committee. Perhaps the hon. Member will deal with the motion.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Absolutely, Madam Speaker. I shall lead directly to that.
  If the remit of the Committee is as I have described, its business is consultancy. I am arguing that many of the Members whose names are set out in the motion will be faced with a conflict of interest when it comes to an inquiry into consultancy. I remember the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests of 1990–91—it was the Committee's first report. In paragraph 24, to which I referred last week, we—that is: the Committee—stated,

  379
  "when a member of a committee, particularly the Chairman, has a pecuniary interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the committee or its subsequent report, the Member should stand aside from the Committee proceedings relating to it."
  That was endorsed by the House late one night without a vote. So the House has approved that Members must stand aside from the Committee if a conflict of interest exists.
  We have a remit to examine consultancies and we have Members who are consultants on the Committee. I put it to the Leader of the House that there is a direct conflict of interest and that there will be many occasions during the course of the inquiry when, if the rule embodied in paragraph 24 is to be followed, many Members will have to withdraw. I want to know whether they will do so.
  We are told that it is custom and tradition for the Committee to meet in private. The members of the Committee will not deliberate publicly. What assurances can I have, on the basis that no one on the Committee can disclose what is happening behind closed doors, that whenever the issue of consultancy arises—it is an issue that the inquiry must address as it is one of the three pillars of its work—Members who face a conflict of interest will withdraw? Who will carry out the policing? Who will consider the issue at every stage? Will the Clerk do so and advise the Chairman that the moment the conflict referred to in paragraph 24 arises, those Members who face it must withdraw?
  The relevant resolution suggests that, when the Committee deals with its report, Members who face a conflict of interest should stand aside. Are we to presume that when the Committee deals with the subject of consultancy—this will be behind closed doors in a deliberative session—those Members who have consultancies and directorships will withdraw from the proceedings if those interests constitute a conflict of interest? If not, they would be in breach of a resolution of the House, and that would be wrong.
  We will not let the issue go away. We will persist in raising it. We will not know what is going on behind closed doors. We might ask the Leader of the House every week —he will be a member of the Committee—whether the rule embodied in paragraph 24 is being enforced. The minutes will be published. In 1981, when I brought a complaint about Mr. Ian MacGregor, the chairman of the British Steel Corporation, the minutes of the Committee were published.
  We shall study the Divisions that take place during the Committee's proceedings. There may well be Divisions. The Committee will be unlike previous Privileges Committees in some respects because its membership will include those who are not Privy Councillors. It might be more controversial in the way in which it works. The internal dynamics of the Committee might not be as consensual as on previous occasions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) always tells us that the Committee has a tendency to drive itself into the sand.
  There are aspects of the Committee's work that cause us problems. I want to know, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, whether Members will withdraw in the event of a conflict arising. That is critical. If the Leader of the House has found a curious way of justifying the membership of
  380
  the Committee, he must know that it is one that cannot be sustained publicly. He has not advanced any such argument at the Dispatch Box. He merely moved the motion. He did not deal with the issue of membership. Will he deal with it when he replies? If he cannot deal with it in a way which justifies the Committee's membership, does that mean that Members will have to withdraw? The only way to ensure that the Committee has credibility in the future is either to withdraw the motion or for Conservative Members to enter the Opposition Lobby this evening and vote against the motion. As it stands, it is nonsense.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall make some complaints in my relatively short contribution to the debate. First, I believe that there is an organisation which gets sponsored Members to meet, who exclude one Member at least who is fully qualified to join the meeting. These are the meetings of the sponsored Members of the Transport and General Workers union. A significant number of Members—they are all Opposition Members —get cash for votes. They have their election expenses paid so that they can get into the House. I do not know how anyone can say that that is not a personal benefit because getting into the House is one of the greatest honours for any citizen of the United Kingdom.
  The group of TGWU Members excludes a member of that union who entered the House without cash for votes. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that you should refer to the Committee of Privileges the issue that any group which sponsors individuals to be elected to the House should give consideration to accepting people who have no disqualification.
  I oppose the amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I shall explain why. If one in three Opposition Members is sponsored—I think that virtually all members of the Opposition Front Bench are sponsored—we are beginning to see organisations buying people of influence, in so far as being on the Opposition Front Bench is a position of influence. I hope that the Committee of Privileges, with the membership proposed in the amended motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, will take account of the broader issues, which include cash for votes.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman pay the political levy as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union?
  Mr. Bottomley: Of course I do not. If I did, I would be qualified to vote for the Labour party leadership.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will now refer to the motion and deal with the names set out within it.
  Mr. Bottomley: If you had asked me, Madam Speaker, whether I was qualified to vote as a member of the Co-op, I would have said yes. I am inclined to opt out of that as well. In fact, I did not vote.
  I want to know whether an Opposition Member—not only those who have spoken so far—could have stood for Parliament without being a member of a trade union. Which Opposition Member now in the Chamber could have stood for election to this place, under Labour party rules, without being a member of a trade union?
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's argument hardly refers to the motion. He is a good debater, and I hope that he will follow the rules of the House and return to the motion.
  Mr. Bottomley: The relevant rules require that, if someone is eligible to be a member of a trade union, he or she has to be a member to stand as a Labour candidate. If Opposition Members do not know that, they have not read Labour party rules.
  If the House takes the view of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman continues to interrupt, he will demonstrate that he feels that he is on dodgier ground now than when he was speaking. He spent 20 minutes saying, in effect, that if one Member was in a family who imported ormolu clocks from Italy and another was involved in a family wine business, if the one in the clock business gave up his interest in the business he would be qualified for membership of the Committee of Privileges, but the Member involved with the family wine business would be disqualified if he chose to continue to be so involved.
  Let us say that the family who imported ormolu clocks sold the business and received £1 million for it, and had £100,000 coming in for doing nothing—that might be the Labour point of view—while the family with the wine business continued to trade. Would the continuation of the wine business disqualify the Member who was connected with it? I disagree with that.
  The biggest disqualification of the Committee of Privileges is to have on it people who can be told what to do by the Whips. Those who cannot be told what to do by the Whips are the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, as he is elected by his fellows, and the chairman of the 1922 Committee.
  As a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, has decided to substitute his judgment for that of Tory Back-Bench Members who elected my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) to be chairman of the 1922 Committee. Had my hon. Friend continued as chairman of the 1922 Committee, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South would no doubt have objected to him. Had I become chairman of the 1922 Committee—I am not volunteering for the job—he probably would have objected to me as well. It is far better to say that, if the customary practice is to appoint the leaders of Back-Bench Members, it is not for Opposition Members to object.
  The kernel of the speech of the hon. Member for Workington was that people who earn money outside—directors, advisers and consultants—should be disqualified. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is not what he said."] The essence of his point was that hon. Members should withdraw from the Committee of Privileges in certain circumstances. If I have misdescribed what he said, he should let me know now; if he remains in his place I shall presume that I am correct.
  Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bottomley: I shall give way, but I am not sure whether it is worth doing so.
  Mr. Flynn: The hon. Gentleman may be surprised to find that it is educational to give way. The point that the Opposition are making is that money that comes into hon. Members' pockets for their parliamentary work and actions that they take within the House should be stopped.
  382
  The hon. Gentleman is making a fair point—that no Opposition Member should receive money directly from a trade union. The Register of Members' Interests, however, shows that 14 per cent. of Labour Members receive money directly from outside—from trade unions or consultancies —and 85 per cent. of eligible Conservative Members receive money from outside. The Committee should consist of Members who receive no money directly from outside for their parliamentary work.
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been paying much attention during the past Parliament. The Labour party's health spokesman is sponsored by a health union and its transport spokesman is sponsored by a transport union. I hope that the Committee of Privileges will decide that this is the last Parliament in which that will occur. Why cannot Opposition Front-Bench Members give up their cash for votes and their union sponsorship while they are on the Front Bench? That is a challenge to them. Can they not get elected without the money?
  They say that it is of no personal benefit. Why will they not say, "I will not take the money while I am a Front-Bench spokesperson"? If they intend to stand for the shadow Cabinet, they should give up the sponsorship. They may then be admitted to the Committee of Privileges in accordance with the prejudices of the hon. Member for Workington.
  The critical issue is the fact that the Committee must produce a report on the newspaper aspect. I hope that the House will reject the amendment and accept the motion. I also hope that the Committee will produce a separate report on the newspaper aspect rather than an omnibus report dealing with membership, with the general circumstances to which you, Madam Speaker, referred, and with the newspaper aspect. I would like the chance to give evidence to say that Members who are appointed should take this final test: they should do only those things that they are willing to tell their local newspaper. If they are willing to say it, they can do it: they will then be in the clear.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Alex Salmond: I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), but I start on a point of disagreement. He said that no hon. Member had a vested interest in seeing the House brought into disrepute. I declare that I have an interest in seeing the House brought into disrepute. I spend a great deal of my political time trying to ensure that the House of Commons is brought into disrepute with the Scottish people. My modest efforts in that direction are often overtaken by Conservative Members who inadvertently do more damage to the House than I have yet been able to do.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if he will contain himself for a few moments.
  I shall make three simple points about this motion, but I shall be happy if the House, in its wisdom, ignores my advice entirely because the Scottish people will then continue to hold it in ill repute.
  First, the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who has left our proceedings for the time being, said that he wanted the Committee to draw up a code

  383
  of practice to include a full cross-section of the House, reflecting all its interests, activities and foibles. That is fundamentally incorrect.
  If people with consultancies, whose parliamentary activities may be influenced by remuneration from elsewhere, want to justify their case to the Committee, they should do so to people without consultancies. With respect to what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, the same should apply to trade union sponsorship of constituency parties. If that issue is considered by the Committee, it should be justified to a Committee whose members are not in the same position.
  My second point refers to the two or more hon. Members whose cases the Committee may consider. How could a Committee report be credible if the Committee is stuffed. full of hon. Members with consultancies, or Members whom the press could accuse of having a vested interest? If any hon. Member believes that a Committee report of that composition would be credible, whether or not they read Sun editorials, he or she must be blind, deaf and pretty dumb. To believe that would seriously underrate the anxiety and contempt illustrated by the public's reaction to the events of the past few days.
  It is a simple point of logic that, if hon. Members want the Committee report to be credible, it should not be vulnerable to the attacks that we have already seen in the papers.
  Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Salmond: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  My third point is simple, and refers specifically to the right hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and the subject of the amendment. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman described as the shop steward of Tory Back-Bench Members. I do not know whether it was his own description or one foisted on him. If the right hon. Gentleman is a shop steward, one would expect him, as in an industrial tribunal, to appear before the Committee for the defence rather than to be on the Committee.
  I hope that the House continues to ignore those three simple points, and thus continues to be held in large-scale disrepute by the Scottish people. None the less, I suggest that the House pays attention to the amendment.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Two assumptions underlie the amendment: first, that the only vested interest that matters is financial; and, secondly, that it is impossible for hon. Members, no matter how experienced, honest or sincere, to suspend their personal judgment while considering a matter of national importance or significance to the House.
  It is perfectly clear that some hon. Members have a passionate commitment to certain causes. In the view of most of us, those causes frequently blind their judgment when they consider important matters, whether they are deeply committed to a faith, have had an experience that has coloured their judgment, or are under pressure from relations or friends.
  Let us take a hypothetical example. If a Member of the House who is either still a member of a firm of solicitors, or has been for many years a solicitor, speaks about legal
  384
  aid, how do we know whether he is speaking about legal aid objectively, or whether his judgment is coloured by his experience? It is, of course, impossible to know.
  The reason why I believe that the House should be wary about trying to go down a path that, in effect, attempts to make people either saints or a type of eunuch, is that I believe that people want from the House the wide range of aspirations, beliefs, prejudices and occupations that they can find outside. It is a criticism of the House that, on the whole, the range of occupations in it is too narrow, and it is a great mistake for the House to go too far down the road of trying to define precisely what is and is not an interest that should be taken into account.
  Secondly, I believe that it is common to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, when considering a matter, they suspend their personal view. How many Members of the House, for example, have been visited in their surgeries by people who, in their view, are despicable—unattractive, unpleasant people, with a cause to pursue of which they disapprove? However, because, at some point in the game, those people have been subjected to injustice by the system, it is our duty and our privilege, and indeed our job, to try to ensure that, at least in that narrow respect, their injustice is rectified.
  The capacity to suspend one's personal view is therefore an integral part of being a Member of Parliament. I accept that some hon. Members have enormous difficulty in doing so, but, on the whole, the longer one spends in this place, the better one becomes at separating one's personal interests and the objective principle.
  I believe that hon. and right hon. Members of the seniority of those who have been proposed for the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), have arrived at a point where their objectivity can be relied on. If the sceptics on the Opposition Benches care to reflect, they will see that no circumstance is more likely to reinforce their capacity to be objective than the fact that they are under such intense scrutiny, and that their interests have been so widely declared and canvassed.
  For those reasons, I would reject the amendment.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I have to declare a non-interest, in being a member of a trade union that is not affiliated to the Labour party, and I am not sponsored by any union.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is right, up to a point. One of the qualities that Members of Parliament should have is that of being able to distinguish matters in which they might have a self-interest from those that affect the interests of their constituents. Madam Speaker, you have asked us to view this matter in relation to the names on a list before us. I hope that what I say is in order, because I shall ask the questions that my constituents will ask about that list—the questions that they have a right to ask—and about the criteria that should be applied to Members who are on it, or perhaps not on it. I hope that that brings all that I have to say into order.
  The public outside, and indeed even the scribes, may have misunderstood that the matter before us is one of privilege. It is a question whether anything is being done that interferes with the proper privileges of the House to do its work, and a question of protecting the public and our citizens. That is, as I understand it, what privilege is about.

  385
  It so happens that we have not had a matter of privilege in the current Parliament, and the customary procedures for appointing a Committee on Privileges have been followed through, even though the specific matter that has now been referred to it is unusual. My first argument, therefore, is that we have, in a sense, a difficulty in our procedures, because, when we look at the list, we are not specifically referring to the problem before us, which has arisen from the behaviour of two Members, but appointing a Committee to defend the privileges of the House, which intrinsically are the privileges of the public.
  My second argument is that the problem is not new. In the late 1960s, a Member of the House was referred to the Privileges Committee, or another Committee that was set up, because he was involved in a foreign Government. That Committee, under the chairmanship of the then right hon. George Strauss, reported on remuneration for services arising directly out of membership of the House.
  Two broad solutions were canvassed; that there should be a register—which there was not then—and that there should be a code of conduct. The Strauss Committee came down on the side of a code of conduct, because it was felt at that time that the introduction of a register might not only be a safeguard, but be used as a means of license. Some people may feel that that may be occurring.
  I shall read part of the conclusions of the Strauss Committee, HC.57 69/70. The Committee advocated a code of conduct, and the second paragraph was as follows:
  "That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of the House that a Member should bring forward by speech or question, or advocate in this House or among his fellow Members any bill, motion, matter or cause for a fee, payment, retainer or reward, direct or indirect, which he has received, is receiving or expects to receive (paragraph 110)."
  That was not adopted.
  It so happened that, after other problems in the early 1970s, the solution of a register was adopted. I confess that, as an advocate of that, I may have been a little too trusting in what the hon. Member for Mid-Kent properly pointed out, because I regarded a register as protection for Members, such as solicitors, who perhaps ought to be in a difficult position, and as a warning fence, so that, if that fence was transgressed, it would be visible.
  Perhaps it might have been wiser to have a code of conduct. I believe that my constituents, looking at the list, would apply the Strauss Committee's criterion, and if they did so, the list would be considered unsatisfactory in many respects.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: In my judgment, the names on the Order Paper should be trusted to uphold the traditions of the conventions of the House. There is great anxiety outside the House about the events of the past couple of weeks.
  Before I go any further, I should declare that, as well as having been a journalist in the past, I have no outside consultancies or sponsorships, and I am no longer a member of the National Union of Journalists, but I am a director of my own small publishing business, which helps to publish my own books.
  There is anxiety outside the House about the conduct of hon. Members, and I think that it is up to the Committee to decide exactly what took place, and whether the conduct of those Members is as reported by the press.
  In your wisdom, Madam Speaker, you decided, when you announced your decision, to ensure that the Committee
  386
  would not be a hanging committee to sit in judgment on those individuals, but that you would take the issue as a much wider one, and examine the conduct of the newspaper involved. Only some of the transcripts have been published so far. There is considerable disquiet outside the House—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is just getting into his stride, but I think that he has had long enough to do that. He must speak to the motion, which is very narrow. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the Order Paper with him. The motion relates to the names of the members of the Committee. All we are debating tonight is whether those names are acceptable to the House or whether we should accept the amendment. That is the narrow motion.
  Mr. Allason: I fully accept your guidance, Madam Speaker, as always.
  I shall say a word in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), whose name has been somewhat traduced during the past few minutes of debate. As a Back Bencher, I can say that he is a doughty defender of Back Benchers' rights, and is widely respected on both sides of the House. Furthermore, he is no lackey of the Whips, and would be no part of a stitch-up by the Government Whips to whitewash this event.
  There is grave disquiet about what has taken place, and it extends to members of the press, who are also extremely worried by the events of the past few weeks. I was trained as a journalist by, among others, Desmond Wilcox, and I worked with journalists like Barrie Penrose and Simon Freeman. We worked on exposing Whitehall cover-ups.
  If I have a criticism of the names on the Order Paper, it is that there is no journalist on the list. If there were, it would provide an opportunity to examine the conduct of the journalists who participated in the exercise. Maurice Chittenden, a former member of the staff of the News of the World, is the "Insight" editor of The Sunday Times. His role in the affair will have to be examined.
  Everyone in the House would agree that if, as claimed, six months ago an individual complained that he had been asked for a sum of money in return for a question, that would be a serious matter. Whether it is right that that occurred remains to be seen. If the list on the Order Paper included a journalist, it would be possible to examine the standards of journalism that The Sunday Times has exercised.
  Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that the members of the Committee would be well advised to consider the specific events first, and leave the general policy until later, because general policy made in the heat of specific events often turns out—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The House is not giving guidance to the Committee, but discussing the make-up of the Committee.
  Mr. Allason: The make-up of the Committee would be strengthened if it included a journalist, particularly somebody with access to Fleet street. I believe that, far from there having been research into a complaint that occurred six months ago, an investigation was conducted by The Sunday Times in a short time because Roger Cook's programme on Ian Greer Associates could not be shown. If

  387
  the list on the Order Paper were properly to reflect the desire of the House to get to the bottom of all the events, there should be an opportunity to cast wider than the list.
  The House has an important responsibility this evening. It has to protect its rights and privileges. It also has to ensure that its integrity is retained, and that there is confidence outside the House, not just in hon. Members on both sides, but also in the membership of the Committee. I believe that the Committee, as described on the Order Paper, will command that confidence.
  I also believe that, if the report is published and if it is to gain widespread respect, it will certainly have to examine the conduct of The Sunday Times and its journalists with the same determination as it examines the conduct of the two hon. Members whose reputations have been so traduced.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I had better declare my interest from the start. I am sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. In fact, the Bolsover constituency was sponsored long before I came to this place. It should be put on record that in many cases, but not all, sponsored Members of Parliament inherit sponsored seats.
  I do not agree with the National Union of Mineworkers on occasion, and I vote against it in the House. Not long ago, Arthur Scargill said that the union was in favour of proportional representation. I said that I was not on board and I fought in the union to change the policy—and succeeded. When Jo Gormley got the National Union of Mineworkers to accept a pay policy under the Labour Government in 1974 and 1979, I told him to get stuffed and said I would not support a pay policy. He said that I would be de-sponsored if I carried on. I told him to get on with it. We must set the record straight about where some of us stand on this issue.
  Way back in the 1970s, when the Maudling case and the Poulson scandal took place, we set up a Committee the same as the one proposed today, and had a debate about setting it up. It was set up with Members who belonged to the gentlemen's club—there were moonlighters and consultants. Some of them were from the Labour party, but the gentlemen's club decided that those involved should not be touched, even though councillors went to goal for lesser offences in the Poulson scandal.
  We can hardly get anybody from the House of Commons to judge what the two hon. Members or others have been doing when relationships have been set up—relationships where some people belong to one party and some to another. Those with consultancies could hardly decide that those two hon. Members should be condemned, for the good reason that they are probably tabling questions by the barrel-load all the time, and nobody knows how much they are being paid for that.
  It would be difficult for a Committee of the House of Commons to judge those two hon. Members. If a public inquiry can be set up to examine the conduct of Ministers in relation to the Scott inquiry, we should do the same on this occasion. It is not possible to have people in this cosy little place judging members of the same club.
  Although I shall vote for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) with alacrity, and vote against the setting up of the
  388
  Committee, I do not think that that is satisfactory. We complain all the time about the police examining complaints about the police. We complain about all the organisations that examine their own affairs—we say that of Lloyd's and the City of London. Surely it would be wrong to agree to set up a Committee of Members of Parliament—irrespective of where they stand, although many of them are right hon. Members—to look into the conduct of other Members of Parliament.
  I am not arguing merely because of the money aspect —people form relationships one with another that might have nothing to do with money. During the Maudling case, people said that some Labour Members might vote to kick Maudling out of Parliament—not many of us did: I think it was about 20—but might vote to keep Albert Roberts, as he was sponsored by the NUM. Of course I did not, but that is what happens in this place.
  That is why it is important to tell the public that it is not satisfactory to have Marcus Fox or anyone with consultancies on the Committee so that it is overwhelmed by directorships. However we frame it, if we here are to judge two other Members of Parliament, the result is bound to be tainted.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is right to campaign to improve the Register and reduce payments, but I am clear that we cannot satisfactorily deal with the issue by setting up a Committee of Members of Parliament to judge other Members of Parliament. That Committee will not come up with the correct answer to satisfy the public.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has demonstrated clearly and convincingly that he will do in this House what he believes to be right. I wonder why he is not willing to give the same credit to other hon. Members.
  I oppose the amendment because, if I correctly understood the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and those speaking in support of it, they were basically saying that a Member could not sit on the Committee if he had an outside interest that arose directly from his membership of this House.
  I find it astonishing that those hon. Members could even make such comments, when everyone knows that numerous hon. Members write articles in favour of specific matters or in support of special interest groups. Hon. Members regularly write columns in national newspapers, and they are well paid for doing so. To try to convince me and others that that work is not a direct result of their membership of this House is incredible nonsense. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) regularly writes vitriolic columns—I am sure that he is well paid for it—trying to denigrate this Parliament. He acknowledged that work, but he failed to acknowledge the fact that he is probably well paid for it.
  I have never understood why, if someone is a company director for 20 or 30 years before he comes to this place, somehow, the minute that he enters the House, it is wrong for him to continue being a director. That is nonsense. It is no more wrong to continue being a director than it is to continue being a lawyer, a teacher, an economist or someone writing lengthy articles.
  The plain truth is that we bring to the House all our different experiences, all of which are valuable. The

  389
  members of the Committee should reflect that experience so that they can make their judgment on hon. Members knowing all the aspects of being a Member of the House.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: When the issue first came to the attention of the House, we had to decide three things—should there be an inquiry, how wide should it be and who should conduct it? It is the Labour party's long-established view that there should be a wide inquiry, and that it should be conducted by the House rather than being an internal inquiry by the Conservative party. Following the passing of last Wednesday's motion, that is also the view of the House. The issue we have to decide now is who should conduct that inquiry.
  I was very keen—my motion on Wednesday reflected this—that the House should look not just at the serious issues dealt with in the article in The Sunday Times. but at the wider issues that arise from the article and from your statement a week last Tuesday, Madam Speaker. The Committee will examine issues such as the complaint raised more recently about the way in which our banqueting facilities are booked by those who have interests in public affairs companies— [Interruption.] The matter is relevant, as I shall show later.
  We are considering, as the public would expect us to do, not just how to make progress, but who should serve on the Committee. The public expect us to get on with that, and to do so with integrity. If someone has a long-standing involvement with a public affairs company—perhaps even one that regularly books the banqueting facilities—it would be difficult for him to consider with an open mind the rights and wrongs of providing the facilities of this place for what are essentially Conservative and business interests. I do not believe that the public expect hon. Members with extensive business interests to be judge in their own cause.
  That point was very well made in the debate last Wednesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) intervened on me while I was speaking to my motion in as neutral a way as I could. I responded by saying that I thought that the point he had made had been taken on board by both sides of the House. That was my understanding at the time. I must tell my hon. Friend that, as the person who moved that motion, I have taken no part and have had no involvement in even the selection of names from the Labour party, let alone the selection of names from the Conservative party.
  The issue that arises not just for the Labour party but for the Conservative party is to consider carefully who is to be appointed to the Committee. I have every confidence in the nominations from the Labour party. We have taken great care to nominate Members whom we believe the public will judge to be well qualified to serve, and who will be acceptable to the whole House. I have to say—this will not be popular with some of my hon. Friends—that it is riot for us to choose the Conservative party nominees. We cannot pick each other's sides. Certainly we would not allow the Conservative party to say who the Labour nominees should be.
  However, my saying that does not relieve the Conservative party of the obligation to behave in the way the public expect, which is exactly the way that the Labour party has behaved. It is important for the reputation of the
  390
  House that the whole Committee is free of the charge of conflict of interests. The ultimate judge will be the public verdict on the Committee's report. Anything less than the most vigorous inquiry and review, untainted by any special pleading, will be very injurious to the reputation of the House.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Newton: You, Madam Speaker, may appreciate that I find myself in a position which, if not unique, is certainly unprecedented for almost a quarter of a century. I am responding to a debate on the establishment of a Committee of Privileges, and I am advised that it is the first time since 1970 that a motion on the membership of such a Committee has not been put and accepted forthwith.
  That did not happen last night. I make no complaint about that; I am simply making the point that it is unusual for the House not to accept a motion along the lines of that tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and instead to want to debate the merits of the names contained in the motion.
  Another reason that I make that point is that there is an added difficulty for me. For reasons of convention, which the House understands, the motion is not in my name—although it is appropriate that I should speak to it—but in fact contains my name. I shall be a member of the Committee if the House accepts the motion, and even if it were instead to accept the amendment, because no one has been unkind enough to try to remove me from the Committee.
  I echo a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) about the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours): "Although I sometimes find him tiresome, I have a very considerable respect for him." The hon. Gentleman put to me a considerable number of questions to which I suspect he knows I cannot properly respond tonight, for the reasons that I have given. Not only am I proposed as a member of the Committee, but if the normal conventions of such Committees are followed, I shall be its Chairman.
  Virtually every comment that has been put tonight and the specific questions raised seem to ask me to prejudge either the view that the Committee should take of its remit, the way in which it should work, or even, to a degree, the conclusions that it should reach. I simply do not think that it would be proper for me to attempt to respond to that against the background that I have described.
  I simply wish to repeat what I said at the outset—that in my judgment the nominations reflect the established and accepted precedents, including the membership of both the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the chairman of the 1922 Committee. I believe that the proposed Committee—very much including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox)—is one in which the House can have confidence in the discharge of the responsibility that it has laid on it. I therefore hope that the House will reject the amendment, and accept the motion as tabled.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed motion, To leave out "Sir Marcus Fox".—[Mr. Mullin.]
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 158.

  Division No. 302]

  [8.40 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Barnes, Harry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  MacShane, Denis

  Byers, Stephen

  Mahon, Alice

  Callaghan, Jim

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Morley, Elliot

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Mullin, Chris

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  O'Hara, Edward

  Clapham, Michael

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Salmond, Alex

  Cox, Tom

  Simpson, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dafis, Cynog

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Eastham, Ken

  Winnick, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Wise, Audrey

  Faulds, Andrew

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Hain, Peter

  Hanson, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hardy, Peter

  Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Eddie Loyden.

  Home Robertson, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  NOES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Forman, Nigel

  Alton, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Amess, David

  Forth, Eric

  Arbuthnot, James

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  French, Douglas

  Ashby, David

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Gallie, Phil

  Atkins, Robert

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Baldry, Tony

  Gorst, Sir John

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bates, Michael

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hague, William

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Booth, Hartley

  Harris, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bowis, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hendry, Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Bright, Graham

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

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Jack, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Carrington, Matthew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cash, William

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Clappison, James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Conway, Derek

  Legg, Barry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Lidington, David

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lightbown, David

  Cormack, Patrick

  Lord, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Luff, Peter

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dicks, Terry

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Dover, Den

  Malone, Gerald

  Duncan, Alan

  Mans, Keith

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Dunn, Bob

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Mates, Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Elletson, Harold

  Merchant, Piers

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  392

  Moss, Malcolm

  Stern, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Streeter, Gary

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rendel, David

  Thomason, Roy

  Richards, Rod

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Walden, George

  Sackville, Tom

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Ward, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Willetts, David

  Sproat, Iain

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Andrew MacKay.

  Stephen, Michael

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:
  The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 23.

  Division No. 303]

  [8.52 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Duncan, Alan

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Alton, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Amess, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Forman, Nigel

  Atkins, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Baldry, Tony

  French, Douglas

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bates, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Batiste, Spencer

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Booth, Hartley

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowis, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Hague, William

  Brazier, Julian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Bright, Graham

  Harris, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Hendry, Charles

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butterfill, John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cash, William

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jack, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Dicks, Terry

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Dover, Den

  Legg, Barry

  393

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Sproat, Iain

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Streeter, Gary

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thomason, Roy

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Paice, James

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Ward, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Portillo.'Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rendel, David

  Watts, John

  Richards, Rod

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sackville, Tom

  Willetts, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Timothy Wood, and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  NOES

  Barnes, Harry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Mahon, Alice

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Mullin, Chris

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Salmond, Alex

  Cox, Tom

  Simpson, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Skinner, Dennis

  Etherington, Bill

  Wise, Audrey

  Faulds, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hanson, David

  Mr. Paul Flynn and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

  Home Robertson, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Mr. Attorney General, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Tony Benn, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Peter Hordern, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Dame Jill Knight, Mr. Bill Michie, Sir David Mitchell, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Tony Newton, Sir Cranley Onslow, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Peter Shore, Sir James Spicer and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee of Privileges.

  Hinchingbrooke Hospital (Maternity Services)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  9.2 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Perhaps I should begin by explaining that women in Cambridge have choices about where they can have their babies under the national health service. They can choose to go to Addenbrooke's, which is high-tech and is appropriate for natural births and high-risk babies. There is also Hinchingbrooke hospital, which, although it lies in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon, nevertheless is within travelling distance of Cambridge.
  The advantage of Hinchingbrooke for many women is that it is small, more personal and is organised on completely different lines from the large teaching hospital at Addenbrooke's. It has a rather unusual organisation. It has no registrars, only consultants, nursing staff and senior house officers. A significant number of women will choose Hinchingbrooke because it is small and because of its personal nature, but perhaps more importantly, because of its very low perinatal mortality rates. I am sure that the Minister will want to stress that point when he responds.
  If a hospital normally deals with low-risk cases, it would be expected to have a low perinatal mortality rate. I suspect that the lowest perinatal mortality rate of all is among those women whose babies are born at home. I hope that that will not be a statistical argument to be used to justify the inaction on the case that I want to talk about this evening.
  Choices have always been available to women in Cambridge, and I hope that that will continue. When I telephoned the chief executive of Cambridge district health authority this morning, he told me that there had been rumours that Hinchingbrooke was under some threat of closure. It is important to the women in my constituency who want a choice—and also to the women in the Prime Minister's constituency who want a local hospital—that it remains open.
  I certainly do not intend to fuel the closure rumours; nor do I want the hospital to be closed. I must add, however, that at least two serious complaints have been made about it by women in my constituency. It is vital for confidence in the system to be restored, and for women who have their babies at Hinchingbrooke to be convinced that past mistakes will not recur.
  This is not just a case of everyone being more vigilant, or of blaming one or two individuals. It is a case of engaging in an open, honest and frank discussion about the things that have gone wrong, and ensuring that management procedures are in place to minimise the risks in future.
  The case that I am going to describe involves both clinical and management failure. I know that managers al Hinchingbrooke will say that they have spent many hours investigating the complaints. That is true; but what has emerged after many hours, days or even weeks of investigation is a complete whitewash. There is no formal indication of where the mistakes were made, no indication of the procedures that were not followed or were not in existence and no indication that the management want to

  395
  do anything except hush it all up and hope that there will be no unfavourable publicity. The point of this debate is to bring the issues out into the open.
  I am sure that the health service commissioner, who produced a report recently, will agree with some of the points that I am going to make. His most recent report states:
  "It is not just inefficient, it is pitiful and shabby when NHS authorities make out that they welcome complaints but then deal woefully with them."
  The complaint that I shall be examining has been dealt with woefully, and inadequately.
  My frustration, and that of my constituents, is compounded by the fact that the responsible authorities are no longer democratically accountable to the electorate whom they serve. There is no one, apart from the Secretary of State, to whom I can turn and say, "You are the elected representative who is responsible for this mess." There is no one to whom I can say, "You are the person who is accountable at the end of the day."
  Trusts and district health authorities no longer have elected representatives who are accountable to local people. The trusts have appointees who are well paid for their services, who hold their meetings in secret and who do not have to listen or respond to my complaints or those of my constituents. They treat the trust as a business, maximising its profits, trying to ensure good public relations and making certain that the district health authorities will continue to purchase their services by providing them as cheaply as possible. There is no incentive for the trust to admit its mistakes or fully investigate the complaints, as the following account will reveal.
  I referred earlier to two serious cases. They are the cases of Mrs. Cheree Graves-Bacchus and Ruth McCall. I know that Mrs. Graves-Bacchus is deeply unhappy with the clinical treatment and the management of her complaint; however, the case that I shall use as an illustration, and describe in some depth, is that of Ruth McCall. I intend to describe in graphic detail the events as they occurred.
  The story began on 28 February 1992 when Ruth was admitted to Hinchingbrooke, 19 weeks pregnant and experiencing labour contractions. Sadly, the baby was stillborn four days later, at 20 weeks' gestation. A post-mortem revealed that the cause of the premature, pre-viable delivery was infection with the bacterium group B streptococcus. That bacterium causes virulent uterine infection, but it is treatable and, if caught at an early stage, it can be treated with antibiotics.
  At a follow-up appointment with the consultant at Hinchingbrooke, Mr. John Hare—Ruth's own consultant —assured her that any future pregnancy would be monitored closely for the same infection and that she should also regularly take preventive antibiotic treatment.
  Ruth became pregnant again and two months later a swab taken by her general practitioner showed another bacterial infection. She was prescribed antibiotics and the pregnancy continued. She was considered a high-risk case and was seen by Mr. Hare every two weeks and was regularly prescribed swabs and antibiotics.
  As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following her previous experience Ruth feels a certain amount of anxiety and she is given counselling for this by the midwife counsellor at Hinchingbrooke, Pat Ingham. She has been
  396
  told that following her previous experience changes have been made at the obstetrics unit and that, first, patients would be allocated to the continuing care of the on-duty consultant until their own consultant became available. Secondly—this is significant—she was told that all premature labour patients would be given immediate antibiotic drug therapy.
  That did a great deal to reassure Ruth. However, on Saturday 28 November 1992 Ruth's membranes ruptured at 29 weeks' pregnant. She arrived at Hinchingbrooke at midday and saw the midwife, who recorded the baby's heartbeat. It appeared that all was well. The heartbeat was strong and regular and there was no sign of abnormality.
  Mr. Hare was on holiday. The on-duty consultant was Mr. Al Kurdi, who has rather different professional views from Mr. Hare. In view of what she had been promised by Mr. Hare, Ruth was stunned and upset when Mr. Al Kurdi told her that in his view a genital wart virus was the cause of the premature rupture of the membranes. I believe that, although that was Mr. Al Kurdi's professional judgment, there was no evidence that Ruth had a genital wart virus and no scientific evidence that the virus causes premature rupture of the membranes. Mr. Hare later agreed that there is no research to suggest that, and that Mr. Al Kurdi's insistence obscured his judgment. He ignored the existing hospital guidelines and Mr. Hare's own care plan, which stated clearly that Ruth would be given antibiotics if she was admitted early.
  Mr. Al Kurdi refused to consider either delivery or antibiotic treatment. Dr. Miles, Hinchingbrooke's consultant paediatrician, later agreed that, if antibiotics had been prescribed, the baby would have had a better chance of survival. No swab was taken to check for infection despite the fact that a one-hour swab test is available to detect this particular group B streptococcus bacterium and that that was later said to be the normal practice. Mr. Al Kurdi said that he did not feel that it was necessary.
  Ruth was given a steroid injection at about 2 o'clock. Mr. Hare later commented that that was reckless without antibiotics. Ruth was then admitted to the Hazel ward. That is the ante-natal ward, not the labour ward, which suggested to staff, according to Mr. Hare, that Ruth was not high risk. Ruth also asked midwives for antibiotics, but was told that Mr. Al Kurdi had forbidden them for 24 hours. By this time, Ruth was becoming anxious, but, like so many women in that situation, she felt that perhaps the hospital knew best and that she was not best placed to judge. However, many of us who have been through pregnancy and childbirth will understand the turmoil that she must have felt in those crucial few hours.
  During the night, Ruth had a loose bowel movement and reported that the baby was moving less actively. However, those signs of labour and foetal distress were ignored by the staff. By 6 am Ruth was getting desperate and asked for the baby's heart to be monitored, which was done at 7 am. It revealed that the heartbeat was slower than usual, but that, too, was ignored.
  By that stage, Ruth felt panicky, cold and ill. She checked her sanitary pad and found a green slime, a highly indicative sign of infection. She begged to see Mr. Al Kurdi immediately. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your imagination—how would anyone feel in such circumstances?
  At 9 am, Ruth asked for a full cardio-tocograph and, to her distress, the midwife found no heartbeat. Ruth was now desperately cold and hysterical and persistently asking for

  397
  Mr. Al Kurdi. She was given four different answers as to where he might be. The senior house officer on duty arrived before Mr. Al Kurdi, but said that he could not do anything as he had not been trained to deal with the ultrasound machine. Mr. Hare later said that it was inappropriate to leave a senior house officer in charge.
  At approximately 10.30 am, Mr. Al Kurdi finally arrived, some 21 hours after he had first seen Ruth, leaving her without any medical care. He looked at the baby on the portable ultrasound scanning machine—there was no heartbeat and the baby was motionless. Mr. Al Kurdi claimed that the screen was too small to see what was going on and that he would do another scan the following day. Ruth and her partner were outraged and the midwife burst into tears, at which point Mr. Al Kurdi admitted that it was highly likely that the baby was dead.
  Mr. Al Kurdi then made a number of extraordinary suggestions. The first was that Ruth must have bled at some time in early pregnancy but concealed the fact. When a baby dies in such circumstances, it is almost inevitable that the mother will feel guilty and feel that she is to blame, so the effect of that suggestion on Ruth was extremely distressing. The suggestion was also untrue.
  Mr. Al Kurdi then suggested that the cord had prolapsed. He denied that infection could have caused early death and claimed that at 29 weeks the baby would probably not have survived anyway. These points were later said to be false by Mr. Hare. He also said that in Ruth's case his established treatment plan should have been carried out by another consultant.
  I have outlined the clinical incompetence in this case and the tragedy to which it led; I shall now describe the mistakes made at the hospital after the stillbirth of Ruth's second baby. Ruth was in a very distressed state, but she made an initial complaint and subsequently sent a letter, neither of which was acknowledged immediately. After the post mortem, Mr. Hare wrote to Ruth giving her a late and inaccurate notification of a placental chromosomal anomaly, for which he later apologised. I do not usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, but, if I were trying to dissuade a mother in those circumstances from continuing with her complaint, that would be a highly effective way of doing so—trying to put the blame on the woman and on some congenital abnormality.
  On 26 January Ruth wrote to Mrs. Wells Johnson, the nursing director at Hinchingbrooke, asking for a full investigation, and action to prevent similar events from occurring. Mrs. Wells Johnson responded by suggesting that the baby's death was due to a prolapsed cord. That was not true, and again, she later apologised for saying it.
  Two weeks after her daughter's death Ruth telephoned Mrs. Pat Ingham, the midwife who had been counselling her for anxiety during the pregnancy. Pat Ingham said that she could not speak to Ruth, but she telephoned Mr. Hare, who in turn telephoned Ruth's general practitioner. The GP visited Ruth and told her not to contact Pat Ingham again because whistleblowing in the NHS was risky, and she could lose her job for speaking to Ruth.
  The stress on whistleblowing is significant, because that is one of the reasons why no full and accurate investigation of what happened is taking place. There is much nervousness about the case, and I believe that the people who know the truth are afraid to speak out.
  Ruth's solicitor then wrote to Mr. Morris, the Huntingdon coroner, asking for an inquest. It was to be the first inquest held in Huntingdon to investigate a stillbirth.
  398
  Mr. Al Kurdi stated under oath that the baby may not have been normal. Mr. Hare agreed later that that was clinically irrelevant. Mr. Al Kurdi also said that prescribing antibiotics would have raised false hopes about the baby's survival. He also stated that he could not consider delivery, because of the low survival rate in the Hinchingbrooke special care baby unit. That was also later denied by the hospital. Mr. Al Kurdi claimed that a swab had not been taken because of a misunderstanding. The hospital pathologist who conducted the post mortem confirmed that the baby was normal, and that death had been caused by overwhelming streptococcus B infection.
  During the inquest, what was most distressing to Ruth was the fact that, after Mr. Al Kurdi finished his evidence, the Hinchingbrooke nursing director, Mrs. Wells Johnson, put her arms round his shoulder and said, "Well done." After the inaccurate statements that Ruth believed had been made at the inquest, that was highly distressing. The other important aspect of the case that it is important to mention is Ruth's belief that Mr. Al Kurdi misled the coroner under oath, and had also placed a misleading entry in the case notes, suggesting that he had seen her much earlier than he did.
  Following the inquest, also at Ruth's insistence, a meeting was held attended by Ruth, Mr. Hare, Dr. Miles, the Hinchingbrooke paediatrician, Christabel Mulvey, the Cambridge community health council representative, arid Mrs. Wells Johnson. All Ruth's complaints were noted in the minutes, and afterwards Mrs. Wells Johnson wrote to Ruth confirming that changes to the unit discussed at the meeting would be carried out. However, Ruth had been promised that on a previous occasion, and in view of her previous experiences and of the occurrences at the inquest, she was not satisfied that a full and impartial investigation had been carried out, or that any disciplinary action was contemplated.
  On 1 April, Ruth met Mr. Willis, the chief executive at Hinchingbrooke, and Dr. Henderson, the medical director, and told them her view. Also on 1 April, there was an incident at Hinchingbrooke which led to Mr. Al Kurdi being accused of indecent assault against another patient and he was suspended from all duties. On 5 April, I wrote to the chief executive of Cambridge district health authority outlining the case and asking for an investigation.
  Ruth was advised by the district health authority that disciplinary action would not be taken and she was told that an annexe B disciplinary investigation was considered appropriate. The person she saw at the district health authority dictated a letter for her to write requesting such action. An annexe B disciplinary investigation is reserved for very serious complaints. The Cambridge district health authority obviously believed that this was a very serious complaint and it supported Ruth in her action to get some effective disciplinary investigation.
  However, Dr. Henderson then wrote to Ruth proposing to initiate an annexe E inquiry. This is an internal disciplinary investigation for less serious offences. Ruth was concerned that her case was not considered serious enough for an annexe B inquiry, despite the advice from the Cambridge district health authority, the purchaser in the case.
  As Hinchingbrooke is now a trust hospital, the decision on which line of inquiry to follow was no longer in the hands of the director of public health; it was up to the individual hospital concerned. On 1 June, Ruth had a meeting with Dr. O'Brien, the regional director of public

  399
  health, who stated that, if Mr. Al Kurdi was acquitted of indecent assault charges, he should return to the hospital to face an annexe B inquiry. He wrote to Hinchingbrooke recommending that, and he also wrote to the Department of Health deploring its outdated circulars which predated the health service reforms.
  The outdated circulars referred to complaints procedures and we feel that that was one reason why Hinchingbrooke had not taken effective action in the case. Ruth then received a letter from Mr. Willis stating that it had now been decided that an annexe B disciplinary action should be proceeded with, but that because of the time scale needed to gather medical evidence, it seemed logical that Mr. Al Kurdi's case should cover Ruth's case and that of the complainant in the court case.
  In June 1993, Ruth received a letter from Mr. Willis —a situation report—in which he said:
  "We have therefore recommended that action as laid down in Annexe B should be initiated and our Chairman has decided to proceed. We are therefore at the stage described in paragraphs 6 and 17a of Annexe B. The Chairman will be writing to Mr. Al Kurdi to inform him that he considers on the evidence presented so far that a prima facie case exists which must be answered … It therefore seems logical and is the opinion offered by our legal adviser and agreed by Dr. O'Brien that the disciplinary proceedings in Mr. Al Kurdi's case should cover both your case and that of the complainant in the court case."
  Mr. Willis also said that the unofficial estimate by Howard Weston, the hospital's solicitors, of the cost of an annexe B procedure was that it would be a minimum of £100,000 and was more likely to approach £200,000. That point is also significant. The fact that the cost would fall on a small trust hospital is a point that the hospital would find very significant. Without a separate budget for disciplinary proceedings and complaints, it was almost inevitable that the hospital should weigh the cost carefully in deciding whether to continue along that line of complaint. Mr. Willis went on to say, confirming my worst fears and Ruth's worst fears:
  "It would be irresponsible of us to commit too much expenditure, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case and when, as you know, we have no budget to pay for it."
  In January this year, at a meeting held at the regional health authority with Mr. Willis, Dr. Henderson, Christabel Mulvey and the new regional director of public health, Dr. Pat Troop, it was confirmed to Ruth that an annexe B inquiry would be held if Mr. Al Kurdi was acquitted and that, if he was found guilty, he would be summarily dismissed and the case would be referred to the General Medical Council. It is also agreed that he will remain suspended until the annexe B inquiry can take place. However, the hospital is most concerned about its public relations. Following Mr. Al Kurdi's acquittal, the hospital announced that it is delighted with the verdict and Mr. Al Kurdi can now return to work. That is in direct contradiction to everything that Ruth was previously told.
  Following the dismantling of the annexe B inquiry, Ruth was offered a stage 3 complaint professional review which was undertaken on 27 May. The consultants verbally upheld Ruth's complaint and expressed fears about the safety of the unit. However, their formal report is brief—it has only one and a quarter pages. I have a copy here. The consultants did not even comment on the issue of misleading the coroner or the false entry in the case notes, and none of their serious verbal comments is recorded. I quote from the conclusions of the inquiry:
  400
  "Mr. Al-Kurdi's management of Mrs. McCall on her admission to the labour ward on 28 November followed accepted lines of treatment but was at variance to the care plan she agreed with Mr. Hare.
  We feel that having a care plan agreed between Mr. Hare and Mrs. McCall, it would have been wiser to have followed that agreement rather than departed from it.
  We feel that the situation around the time of the death of Mrs. McCall's baby could have been handled more tactfully by Mr. Al-Kurdi."
  That is a disgrace and is not fit to be called an investigation or an inquiry.
  Christabel Mulvey of the community health council wrote to the regional director of public health to complain about that, and to ask whether the consultants concerned had been reported elsewhere. She has not yet received a reply to her letter. I understand that an annexe E inquiry, which is for less serious complaints, is still being proceeded with, but I must ask whether that is an appropriate response to Ruth's complaint.
  There are many points of general concern about this case. The first point—I hope that the Minister will respond to this; it is perhaps one of the easiest points to respond to —is the Department of Health's circular relating to disciplinary action which has not been updated to take into account the NHS changes. We assume that the role of the director of public health is to be taken by the medical directors of the individual trusts. However, it is obvious that the circular needs to be updated as a matter of urgency.
  To make my next point, I shall quote from an article by Liam J. Donaldson in the British Medical Journal on 14 May 1994. I quote first from the abstract. He said:
  "Existing procedures for hospital doctors within the NHS are inadequate to deal with serious problems. Dealing with such problems requires experience, objectivity and a willingness to tolerate unpleasantness and criticism. Because most consultants' contracts are now held by the NHS trust hospitals, however, those who have developed skill over the years in handling these complex issues are now no longer involved."
  He went on to say:
  "I fear for the position of NHS trust medical directors. They are taking on this work for the first time but they will be dealing with their peers who work in the same institution. They will not he at an appropriate distance to sustain objectivity as were their predecessors, the regional Health Authority Medical Officers and Chair People."
  That is something which has arisen as a result of the NHS reforms. It is a serious point, which I hope the Minister will deal with later. As the regional health authority is no longer involved, there is no supervision or monitoring of the handling of disciplinary actions by individual trusts.
  The annexe B disciplinary procedure for serious matters is thorough and legalistic. The estimated cost by Hinchingbrooke of between £100,000 and £200,000 is probably accurate, but it has no funds to pay for the actions. Therefore decisions invariably have to be partly financial. I am sure that when the costs were borne by the regional health authority at least the risk was spread over many hospitals and budgets could bear that more easily.
  Disciplinary procedures are obviously an employer-employee matter, yet Ruth was informed that annexe B was also to provide some response to her complaint. The citizens charter outlines the expectations that patients should reasonably have. In Ruth's case, however, there was neither a named carer nor a timely response to the complaint. When NHS trust hospitals fail to meet the standards of the citizen's charter there is no one to monitor any trust's adherence to the principles.

  401
  Cambridge health authority advised Ruth that an annexe B action was appropriate and one of its staff even dictated the letter that she wrote to request such action subsequently. In a letter of 3 June, Cambridge health authority described that as "informed advice".
  Despite the early view of the Cambridge health authority and the regional director of public health that the very expensive and formal annexe B was the most appropriate mechanism for dealing with this serious case, it is now Hinchingbrooke's sole decision as to what action to take and, apparently, to change its mind as it sees fit.
  I do not consider it appropriate that it should be the trust itself that should take the decision about how it investigates complaints against it. Stephen Thornton, the chief executive of the district health authority in Cambridge, wrote to me on 3 June and said:
  "it is for the Trust to find the resources to carry out investigations into complaints and to operate disciplinary procedures. Like any other element of their cost, this ultimately finds its way into the prices charged by the purchasers."
  It is obvious that price has been an important element in investigating this complaint.
  Complaints procedures and disciplinary procedures are currently under review. "Being Heard", which was published in May 1994, is a report of a review committee on NHS complaints procedures. Christabel Mulvey, of the community health council, wrote to the regional health authority saying:
  "I hope you share my concern about this report. For such a serious complaint to be dismissed in this manner is disgraceful. I also hope that you will be commenting to the Wilson Committee on the ineffectual nature of the Stage III complaints procedure and that something better must replace it."
  I endorse that view totally. I hope that the Wilson committee will consider that serious complaint as part of its deliberations.
  This is a serious complaint, but the issues have not been properly addressed for several reasons. First, the inexperience of the medical director of the trust, who is now taking the role previously played by the district or regional health authority, has been a factor. Secondly, Hinchingbrooke does not have a spare £100,000 to £200,000 to spend on mounting disciplinary actions and there is no separate budget for complaints. Thirdly, since the trust is now a business and needs to maximise its profit, any bad publicity will lead to fears of withdrawal of funds. Fourthly, clinical incompetence, if it is proved, may lead to litigation and even more expense for the hospital.
  At no point has my constituent, Ruth McCall, sought financial compensation for the distress she has suffered. Her sole reason for pursuing the case is to ensure that other women and babies do not suffer as she did.
  I began my speech by declaring that Hinchingbrooke is an important part of the provision of maternity services for women in my constituency. Confidence, however, needs to be restored. It is not restored by an internal disciplinary procedure that is a cover-up and a whitewash. Apart from the need to restore confidence, I hope that the hospital will consider some structural changes.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) has compiled figures from answers to a number of parliamentary questions about the numbers of managers and health-care staff in each district health authority It emerged from his careful and perceptive analysis that Huntingdon health authority had the highest ratio of managers to health-care staff of any health authority. I
  402
  suggest that more money spent on direct health care and less on managers might have had a beneficial effect in the case that I have outlined.
  Despite a disproportionately large number of managers there has been a singular failure to deal properly with a complaint. I shall quote the words of my constituent when summing up her experiences in a letter to the DHA on 7 July. She wrote:
  "I am not exaggerating when I say that the business of pursuing this complaint has been as distressing as the death of my babies and has left me exhausted, disheartened and truly despairing."
  I have brought the matter to the Floor of the House because of the impossibility of getting the issues properly debated elsewhere. I hope that there will now be a full arid proper annexe B inquiry and that the Minister will give me his full support.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on being successful in the ballot and securing the debate. I am glad to take the opportunity to respond to her concerns about maternity services at Hinchingbrooke hospital, and especially about the case of Mrs. Ruth McCall.
  As the hon. Lady is aware, the Hinchingbrooke hospital is a modern district general hospital. It has about 400 beds and provides the people of Huntingdon and of the surrounding area with a wide range of excellent in-patient and out-patient facilities and day-care services. It opened in 1983 and has quickly established a reputation as one of the best medium-sized general hospitals in the country.
  The hon. Lady remarked on several occasions about the way in which the hospital is run. In particular, she said that it is run for profits. There are no such things as profits in the national health service. Hospitals have to try to balance their budgets against the resources that are made available to them through contracts with health authorities by providing as efficient a service as possible and by signing new or larger contracts with health authorities. There is no question of profit, and it gives something of a misleading impression of the motivations within hospitals to say otherwise.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: Is it not true that a hospital must balance its books, and that unexpected costs of the sort outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) in dealing with a disciplinary case could severely disrupt the process of balancing books and, therefore, distort the situation that she has outlined?
  Mr. Sackville: That would be true of any enterprise in the public sector. There must be budgets for every part of the NHS. If unexpected costs fall on a certain hospital, those who are in charge of its finances must make provision through arrangements with health authorities or by meeting the costs within existing budgets. I am questioning the use of the word "profit" because of the impression it gives about the way in which a hospital is run and the motivation of those who run it. NHS hospitals are run for patients, not for profits. That may mean finding additional resources to treat more patients, but it does not mean that hospitals have a profit motive, which implies some sort of personal gain.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: How many trust hospitals set aside money for contingencies such as complaints and

  403
  disciplinary procedures? For example, how many hospitals would set aside a sum as large as £200,000 to investigate a serious complaint?
  Mr. Sackville: I cannot answer those questions specifically, but hospitals must be aware that unexpected costs can arise, often as a result of a particular patient's expensive treatment. That possibility must be taken into account in setting a hospital's financial arrangements.
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: When the business plans for this hospital and others go to the Department of Health, does the Department scrutinise the budgets to ensure that they are properly planned and can meet all eventualities, including the possibility of disciplinary action? If not, why does not the Department do so, given that it is not prepared to pick up the bill for such action?
  Mr. Sackville: If the Department of Health was to sit in the centre trying to second-guess all the budgetary arrangements that have been made, we would need a large number of civil servants. We have regional outposts where our officials inspect all the trusts' annual budgets. That process is part of our monitoring of hospitals so that we know in good time whether a hospital is running into financial difficulties. If we do not know that in advance, patients will suffer.
  The obstetrics and neo-natal paediatrics departments were two of the first to be opened at the Hinchingbrooke hospital. As it was a new hospital, there was scope for innovation and organisation of its staffing structure. The most significant of those innovations was to provide medical care on a two-tier rather than a three-tier system. For maternity, that means that care is given by trained doctors rather than doctors in training and the role of midwives is enhanced. So long as a woman's labour is normal and requires minor or common intervention, care is generally given by midwives. Enhancing the role of midwives is one of the fundamental aims of the "Changing Childbirth" paper, which I shall mention more fully in a moment.
  Over the past 10 years, the maternity unit at Hinchingbrooke has become justifiably popular with expectant parents. The hospital was originally set up to cater for the needs of people living within the Huntingdon health district, which produces about 1,800 births a year. The current rate at Hinchingbrooke is some 2,700, which shows that many women go there from other districts, partly because of the maternity unit's reputation.
  Hinchingbrooke is justifiably proud of its neo-natal services. I noted the hon. Lady's attempt to dispose in advance of any good results achieved by the maternity unit. May I point out that the overall survival rate is among the best in the country. All consultants in obstetrics and neo-natal paediatrics are highly trained in neo-natal intensive care and provide a first-class and much appreciated local service.
  The hon. Lady initiated the debate obviously as a result of wishing to mention the on-going complaint concerning Mrs. McCall, who was receiving maternity care at the hospital, which resulted in the tragic events of 1992. I take the opportunity to convey my sympathy to Mrs. McCall and her family. I can only guess how she suffered then, and no doubt is suffering from the immense sadness of her loss.
  404
  Hinchingbrooke is, as the hon. Lady said, in the process of conducting an inquiry into that matter. There has been a delay in completing that task, which was partly the result of the police investigation, to which the hon. Lady referred, into a separate and unrelated incident as regards which I understand that the consultant in question has been cleared.
  The allegation is that the delivery of the child in November 1992 was clinically mismanaged in the way that the hon. Lady described. That has been the subject of an independent review. The conclusions of that review, as she said, were that the consultant's management of the care was along accepted lines of treatment, but at variance with the care plan that had been agreed with the consultant originally in charge of the case, who was on holiday at the time. The assessors said that it would have been wiser to have followed that plan, and that the handling of the situation at the time of the tragic incident could have been better.
  I understand that Mrs. McCall has further anxieties and questions arising from that review, and those are currently being investigated in disciplinary proceedings under annexe E. I would, however, point out that the review is following the guidelines set out by the circular, and will be conducted by independent professional assessors. I can assure the hon. Lady that Hinchingbrooke has already introduced revised protocols and guidance to staff dealing—
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Can the Minister confirm that an annexe E procedure is an internal disciplinary procedure, which is normally used for less serious complaints, and that the annexe B procedure is used for more serious complaints? Does he feel that the specific case that I have outlined would be less serious?
  Mr. Sackville: I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that that inquiry is on-going, and I cannot make any comments about the decisions taken by the hospital in that case. I can only tell the hon. Lady that it will be examined by independent assessors, and that I have no doubt that a very fair assessment will be made of the case.
  Hinchingbrooke has already introduced revised protocols and guidance to staff dealing with maternity cases to ensure that agreed care plans are followed, irrespective of the consultant in charge at the birth.
  Mrs. Campbell: I challenge the Minister on his use of the words "independent assessors", because I understand that an annexe E procedure is an internal disciplinary procedure, and would be carried out by the trust hospital itself. It would not be subject to independent assessment in the same way that annexe B would be.
  Mr. Sackville: The review followed the guidelines set out, conducted by independent professional assessors. The hospital will respond to any lessons that are learned from that unfortunate incident.
  Much is made of the large number of complaints in the NHS, and many people suggest that that is something that we would want to hide—the contrary is true. Let me put the general matter of complaints into perspective. Last year 55,000 complaints were received out of a total of 45 million in-patient and out-patient treatments. That represents about 0.1 per cent. of patients expressing some degree of dissatisfaction. That is clearly an impressively high level of general satisfaction with NHS services.

  405
  We are, of course, striving to do better and we have two key goals in mind: to improve the handling of complaints and reports from the health service ombudsman that are sent to all NHS providers in order to give clear lessons, and to ensure that the NHS complaints procedures are as simple and speedy as possible, and fair to patients and staff. To that end, the Government are currently consulting the independent review committee on complaints under Professor Wilson.
  There is clear evidence that there is dissatisfaction with the complaints procedures in the NHS—we would be the first to admit that. Although the present system has the support of parts of the profession, there have been criticisms of the clinical complaints procedure—on the lack of a lay element and the delays in arrangements. 'Those concerns were expressed to the review committee under Professor Wilson. Its recently published report recommends that clinical complaints should be able to be considered by panels with a lay majority, that there should be an overall deadline of three months for all stages of NHS procedures to be completed, that the health service ombudsman should have the substance of clinical complaints—
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I want to take up the point that the complaints procedures should be heard within three months. Is the Minister aware that my constituent has now been waiting 20 months for a response to her complaint?
  Mr. Sackville: That is entirely unsatisfactory. We need to have a system in the NHS that not only deals with complaints promptly, but does so in a way that gives the maximum confidence to all those involved that the complaint is being properly handled.
  As I was saying, the third aspect of the Wilson report is that the health service ombudsman should have the substance of clinical complaints brought within his jurisdiction. Currently he may consider only possible maladministration of the procedure. My ministerial colleagues have said that a decision will be forthcoming later in the year on what changes should be made to the current clinical complaints procedure. The consultation period on the Wilson report will end on 15 August.
  I certainly hear what the hon. Lady says when she quotes Mrs. McCall on the subject of making and trying to take forward the complaint, which has been extremely distressing for her—I understood her to say that the process was as distressing even as the incidents that lay behind it. I am aware that a great many improvements need to be made to the complaints system in the NHS and I am confident that the outcome of the—
  Mrs. Wise: As a member of the Select Committee on Health, I visited the Hinchingbrooke hospital in 1991. I am
  406
  disquietened and disturbed by the account that we have had today. The Hinchingbrooke was an important hospital that was looked on with great favour by the Select Committee. It seems that the position of the staff and the mothers dependent on the Hinchingbrooke has been altered in a detrimental way.
  I have listened carefully to the Minister, but the point which he has not answered and which must be of great concern to all of us who want good care, especially good maternity care, is what the Government will do about the financial aspects of these matters. We think that the financial aspects have, over the course of time, become dominant, but the Minister has not dealt with them. It is not simply a matter of improving the complaints procedure; the funding should not be a matter for individual hospital trusts. What do the Government have in mind on that point?
  Mr. Sackville: We have to ensure that a system is established that does not involve a conflict between the financial needs of the hospital and the need adequately to investigate complaints. Professor Wilson has made a number of suggestions on that—for example, the use of lay assessors. If the hon. Lady is saying that the entire complaints procedure should become some form of national commission and should be centrally funded, that would be a major step, and not something to which I could commit the Government.
  Ms Primarolo: Does the Minister agree that the case as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) shows that patients' wishes and the openness of the national health service are not being honoured? Justice has not been done, and has not been seen to be done. The stumbling block appears to be the conflict between commerciality and the lack of funds.
  Will the Minister take on board the specific problem of lack of funds for a disciplinary procedure in hospitals? Will he ensure that such a case never happens again in any other hospital? Will he further ensure that the case raised is dealt with correctly and that the proper procedures are undertaken?
  Mr. Sackville: I do not accept that a case has been proved that the complaint was handled unsatisfactorily because of a lack of funds. I have already conceded that we must establish a procedure that does not involve a conflict of interests that will inhibit the investigation of complaints.
  I end by reiterating my sympathy for Mrs. McCall and her family. I am sorry that I cannot say more in detail about the case because there is a continuing investigation. I share the concern which has been expressed about the case.

  Cyprus
  10.2 pm
  Mr. John Marshall: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is temporarily out of the Chamber, on his return to the Foreign Office—and, indeed, his return to the Chamber. He was Parliamentary Private Secretary to our right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker, the Minister for Overseas Development, so he will obviously approach his new portfolio with great interest and experience.
  This is a sad day in the history of Cyprus. It is the 20th anniversary of the Turkish invasion in 1974 when, at the dead of night, thousands of Turkish troops parachuted from the skies. That resulted in the partitioning of the island and in hundreds of thousands of Cypriots becoming refugees. Many people lost homes that had been in their families for generations.
  I well remember that on one of my earlier visits to Cyprus I met a Cypriot who worked for the Cypriot Government. He said, "We took slightly longer before we fled because my father thought he should take the title deeds to our home as well." Then he added, "And much good it did him and us," because ever since then they have not been able to return to their home.
  Last autumn I went to Cyprus with my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess). One of the most traumatic occasions that we experienced was when we went with the mayor in exile of Famagusta to see from the border the home in which he had lived and from which he was now barred. It must be frightful for tens of thousands of people to go to that border, to see the homes where they once lived, and which are still their legal property, but to know that they are inhabited by Turkish settlers or soldiers and certainly by people who pay no rent for the homes that were once theirs and in the care of which they have no say. Many tens of thousands of people who fled from Famagusta and Kyrenia are in that dreadful position. There can be few greater denials of human rights than for an individual to be prevented from living in the home that his father, grandfather and great grandfather have also been pleased to call home.
  It is not just a question of refugees. As a result of the events of 20 years ago, more than 1,500 people are missing whose fate is unknown. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and I—accompanied by, among others, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) —were in Trafalgar square on Sunday. It is probably the last time that I shall appear on the same platform as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, certainly in Trafalgar square.
  Among those in the audience were a number of ladies who were dressed all in black because they did not know what had happened to their missing relatives. They could be wives uncertain of the fate of their husbands, mothers not knowing what had happened to their sons and daughters, or men and women who did not know what had happened to their parents. It is a scandal that 20 years later thousands of individuals still do not know what has happened to their dear ones. There are 200,000 refugees, thousands of people do not know what has happened to those whom they hold dearest, and 38 per cent. of the island is inhabited by Turkish Cypriots—although they comprise only 18 per cent. of the population.
  408
  To justify the situation in number terms, about 25,000 Turkish settlers have been introduced into Cyprus—not Cypriots, but Turks—and to demonstrate the Government's popularity there are 30,000 Turkish troops. What an advertisement that is of the popularity of Mr. Denktash that he can keep control only by having 30,000 troops from a foreign country in Cyprus. That shows that the so-called independent state of northern Cyprus has no popular support. It is surely wrong that Cyprus should have been repopulated by 25,000 Turkish settlers who are inhabiting homes which are not theirs and which are probably owned by Greek Cypriots who may be able to see their houses but who cannot live in them.
  The events of 20 years ago are also a black period in Britain's history. It is one of the ironies of the 1970s and the 1980s that in 1981 my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher was able to send a task force to the Falklands to recover those islands from the Argentinian invader while in 1974 the noble Lord Wilson had British troops on British sovereign bases in Cyprus but did nothing to stop Turkish troops landing. He did nothing to use our position as a guarantor power to stop Turkish troops invading Cyprus. That history of neglect is a crying indictment of British politics in 1974.
  The real tragedy of the past 20 years is that there is now a real danger that partition will become institutionalised. The blue line in Nicosia is as effective a barrier to movement between the two parts of Cyprus as the Berlin wall was in preventing movement between the two parts of Germany. Before 1974, Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived in the same villages, used the same shops, worked for the same employers and attended the same schools. They may have had differences of religion, but first and foremost they were Cypriots.
  Since 1974, Greek and Turkish Cypriots have not spoken to one another, attended the same schools or used the same shops. A whole generation has grown up in which Turk is divided from Greek, Greek from Turk. There is always a risk that the partition which has endured 20 years may eventually be accepted as inevitable by some commentators on the Cypriot issue. One reason for this debate is to emphasise to the people of Cyprus that partition is as unacceptable today, 20 years on, as it was in 1974.
  Since an Adjournment debate on the issue in May, on 6 July the European Court banned European Union states importing goods from northern Cyprus unless they were certified by the legal Government of Cyprus. That decision strengthens the possibility of an economic stranglehold on northern Cyprus. There are already huge disparities in the incomes of those who live in northern Cyprus and Greek Cypriots. That will obviously worsen. The northern Cyprus economy survives only because of subventions from Turkey, which itself is scarcely a wealthy economy, and the burden of making greater subventions to northern Cyprus may act as an incentive for Turkey to go to the negotiating table.
  Apart from its economic impact, the ban emphasises the unacceptability of partition to national opinion. Peace in the middle east was achieved by a series of building blocks, and so it will be in Cyprus. The United Nations Secretary-General was right to introduce a series of confidence-building measures, based on the Turkish Cypriots allowing the Greek Cypriots back into Varosha and on the re-opening of Nicosia airport. Since 1974, Varosha—once the mecca of the Cypriot tourist trade—has

  409
  been closed to all but rats and other vermin. No tourist, hotelier or anybody else has been in Varosha for 20 years. Reopening Varosha would have been a practical start to rebuilding confidence between the two communities. It would have boosted the economies of Cyprus, led to job opportunities for Turkish Cypriots and thus helped both communities. Reopening Nicosia airport would have given a great boost to the Turkish Cypriots, because it would have made imports easier and exports more feasible and given the tourist industry a boost.
  The fact that the confidence-building measures, which would reduce disparities in incomes between the Greek Cypriots and others, have not been supported by the Turkish Cypriots must be due simply to sheer stubborn stupidity. President Clerides has agreed to those measures, but Mr. Denktash has been less than consistent and one must wonder whether he ever wants reach a negotiated agreement.
  The second issue that one must raise is the Corfu summit, because it was agreed there that the applications of Malta and Cyprus should be the next to be considered by the European Commission. I believe that it would be wrong to link Cyprus's application to a satisfactory solution to its political situation, because in effect if we say to the legitimate Government of Cyprus, "We will consider your application only if there has been an agreement between the two communities in Cyprus," we are giving Mr. Denktash a right of veto over the application of the Greek Cypriots to join the European Community.
  There is only one legitimate Government in Cyprus, and it is essential that the European Community should listen to them and to no one else. Cyprus has wanted to get closer to the European Union for many years and I believe that there should be no further delay in considering its application. It was agreed at Corfu that the European Union would consider that application in January next year. I know that Commissioner Brittan is anxious that it should be considered favourably, and I very much hope that it can be.
  We should also make it clear to Turkey that its application to join the European Union will be accepted only when a fundamental precondition has been reached —that is, a solution to the Cypriot situation—because for Turkey to be able to colonise a country that is seeking to join the European Union and then say, "We want to join as well," is quite wrong.
  The events of 20 July 1974 were unacceptable then and their legacy is even more unacceptable today. A whole generation of Cypriots have suffered because of the world's indifference to their situation in 1974. The world must not be blind to the continued difficulties of Cyprus and to the unacceptable consequences of the continued division of that beautiful island.
  10.17 pm
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on securing the Adjournment debate on this very important topic. He rightly referred to the rally in Trafalgar square, and if I may say so it was a pleasure to see him there accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). It was a sight for sore eyes. I am sure that many photographs were taken of the occasion, which could be shown to other hon. Members.
  410
  But on a more serious point, as the hon. Gentleman said, the rally, which I have attended on numerous other occasions, was perhaps one of the largest that there has been on the issue. It was attended by a number of people from the Cypriot community in Britain, and in the front, as the hon. Gentleman said, were a number of women who had come specially. They were dressed in black to symbolise the missing people.
  There are many examples—with grave consequences internationally—of people who die in the tragic circumstances of war and civil war. But not to know—and still not know 20 years later—the whereabouts of one's husband, father, uncle or son is something too awful to contemplate.
  A constituent of mine was at the rally on Sunday. She held up a photograph of her loved one. Many other people held up photographs of their loved ones. All that that woman has left of her loved one is a video tape of the "Nine O'Clock News", in which it is announced that nine police officers in her village have been detained by the Turkish invasion forces. That snippet is all that she has of him; nothing has been heard of him for 20 years. He was a young man in the prime of life, a serving police officer. His sister and elderly mother have no news of him whatever.
  There is a problem with the reporting of events connected with Cyprus. I saw very little media coverage of that tremendous rally on Sunday, although I was delighted to read a wonderful editorial on the subject in today's Evening Standard, which dealt with the continuing international problem with great authority, passion and clarity.
  On Sunday, we met in the shadow of South Africa house. Under Mr. Mandela's presidency, that country is now in a position that very few hon. Members on either side of the House expected to see in their lifetimes. South Africa is now being admitted back into the international community. Recently, President Clinton and the German Chancellor crossed, through the Brandenburg gate, into a free and united federal Germany. But Cyprus—a member of the Commonwealth and the United Nations—is still cruelly divided.
  Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have visited Cyprus. They will have gone from bustling Nicosia, a wonderful, thriving commercial city, to look at the green line: they will have viewed the divided part of the city, where nothing has moved or breathed for 20 years. It is possible to see the evidence of abandoned car lots and discarded glasses. It comes as quite a shock. I was a student at the time of the invasion; I remember reading about it, but visiting Cyprus and witnessing the desolation is another thing entirely. It really brings home the suffering that is going on.
  So many people in Cyprus are refugees in their own land. The Cypriot Government have absorbed their refugees into the community; there are no refugee camps. The Government of Cyprus must be warmly congratulated on what they have done during those years. People forget, however, that many Cypriots are unable to return to their family homes or to visit the graves of their parents and grandparents. Theirs is perhaps the cruellest fate of all: they are refugees in their own country.
  One of our difficulties in Britain is that, in many senses, we have lost the connection with land and soil, living as we do in a very industrial society. Although Cyprus, too, is a very modern industrial society, it retains that connection

  411
  with the land that was owned by parents and grandparents —small pieces of land, perhaps, but they hold important memories.
  Like the hon. Member for Hendon, South, I feel that President Clerides has done all that he can in the current negotiations. I find it striking that the Secretary-General of the United Nations clearly reached the view that Mr. Denktash and the illegal regime in the north of Cyprus were ensuring that the talks stalled and nothing happened.
  Britain has a part to play in this. We are and we continue to be a guarantor power. I warmly welcome the Minister to his new post, but I must tell him that it is not good enough for Britain just to say that we support the best efforts of the United Nations. Britain has a part to play in solving this matter, as do the European Community and the United States.
  I have asked several parliamentary questions on this issue. I asked about the visits of Foreign Office Ministers. From the answers, I understand that since 1979 Ministers have visited Cyprus only three times to discuss solutions to all the problems on the island. In the short time that he has been in his new post I do not suppose that the Minister has had time to make detailed travel arrangements, but I hope that he will visit Cyprus in the near future so that these matters can be discussed. In one case there was a gap of 10 years between visits. That is not good enough for a guarantor power.
  The crucial issue involves the application of Cyprus to join the European Union. Rightly, mention was made of the Corfu summit. However, it is something to talk about it and sign a document there and then to hear Ministers say when they come back that Cyprus's application to join the European Union is dependent upon the problems of the island being solved. That is not good enough. In effect, that is the illegal regime in the north holding the legitimate, democratic Republic of Cyprus hostage. In every way Cyprus fulfils all the criteria to become a member of the Union.
  If Cyprus became a member of the European Union, there is no way in which the Union would allow the island to be divided. It is vital that Britain does everything it can to encourage its membership and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
  There is also the problem of the fires in Famagusta about which I have written to the Foreign Secretary. They swept through the city. We need to know how they came about and what will be the solution. There are many Cypriots in Britain as well as in Cyprus who are anxious about that. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  The people of Cyprus have waited a long time for justice and for a solution. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hendon, South initiated the debate. After 20 years it would be wonderful if Britain could begin to play its part in bringing about a just solution.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for initiating the debate and for the long and honourable stance that he has adopted on Cyprus. Hon.
  412
  Members can say that the issue of Cyprus has been kept alive by the actions of honourable Members from both sides of the House.
  Like other colleagues I welcome the presence of the new Foreign Office Minister. No doubt he has an idea about the Cyprus issue, but I must tell him in the friendliest way possible that hon. Members from both sides of the House will take every opportunity to raise the issue of Cyprus. To the credit of hon. Members, that has been our record over 20 years and it is the attitude that we shall continue to adopt until there is an honourable settlement.
  Both the previous speakers highlighted some of the tragic issues and, sadly, we must continue to remind people about them. Over the years I and other colleagues have had many meetings with senior Ministers. I and a number of colleagues had many meetings with Sir Geoffrey Howe when he was the Foreign Secretary. To his credit, he always said that, for the life of him, he could not understand why Turkey did not substantially reduce the number of its troops in northern Cyprus. Sadly, that did not happen.
  I am a member of the Council of Europe. About three weeks ago, its political committee met in Strasbourg. The rapporteur was Lord Finsberg, who had invited both sides —the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots—to Strasbourg to discuss how they envisaged a settlement being reached. The committee will of course publish a report in due course, and I am sure that the Minister will find it very depressing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green said, President Derides made very clear his position and that of the Government of Cyprus on the confidence-building measures.
  As was stated at the meeting in Strasbourg, Mr. Denktash is—as we say—moving the goalposts all the time. The Secretary-General, fully aware of the problems, outlined clearly what he wished to be discussed. However, it was Mr. Denktash who repeatedly moved the goalposts and made meaningful discussions virtually impossible.
  In a debate that I secured in, I think, December last year, a Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), outlined what the Government would be doing in the following three or four months, which took us into the beginning of the year. I know that Minister's name, but I regret that I do not know his constituency. He said clearly that the Government regarded the confidence-building measures with great hope, but it is Mr. Denktash, helped by the support that he gets from Ankara, who has delayed any meaningful progress on those measures.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green mentioned the rally in Trafalgar square on Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) thrilled the enormous crowd by delivering his speech in Greek. I also spoke at the rally. It became clear that, after 20 years, the Greek Cypriots desperately want an honourable settlement.
  The first problem to confront the Minister when he sits down with the Foreign Secretary and other colleagues is to decide exactly what to do after 20 years. Despite repeated efforts at inter-community talks and despite the confidence-building measures set out by the Secretary-General, we have got nowhere. Now is the time for the Government to state what action is to be taken.
  I liken Mr. Denktash to a blackmailer: he realises that, as long as his demands are being met with nothing being done to him, he will continue to make those demands.

  413
  Regrettably, that is exactly what Mr. Denktash is doing. It is always Mr. Denktash who demands concessions. I suggest to President Clerides that the time has come for him, as leader of the Greek Cypriots, to make it clear that the concessions are at an end. Mr. Denktash and Ankara must agree that a settlement is needed.
  However, in speeches and comments made in the past two or three months, senior Turkish officials have said clearly that they have no intention of withdrawing their troops from northern Cyprus or entering into a meaningful dialogue about a settlement. Mr. Ecevit, the leader of the Democratic party in Turkey, is on record as having said only a few weeks ago that the situation in Cyprus was solved in July 1974; he believes that there is no problem in Cyprus.
  I shall not detain the House for very long as I am sure that other hon. Members, let alone members of the two Front Benches, wish to speak. I am the first to admit that the hon. Member for Hendon, South and many of his colleagues have an excellent record of fighting for the rights of Cyprus. I have said many times that I am not interested solely in the Greek Cypriots; I am interested in the people of Cyprus, be they Greek or Turkish, and in the island of Cyprus.
  A great injustice was done 20 years ago. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been to Cyprus. Perhaps he has, in another capacity. I hope he takes up the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green that Ministers got into the regular habit of visiting Cyprus. If the Minister went there he would see its enormous potential. The south is extremely wealthy. Sadly, the north is not. However, Cyprus is extremely popular with holidaymakers, and has a superb agricultural system that is extremely profitable to it. If only the island could be united, it would soon have one of the most prosperous economies in the world. Yet that still does not happen.
  How would the Minister answer someone who said to him, "Look at my hands. Those are the hands of someone who has worked on the land all his life. That was my job, and it is what I love to do—but my lands were taken away from me and I have never had the opportunity to go back to my lands and my property"? The people of Cyprus cannot be expected to continue put up with and to live with that injustice, as they have for the past 20 years.
  Those people are entitled to expect certain basic rights. The first is freedom of movement anywhere in the island of Cyprus. We should make the comparison with this country. What happens in Cyprus is as if people in this country were told, "You cannot go to Scotland or Wales; you can travel only in England." I am sure that all hon. Members would say that in any settlement both Greek and Turkish Cypriots must have the right to go anywhere in the island that they want to.
  Equally, we can neither allow the situation to continue in which people have had their lands and properties stolen from them, nor allow a settlement in which those lands and properties are not returned.
  The hon. Member for Hendon, South told us, forcefully and rightly, what we need to look for as evidence of good will. I have already described to the Minister the reluctance of Mr. Denktash and his friends in Ankara to accept any reduction in the number of troops in the north. As for good will, if Famagusta-Varosha were reopened, that would
  414
  provide evidence of meaningful good will on the part of Mr. Denktash. Yet when he has been approached, what has happened?
  When the Minister has been in his new post a little longer he will be able to sit down with his officials and look at the map of Famagusta as it was before 1974, and that of the Famagusta that Mr. Denktash now says he is prepared to hand back to the Greek Cypriots. He will see that that deal is just not on. It would not be on in this country, either, if any of us—the Minister, myself or any other hon. Member—were confronted by someone saying, "Oh, yes. Once that was yours, but now I've got it. It doesn't matter how I got it. As evidence of good will, I am prepared to give you one little bit back—but I shall keep the bulk of it." That is what Mr. Denktash says repeatedly about Famagusta. Yet if he was prepared to agree to the opening up of Famagusta, it would be evidence of good will on his part.
  Although there are problems, they could be resolved, as the Secretary-General of the United Nations has clearly said in the past few weeks. I am sure that the Minister, although he has just come into this post, is aware that the inquiry that the Secretary-General was asked to hold about Cyprus went on for many months. It is only within recent weeks that, regrettably, the Secretary-General has said that he has got nowhere. The special emissaries whom he sent to Cyprus, including Mr. Joe Clarke, the former Prime Minister of Canada, have all said that they want a settlement. The tragedy is that, on the Turkish Cypriot side, Mr. Denktash does not want a settlement.
  As I and many hon. Members have said before, we desperately want a settlement. I serve on the defence committee of Western European Union and I attend defence meetings. The Mediterranean comes more and more into our discussions, as do the possible threat and concern caused by countries in the Mediterranean. The lack of any settlement in Cyprus comes more and more into the discussions. That should be of concern to us.
  I hope that the Minister takes up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. When, in the next few months, he goes to Cyprus for a few days and meets people—not only politicians, but ordinary people—he should do as my hon. Friend said. He should walk along the green line and think that this is happening in a Commonwealth country.
  We all know what used to happen in Berlin. Visiting politicians always walked along the wall and had their photograph taken there. They used to say, "What a disgrace to democracy that in this day and age, there is a wall that divides a city." In Cyprus, there is a wall that divides a country. People in the north cannot go to the south and people in the south cannot go to the north. We are one of the guarantor powers. Cyprus is a member of the Commonwealth and the heads of the Commonwealth conference met there last September. Within a Commonwealth country is a wall that divides the country in half.
  The Minister will find many friends in the House who will do all that we can to work with him and with his colleagues. What we say to the Minister in turn is that, in the next few weeks, he, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office must tell hon. Members of both sides what the Government propose to do. They must say to Mr. Denktash and his friends and supporters in Ankara, "You cannot continue, year by year by year, to flout any authority that comes here

  415
  to try to develop and to get accepted a settlement that would be as honourable for the Turkish Cypriots as it would be for the Greek Cypriots."
  I wish the Minister well in his new position. Many hon. Members held him in high regard in his previous post. He may have taken on an even more difficult post now. However, as I said in my opening remarks, he can be in no doubt that at every opportunity the issue of Cyprus will be raised in the Chamber by hon. Members on both sides who are interested in the subject.
  10.43 pm
  Sir Peter Fry: I rise to put, dare I say it, a little more balance into the debate. I have listened to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). Just as two languages are talked on the island of Cyprus, it is almost as if two languages are talked in the House of Commons when we consider the issue.
  The hon. Member for Tooting made much play of what had happened in the south of Cyprus, and he talked about the events of 20 years ago as if they were the start of the present problem. He knows, and I know, that the difficulties between the two communities go back further than 20 years. He is a regular visitor to Cyprus, so he will have seen the Turkish villages where Turkish Cypriots were murdered by Greek Cypriots. I accept that atrocities may have taken place on both sides.
  What was missing from the hon. Gentleman's speech —and what I presume has been missing from the debate as a whole—is some sort of balance between the two communities. Let us take one simple fact: the Turks are a minority, and minorities tend to feel exceedingly nervous when there is a wealthier majority in the same country.
  My second point is that, when we talk about a settlement, I must ask the hon. Gentleman and all those who are keen on the Greek Cypriot cause: who has benefited? Who has done well out of the green line and the division of the island? We all know what has happened. We know that the south has developed enormously and is much stronger than the north.
  That has happened because the Cypriot Government are recognised by the international community and get the international aid. The problem is that the Turkish Cypriots have felt alone; they have felt that the only people interested in them are those in the Republic of Turkey. I do not think that hon. Members on either side of the House want any settlement forced on either side if it is against the will of the various people.
  I make it clear that I do not have an axe to grind. Some of my colleagues may well have Greek Cypriot communities or Turkish Cypriot communities in their constituencies; I have neither. I came to the issue of Cyprus as someone who had no strong feelings in either direction. I became interested as a member, and now an officer, of the parliamentary friends of North Cyprus group because I felt that all the high cards were in the hands of the Greek Cypriots.
  If we are to get a proper settlement, we must satisfy the fears of the Turkish Cypriots. We all know that, unless we can satisfy those fears, there is a great danger of the continuing presence of a large number of Turkish troops in the north of the island. Those who are putting forward the case for the Greek Cypriots must understand that fear.
  416
  The Turkish troops are seen as the only defenders of the freedom of Turkish Cypriots. We know perfectly well that there are more Greek Cypriots than Turkish Cypriots. We know well that some Greek Cypriots are much wealthier than Turkish Cypriots, with mineral resources. We also know the way in which the Greek Cypriots have built up their forces over the years.
  The trouble is that, as this thing has gone on for so long, so much mutual mistrust is buried in the animosities of the past that it becomes difficult to bring about a solution today.
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: What sort of role does the hon. Gentleman think the United Nations should play in this problem? I visited Cyprus some time ago. It appeared that the international community had abandoned its responsibility for what was going on there. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is a role for the United Nations, at least to intervene on the question of Cyprus to find a solution?
  Sir Peter Fry: Yes, I do. One of the great problems is that there have been various UN resolutions. At one time, it seemed that one side or both sides would agree with the resolutions, and they then backed away. That is why we have this continuing problem.
  Another reason is that, despite the occasional problems along the green line, it is not like Bosnia; it is not like a country where a war is taking place. Cyprus is a remarkably peaceful country, and people are able to take their holidays in either Greek Cyprus or North Cyprus without fear that they will be shot at or endangered.
  In a way, that is part of the problem. As it is something that it is not hitting the headlines, and as it is not seen as an urgent priority compared with some of the difficulties that we see all around the world, perhaps there has not been the urgency for the United Nations to try to get a settlement. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden).
  Sir Jim Spicer: Other hon. Members have spoken about the role of the guarantor powers. If my hon. Friend casts his mind back to July 1974, he will recall that Mr. Ecevit, representing the Turkish Government, came here and begged the then Government of the United Kingdom to intervene—as we had a right and a duty to do —on behalf of all the Cypriot people.
  The then British Government refused because they were craven and cowards. They did not intervene when they should have done. Had they done so, the island would not now be divided, because British troops would have been in Nicosia within 24 hours. There would have been a token Turkish landing, and President Makarios would have been reinstated. I will never, ever forgive—nor, I hope, will my hon. Friend forgive—the then British Government for their behaviour in 1974.
  Sir Peter Fry: I endorse my hon. Friend's wise words. It would be a tragedy, however, if we spent all our time looking back and did not make an attempt to see how we can bring about an eventual solution.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have an obligation to look back, because unless we take history into account we cannot look forward? Does he agree that the problem at that time was that the people of the Turkish community were driven into enclaves, were deprived of their jobs and their civil rights?

  417
  Does he agree that they gave a cry for help, to which the British Government of day failed to respond? That is why Turkey came to the rescue.
  Sir Peter Fry: My hon. Friend is right. One must recall that this country was the guarantor of the Cyprus constitution. When that constitution appeared to be torn up by one side, it was inevitable that the Turkish Cypriots looked for help. I am afraid that, in their time of need, the Government of this country did not come to their assistance.
  If we concentrate on who did what 25 years ago, we will not, however, get any closer to a settlement. If anyone doubts that, I refer him to the problems of Northern Ireland, where we are too obsessed with the past to alter the problems of today.
  I refute the description of President Denktash offered by the Opposition. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on a number of occasions. With respect, I must contradict the hon. Member for Tooting, because I believe that Mr. Denktash wants a settlement. He knows that, in the long run, he cannot always rely on the Turkish Government to spend large amounts of money on Turkish north Cyprus. He knows that, in the long run, a population that is much smaller than its Greek neighbours must be offered certain built-in guarantees if long-term security is to established.
  He also knows, however, that it is quite ridiculous to say to him and to his country, "You must rebuild Famagusta." The resources, frankly, are not there to do that. People now living in north Cyprus have lost property in south Cyprus, just as people living in southern Cyprus have lost property in north Cyprus. It is not a one-way process.
  If hon. Members intend to ask the Minister, whom I congratulate on his appointment, to take a one-sided view, I must tell him and the House that certain hon. Members would not accept that. This is not a party political matter; we are trying to resolve a difficult situation in part of the Commonwealth.
  As usual, the recent negotiations and who said what have been shrouded in fog. As I understand it—I am willing to be corrected—two main issues were to be settled and taken as a measure of the trust between the two communities. First, the main airport was to be opened, so that both parts of the island could use it. That is essential for the development of tourism in north and south Cyprus. I accept that that would have brought great benefits to the Turkish Cypriots.
  Secondly, Famagusta was to be handed back to Greek Cypriots. I should have thought that that was a fair offer between the two communities. I understand that Mr. Denktash was willing to do a deal. But when he asked the Greek Cypriot Government to put their ideas and acceptance of the proposal on paper, they declined to do so.
  I do not want to go into all the whys and wherefores, but it seems that there must be some doubt about who wants a settlement. As the Greek Cypriots hold nearly all the cards, it suits them perfectly well to let the situation continue as it is for a very long time. Their economy is not suffering. Indeed, it is expanding. They are not under the duress that is being experienced in the north. They are not under the same pressure to come to some form of settlement.
  When the Government accept that they are a guarantor of the original constitution of Cyprus, I hope that we shall proceed in a more even-handed manner.
  Mr. John Marshall: I suggest to my hon. Friend that he reads the report of the Security Council, in which it is made clear that the feeling of those who have been to Cyprus is that it is much more the fault of Mr. Denktash than of President Clerides that there has been no settlement.
  Sir Peter Fry: My hon. Friend is entitled to his view, as is anyone who has been to Cyprus from the United Nations. I visited both parts of the island, and it is my feeling that there has been insufficient consideration of the real threats and fears to which the Turkish minority is subjected.
  My hon. Friend talks about what the United Nations should or should not do. Is he suggesting—I ask a simple question—that the United Nations should enforce a settlement regardless of the wishes of the Turkish Cypriots? If he says yes, that is a point of view. I should make it clear that it is one with which I violently disagree.
  If my hon. Friend says no, and he feels that there must be a settlement between the two communities, we shall get nowhere by bashing one of them over the head and trying to prove that it is entirely wrong. That will only reinforce its fear that it has no friends, and its desire that the Turkish troops should remain. That will mean only that an eventual settlement will be even further away.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The hon. Gentleman might think, on reflection, that he has done a disservice to the 200,000 Greek Cypriots who have been displaced and are refugees. Surely he accepts that those who were in the southern part of Cyprus wish to return to their homes. To suggest that the people in southern Cyprus, or the southern part of the Republic of Cyprus, do not want a settlement, does them a grave injustice.
  Sir Peter Fry: A great many Turkish Cypriots were taken from their land in the south of Cyprus. It is an argument that applies both ways, and I am sympathetic to both groups.
  The debate has, unfortunately, been one sided so far. Only one point of view has been expressed. I think that there is another point of view. It would be fatal if the Government or the United Nations continue to take what the Turkish Cypriots believe to be the Greek view. If that attitude continues, the problem will not be solved.
  There should be a more even-handed approach. We probably need to persuade Mr. Denktash and his Government to arrive at a settlement. We shall not succeed by bludgeoning them—
  Mr. Derek Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Peter Fry: No. I am sorry, but I am about to bring my remarks to an end.
  We shall not succeed if they think that we are not being even handed and that we are biased against them. I think that my intervention has introduced a degree of balance and has focused on the true split of the island—two things which had been missing from the debate.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Edward O'Hara: I regret that there is not enough time to develop many pertinent arguments. My intervention will be brief, but I must take up some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry). He said that we must not look back, but all the rhetoric of those who support the cause of the Turkish Cypriots is based on looking back far beyond

  419
  1974. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) recognised that, and the hon. Member for Wellingborough should acknowledge the fact.
  Great store is made of the Turkish army's right to invade Cyprus in 1974, citing the 1960 treaty of guarantee. It had no such right. The treaty of guarantee afforded it the power to intervene to preserve and restore the constitutional order in Cyprus, which was rescued from an aborted coup d'etat soon after the invasion in 1974. But the Turkish army stayed on and, in so doing, was in breach of the treaty of guarantee.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough should recognise that. He is talking the language of "Alice in Wonderland" when he says that the Turkish army was protecting Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus. He knows that there has been mass emigration of Turkish Cypriots from northern Cyprus and a mass import of immigrants from Anatolia into northern Cyprus—a classic case of ethnic cleansing and ethnic engineering.
  Given the lack of time, I have time only to say that, behind all the rhetoric, the reality is that 20 years of prevarication and pretence of negotiation have been but a cloak for the real purpose of the northern Cyprus Administration, which is internally to gerrymander their electorate so that they have a built-in support from imported votes for their purpose of partition. Externally, they can now tell the outside world with some credibility that the two communities could not live together, because they have unlearnt the habit of living together by force of arms over 20 years.
  Thucydides drew a distinction between pretext and causation in power politics, a classic example of which can be seen in the behaviour of the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey since 1974 in Cyprus.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough made great play about the depression of the economy in northern Cyprus. The 200,000 Greeks who were driven out were the economic engine of northern Cyprus, and the Anatolian peasants who have been imported ever since are no economic engine to restore the area's economy. Although only 37 per cent. of the island is occupied, it is potentially by far the most productive part of the island. The Turks took the whole of the tourist industry in 1974—it had to be rebuilt in the south—and the most of the productive agricultural land.
  Tacitus once said:
  "they make a desert and they call it peace".
  Never could that axiom be more clearly applied than to the situation produced by the Turks and Turkish Cypriots in northern Cyprus today.
  11.2 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: May I just round up the debate, because I must support my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry)?
  I first went to north Cyprus some 10 years ago. I have no brief from either community, Greek or Turkish. Indeed, I have friends on both sides of the divide. This debate must be regarded in the context of balance and, while I congratulate the newly appointed Minister at the Foreign Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), I urge him earnestly to listen to both sides of the equation and visit both sides of the island of Cyprus.
  420
  When he visits the north side, he will hear a different story. He will immediately become aware of a community of peaceful people who threaten no one. Not a single life has been lost in conflict since 1974. All they want is that their children can grow up without fear and threats to their lives. The older generation remember keenly the deprivation and lack of civil rights that they went through.
  While the Greek community rejoice in their prosperity, they rejoice also in their ability to lobby across the world, and do so extremely effectively. By the same token, it is important to bear in mind the fact that there are people in the north who are not so effective at lobbying, who cannot call up the world diaspora to their support, but who none the less have a strong case.
  I urge the Minister to take account of their losses—of their loss of dignity, of the lack of support from Britain, and of how hurtful it has been that, although they regard themselves as a member of the British Commonwealth, they are not accorded the right of being an equal member of the British Commonwealth, in the same light as their colleagues and their friends in the south.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Lady treat of the subject of colonisation of northern Cyprus? There are no Cypriots in my constituency of Hemsworth, but I am considerably worried about the historical precedents that we have of colonisation of that type—indeed, it happened in ancient Greece. Would the hon. Lady like to justify what is happening there? Will she also perhaps reflect on what happened historically when that took place?
  Lady Olga Maitland: I am grateful for that intervention. One fact must be borne in mind. If the hon. Gentleman should visit north Cyprus, he will become well aware that the north Cypriot regards himself with great pride as a Cypriot, not a Turk, and he simply regarded the purpose of the arrival of the Turkish army as being to look after his own personal security and his interests.
  North Cypriots long for the day when they can be free of the support from Ankara. Ankara came to their support because they were being deprived of their civil rights, and they had been ethnically cleansed. Surely now the day has come when their wishes must be taken into account. I feel strongly that the House tends to forget them.
  Mr. O'Hara: Can the hon. Lady give me an example of the ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriots pre-1974?
  Lady Olga Maitland: There are endless examples. If the hon. Member looks at any map of Cyprus, he will see that there are circles round places in which only the Turkish Cypriots may live, work and move. I have heard many personal accounts of Turks who have been totally deprived of freedom of movement across the island.
  Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend spoke about ethnic cleansing, and the fact that the Turkish Cypriots regard themselves as Cypriots, not Turkish Cypriots. Will she explain to the House how they feel when they see tens of thousands of Turkish colonists coming from Turkey and living in northern Cyprus? Is that not anathema to them, and to every other Cypriot?
  Lady Olga Maitland: When my hon. Friend takes into account the fact that the people who enter from the country of Turkey are simply other citizens, and that, similarly,

  421
  many people will have arrived in southern Cyprus from all over the world, I think that, in a sense, that is begging the question.
  We are discussing an issue of equality of human rights. The Turkish people of north Cyprus deserve the same amount of attention and concern as the Greek people in the south.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on asking for and obtaining this debate. As my hon. Friends and Conservative Members have said, it is significant that today is the twentieth anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey on 20 July 1974, when Turkish troops invaded and occupied just under 40 per cent. of the total land mass.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) rightly said, the occupied area was the most fertile, productive and economically wealthy part of the island, so I completely lost the thread of the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry), who seemed to blame the poverty of northern Cyprus on the industrious people of southern Cyprus who have worked hard to rebuild their economy in some of the most hostile territory of the island. It was a perverse argument to advance.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and for Knowsley, South have advanced many of the arguments and I do not want to repeat them. It is important that all the arguments are rehearsed in such a debate, and it was therefore refreshing to hear the view of the hon. Member for Wellingborough. Some reflective thought, however, might have given him the answers to some of his questions. He claimed that he had much higher motives in saying that he did not have a vested interest and came to the problem free from constituency pressures from Greeks on the one side or Turks on the other. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are no Greek or Turkish Cypriots in my constituency in the Rhondda.
  To the hon. Member for Wellingborough and some of his hon. Friends I would say that we do not have Asil Nadir in our constituencies either.
  Lady Olga Maitland: That is a cheap comment.
  Mr. Rogers: It is not cheap. If ever a person was supported by and received help from a political party, it was Asil Nadir in his business activities and the way he related to the nexus of politics and trading in the near east. Mine was not a cheap remark: I was saying that many Conservatives had strong connections with Asil Nadir, so they do not come to the problem in a clean state.
  Lady Olga Maitland: How would the hon. Gentleman respond to the fact that Serbs from Belgrade and Bosnia used banks in Greek Cyprus to launder their arms-dealing money?
  Mr. Rogers: The hon. Lady is perhaps an expert on the laundering of money in the middle east—if one can make Bosnia and Croatia a part of that—while I am not particularly expert. The hon. Lady has obviously made a great study of that area.
  Mr. Asil Nadir was a fugitive from justice in this country and was entertained and was welcomed back in the
  422
  illegally occupied part of northern Cyprus. There is no way that the Turkish Government will transport him back to this country. He certainly had a great deal of influence on certain members of the—
  Sir Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Gentleman wants to speak, he can follow me in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough also said that northern Cyprus has no friends while the southern part, the Republic of Cyprus, has all the friends. That is fairly natural—if they are in the right and northern Cyprus and Turkey are in the wrong, naturally the world community will support those people who have suffered an injustice and whose land has been invaded by foreign armies.
  Sir Peter Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, while the minority Turks feel that their future is threatened and they are not given a degree of security, they will never be very willing to make a long-term settlement? Is that not the element that has been missing from the hon. Gentleman's speech and those of his hon. Friends? There has to be some guarantee. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, unless the Turks receive that guarantee, we may be debating the subject for many more years to come?
  Mr. Rogers: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman —in fact, I was going to come to that point. He said that we needed to be even-handed in our approach to the problem. He is right to say that guarantees must be made to both communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said that his interest was in Cypriots—not Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. Any solution that is to be brought about by the mediation of the United Nations has to be fair to both communities. That was why President Clerides recently made the offer that if northern Cyprus was prepared to demilitarise its area and Turkey was prepared to withdraw the 30,000 troops, he would disband the national guard. The whole of the island of Cyprus could become demilitarised, with a return to normal policing so that people in each of the communities could feel secure in their homes and properties.
  It has been 20 hard years of diplomatic effort towards achieving a settlement. It is my considered opinion—I do not come to the argument from either side—that it is the Turks who have been intransigent in the negotiations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said, Mr. Denktash seems to be continually moving the goalposts. A study of the detail of the negotiations under the United Nations representative, Mr. Clarke, and an examination of his work over the past 18 months show that, at the end of the day, the difficulty has always been Mr. Denktash.
  Mr. Derek Enright: The Turkish army is supposedly defending human rights, but should we not consider Turkey's own record on human rights in relation to the Kurds or, indeed, even Manchester United supporters?
  Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend has made his point. I do not want to go down that road because of restrictions on time and the fact that the Minister wants to give as full a reply as possible to the debate.
  The Turkish Government have a substantial involvement in the issue. Their transplantation policy constantly creates a position in which it will be more and more difficult to reach a just solution. The hon. Member for

  423
  Hendon, South was right to say that the northern Cypriots resent the transplantation of mainland Turks, who are disturbing the whole of their cultural pattern. The people from Anatolia may be coming under duress or of their own free will, but they are coming to a foreign country. Cyprus is Cyprus and Turkey is Turkey.
  The transplantation of populations is a form of ethnic cleansing—or ethnic engineering, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting said—and it can only confound the possibility of a proper and just settlement. As I have said, some 37 per cent. of the most fertile part of the island is occupied by 18 per cent. of the population. The only way the conflict can be resolved is by international negotiation, but the United Nations is running out of patience and may eventually have to take some draconian decisions to reach a solution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred to the possibility of Cyprus joining the European Union. I am a little more optimistic than she was about the British Government's views on that. My understanding is that the former Minister of State at the Foreign Office said that the entry of Cyprus would be part of the next tranche of enlargement. That will trigger some action and there may be some movement to end the stalemate, which can only be of benefit to a problem that has been bogged down for 20 years.
  Mr. Denktash has said that if Cyprus joined the EU, he would want to link up with Turkey. Of course, Turkey also has a vested interest in an association with the EU and eventually becoming a member of it. Although it may not be a candidate at the present time, it has a treaty of association with the EU and I am sure that it would not want to lose that. The Turkish Government might not like Mr. Denktash using them as a threat against their possible future in the European Union.
  The solution must be even-handed. There are Cypriots, some of Turkish origin and some of Greek origin, but they are all Cypriots. I am quite prepared to accept that there might have been abuses in the past on both sides, but in the future we must try to create a situation that is just and equitable, so that the warm people of Cyprus—whom many of us have met in this country—on both sides of the line can be safe in their homes and the future of their children secure.
  11.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on having secured a debate on this important subject on such a significant day for Cyprus. He has a long-standing and understandable interest in Cyprus.
  We have heard a number of heartfelt speeches during this debate and I hope that it will be helpful if I set out some of the considerations governing our overall approach to the Cyprus problem and our view of recent developments in the United Nations-sponsored intercommunal talks, our role in support of United Nations efforts and how we see matters developing, and if I try to respond to as many as possible of the points that have been raised. It has been a relatively short debate, but much ground has
  424
  been covered and I hope that hon. Members will not consider it discourteous if I do not give way because I, too, want to try to cover as much ground as possible.
  As has been said, today is the 20th anniversary of the landings in Cyprus by the Turkish military, coming five days after a coup inspired by the then Greek military junta against the Republic of Cyprus. At the time, the United Kingdom Government rightly condemned those events and was instrumental in securing United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate end to the fighting.
  The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) made poignant reference to the fate of many of those missing as a consequence of those events and our thoughts must be with the relatives of those missing from both communities. The United Nations committee for missing persons, including representatives of both communities, is charged with investigating the fate of those missing. I am afraid that at times one or both communities have not co-operated with the committee's work.
  The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and others referred to the position with regard to settlers. We have made it clear that we regard their position, and any attempt to upset the demographic balance, unhelpful in attempts to reach a solution and we have said so. We joined other Commonwealth Governments at the Heads of Government meeting in Cyprus in October 1993 in calling for an end to such settlement.
  Twenty years on, our thoughts must be with Cypriots of both communities who suffered then and have suffered since. We should think not of those killed and injured and their relatives, but of those who are displaced and have been unable to live in or return to their homes. We should think, too, of those members of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus, including our service men, who have given their lives trying to prevent fighting, of those who have striven since to keep the peace and those who are still there nobly engaged in the peacekeeping task.
  Our efforts to help to find a solution to the Cyprus dispute are driven by the wish to avoid a repetition of the events of 1974. Our overriding consideration is that we should support the efforts of the United Nations in terms of both of peacekeeping and of the good offices mission of the United Nations Secretary-General. But our status as a guarantor power means that we aim to complement as well as support Mr. Boutros-Ghali's mission, while observing the primacy of his mandate. In so doing, we seek to assist both communities to find the way forward to an agreement.
  Our activity takes many forms. We are active diplomatically in talking to the parties and the other guarantor powers. We are active at the Security Council in New York, working for measures that will promote a settlement. I make it clear that we are not in the business of prescribing the details of a settlement—but if it is to be a peaceful, just and lasting settlement it will have to meet the interests of both communities and secure their full agreement. The history of such disputes shows that a settlement imposed without agreement will not last.
  Although we would not prescribe the details of a settlement, we have views about its overall shape and form. The Secretary-General's ideas provide a good basis. He envisages a bicommunal, bizonal federation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary put it more clearly and in friendlier terms—one country, one Cyprus, one federal Government and two communities.

  425
  The House will gather that we remain committed to one Cyprus, and there is no question of our recognising the so-called Turkish republic of northern Cyprus. We have always considered its declaration invalid and supported UN Security Council resolution 541 of 1983, which called on states not to recognise that republic. That is not to say that we fail to acknowledge the interests of the Turkish Cypriot community. We are prepared to bear the brunt of much criticism because of our contact with that community. We see that contact as consistent with our status as a guarantor power and our obligation to deal with both communities if we are to be effective in encouraging a settlement.
  Refusal to deal with one community would merely lead to entrenchment and make a settlement harder to achieve. We maintain contact with Mr. Denktash and others prominent in the Turkish Cypriot community and who have influence, so that we can do our best to encourage that community to reach a settlement. We are determined that those contacts will continue.
  We see our role as encouraging the two communities towards a settlement—chivvying and urging them and other guarantor powers, and fostering the right environment for negotiations. We do so not only by substantial diplomatic efforts and intensive contacts but through our contribution to the UN force in Cyprus. In addition to speaking to both communities, it is important to encourage them to speak to each other. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hosted a lunch in Nicosia for the two community leaders during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting last October. Our High Commission in Nicosia is always trying to promote bicommunal activities and it deserves encouragement, not criticism, for doing so—as do those members of the communities who seek to develop contacts.
  Since March 1993 the UN Secretary-General has tried to secure agreement on a package of confidence-building measures for Cyprus. They involve the re-opening under UN control of Varosha, a former Greek Cypriot suburb of Famagusta, and of Nicosia airport. The package is designed to facilitate progress towards overall settlement and to build mutual confidence between the two communities. The leader of the Greek Cypriot community, President Clerides, accepted the package in principle last year but the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, did not.
  Consistent with our policy of supporting the UN, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary raised the Cyprus issue with their Turkish counterparts in January and urged them to promote a constructive approach by Mr. Denktash to the confidence-building measures. Shortly afterwards, he accepted the package in principle and UN-led talks on its implementation began in Cyprus on 17 February.
  On 30 May the UN Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on progress. He concluded that a lack of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side was to blame for failure to reach agreement on the confidence-building package. He suggested five options for taking the process forward—withdrawal of the UN force in Cyprus, coercive measures against the Turkish Cypriots, a return to discussion of the set of ideas, far-reaching reflection on
  426
  how to approach the Cyprus problem and a continued focus on the confidence-building measures package. Since 30 May, Mr. Denktash has said that he could accept the UN package subject to clarifications subsequently discussed with the Secretary-General's deputy special representative and the proviso that the changes are recorded in a revised UN paper.
  The UN Secretary-General wrote to the Security Council on 28 June and informed it of that helpful change in Mr. Denktash's position and concluded that the two sides were now close on substance but remained divided on how the package should be presented. He hoped to break the impasse by sending the two parties an identical letter that would set out a basis for agreement. The Secretary-General observed, however, that neither leader was prepared to commit himself to co-operate with him if he proceeded as he had intended. It is now the turn of the Security Council, which is considering the Secretary-General's report and letter and expected to give a steer on the way forward in the next few days.
  Our view is that a single option out of the options set out in the Secretary-General's report of 30 May is no longer an appropriate choice. We favour a combination of the two options: a process of consultation led by the Secretary-General with a view to undertaking a fundamental and far-reaching reflection on ways of approaching the Cyprus problem, and a continued effort to secure implementation of the confidence-building measures. We are working for a response which would initiate that wider process of consultation and examine the substance of the problem while not simply jettisoning what has been achieved in detailed negotiations on the confidence-building measures package.
  A number of hon. Members raised the question of the possible European Union accession. I make it clear that the UK supports membership of the Community for those European countries that want to join and can meet all the conditions of membership. Cyprus applied to join the European Union in July 1990. The European Commission submitted its opinion on the application in June 1993, and the opinion confirmed Cyprus's European identity and character and its vocation to belong to the Community. On the basis of the progress achieved to date under the 1972 EC/Cyprus association agreement the opinion was generally positive about Cyprus's ability to adopt the necessary acquis within a reasonable time scale, but a number of structural and other reforms are still necessary.
  The opinion also recognised the difficulties of accession ahead of an intercommunal settlement, but, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
  "We want to remove those difficulties; we want to see Cyprus admitted. That is one reason … why we, perhaps more than any other outside country, are working so hard to find a solution … Our attitude is a positive one—to remove the obstacles to the accession of Cyprus."—[Official Report, 11 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 702.]
  It is important to stress that it is not in the power of the United Kingdom, the European Union or, indeed, the United Nations, to compel a workable solution—
  The allotted time having expired, the debate was concluded, in accordance with MADAM SPEAKER'S statement—[Official Report, 14 July 1994; Vol. 246, c.1197.]

  Newspaper Prices
  11.32 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: There is always a certain tension when politicians start talking about the press, and so there should be. As H. L. Mencken famously said, the proper relationship of journalists to politicians is that of dogs to lamp posts. The fact is, though, that there are some pretty savage dogs out there at the moment and they are getting more savage by the day. I think that it is up to the lamp post to take some interest in them and to try to suggest that some kind of response is required.
  I wish to talk about the so-called price war—the phenomenon of predatory pricing—that is now rampant in what we used to call Fleet street, but which, post-Wapping, we have to find some other way to describe. I shall remind the House of what has been happening and give a short chronology of the background to tonight's debate.
  Let us return to last year, and I shall take the House through the sequence. On 12 July 1993, The Sun dropped its cover price from 25p to 20p. Also on 12 July, the Daily Mirror responded by dropping its price to 10p for one day only. On 26 July, the Daily Mail increased its cover price from 30p to 32p. On 2 August, the Daily Express went up from 30p to 32p in line with the Daily Mail. On 16 August, Today experimented by reducing its price from 25p to 20p in the Liverpool area only. On 6 September, The Times dropped its price from 45p to 30p between Mondays and Fridays, and from 55p to 40p on Saturdays. On 10 October, the price of the Independent on Sunday rose from 90p to £1. On 12 October, The Independent increased its price from 45p to 50p between Mondays and Saturdays.
  On 10 January 1994, The Sun dropped its price from 20p to 10p for one day to support its television game show promotion. On 24 January, Today dropped its cover price to 10p for one day only. On 23 June, The Daily Telegraph dropped the price of its Monday-to-Friday editions from 48p to 30p. Also on 23 June, The Independent dropped its price to 20p for one day only. On 24 June, The Times reduced its price further from 30p to 20p between Mondays and Fridays and from 40p to 30p on Saturdays. In the past few days, News International has sought to extend its predatory pricing to Scotland, with similar effects.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Lowering the price of Today to 10p is a classic example of predatory pricing. In connection with Scotland, however, does my hon. Friend recall that the late Roy Thomson was made to choose between continuing to own newspapers such as The Scotsman and giving up his STV holdings, or keeping his television holdings and giving up his newspapers? Faced with the choice, he gave up his television holdings. That might be a good precedent for making Mr. Murdoch choose between his newspapers and his extremely lucrative BSkyB. It is one or t'other.
  Dr. Wright: As always, my hon. Friend has made a pertinent point. I hope to deal with it shortly, in terms of similar choices that may have to be made now. It is an interesting precedent from an era that was far more mindful of such issues; the spirit is rather different now.
  That, then, is what has been happening on the news stands in the past year. The question is, why has it been happening? What is behind it? The answer is quite simple: one dominant newspaper group and one media magnate
  428
  —News International and Mr. Rupert Murdoch—have sought to drive out as much of the competition as possible. There is no doubt about the intention or the strategy; there has been a certain openness about it. There can be no excuse for not knowing what has been going on.
  Let me give the developments a wider context. At a time when the overall sales of newspapers are falling, it is no longer possible to expand by increasing the total share of newspaper sales, because the trend is in the opposite direction. The only way in which to prosper and advance is to seek to take existing shares, and to do so in an aggressive and, if possible, predatory way.
  How can that be done? In the case that we are discussing, the organisation concerned is sitting on a large sum—a treasure. It is possible to raid that treasure in an attempt to drive out those who are not sitting on treasures. We are talking of an organisation that made a profit of £439 million last year, and is quite happy to draw on those reserves to see off the competition and strengthen its own market position, although it is making enormous short-term losses by doing so. It is sitting on a pot of gold because it is sitting on an empire.
  The empire involves a third of the press here, but it is a global empire, with a huge array of newspapers and magazines across this country, Australia and the United States, as well as Sky Television, Twentieth Century Fox films, Fox Television in the United States and a developing interest in satellite television in the far east. It is a global media empire and it is possible to draw on its resources to engage in predatory pricing here. There is no dispute about the fact that that is happening because the strategy is clear.
  The intention has been described by a number of people. The Independent is one of the newspapers that has been in the firing line and it has seen its circulation drop from 334,000 a year ago to 277,000 now. For its main enemy that is no doubt seen as a great achievement, but I believe that it is an enormous loss in terms of pluralism and diversity in this country. It is hard to dissent from the view of Mr. Andreas Whittham Smith, the editor of The Independent, who wrote a signed editorial in the newspaper last month in which he said:
  "Two right-wing ideologues, Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black, have set about destroying the quality newspaper market."
  That is the intention and, from their point of view, it is succeeding.
  I prefer the comment which was relayed by the editor of The Times, Mr. Peter Stothard, who said:
  "I have had one letter of complaint from a vicar who did not think it"—
  the price cut—
  "was right."
  As ever, a solitary vicar, if no one else, understands what is going on and a solitary vicar understands that there are ethical, moral and democratic issues surrounding this issue which need to be addressed.
  There can be no doubt that it is News International's ability to draw on its reserves which is enabling it to sustain the strategy. Reliable reports suggest that The Times is losing at least 2p on every copy that it now sells, and some estimates are higher than that. Despite a 42 per cent. rise in circulation as a result of its pricing policy, its daily revenue is now £45,000 lower that it was last autumn, despite adding 230,000 copies to its circulation. It is taking huge losses in pursuit of the strategy upon which it has embarked.

  429
  The pricing policy of The Sun was the precursor of the strategy for The Times. Its circulation is 20 per cent. higher than the year before the predatory pricing started, but the 5p price cut means that it is earning £70,000 a day less than it was before it increased its sales.
  The figures that I have given are rather modest. Some of the figures from the media analysts are more startling.
  Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to give an even more immodest figure. Of the 20p for The Times, I am told that 17.5p goes to the wholesalers and retailers who distribute and sell the newspaper and the 2.5p that comes back to News International does not begin to cover the cost of printing and paper, which I am told is about 15p per copy. I believe that those are accurate figures.
  Dr. Wright: They are accurate, and extraordinary, figures. Although the figures differ depending on the source that one uses, they all point in the same direction. It is not disputed, even by sources close to News International, that the figures are of that order. It is deliberately taking huge losses in pursuit of a certain objective, and it will take those losses over an exceedingly prolonged period because it can afford to do so. I shall say in a moment what I believe the outcome of that will be.
  If we take seriously the Office of Fair Trading's obligations in relation to predatory pricing, and if we cast our eye over the cases that that body has looked into over the years, we must find that this is a classic illustration of predatory pricing. Predatory pricing occurs when a dominant player in the market deliberately sets out to cut prices in order to drive out competitors, using its market to do so.
  I found it extraordinary that the Director General of Fair Trading said last September that he could not become involved in this case because it seemed to him to be merely "aggressive pricing" rather than predatory pricing. It is interesting that now, in the wake of the further decrease in the price of The Times, the position has changed and some sort of inquiry can be held. I shall deal with that point in a moment.
  Let us consider the ground rules for competition policy, about which the Minister will doubtless have something to say. Section 2(1) of the Competition Act 1980 defines an anti-competitive practice as
  "a course of conduct pursued by persons"
  in the course of business, which
  "has or is intended to have or is likely to have the effect of restricting, distorting or preventing competition in connection with the production, supply or acquisition of goods".
  Surely that is precisely what is happening now—it is a directly anti-competitive practice used by a monopoly player in the market to drive out competition.
  The question is, what is the response? Let us look beyond what has been happening for the past year. Mr. Rupert Murdoch informed us that his vision of the future is an industry in which they may be only three newspapers —The Times, the Daily Mail, and The Sun. That is his vision of the plurality of British newspapers. Or course, he already owns two of the three.
  We have to make up our minds—do we think that such behaviour and such ambition are consistent with what the House has always said, from Pilkington onwards, about the need to guarantee pluralism and the need for the state to prevent monopoly players from exercising excessive power? Do we still hold the same views, or do we want to
  430
  be rolled over by Mr. Murdoch so that he can realise his vision of a future with only The Times, the Daily Mail and The Sun?
  Mr. Dalyell: It is a matter of record that that is precisely what Mr. Murdoch said to Sir David English—it is not only a figment of Opposition Members' imagination. He is on record as saying that we would be left with those three newspapers.
  Dr. Wright: Indeed, I think that Mr. Murdoch said not only with ambition but with a certain zestful pride that it would show that the strategy had worked and that there had been another gain for his media empire. The question is, where does it leave the rest of us? Where does it leave democracy, choice and diversity?
  That is not to be seen as aberrant behaviour. It should not take us by surprise, because in a sense it is only what large businesses always do when they can get away with it. That is why the cases that the Office of Fair Trading has had to investigate over the years are exactly comparable with that case. For a major player, in its own terms that is rational market behaviour. If it is possible to do such things, it is rational to do them. If the law and the regulations are such that it is possible to engage in predatory pricing to drive out the competition, it is rational business behaviour to do so.
  That is precisely what is happening now—because such developments have not been challenged or checked. Therefore, as in other business areas, the attempt is made to drive out a competitor that one does not like. If one can afford to take great losses in achieving that, one will do so.
  The problem arises because we are talking not about baked beans but about newspapers. Traditionally we have thought that it was rather important to guarantee the integrity and plurality of newspapers, and to protect them from such business behaviour. There was something special about newspapers. There was something special, something vital to our democracy, about the ventilation and distribution of opinion. It was not a business like any other.
  However, we now have people like Mr. Murdoch—
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister appears to be doing his correspondence? Even now I do not think that he is with us. Does my hon. Friend think that that bodes well for the quality of the reply that he is likely to receive to his excellent speech?
  Dr. Wright: My hon. Friend makes the sort of impish point in which we all delight. However, having spent two or three months locked up with the Minister in the Committee that was discussing the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, I am used to his being otherwise engaged while I am making important points. Indeed, we had an exchange on that subject in Committee.
  What I have described is rational market behaviour, but it is rational market behaviour that is simply not acceptable when applied to newspapers and to opinion. We see such behaviour elsewhere, too, of course. If we cast our eyes around at the operations, including those of Mr. Murdoch, of media moguls in other parts of the world, we see exactly what is going on, and how different regulatory systems require different responses.
  In Australia, for example, the Government have traditionally been a wholly owned subsidiary of the

  431
  Murdoch empire. But in the United States Mr. Murdoch ran into difficulties, because there was a much tighter regulatory regime there. When Senator Edward Kennedy sought to reactivate a rather ailing regulatory regime, Mr. Murdoch, according to the recent book about him by William Shawcross, described it as "liberal totalitarianism", and set out to get Kennedy through his tabloid newspapers in the United States. Fortunately, the regulatory regime got him instead. In New York and in Boston he had to back off, because there were rules there that made it impossible for him to proceed.
  Unfortunately, the position here is different. It is well understood that one of the large anomalies or large holes in the Broadcasting Act 1990 is the fact that it does not prevent people with satellite television interests from moving into newspapers. That made possible, in a way that was most helpful to Mr. Murdoch, the kind of cross-media ownership that we have traditionally taken steps to prevent. At the time, he was thought to be extremely helpful to the Conservative party. There may be different views about that now, but at the time the view was that the hole had been nicely opened up so that Mr. Murdoch could walk through it.
  We are having this discussion at a time when there is a tremendous push to sweep away the existing legislative inhibitions to cross-media ownership. We are being told almost daily by those who have power inside the industry that the time has come to move decisively in the direction of further deregulation and that the only way in which to become global players in the contemporary media business is to sweep away all the regulatory structures.
  If we look around the world, we see exactly what such a change might mean. One does not have to look much further than Italy where Mr. Berlusconi is now happily bringing neo-fascists into his Government. He sits at the apex of a media-political empire. One can see there the potential consequences of our sweeping away regulatory regimes. Indeed, if we are serious about pluralism, we must be serious about enshrining pluralism in structures that have some chance of delivering it.
  This is a matter of some urgency. The Office of Fair Trading has, I am afraid, not acted with sufficient urgency. It would be extremely serious and damaging if—the Office of Fair Trading having announced that it was finally to look at the matter, after having said initially that it would not —we now had a protracted period in which the OFT brooded on the matter for the best part of a year, after which it might—or might not—make a recommendation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. By that time, the fate of important and serious newspapers would have been irretrievably damaged and some of them might have disappeared. I press the need for urgency in relation to the issue now.
  There is also a longer-term issue, which is that of media ownership. We must think afresh about the nature of pluralism in terms of developing media conglomerates. The European Union drew attention to the matter a few years ago in its Green Paper on pluralism in the media. The issue is there and there is a tremendous drive from those inside the industry to throw off the regulatory structures. We must start to ask what the public interest is; in relation
  432
  to this issue, we must ask what the public interest is in ensuring that newspapers survive and that the plurality of newspapers survives.
  Sometimes we have cause to be grateful for things that may seem disconcerting at the time. I believe that we shall come to be grateful to The Sunday Times for its actions a week or two ago in showing how certain actions in this place can seem extraordinarily reprehensible to people outside although they evidently seem perfectly normal to people inside. I hope that out of that intervention, some good will come. Similarly, I think and hope that this price war—this predatory pricing—in so far as it reveals the ability of a powerful player to seek to use his power simply to drive out competitors so that his market share can be increased, will be so offensive to the public interest that it will produce renewed attention to the question of how we can guarantee pluralism and diversity.
  We have a price war raging at the moment which is profoundly damaging to diversity and profoundly damaging to democracy. The Government, in their deregulatory mode, seem to find it perfectly acceptable and nothing to worry about. I assure the Minister that many people in the country are profoundly worried by what is happening and would grieve enormously if serious titles were lost. It would be damaging to the people who work for them, it would be damaging to the people who read them and it would be damaging to our democracy.
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: If I am the only Back Bencher who wants to speak, I can assure the House that I do not intend to speak for all that long.
  I declare various interests. I earned money by writing for various newspapers, and I have had lunch with various people in the media.
  At the end of this debate, I intend to read the papers that have been sent to me by the public affairs people from News International. The only part that I have picked up so far, because I thought that I should come to this debate, is that I may be wrong in saying that the subsidies to The Times have come from outside this country. That may be accurate; I do not know, and I do not particularly care.
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) has done a service to politics in his book on politics, and he has done a service to the newspaper industry in introducing this debate today. He has clearly stated many of the issues.
  I come to this debate with a history. When News International took over The Times and The Sunday Times, I did not support my party on the motion tabled by the Labour party. There were strong arguments that that takeover should have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The rules as I interpreted them, and as the Government should have interpreted them, were that The Sunday Times was clearly a profitable newspaper, and there was no ground on which the Government should rely in not referring The Sunday Times takeover, even though it was said that that was the only way to save The Times.
  It is worth remembering that there is a spectrum of newspaper pricing. It would be possible for a proprietor or a company owning a newspaper to distribute it free. In many of our constituencies, newspapers are distributed free. The distinction which the hon. Gentleman would

  433
  make is that those newspapers are not distributed free for long at a loss. They rely on getting sufficient advertising to make them a commercial justification.
  It is worth noticing that we have one broadsheet daily newspaper, The Guardian, which has a structure that was set up especially so it could be produced at a loss. The Scott trust is designed to keep The Guardian going, even though at times it may look as though it is at risk of making a profit.
  Perhaps the distinction between The Guardian and other newspapers is that it is not a threat to other newspapers. No one can claim that The Daily Telegraph loses a serious number of readers to The Guardian. It may not gain the young readers that go to or stay with The Guardian for as long as they can face the letters page.
  The Observer was a loss-making newspaper for many of its 200 years of history. At one stage, it was bought by an oil company, Atlantic Richfield, and it was owned to greater or lesser degrees of distinction by Lonrho. There was a time when the Observer was losing about the same as its cover price on every issue sold, but no other newspaper seriously claimed that the Observer was making inroads into its market.
  The reason why the Sunday Express was losing some of its share of the market from its previously phenomenally successful position was not because the Observer was being sold at a loss. I do not think that commercially successful editors of The Sunday Times would argue that the Observer being sold at a loss was serious competition to them. I think that the reason for that is partly ideology.
  Now that the Observer is in new ownership, it tends to run its front page as though it was the Monday of The Guardian, where the story is not quite as reliable or as balanced as the stories on other days of the week. The Observer did not go in for predatory pricing. It tended to price itself at roughly the same level as The Sunday Times.
  If people were to ask about the distinction between the price wars now and those loss-making newspapers, I think that it is the increasing of the loss of The Times. As to the pricing of The Sun, one can argue that the paper is still making a profit. I do not want to argue The Sun case too strongly. My view is that The Sun is in a declining market and its sales will fall faster that those of the News of the World. The reason for that is the combination of two issues.
  The first issue is the change in the way in which people go to work. As more and more people drive to work, not only on days when there is a rail strike but as a general change in pattern and as a result of greater access to motoring, they do not pick up a newspaper at a news stand on the way to work as they did when they went by public transport, by foot or even by bike. That is a change.
  The second issue is that, over the next two or three decades, or possibly in the next two or three years, more and more people will set the standards for what they take home and what they do and buy at work, which are higher than the ones that they had in the past. A significantly growing number of purchasers of The Sun will say that it is not the newspaper that they want their children to take once they start reading one. A general uplift will take place, which will be reflected in our politics and newspapers.
  The suggestion from Rupert Murdoch that The Sun will not just continue to be a boobs and bottoms newspaper is correct. I must say, however, that no one should be worried about naked bodies, because, if we take our clothes off and
  434
  look in the mirror, we will discover that we have one for ourselves. One often finds more naked flesh in The Guardian than in The Sun.
  The change in the nature of the newspaper market applies just as much to the discrimination of readers in all part of our community.
  As the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood has said, the interesting question relates to The Times. Why are we ignoring our normal monopoly and fair trading conventions, if not our rules, when a newspaper deliberately doubles its loss on a sustained basis? We are talking not about a one-off price reduction, but about a sustained campaign to reduce the price of the newspaper.
  It is not for me to argue for Mr. Black, Hollinger Incorporated or the Telegraph Group, although I have friends who work for it. It is not for me to argue whether Mr. Black, or his directors, were wrong to get involved in the price war. It may have been wrong for the Telegraph Group to cut its price, but I do not want to second-guess it. A price war requires two to tango.
  As a result of that price war, the number of broadsheet newspapers will fall significantly, and rather faster than the normal process of movement in the newspaper market. We are used to seeing people create newspapers in this country. My namesake, but no relation as far as I know, because I suspect that he was born without parents and died without children, Horatio Bottomley, showed how it was possible to build up newspapers, in part by pandering to people's prejudice and by being a great advertiser.
  We have seen the creation of great newspaper families, in part by them backing good editors and by conducting vigorous, but often unsuccessful, campaigns. I cannot think of a single campaign run by the Beaverbrook papers Press between the wars that was successful, although I have not subjected them to detailed analysis. People quite enjoy campaigning, even it is not a success.
  We have seen newspapers increase their circulation to 5 million copies, and then decline. That is part of the normal cycle, and it is certainly not for the House to argue that we should have a set number of broadsheet newspapers—so-called serious, quality newspapers.
  In this country, we have the distinction of a greater diversity of newspapers and easier access to creating a newspaper than elsewhere. It is interesting to note that France has one Sunday newspaper, of no great account. We now have good weekend newspapers on Saturday and Sunday—in part due to the innovations of The Independent —which offer fine, detailed coverage.
  The current problems have arisen because we have been setting the wrong rules for the media, and not applying the rules we have. I have already referred to the Sunday Times takeover, which was a open breach of the law. In the past five years, we have set laws about cross-media ownership, but we have focused on the wrong target. Technology has overtaken us, plus some people's clever wriggling around the regulations.
  We said that major newspapers could not become satellite broadcasters. Maxwell BSB did not work, but Murdoch Sky did work. We now recognise that there will be no shortage of capacity in satellite broadcasting—once more Astra satellites are operational, as many channels as possible will offer the service. I suggest that we should accept what the major media groups, including Pearson, Associated Newspapers and Guardian Media, have said. They believe that we should drop the bar on those groups

  435
  having more than a 20 per cent. stake in terrestrial broadcasting. It may be too late for some but it may open up the market in a better way.
  We should try to treat newspapers as though they are ordinary industries, as far as possible. The same approach goes for rules that apply to journalists and for the ownership of newspapers. That would suggest that the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should be asked to examine newspapers. I think that they should recommend that any group or individual should be required to divest if it or he has a national newspaper circulation that is 20 per cent. of the market or more, unless there is only one title. If the group or individual has one title that has 35 or 38 per cent. of the market, that is fine.
  We. know, of course, that newspapers can cross subsidise on a loss-making basis, which is what The Times is doing. I suggest that it has increased its losses by 50 per cent., if not 100 per cent. Unless it can show that at that level of pricing it can, with a reasonable time scale, start making a profit because of extra advertising revenue or extra sales, it should be required to stop the loss-making subsidy or face a mandatory divestment order. That would wake people up to some extent. At the same time, it would be reasonable and fair.
  Why did that approach not apply to the Observer? The answer is that, in terms of the market, it did not matter. We should be able to say what does matter in the market. We should have some discretion. If someone said of the magazine market, in which I think there are 5,000 titles, "Why is Naim Attallah able to subsidise The Oldie for as long as he chooses?"—I am sorry that he is choosing not to do it for longer, because I think it is a good magazine, or at least the writing is good—the answer is that it does not matter all that much.
  If someone says, "What about the Literary Review and its subsidy?"—£25 comes to me every other month if Auberon Waugh accepts one of my articles—the answer again is that that does not matter too much to competitors.It does not threaten The Times Literary Supplement and the book review pages in serious newspapers.
  There is a scale within which some things obviously matter while others do not. We can argue about where between those two points we should start paying attention. I would argue that the issue of The Times is way beyond any margin of debate.
  Mr. Robin Cook: I would not dissent from any of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but I caution him on where he is taking the argument. I think that he will agree that, if we take as an example that delightful magazine, The Oldie, running at a loss, the test of whether it is guilty of predatory competitive behaviour is not that it is running at a loss but whether there is predatory pricing that is designed to force other magazines out of the market. None of the publications to which the hon. Gentleman has referred could possibly be accused of predatory pricing, albeit they were or are running at a loss.
  Mr. Bottomley: Maybe so. I can only offer my thoughts, which may be inadequate because this is the second time today that I have bothered the House with a few reflections.
  436
  I think that we are in basic agreement. Some things matter, some things matter more and some things matter a great deal. I have a friendly disrespect for the press. I am happy to condemn it. I think that it should face the same controls as we do as Back-Bench Members in Parliament, where there are few rules that really restrict us.
  It boils down to what people think we can get away with or what they are willing to tolerate from us. Those are the considerations that matter most. As I said during the debate on referring issues to the Committee of Privileges, we should set standards for ourselves. At the same time, the press should set standards for itself. Our standards should be the higher. That would seem to be reasonable.
  It is more elegant if the press criticises politicians rather than politicians criticising the press. In this instance, we are not criticising it. Instead, we are considering the business side of newspapers, and that matters more.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. On the business side, can The Times, at a price of 20p, be seriously expected to make money without at first killing off at least one other broadsheet newspaper? If the answer to that question is no, is the Murdoch policy of The Times at 20p not a clear example of predatory pricing, which makes the hon. Gentleman's worries all too real?
  Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman may be right. That is a matter now for the OFT. I agree that it does not have to spend so very long looking into the matter, at least on a preliminary basis. There is a time constraint, because of the market conditions.
  If News International, the publishers of The Times, can show that, even if other newspapers came out of the market, it has the prospect of making money at 20p—it does not have to guarantee it—I would not want to stand in the way of such a large donation to readers. Clearly, it is good that people can buy a newspaper at a lower price. At times, newspapers have acted like a cartel in pushing prices up. We are now getting at them for cut-throat competition. Life is like the tide—a sort of sine curve. At the moment, we are concerned about cut-throat competition.
  The Independent started to lose its way before price cutting began. To depersonalise the matter, its proprietors made a mistake in saying that they wanted to knock out The Sunday Correspondent, and their greatest mistake was to launch The Independent on Sunday. They came into the market before securing their base, and they have been unable to keep both going effectively. I reserve my comments on one or two of the editorial judgments until after the editorship has changed.
  Not surprisingly, the slide in The Daily Telegraph's circulation began before predatory pricing started. The Evening Standard has also seen a reduction in its circulation. If I were discussing the matter outside the House, I would say that, if both The Daily Telegraph and the Evening Standard spend their time attacking my wife, they cannot expect their sales to stay up, because she is one of the more popular people around. If they tell people that she is unpopular, they will lose interest.
  A new newspaper will be launched the next parliamentary day—today, in normal terms. People will stand at 40 spots around London and give away 100,000 copies of the newspaper. Presumably it will begin as a

  437
  loss-making newspaper, but it will not keep going for long at a loss because there is no big pot of gold to keep it going. It must become a commercial success.
  What the House is saying to the Office of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the proprietors of News International is that we are not interested in their driving other newspapers out of business and then putting up their price, having driven part of the competition out of the market. They must demonstrate that they will keep the price low, whatever happens in the competitive marketplace.
  If they then say that it is a challenging business and ask why we are so jealous about them making money out of Sky after it nearly went bust, we must answer that that is the past. We are concerned about the future, and what provides the best opportunities in the medium term for media consumers. We are on the side of the readership and, in the context of television and radio, those who watch and listen.
  If News International is interested in my views on this matter, it should start to pay more attention to the price at which it makes its encryption service available to satellite television. That, too, will be a matter of interest.
  Where, for some reason, there is an effective monopoly, it will require people taking a legislative interest which, in time, will become stronger and more effective than some of the other controls that we thought we had brought in—not against News International but to create a media system that allows competition, entry, adventure and entrepreneurs but avoids unfair competition.
  There is not much more for me to say, except that the best thing is for News International to say at what price The Times could be sold profitably. If it then says that The Times is not a commercial proposition, it should try to find a solution for it that does not require sustained, unfair price competition for its competitors.
  In the next five or 10 years, some newspapers will go out of business. A battle is going on between Today and the Daily Mirror, and I do not know who will win. It does not matter to me whether both survive, but I doubt whether both will.
  I do not wish to pick on a particular Sunday newspaper, but if I were talking to a friend in a pub, I would say that I am not sure that we gain a great deal from the Sunday People. It does not add much that does not already exist in the Sunday Mirror and the News of the World—or perhaps vice versa.
  In the daily market, I am not sure what the long-term place of the Daily Star is. However, if we looked 20 years or more into the past—I forget the precise timing—we would remember that The Sun would probably have gone out of business if Rupert Murdoch had not come along and turned it into a successful newspaper with his editors. The saving of newspapers can therefore be as important as their destruction.
  We should have a reasonably fair playing field. The only level playing field that I ever encountered was in a water polo swimming pool, which is rather easier as it has less unlevel ground than most. If we speak clearly about what we think the principles should be, we can let the outcome be uncertain. One pays for it, but one avoids the unfairness that was wisely mentioned by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood.
  12.19 am
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I want to make a short contribution on the impact of the price war on the regional press. I have to tell the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who gave a most interesting discourse, that The Sunday People is widely read in Rotherham.
  When I was a boy at school, there seemed to be many more newspapers than there are now. When any newspaper drops out of existence, for whatever reason, I think that democracy is diminished. The loss of former Ministers or their replacement today is a headline; the loss of a newspaper is extremely bad news. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, who said:
  "If I had to choose between a government without newspapers or newspapers without government I would have no hesitation in opting for the latter."
  We have had price wars, or circulation wars, before in this country—notably in the 1930s, when giant circulation wars were conducted by giving away encyclopaedias, not by cutting prices. It would be a nice treat today if The Times were competing by offering "Encyclopaedia Britannica" instead of chopping its price by more than 50 per cent.
  Although I want to enter some words of reservation about The Times, I think that, in the past year or so, its coverage has improved immensely. Its features are strong. Its sense of news—I speak as a former president of the National Union of Journalists—is extremely positive and interesting. Today it led on Mr. Santer's repudiation of the Prime Minister's views on Europe—a tough, no-nonsense news story, which I think other newspapers should be running with. Perhaps, instead of conducting the price war, it could have stuck to its new, rather more virile, news feature and comments service, and handled the other competition on fair terms.
  I am very worried about the fact that The Independent is under threat. The Independent has been a positive contribution to the British press and, were it to go out of existence, it would emphasise once more the fact that we are living in a country in which, in recent years, we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I hold The Independent in high esteem. It is a paper of great value, which has contributed much to debate in our society.
  It is not for the House—not for politicians or Ministers —to say which paper lives and which dies, but, inasmuch as we have regulation of anything, we are entitled to hold a view about pricing that will place that newspaper under severe threat.
  In addition, the pricing war that is now under way places the existence of some of our regional papers under potential pressure, according to research that I have undertaken with the regional press. Statistics from the Audit Bureau of Circulation are not yet available for the first half of this year, during which The Times and The Daily Telegraph jumped over the precipice on the price front, but the signs are that sales are down, and that advertising is under threat. The fact that newspapers such as the Yorkshire Post in my part of the country and the Northern Echo continue to maintain a strong existence should be important to Parliament.
  We live in a centralised society. We live in the only country in Europe—I speak now about what is read in England although it also affects Scotland, Wales and Ireland—where the press is entirely focused in one city. The French press is more regional. I think that the strength of the German economy and German society is that there

  439
  is no one city that, as it were, controls the free flow of information in the way that London does in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, if there were any serious threat to either the Glasgow Herald or The Scotsman, many Scots would think that the quality of life in Scotland was thereby diminished? It is a serious matter, as my hon. Friend says, not only for the regional press, but for the Scottish press—certainly in relation to advertising. When the threat last arose and Roy Thomson faced problems, he was made to choose. His editor, Alistair Dunnett, said that at that time the score was laid firmly on the line that it was one or the other, and people could not use television to harm competitors.
  Mr: MacShane: My mother, who lives in Glasgow, and many of my aunts worry each morning about which paper they will buy, the Glasgow Herald or The Scotsman—both are distinguished in their own way, and both contribute much to the different climate of political culture and debate in Scotland. Were those papers to be faced with any serious challenge to their existence by a pricing war determined in London but okayed in the United States, that would be a serious threat to democratic debate in our country.
  In recent years, there has been an increasing tendency for households to buy only one newspaper. The hon. Member for Eltham mentioned the changing pattern of newspaper purchase and reading habits. Recently, when I have found myself jingling the coins in my pocket on a railway station, I have opted for The Times simply because it is half the price of my favourite reads, the Financial Times and The Guardian. As a materialist, I have to count my pennies.
  A variety of press is expressed through our healthy and positive regional daily papers. I am referring not to the free advertising sheets, but those papers which employ a substantial number of journalists. The Western Morning News has 63 reporters covering its region, compared with The Times and The Daily Telegraph, which have none covering that region. Those regional daily papers make a great contribution to our regional culture.
  I hope that the Government are prepared to accept such concerns and to support the reference to the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission if it is relevant. I also hope that the Government are prepared to join in the cross-party desire to discover what measures can be taken. The moment one regulates, introduces laws or sets up a commission that can determine pricing or advertising, one interferes in the pure logic of the market. Most people in this country want a free, varied, pluralistic and decentralised press.
  I fully support the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), and I am delighted to see hon. Friends present who, like me, are concerned about the plurality of the press in this country. The House will have to return to this subject.
  12.28 am
  Mr. Chris Mullin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on an excellent speech and on his good fortune in winning this debate.
  440
  The price war is a symptom of a much larger problem. Gradually and remorselessly, control of most of what we see and read is slipping into the hands of a handful of ruthless megalomaniacs. As other hon. Members have said, it is perhaps the most serious threat to democracy in this country.
  Mr. Murdoch is only the most obvious of the megalomaniacs with a grasp on our national newspaper and television industries. He owns five national newspapers and 50 per cent. of BSkyB. He appears to enjoy special arrangements that apply only to him. I understand that a regulation is enforced against all other ITV companies stating that at least 50 per cent.—or perhaps 60 per cent.—of what they broadcast must be produced domestically. That does not apply to satellite television, with the result that Mr. Murdoch is able to buy off-the-peg junk television from Australia and America. He is gradually dragging down standards in ITV, which has to move down market to compete with him. He is also able to accumulate the sort of profits that have allowed him to engage in the present ruthless price-cutting war.
  The Murdoch press has polluted our culture during the past 20 years. The effect of Mr. Murdoch has not been just on those newspapers that he happens to own; it has been on competitors who have felt obliged to go down market to compete with him. Nowhere has the effect of The Sun been greater than on the quality of the Daily Mirror, which has deteriorated badly in recent years.
  Now there is the spectacle of ITV going down market to compete with BSkyB. Gradually, documentaries such as "First Tuesday" and "This Week" have disappeared. "World in Action" is under pressure to move to a slot at 11 o'clock at night, when it will have an audience of 2 million instead of 8 million. Murdoch's effect on ITV will be similar to his effect on the Daily Mirror. Everyone will go down market to compete.
  Of course, it is not only Murdoch who is involved. During the past two years there has been the rise, for example, of Mr. Michael Green of Carlton Television. He now owns a great swathe of ITV and he was donating money to the Conservative party even as he bid for the franchise. He also controls 36 per cent. of Independent Television News and 36 per cent. of Independent Radio News by virtue of the fact that he controls two of the major ITV companies.
  Mr. Gerry Robinson, who came from the catering division of Granada Television, now has a similar hold on two other commercial television companies and a large stake in the ownership of ITN. I believe that that is already being reflected in ITN, which increasingly consists of one anchor man talking to another anchor man, usually about a mile from ITN headquarters. There is pressure, too, to move "News at Ten" out of the way to make room for junk television—to 6.30 pm or 11.30 pm when the audiences will be similarly diminished.
  All that is having an effect on our national culture. It is not a left or right-wing bias that worries me; it is trivialisation. It is becoming increasingly hard for the average citizen to discover from the daily newspapers or the television that he or she is likely to be watching what is going on in the world. Already one sees the catastrophe in Rwanda having difficulty in outbidding Prince Charles or whatever the story of the night happens to be on ITV news. That is a large problem. It will become increasingly difficult to have a diverse political culture if we do not have a diverse source of news and information.

  441
  There are some obvious solutions. The most obvious is a little bit of liberal anti-monopoly legislation—a thought that I am sure will appeal to easily the majority of British citizens. It would not cost any Government any money, and would require only a little bit of political will. The proposition that there should be only one daily and one Sunday newspaper per proprietor would not prove politically controversial. It would make a big difference to the diversity of newspaper ownership in Britain.
  If we wanted to go a step further we could lay down one or two rules about the kind of proprietors or corporations that would be entitled to bid for the assets that come on the market. We could go down the American road—I do not necessarily argue that we should—and say that only corporations owned by British citizens or at least EC citizens could compete. Mr. Murdoch has already changed his nationality once from Australian to American in order to come within the American regulations. It is a stunt that I do not think that he would find it easy to pull twice.
  There is great pressure to reduce the limits on cross-media ownership. They should be maintained. The regulations about the percentage of domestic production that already apply to independent television should be extended to Sky television. The fact that they have not been is an anomaly which I assume is a pay-off to Mr. Murdoch for his support over the years for the ruling party. It is an anomaly that cannot be justified and should be removed.
  The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said that something must be done about Murdoch's monopoly of the encryption system. Unless something is done about it, he will maintain his grip on satellite television and there will be no question of competition there. Something must be done to deprive him of that monopoly.
  With regard to independent television, the Broadcasting Act 1990, as everyone knows—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Obviously, on occasions such as this, the subject matter is fairly broad, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject is newspaper prices.
  Mr. Mullin: One of the questions that we must ask ourselves is from where Mr. Murdoch has obtained the enormous amount of loot that enables him to cut the price of his newspapers and to sustain losses of the sort that he is sustaining. The answer is that it comes from other parts of his empire, one of which is satellite television. That is why television is relevant. I am also describing the overall effect that the price war has on our political culture, of which television is an aspect. Mr. Murdoch has other television assets as well. He is also getting his hands on a slice of our publishing industry.
  I shall not dwell on it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I return for a moment to where I was. Before the Broadcasting Act 1990, ITV was not broke and did not need fixing. I fail to see why the drift towards a monopoly that is beginning to occur there should be allowed to continue. In fact, it should be reversed.
  We should not be afraid of regulation. Of course the state must be careful how it regulates the media. The only excuse is that one is regulating in the name of greater diversity, plurality and a greater flow of argument and information than already exists. Regulation has worked extremely well in the BBC over the years. It is one reason why the corporation remains the envy of the world and
  442
  why even the Government decided the other day to keep the BBC more or less as it is. We should not be afraid to create by way of regulation a newspaper industry that is as free and high quality as the BBC is in broadcasting.
  12.40 am
  Mr. Robin Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on securing this Adjournment debate on an important issue, which has attracted thoughtful and knowledgeable speeches from hon. Members representing both major parties. Perhaps it is a pity that no representative of any minority part is present to participate in a debate on an issue that affects the health of our democracy. Nothing comes nearer to touching that than the variety of our newspapers and the diversity of views that they contain. The newspaper industry has played an important part in our debates and it is right that, before the House rises for a prolonged period, we should have found time to debate a development that is likely to precipitate a crisis for a number of newspapers.
  I have twice written to the Director General of Fair Trading about the price cuts at The Times. Price cutting and competition at an unrealistically low price is becoming a feature of the Murdoch press generally. Leaving aside the references to The Sun already made tonight, there is the interesting example of Today launching a Scottish edition at 10p. There is no way that one could justify such a price in calculating the commercial cost of producing that newspaper and the profit one could hope to make. That pricing is clearly a decision to obtain a market share by undercutting, at a loss, existing newspapers in that market.
  Last September, I wrote to the Director General of Fair Trading drawing his attention to the reduction in the price of The Times to 30p. I will quote part of Sir Bryan Carsberg's reply, in declining to undertake an inquiry. I apologise to the House for wearying it with a quotation at this time, but it is a short one. He said:
  "At times there is a fine line between aggressive price competition and predatory pricing. I am satisfied on the basis of information available"—
  last September—
  "that the reduction in the cover price of The Times reflects a calculated commercial decision by News International."
  If there was only
  "a fine line between aggressive price competition and predatory pricing"
  last September, when The Times reduced its price to 30p, the subsequent reduction in the past month to 20p marches right across that fine line.
  As the Minister is aware, I wrote again to Sir Bryan, suggesting that there is an even more compelling case for an inquiry into whether The Times is guilty of predatory pricing. Sir Bryan has agreed to an informal inquiry, to establish whether there are grounds for a formal reference. I argue that there is an overwhelming case for such a formal reference. It is hard in logic to avoid the conclusion that there is a case for a formal inquiry.
  The grounds for an inquiry into predatory pricing were set out by the Director General of Fair Trading last year following his report on Thamesway. In that report, Sir Bryan set out three tests by which he would assess whether a company was guilty of predatory pricing. The first test was whether the new price was bound to incur losses for the company that had set it. I have to say that it is beyond contention that the reduction in the price of The Times to 20p will incur losses. It is not, as Sir Bryan expressed it last

  443
  September, a "calculated commercial decision". There is plainly no commercial justification for a reduction in price to 20p. It is clearly a decision driven by only one consideration—to undercut the rest of the market at a loss and thereby behave in a predatory fashion.
  Before The Times had its first price cut, it was selling at 45p. All the figures are highly confidential, and therefore it is possible, as some of my hon. Friends have done, to produce different figures, but they all point broadly to the same conclusion. We understand that, at that stage, the margin on every copy of The Times was 30p. That is the amount left over after meeting the direct printing and distribution costs.
  If that is the case and 45p produced a 35p margin, when one reduces the price to 20p, one is left with a margin of only 5p, because the printing and distribution costs have remained constant throughout that process. Those figures might be out by a penny or two here or there. It may indeed be 2½p, as one of my hon. Friends suggested. It might be only 3p, as I have seen suggested by one of the rivals to The Times. But even a margin of 5p comes nowhere near meeting the publishing costs involved in running the journalist enterprise with its overheads, not to mention its indirect advertising costs.
  It is probable that The Times is now running at an annual loss in excess of between £20 million and £25 million a year. In other words, the decision to reduce its price to 20p was taken in the full knowledge that it would incur substantial and continuing losses, which have no prospect of being turned around by any increase in sales, because the margin on the increased copies sold comes nowhere near making a contribution to the overheads. In short, the losses are possible only because The Times is part of an immense empire and is now being cross-subsidised by the profits of other parts of that empire.
  The problem is that, if The Times behaves in that way, it is setting a price that cannot be matched by independent newspapers, such as The Independent or The Guardian, which do not belong to large conglomerates and cannot hope to obtain large, continuing subsidies to cope with the losses that they would incur were they to try to compete with The Times at its present price. I believe that it is incontestable that the first test has been met and that the price reduction is increasing the losses for a paper that was already making a loss before the cut.
  The second test was whether predatory pricing was a feasible business strategy in the particular market—in this case the newspaper market. I say with some regret that I fear that it is only too likely to be so. Indeed, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made the perfectly reasonable point that Rupert Murdoch's conduct is rational market behaviour whether or not we like it. The objective of predatory pricing is to put out of business rivals in the market. That objective could be achieved.
  Indeed, there is already evidence that predatory pricing is working towards that objective. Sales of The Independent are now down by 20 per cent. on a year ago, and that loss occurred even before the latest cut in the price of The Times. Since that cut to 20p, the major regional and the Scottish and Welsh newspapers have between them lost some 30,000 daily sales.
  I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). We in Britain already have a
  444
  much more centralised and homogenised national newspaper industry than any other country in Europe: all the others have much more diverse, regionally based media industries. We already have dominant national newspapers that produce broadly similar editions, from Kent to Caithness. If we were to lose our existing regional press and the Scottish and Welsh newspapers, we would lose one of the last remaining elements of pluralism in our printed media.
  The Scotsman, The Glasgow Herald and—this is a studiously politically neutral observation—even The Birmingham Post are part of the richness of their local politics; they contribute to regional political life, and therefore to the pluralism and diversity of British political life. All those newspapers have made losses since the introduction of price cuts by The Times. The problem is that, even if only a relatively modest number of readers desert them—attracted by the new price of The Times—that minority will destablise their finances for all their readers. A 25 per cent. loss of readers might be sufficient to put one or more papers out of business: that would mean the loss of the paper to the 75 per cent. of readers who wanted to continue to read them.
  Sir Bryan's third test in regard to predatory pricing related to the intentions of the alleged predator. In this case, the predator's intentions are only too clear. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out—I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—Rupert Murdoch is on record as saying that he expects only the Daily Mail, The Sun and The Times to be in existence at the turn of the century. I fear that that was not simply a neutral, passive observation; I suspect that it is part of a strategy, and that Mr. Murdoch intends to play an active part in achieving the position to which he referred.
  Paradoxically, a newspaper proprietor who insists that his editors preach competition is currently practising unfair competition. A proprietor who, through his newspapers, preaches the supreme virtue and value of consumer choice is now acting in a way that is calculated to restrict consumer choice in the newspaper industry.
  That brings me to the wider points beyond the narrow issue of whether predatory pricing now takes place in the printed media. They were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who said earlier this evening that he might not speak in the debate; I am very grateful to him for changing his mind, and making some interesting observations based on long study and a deep knowledge of the issue.
  Even before the recent cut in the price of the Murdoch papers, Rupert Murdoch controlled newspapers representing one third of both the daily and Sunday circulations in Britain. He also has the controlling interest in the sole satellite service, which is increasingly penetrating our television viewing figures. In terms of markets generally, the threshold that conventionally triggers an inquiry into whether a monopoly is being established is 25 per cent. Rupert Murdoch is already well over that threshold in terms of the printed media industry, and may soon achieve it in terms of an aggregate of the printed media circulation and television viewing figures.
  This, however, is not just any market; the media constitute a particularly sensitive market. A free and open society requires free and open media which permit the expression of a diversity of opinion.
  That brings me to another problem that acts as a backdrop to this exchange. I mentioned earlier that there are two requirements from our media if we are to have a

  445
  healthy democracy. First, we should have a variety of newspapers and, secondly, those papers should contain a diversity of views. There is no diversity of editorial view in the Murdoch press.
  It is the same standard line—right-wing and Conservative in political views, intolerant and judgmental in social views—and it is united in a third factor which is a wild enthusiasm for Sky Television. That enthusiasm for Sky is so common and so deeply ingrained in the Murdoch newspapers that the day after he relaunched Sky Television last year produced 12 sq ft in the Murdoch press reporting the relaunch, with no fewer than five separate articles in The Times. I suspect that not all that was entirely the result of the free play of editorial judgment as to the news value of the event.
  The question we have to ask is whether we want the market share of that single news corporation to get bigger. That is what is happening. I said earlier that, before the price cuts began, the Murdoch newspapers had one third of the circulation of the dailies and the Sundays. I have to report to the House that, as near as one can identify the figures, before the last cut to 20p in the price of The Times, that figure had increased to 36 per cent.
  It is likely, given the momentum of the latest price cuts, that we shall shortly see the circulation of the Murdoch press rise from a third of total circulation to something approaching two fifths. Do we want that expansion and, in particular, do we want that expansion at the expense of other newspapers folding? My answer is an unequivocal no. That answer is also informed by a broad view of the need for a diverse media and of the importance of a diverse media for a healthy democracy.
  It is not necessary for the Minister to embrace my prejudice for pluralism within the media as an important ingredient in our democracy. He could agree with my conclusion on the much narrower premise about what is important for fair competition. The Minister has a robust view of the importance of fair competition. He has founded an entire ideological career on the principle that fair competition gives the optimum results in terms of economic performance and consumer choice.
  Very well: at this hour of the night, for the purpose of the debate, I shall accept the premise from which the Minister sets out. If that is the basis on which he has founded his ideology, he must be troubled by the behaviour of Rupert Murdoch, particularly in relation to the pricing of The Times, because that is unfair competition and predatory pricing, which is intended to distort the market and to force out of business other newspapers that are seeking to provide a price that genuinely reflects the cost of producing a newspaper.
  If the Minister and his colleagues fail to respond to the challenge for free and fair competition, they will be making a mockery of their own free market ideology.
  12.57 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): It is customary on these occasions for the Minister to begin by saying that he is glad to be here to have this opportunity to answer the debate. On today of all days I say that with special feeling.
  I listened with interest to the speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House, even that of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who singled me out to chide me for displaying a lack of attention to what
  446
  he was saying. I have to admit—he knows this from sitting for many months on the Committee considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill—that on occasions when he was speaking my attention did wander.
  Fortunately, his speech wandered rather more, so it was possible for me to cut in at a later stage and still pick up the same point. I do not think that I missed anything of importance in what he said. I discovered that, like Wagner's operas, his speeches had sublime moments but somewhat turbid half-hours. Nevertheless, hon. Members of both parties have made important points on what I fully accept is a matter of some importance and general interest.
  To begin, it is worth pointing out that Britain has a strong national press. We have 21 national newspapers, including dailies and Sundays and, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, we also have a strong regional press. We therefore have a very lively printed medium. There is, of course, intense competition for sales and advertising revenue.
  A feature of recent years has been the increase not only in competition but in diversity. I am a great believer in diversity—I wish that there were more newspapers that were kind to the Government, but I suppose that is rather too much to hope for. In the second half of the 1980s, national newspaper publishers improved their profit and loss accounts through two windfalls.
  The first was the end of overmanning, which was associated with the move from Fleet street. Regrettably, I did not notice too much support for that move on the Opposition Benches. I think that that move was one of the major reasons that a newspaper such as The Independent was able to get going in the first place. The end of restrictive practices and the application of new technology meant that the cost of newspaper production was dramatically reduced. I welcome that, because it helps to promote diversity.
  The second windfall was the emergence of colour in newspaper advertising. The hon. Member for Livingston neglected to mention the importance of advertising revenue to newspapers as a factor that will have to be taken into account in any attempt to analyse the motives of those who recently indulged in price cutting and the extent to which they seek to make up through advertising revenue the losses made on cover sales. I shall come to that issue a little later.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not doubt for a moment that the Minister's belief in diversity is absolutely sincere, because it fits in with in his other beliefs, but can The Times at 20p seriously be expected to make money without first killing at least one broadsheet and thereby reducing diversity? If the answer is no, is not the Murdoch policy of selling The Times at 20p a clear case of predatory pricing, which reduces diversity? If that is the case, and if the Minister wants diversity, why does he allow Murdoch to adopt that policy?
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall not base my remarks on assumptions. Some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments and assertions might be regarded as strong, but they cover exactly the questions that the Director General of Fair Trading will consider before advising me on whether there is scope for using competition legislation to do anything about recent events. I shall deal with that point in some detail in due course, but first I revert to my introductory remarks for a moment.

  447
  In 1987, colour advertising in national newspapers was worth only £15.4 million, but in 1991 it was worth £155 million, so the increase has been substantial. Advertising now accounts for 50 per cent. of newspapers' revenue, but, in the face of competition from other media, printed medium publishers are experiencing a decline in advertising revenue, although that may be partly recession-related—it is very difficult to tell.
  Copy sales—the other part of national newspapers' revenue—are also under increasing pressure. The circulation of popular dailies and Sundays is down, but the sales of quality titles—at least before the price war began —were up. Between 1980 and 1990, the combined circulation of popular dailies fell by just over 250,000, despite the appearance of the new title Today in 1986. Between 1990 and 1993, sales fell by a further 836,000.
  We have witnessed among existing players an intensifying competition for advertising and circulation, and not many want to enter the market where ownership is concentrated. Major groups want to diversify into other areas; broadcasting has featured largely in the debate.
  The greatest economic threat, but also in many ways the greatest opportunity, comes from electronic media. No doubt there will be rapid and significant changes in that respect in the years to come. Who knows whether the demand for printed newspapers will survive much longer in its present form, when people have access to news sources by electronic means?
  I am no great expert on the subject. No doubt the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and others who have spent a long time working in the production of news and in the publishing world generally are better informed than I, but I have certainly been impressed by the rapidity with which technology has transformed the life of the industry.
  Opportunities undreamed of a short time ago are now regarded as commonplace. At this stage, we cannot forecast the dramatic impact that that may have on the important questions of public interest that hon. Members have raised during the debate—especially the diversity of supply of factual and interpretive news. That, however, is a wider question.
  Past newspaper competition cases have been mentioned, so it may be worth my while to spend a couple of minutes on some of those, and especially to talk about Mr. Murdoch, as he has been painted as the villain of the piece in the debate, not only in the House but more widely.
  When Mr. Murdoch acquired the News of the World, his first newspaper, he did not require consent, because he was not an existing newspaper owner in the United Kingdom. He then acquired The Sun in 1969, having been given permission to do so, when a Labour Government were in charge of competition legislation. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, in 1981 he acquired The Times and the Sunday Times, and in 1987 he acquired Today.
  In each of those cases, consent was given without a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry, because the Secretaries of State at the time—that includes not only Conservatives but the Labour Secretary of State in 1969 —were satisfied that the newspaper being taken over was not economic, and that an MMC reference would have jeopardised its existence.
  448
  That is a factor that one must bear in mind when thinking about the development of ownership in the industry. Those newspapers were regarded as hopeless loss-makers that would have gone out of business but for intervention—in those cases, intervention by Mr. Murdoch, but no doubt there are other cases.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Just for the record, may I say that there was no dispute about the assertion that the Sunday Times was highly profitable and had a circulation above the trigger level? I do not want to go back over the debate about what happened in 1981, but that is worth saying.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am simply trying to sketch in a bit of the background, so that the historians of the future will have the full picture.
  In December 1990, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry decided, on the basis of the information then before him and in accordance with the recommendations of the Director General of Fair Trading, not to refer to the MMC under the merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 the acquisition by British Satellite Broadcasting of Sky Television, and the acquisition by News International of a 50 per cent. share in British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd.
  In May 1993, after a period of public consultation, the Secretary of State gave his consent for the sale of the Observer to The Guardian and Manchester Evening News by Lonrho. In that case, the Secretary of State was satisfied that the Observer was not economic as a going concern and a separate newspaper, and that, if the paper was to continue, the sale should proceed without a reference to the MMC. The same considerations were applied in that case.
  In March this year, the Secretary of State, again after public consultation, gave his consent without an MMC inquiry to two separate applications to acquire a controlling interest in Newspaper Publishing plc, the owner of The Independent and The Independent on Sunday. That is the background to the current position on ownership.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the background, may I ask a one o'clock in the morning question? Is there any unease—I do not put it higher—among the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that so much of the British press and media is now foreign-owned? There is not only Mr. Black, but Mr. Murdoch and Mr. O'Reilly. I am not pointing a finger at them, but just saying that there is considerable unease among some of my colleagues about the extent of foreign ownership by people who do not have a stake in this country.
  Some of us think that the European press should be European-owned. It might be sensible to talk to our European partners and to lay down some regulations, as the Americans do de facto, that the press in Europe should be European-owned.
  Mr. Hamilton: Not being a xenophobe, I do not generally consider the nationality of individuals as terribly relevant in competition cases, even for newspapers, for which especially stringent conditions have to be satisfied to preserve media diversity. As the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out, the existence of conditions on nationality in the United States was not a bar to Mr. Murdoch's acquiring significant interests there. I cannot say that I share—
  Mr. Robin Cook: He had to become an American.
  Mr. Hamilton: That is true, but it did not stop him acquiring the assets that he wanted. The mere change of his nationality would not, I should have thought, have satisfied the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in that case. It is not terribly relevant to the questions that have been the subject of this debate about media diversity. After all, one could have a British Mr. Murdoch, who could behave in exactly the same way. Presumably he would then be subject to exactly the same strictures form the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
  Mr. Dalyell: My point is that, if Mr. Murdoch now applied for British nationality, the betting is that he would soon get into great difficulty with his American ownership. He cannot have the best of all worlds.
  Mr. Hamilton: We are becoming increasingly Byzantine in the processes of reasoning that we are applying here. I shall content myself with saying that I do not think that nationality goes to the very heart of this debate. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood was much more concerned about what is done with the assets, in whoever's hands they may be. That is what he wants us to address as a Government, particularly in the cases before us today.
  The recent background to the current price war is that the Director General of Fair Trading held a preliminary investigation, following a complaint from The Independent that the reduction in the cover price of The Times to 30p constituted predatory pricing. On that occasion, as the hon. Member for Livingston pointed out at some length during his useful speech, the DOFF decided against taking formal action, because he believed, on the basis of the information then available, that the price cut reflected a commercial decision by News International rather than predation.
  He commented at the time of his decision:
  "I am all in favour of price competition, but at times there is a fine line between aggressive price competition and predatory pricing."
  That has been the subject of the correspondence that the hon. Member for Livingston has had, and of his arguments this evening.
  Following the reduction in June of the cover price of The Daily Telegraph from 48p to 30p and the reduction in the price of The Times from 30p to 20p, the hon. Member for Livingston has argued that that fine line has now been crossed. However, that argument assumes that the actions of The Daily Telegraph and The Times are of predatory intent towards The Independent. That argument requires some investigation if it is to be proved. I do not think that these questions are ever clear-cut. Certainly, as such questions depend on defining the intentions of the parties, they are always made subject to interpretation.
  After the reduction in The Times' cover price, daily circulation increased to more than 500,000 copies. Of course, the advertising revenue of The Times, or at least its potential for doing so, has increased as a consequence. It is widely believed that the fall in the daily circulation of The Daily Telegraph to below the critical 1 million mark prompted its price cut, in an effort to boost circulation and, of course, to protect the paper's extensive advertising revenue.
  It is difficult to be as categoric as the hon. Member for Linlithgow and others have been about what is happening here. Rather than Governments prejudging these issues, the appropriate mechanism for deciding whether there is a case to take further action is for the Director General of Fair
  450
  Trading to conduct the investigations that he has done once before and is now doing once again in what may be the different circumstances of the later price cuts.
  We have seen a Scottish price war developing more recently. News International's launch of Scotland Today on 18 July prompted similar activity north of the border. Originally, the title was to sell at 20p, but the Daily Mirror reduced its cover price to 10p for launch day; that was immediately matched by Scotland Today. Yesterday, both papers announced that they would continue to maintain the 10p cover price in the meantime.
  The biggest selling tabloid is the Scottish Daily Record, which is part of the Mirror Group. Apparently, that remains aloof and continues to sell at 27p. Its record circulation is about 750,000, which exceeds the sales of all the other Scottish tabloids combined.
  We have perhaps slightly different conditions in Scotland than in England and Wales, but there are marked differences between different parts of this market, both geographically and in terms of quality or tabloid. The current developments in Scotland are not subject to the current inquiries of the Director General of Fair Trading into broadsheet price reductions, although undoubtedly he is aware of them. As he is statutorily obliged to do, he keeps all markets under review.
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Livingston has made representations to to the director general about the position in Scotland, but if he does so, I am sure that the director general will consider them. I am absolutely certain that the director general will read tonight's debate in Hansard when it is produced, and consider extending his inquiries to cover what is happening in Scotland as well. But that is a matter for him; it would be wrong for me to prejudge what he might do, as I am afraid that I do not know.
  The Director General of Fair Trading keeps an eye on markets. He receives complaints, he examines the prima facie evidence, he conducts preliminary inquiries to determine whether further action is necessary, he refers cases under the monopolies provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission where he believes that that is justified, and he advises the Secretary of State on remedies. At his behest, he monitors any undertakings which might be given or orders made.
  The Murdoch press controls about 31 per cent. by sales volume of the newspapers in this country. That matter was investigated as part of the Commission's inquiry which took place last year. At that time, the Commission considered that that scale monopoly—any monopoly of more than 25 per cent. of the market can be investigated by the Commission—did not operate against the public interest. It may be that, in the current circumstances, the Commission would come to a different view, but that is a matter of speculation.
  In answering the rather more subjective questions raised in this debate, my problem is that, as the competition Minister, I have legal responsibility, and I must be even-handed in my consideration of questions which might fall to me to decide. If I indicate that I have made my mind up in advance, or that I am partial to one party or another, any decision that I might ultimately make may be made subject to judicial review.
  If, for the sake of argument, I were to decide against Murdoch's newspapers, without proper investigation and

  451
  without giving all the interested parties the opportunity to participate in that investigatory process, any decision that I made may be overturned by the courts.
  Dr. Wright: I understand what the Minister has said about the need not to prejudge and the legal position, but I am not clear whether he is willing to agree with every hon. Member who has spoken, and with almost everyone else outside, who argue that, if there was doubt about the intentions behind the first move by The Times last year, there can be no doubt about the intentions behinds its second move, this year. As the Minister has already said, that thin line has now been conspicuously crossed. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there is now prima facie evidence of predatory pricing, which certainly warrants thorough investigation?
  Mr. Hamilton: It certainly warrants investigation by the Director General of Fair Trading to find out whether that evidence exists. That is exactly what is happening now. The hon. Gentleman is stating as a matter of opinion what he thinks is the intention behind the Murdoch policy on the pricing of The Times. He does not have any facts on which base that assertion; he is interpreting what has happened and applying his judgment to the reasons for that.
  There is bound to be an element of subjectivity in coming to a conclusion, but I would much prefer to wait until I am advised by the Director General of Fair Trading, who will have made preliminary inquiries in the normal way. He will take a view on perhaps a rather more informed basis than hon. Members are able to take, because they will not have had the opportunity to quiz those who should give an opinion if we are to decide on a fair and rational basis. We must remember that we owe even to Mr. Murdoch the same fairness that anyone else would expect under our competition legislation in the exercise of the discretionary powers of Ministers.
  I will not prejudge the issues this evening. The hon. Member for Livingston said that I am known for having a robust view of competition, which is true. I believe that competitive markets are not only the means by which we produce wealth, but the healthiest way for democratic societies to be sustained. It is no accident that diversity of opinion vanished from those countries where the economy was placed under state control and subject to political direction. I have a prejudice in favour of diversity, which is sustained by competitive conditions in the market.
  I will start a general discourse tonight on competition policy and the circumstances in which I might decide that a scale monopoly or a merger might be against the public interest. That could not be decided simply on grounds of market share, because there are sometimes other considerations that should also be taken into account—for example, the threat of competition from those who may not be in the market at the moment but who might be able to enter it. If it is easy to enter a market, even a single monopoly producer may not be secure in his monopoly. The more precarious his position, the less the threat to the public.
  Things are different in the case of newspapers; that is why different provisions apply to newspaper mergers
  452
  under the Fair Trading Act 1973. We do not want to encourage monopolies, but to encourage and sustain diversity of supply.
  On 30 June, the Director General of Fair Trading announced that he would conduct inquiries into the recent cuts in the cover price of The Times and The Daily Telegraph. Once he has completed his inquiries, he will advise Ministers whether further action is warranted under the competition legislation. I cannot speculate on the outcome of those inquiries, nor can I announce to the House how quickly he will complete them.
  I can only say that my experience of Bryan Carsberg, in the time that he has been in the Office of Fair Trading, tells me that he will conduct the inquiries as quickly as is consistent with the conscientious and fair carrying out of his responsibilities under the relevant legislation. The investigation that was held in the autumn of 1993 was carried expeditiously, and I have no reason to believe that the coming one will be carried out in any different way.
  As for the points made, especially by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), about cross-media considerations, I am inhibited from making much of a substantive reply because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is conducting a review of the cross-media ownership rules.
  An announcement of the outcome of that review, including any legislative implications that might flow, is likely to come about in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman will not have to wait for the Government's views to be made clear. Unless there is another reshuffle and I am luckier that I was today, it will not fall to me to answer the hon. Gentleman.
  I think that we have had a useful debate, even though it has not been easy for me to respond in a meaningful way to the contributions of Opposition Members.
  Mr. MacShane: We appreciate what the Minister has said about the inquiry. I would like him to tell the House whether he would personally regret in six or 12 months' time—this is not really a hypothetical question—the ending of the printing of The Independent as a result of the price war. Will the hon. Gentleman make a personal statement?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am not sure that it would tell the hon. Gentleman very much, if I were to venture an opinion upon that. I would rather have more newspapers than fewer in an ideal world. That is not the question that I shall be asked if issues are raised under competition legislation. I shall have to make a decision in a particular case.
  In the earlier takeovers that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the then Secretary of State had to come to a decision on whether what was proposed was desirable in the public interest. That would apply to the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act as much as to the merger provisions. I cannot give a meaningful answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  As I have said, I think that this has been a useful debate. I am sure that the Director General of Fair Trading will have his attention drawn to it and that he will take the views of Members, as expressed in the debate, into account in coming to a decision and advising me accordingly. I am sure that hon. Members will not have to wait very long for that to come about.

  Latin America
  1.27 am
  Mr. Ray Whitney: I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), the Minister of State, on the Government Front Bench. I am sad, of course, that this is his last appearance in his current persona. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing him well in his new pastures in the Treasury. We look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) joining us in our deliberations on foreign affairs in general and on Latin American affairs in particular. I hope that he will have a long, fruitful and educative tenure in his new office.
  All of us—certainly those of us who are members of the Latin America group—are grateful for the opportunity to air our concerns, interests and points of view once more. It is a happy event that this is the seventh debate of this nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who is the chief instigator of our group, deserves great congratulations on forming what has become a national—nay, even an international—institution. He keeps us up to the mark.
  Over the past six years, most hon. Members have taken a bullish and positive view of what has been happening in Latin America: its awakening from the past and what was known as the "lost decade" of the 1980s; the casting off of the often unjustified image of unstable regimes and isolated protectionism; and the worrisome fact that Latin American countries were not as full members of the international community as we would wish them to be. All is not yet perfect; would that it were, in this country or any part of the world. Some of the problems in Latin America will doubtless be raised by other speakers in the debate, but most hon. Members have welcomed the significant progress made in the past five years or so.
  The democratic process has taken a firm hold. We can all point to areas where it has had setbacks, but, with the sad exception of Cuba, the peaceful change of political power is now the norm in Latin America. It has been particularly noticeable that those democratic Governments have taken courageous decisions in the economic sphere. Even those of us in a deeply rooted, established democracy such as Britain's know that it requires political courage to take unpopular decisions.
  Conservative Members have welcomed the correction of budget deficits, bringing under control the massive inflation that was a feature of the past—in some cases, it is still a feature—the reduction of protectionism and the role of the state, the promotion of free market ideas and the privatisation of the economy. As those developments are the leitmotifs of virtually all states that are moving forward in the world, as we saw most recently at the G7 summit in Naples, they are greatly to be welcomed in Latin America.
  That process continues in nearly all the countries of that hemisphere. Some signs, however, give cause for concern. Those who are friends of Latin America should take note of them and, where necessary and possible, our Governments should take appropriate action to collaborate with the Governments of Latin America to ensure that those negative tendencies are checked and not allowed to damage or reverse the improvements that have been so welcomed.
  The improved political position and economic situation in recent years has resulted in substantial capital inflows of
  454
  some $60 billion a year, until recent months. The extent of that capital has funded the current account imbalances, and in many countries—although not all—it has given a kick start to economic development.
  However, there are signs that the level of those capital inflows is beginning to diminish. The temptation for capital to move to, or remain in, the industrialised world is increasing. In February, the United States Federal Reserve increased its interest rates, and that has significantly checked US dollar inflows into Latin America. As the west European countries, led by the United Kingdom, come out of recession, the demands on capital in our own regions may have a negative effect on those capital inflows in Latin American countries. In addition, there is the rival attraction of the rapidly developing countries of Asia.
  Some observers are worried that there will be another of the boom and bust cycles that have been a feature of the development of Latin American countries. Most observers estimate that there have been five such cycles since the 1820s. I believe that it is possible to ensure that we are not in another such cycle, because fundamental improvements have been made. The capital now on the whole goes, not to Governments, but to private companies—well-founded corporations, which are soundly based and exist to make a living in the marketplace. The fiscal disciplines in most Latin American countries are much stronger, and the mobility of capital and of labour are much improved.
  The fundamental wealth of Latin American countries, specifically in raw materials and energy resources, is great, and can certainly continue to be developed for the benefit of the people of those countries.
  However, among the negative factors in those difficult equations is the continuing low labour productivity in most —although not all—industrial sectors in Latin America. The low competitiveness of their exports is set against the great demand that is burgeoning for imports, and that is leading to trade deficits.
  Another factor that causes considerable worry to all of us is the degree of wealth inequality that exists, arid possibly is growing, in some Latin American countries. I came across one estimate by Mr. Alejandro Foxley, a former Finance Minister of Chile, who said that one of the crucial differences between Asian and Latin American countries rests precisely in that area of wealth inequality. He calculated that, in Asian countries, the richest fifth of society were between five and 10 times wealthier than the bottom fifth, whereas in Chile, that ratio was 12, in Argentina, 16, and in Mexico, as high as 27.
  Obviously, the political significance of such inequalities as that are considerable, and could have a serious political impact. They could strongly inhibit the courageous moves that are being, and continue to be, taken to develop free markets, to let the private sector carry the economies forward. As we in this country well understand, those moves carry political, social and economic tensions. If those inequalities in wealth are allowed to get out of hand, the consequences could be serious.
  The significance of the regional groups is important and needs considerably better handling than we have so far achieved in the European Union. We welcome the development of the North American Free Trade Agreement and Mercosur, the various bilateral relationships and the general reduction of tariff barriers. But it is important that those blocks do not develop into ring-fenced hostile trading blocks, with each one acting against the other.

  455
  We in Britain, particularly in the Conservative party, have always stressed that an important contribution that we have to make in the European Union is to ensure that the danger of Fortress Europe does not materialise. Our friends in the Latin American countries have the same responsibilities, of which they are aware. There are great opportunities, particularly for the European Union and Mercosur, to develop links. That is already happening, and I urge the Government to continue to concentrate on that issue.
  Having made a macro-case, I shall now make a micro-point. One part of our trade with Latin America involves Scotch whisky—a significant and increasingly important export from Britain to Latin American countries. Venezuela is only just behind Japan as the fifth most valuable export market for Scotch, with exports last year worth £83 million.
  There are concerns that in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay—where together the markets were worth more than £70 million in 1993—Scotch whisky exports face severe fiscal discrimination. In Mexico, where Scotch whisky exports earned £33 million last year, the geographical description of Scotch whisky is neither recognised nor protected. That is a sphere where Her Majesty's Government should ensure that they work hard to correct what is clearly an unfair position.
  There are two other areas where Her Majesty's Government should continue to develop and improve their performance in relation to Latin America. The first involves the teaching of the Spanish language, which comes a poor second to French—the first foreign language taught in British schools. I am well aware of the practical difficulties relating to the availability of teachers as well as a number of other factors, but the teaching of Spanish should be a high priority with the Department for Education. A most welcome development over the past year has been the increasing number of ministerial-level visits by British Ministers and other political leaders to Latin American countries. The high number of inward visits of Latin American political figures into this country is also most welcome. I hope that that development will continue.
  My final plea to the Minister is that he and his colleagues should reconsider a point that a number of us have made on many occasions, both in the Chamber and in correspondence. There should be another Government-sponsored conference on Latin America. The last such conference was, I believe, held in 1972. It is high time that another conference was staged, not only to bring to the notice of business men on both sides the opportunities available, but to highlight our growing political links as Latin American countries take an increasingly international role in the United Nations' activities and a number of other areas. Our cultural and historical links with Latin American countries are also long-standing.
  All those matters are worthy of great attention. I hope that the new Minister of State at the Foreign Office, together with our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry, will take that on board. Britain has a long and distinguished record of links with Latin American countries. Over the last generation, those links have been allowed to fade away considerably—but not, I am glad to say, to disappear
  456
  entirely. They have been diminished and weakened. It must be in our interests, in the interests of all those whom we represent in the House and, I venture to suggest, in the interests of the Latin American countries that Britain, both nationally and through the leadership we can offer many of our partners in the European Union, should give a new charge of energy and enthusiasm to our links with Latin America. I very much look forward to my right hon. and hon. Friends leading us in that direction.
  1.46 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This debate is a welcome annual event. Although it is 1 o'clock in the morning here, it is only 8 o'clock in the evening in most of South America. Perhaps people there can listen to this debate live and at a reasonable hour, just as we were able to watch the World Cup at a reasonable hour.
  This is an important debate. Indeed, it is important that we have this sort of discussion. What divides Labour Members and the Conservative Members who introduce this debate in most years is that they believe that democracy equals a free market economy equals privatisation equals freedom for all people, whereas we are sceptical about that point of view.
  We stress the way in which the imbalances between rich and poor in most of South America have actually widened and are still widening. Absolute poverty is becoming worse. The degree of rampant urbanisation, with people moving into shanty towns, is truly frightening to perceive.
  The issue that has arisen during the past year has been the desire of millions of ordinary people throughout the whole of Latin America to live in a society where their vote counts for something, where they do not have to live in fear of the military, where the police are under some form of democratic control, and where their children will enjoy an available health service and will grow up able to go to school, have an education and get some meaningful job at the end of that.
  Those engaged in agriculture want to get reasonable prices for their crops. There is not much point in well-meaning politicians in western Europe and North America lecturing farmers in South America and telling them that they should not grow crops that are eventually used for hard drugs that destroy the very lifeblood of children and young people on the streets of our cities, when they are paid such appallingly low prices for maize and other crops. There is a connection between the two.
  The economic event of the past year has been the establishment of the North American Free Trade Area. There will be problems for much of Latin America if it is to be cut off from natural trading with North America by the growth of NAFTA. The idea of a barrier south of Mexico through which trade with the rest of South America cannot necessarily pass contains within it the seeds of the most enormous conflicts, as does the attitude of the European Community and a number of other countries.
  The signing of the GATT treaty is presented as a kind of all-winners situation, but many of believe that the poorest in the poor countries will suffer as a result because much of that treaty is designed around the needs of multinational capital rather than for social improvement and environmental protection.
  It would not be right to continue the debate without at least mentioning the horrors of what is happening in Haiti,

  457
  where a democratically elected President was overthrown by the military. By whatever means, if President Aristide is restored to power, he will not be able to govern and the country will be permanently unstable until the legacy of the Duvaliers, their secret police and the fear factor is removed.
  The tragedy and horror for the people on Haiti, be they those living in fear of the secret police in their own country, or those dying on the high seas as they try to escape to safety, will continue for a long time. It is to the shame of many that many countries were happy to go along with the Duvaliers' regime through aid, recognition and so on down the years.
  During the past year, the most dramatic events in much of the region have been in Mexico, with the Zapatista uprising in the south. That was seen as an outrageous event by many in the world community, who simply did not understand the degree of impoverishment in many parts of Mexico. When the Zapatista National Liberation Army, the EZLN, occupied San Cristobal de las Casas and a number of other towns in the Chiapas region, it issued a statement which said:
  "As free men and women we are aware that the war we are declaring is a last but just resort. The dictators have been waging an undeclared and genocidal war against our peoples for many years, wherefore we urge your full participation in support of the Mexican people and their struggle for work, land, housing, food, health, education, independence and freedom, democracy, justic and peace. We shall not cease our struggle until we see these basic demands of our people met, forming the government of our free and democratic country."
  The report from which I am quoting goes on to point out that, in the Chiapas states, 66 per cent. of households lack electricity, 71 per cent. of children over the age of 14 are unable to go to school, they are fourth from the bottom among Mexican states in the percentage of households with access to running water and sewers, and the mortality rate is 94 per 1,000 live births. That is in a country that was being described by the World bank and others as on the road to economic success. It is hardly surprising that those things happened. It is interesting that, in later opinion polls throughout Mexico, what the EZLN had done in that region was supported by 61 per cent. of the popultion.
  The horrors of what is happening in Mexico as a direct result of the World bank's intervention during the debt crisis of the early 1980s and now the North American Free Trade Agreement will not go away in a hurry and it might well break the stranglehold of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional on politics in Mexico. I hope that the British Government will support the sending of independent observers to watch the presidential and congressional elections in Mexico this year. It is essential that those involved in those elections understand that people from outside are prepared to watch what is going on.
  I also want to draw attention to what has been going on in central America during the past year. There have been significant changes and earlier this this year a large number of hon. Members signed an early-day motion looking forward to the restoration of human rights and proper judical processes in Honduras. It was important to do that. It is significant that, on 13 April, the new President Reina of Honduras said:
  "International human rights organisations have perceived that there could be threats to my government and they have denounced that situation … to prevent these threats being realised."
  458
  That is a cry from the heart for many within the central American region where some democracy has been restored, as in the case of Honduras.
  There is still fear of paramilitary organisations and of the military as those Governments try to uncover human rights abuses. Unmarked graves have been discovered, people have disappeared and what may or may not have happened to them has come to light. The military is often virtually off the hook and able to do much as it pleases.
  Although elections have taken place in El Salvador and the horrors of the civil war there have ended—hopefully for good, but perhaps only temporarily—one must question the policy followed by the United States in pouring vast amounts of military aid into El Salvador for a war that could not be won, to protect an elite trying to hang on to their power and wealth. The new Government have pledged themselves to work with the Opposition and other parties, but it is a matter of concern that President Caldersón Sol of the ARENA party was close to Roberto D'Aubuisson, who was closely involved with the death squads during the horrors of the civil war.
  There is an economic base to many such conflicts, arising from the desire of the poorest people to enjoy a decent standard of living and the desire of the wealthy and powerful to hang on to their wealth and power at all costs. Traditionally, the US has supported the wealthy and powerful against the poor in that region.
  In previous debates, I have often asked about Chile. Things have changed enormously there in the past few years. The second democratic elections will be held this year, and I was among the people who met a parliamentary delegation from Chile that came to Britain last week.
  For all that, I find it astonishing that Chile's head of armed forces is General Pinochet, who was responsible for the deaths of at least 50,000 people in Chile. He seems to travel around the world with impunity, aided and abetted by the British Government in entering this country using false names and false passports, to buy arms here. It is disgraceful that the Government are prepared to share in such duplicity organised by the Chilean military, led by General Pinochet. He is still on his arms-buying excursions, and flexes his muscles to demonstrate what a powerful person he is in Chile.
  I had the privilege of chairing a huge meeting in Manchester last month which brought together speakers from different parts of the world to examine the new world economic order and the problems that it is creating. One speaker was Marco Aurelio Garcia, international secretary of the Workers party of Brazil. He also attended a meeting in the House, and displayed an impressive grasp of world affairs.
  His description of his party's programme and its hopes of winning elections later this year gives me great encouragement. He pointed out that, for all the facade and his country's brilliant success at football and wonderful cultural traditions, enormous poverty is suffered by many Brazilians. It was shown in a TV programme about Brazilian football broadcast on Tuesday, directed by Roberto Mardo.
  Seventy million people in Brazil are excluded from its economy and a normal life. They have a twilight existence, living hand to mouth by scavenging, begging, prostitution and drugs. The Government elected later this year will have to confront those problems. They will be elected with a mandate to change, spread wealth, and bring education, housing and employment to the masses.

  459
  All those aims are highly laudable. They would be difficult to achieve in any society in any circumstances, and well nigh impossible if the world community, through its financial institutions, continues the stranglehold on Latin America economies of the debt repayment system and underpricing of basic commodities.
  We have, I hope, a humanitarian interest in the standard of living of ordinary people throughout the latin American continent, but we also have a vested interest, as does every citizen of the globe, in protecting the environment of the planet. The economic system that is being imposed on the poorest countries is one that quite deliberately damages the environment. There is not much point in lecturing people to defend their rain forest if we tell them at the same time that the only way out of their economic problems is to increase the planting of crops for export, knowing full well that that will be done on areas which were formerly covered with rain forest.
  There are many countries and many areas in Latin America on which one could spend a great deal of time, but unfortunately the time allowed for the debate is fairly limited.
  The issue of human rights and the image that is presented on our screens of the war against drugs is very real. I have no time for hard drugs in any way. Indeed, I see the horrors of their effects on young people in my community when they become involved in taking them. It seems to me that something is thoroughly wrong when the poorest people in Latin America are growing the ingredients that eventually turn up as hard drugs on the streets of European and north American cities, causing a cancer and a poison in societies at both ends.
  Somewhere along the line, unnamed faceless people living in tax havens are making vast profits from that, and are laundering drug money all over the place. I certainly would not want to have any truck with those people.
  We must also recognise that, in the facade of the war against drugs, in countries such as Colombia, some totally vile abuses of human rights are going on. The number of political killings in Colombia and the political violence there is truly frightening.
  I have in front of me a copy of a paper from the US Committee for Refugees entitled "Feeding the Tiger: Colombia's Internally Displaced People". It contains a graph that has three factors: political assassinations, disappearances, and deaths in combat. From it, one can see that the figures are fairly static from 1970 to 1980, with a bit of a blip around 1977. From 1980 onwards, there was a massive increase in the number of political assassinations —up to 3,000 a year in the late 1980s, settling down to some 2,000 a year currently. Disappearances are rising fairly steadily, and deaths in combat are rising very rapidly indeed. Those figures represent the people who are killed in Colombia.
  There are many complex reasons why people are killed in Colombia. Other figures show that, in 1988, 2,738 political, or presumed political, assassinations and 210 disappearances were recorded. In 1992, 2,315 political, or presumed political, assassinations and 237 disappearances were recorded. In addition, 1,801 assassinations with a possible motive of social cleansing were recorded. Those figures are truly frightening, whichever way one cares to look at them.
  460
  When one starts to look at what is going on there, one finds that British Gas, a privatised utility in this country, is well placed to lead a multi-billion pound contract to pipe Colombian natural gas throughout the capital—and making a great deal of money at the same time. When Amnesty International produced a very thorough report on human rights in Colombia, it met a strong riposte from both the Colombian Government and the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who was a junior Minister at the Foreign Office.
  David Bull, director of Amnesty International, wrote in The Guardian shortly after:
  "The outrage of the Colombian authorities at our recent adverts in the British press is matched by our bewilderment. As head of the Colombian Administrative Security Department (DAS). Dr Fernando Brito must be aware that there is no such international court or forum to which he could "sue" Amnesty International"—
  that was after a threat to sue Amnesty International. Mr. Bull went on to say that he would
  "welcome the opportunity to have its evidence on human rights violations presented and tested before any independent body."
  The Amnesty International report, entitled "Colombia —The human rights movement under siege", catalogues the problems encountered by people who have stood up for human and social rights in the country. Trade unionists have been assassinated; those who have stood up for the land rights of the landless have died as a result; and the constitution grants impunity to many of those responsible for the abuses.
  Summarising recent reports on the situation in Colombia, the Inter-congregational Commission of Justice and Peace quoted these words from Amnesty International's report:
  "Successive Colombian governments have largely escaped international criticism because of a skilful mix of political initiatives, public relations campaigns and the support, in the international arena, of powerful allies for whom Colombia's strategic and economic significance is of far more importance than its human rights record".
  The British Government say that they are keen to increase the amount of trade with and inward investment in Latin America—interestingly, by a number of newly privatised utilities from this country—in order to make considerable profits. In Colombia, there is not just a battle between the drugs barons, but a battle against those who are standing up for human rights. Trade union leaders, social leaders, activists and others who want housing and schools for their children are being assassinated.
  The British Government are also providing the military with logistical and intelligence support—as is the United States—in the guise of a war against drugs. Many in Colombia suspect that the intelligence system is being used to monitor the activities of those who are standing up for the social progress to which I have referred.
  Several reasonable conclusions can be drawn from the current situation. The armed forces must act within the law, and the growth in the paramilitary forces must be not just checked but reduced; there is a great deal of illegal paramilitary action. Links between the army and the paramilitaries are suspected, and it is thought that anti-terrorist legislation is frequently used to prevent people from taking part in social protests. There are few signs that those who are guilty of these appalling atrocities are being brought to book.
  I hope that the British Government will be prepared not only to recognise the existence of serious human rights violations in Colombia, but to support monitoring

  461
  exercises and human rights initiatives. I hope that their foreign policy initiative will stress human rights objectives rather than purely economic ones.
  We are discussing a continent of wondrous diversity, beauty and potential. Many of its people live in terrible poverty, and much of its cultural heritage is under threat in numerous ways. We must view the world as a whole—its trading patterns, its ecology and its sustainability. I think that much of the treatment of the poorest people in South America is deplorable; we ought to participate in the development of a foreign and trading policy that takes a very different attitude to the region and its problems.
  What has happened in Mexico, and what is happening in Haiti and to the poorest people in Brazil and Colombia, will be replicated throughout the continent. Although we cannot solve all the problems from here, we can at least recognise them and not always be seen to be supporeing the rich and powerful against the poor and landless.
  2.8 am
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), the distinguished chairman of the British-Latin American parliamentary group, on opening the seventh consecutive summer Adjournment debate on the important subject of this country's relations with Latin America. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) to his last outing as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, responsible for relations with Latin America, and congratulate him on his appointment as Paymaster General.
  This has been another good year for Latin America, and in particular for Britain's relations with it. A glittering array of Her Majesty's Ministers has travelled across Latin America, which is good for our relations; it is also good for Ministers to absorb an appreciation of Latin America and take it into the heart of Government. It is a collection of countries with an educated elite that can match that of countries anywhere in the world. It is a continent with representative democracy now firmly re-established, except in the shameful cases of Cuba and Haiti, and it is a continent with growing economies. I hope that the Prime Minister will build on his recent visit to Colombia and to Brazil—the first such visit by a serving British Prime Minister—and I hope that he will build into his programme visits to other Latin American republics.
  Only two weeks ago we welcomed President Wasmosy to the House and Celso Amorim, the Foreign Minister of Brazil is here now. In fact, only last Tuesday he witnessed from the Gallery the interesting spectacle of Prime Minister's Question Time. In London today we have also seen Ernesto Samper, the President-elect of Colombia. He spoke to us here, in the mother of Parliaments. This year, the Inter-Parliamentary Union has welcomed parliamentary delegations from Cuba and from Chile, with whom we have had interesting discussions.
  Last year I spoke at length about Brazil, which covers one third of the area of Latin America. It is the ninth largest economy in the world and has an annual gross domestic product of $500 billion, which is three times that of Mexico and twice that of Belgium. The economy of the state of São Paulo in Brazil is one and a half times that of the entire Argentine republic. That puts that magnificent country into context.
  462
  Brazil is currently going through a major transformation through its economic stabilisation programme which was launched by the then Minister of Finance, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. It has already switched from the cruzeiro real currency, which only last April was depreciating at the mind-boggling rate of 42 per cent. per month, through the URV index to the new currency, the real, which was launched on 1 July. By the use of strong monetary control, high interest rates and supportive measures it has stopped inflation in its tracks. The new currency has appreciated gently against the United States dollar in the weeks since its introduction.
  None of that can do any harm to the election prospects of Senator Cardoso who has become a strong presidential candidate for the elections due on 3 October. Nevertheless, he has a herculean task to outstrip the front runner, Luis Inacio da Silva, well known as Lula, the leader of the Workers party, to whom the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred.
  Brazil may be proud of its recent democratic record. It reverted from military dictatorship to democracy without bloodshed. It went through the disillusion and trauma of seeing its first renewed democratically elected president, Fernando Collor de Mello, driven from office accused of corruption. It has seen its interim and current president, Itamar Franco, weather a personal scandal. It has been through all that without breaching its constitutional procedure. That is a proud record and we in the House must await the new president who takes office at the beginning of 1995.
  I should like to draw the House's attention to developments in Argentina. We must lift up our eyes above the hurt brought about by that tragic piece of fratricide, the south Atlantic conflict of 1982. Argentina is a country akin to sleeping beauty. It has been kissed by the prince of democracy and is emerging from a 50-year slumber. I ask the House to cast its mind back to the 1920s and 1930s. Argentina was then interlocked with the economies of the British empire. British companies ran the public utilities, the meat trade and the banking. The Argentines exported their agricultural produce to Britain and we, in turn, exported our industrialised products to Argentina. It was akin to one of the great dominions. However, it was our actual great dominions—Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa—which saw them as competitors and invoked imperial preference against them at the Ottawa imperial conference in 1932.
  The shock of that event was like that experienced by a child rejected by his parent. It led to the 50-year trauma from which Argentina is only now emerging. It is ironic that Britain has also played a major part in that emergence by defeating the military dictatorship in the south Atlantic conflict. The 50-year trauma—mob Peronism followed by military dictatorship—had a devastating effect on Argentina, taking it from being the emerging power alongside Canada in the 1930s to the self-deprecating shadow of the early 1980s.
  What a great humiliation that that potentially great country should have had the self-image of a third-world country. Not for nothing did Argentines joke bitterly that God had given Argentina its agriculture, its wine and its oil but that, to redress the balance for those riches, God had given it the Argentines themselves. It was a loss of confidence on a grand scale.
  The earthquake of the Falklands conflict, the discrediting of the military and the restoration of

  463
  democracy did not complete the renaissance. President Alfonsin, the first democratically elected president, began the task, but it has been the unlikely figure of President Menem who has seen it through to fruition. Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you remember presidential candidate Menem —the Peronist candidate—with his byzantine appearance and bellicose utterances, especially those against the Falkland Islands?
  Who could have foreseen what that man would achieve? He has transformed Argentina—inflation has fallen, the deficit is being reined in, the vast inefficient nationalised industries have been privatised, foreign investment and expertise have been brought in, and the British utility companies have reinvested. Certainly, Argentine industry, which is old-fashioned and inefficient, needs investment and renewal, and there are many opportunities for this country in that process.
  The Foreign Minister, Guido di Tella, is a highly impressive gentleman of world class. He has launched his "charm offensive", which is helping the wounds of conflict to heal. The House should not forget that Argentina's wounds are still painful to the touch. I hope that there will be a steady building of bridges between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, and the recent Anglo-Argentine conference in Mendoza attended by some hon. Members and others will have done much to help that process.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is right, however, to stress our dedication to self-determination and the fact that that dedication would lead us to defend the Falkland Islands should it be necessary. It is no kindness to Argentina to give it the impression that we would not back the democratic rights of the Falkland Islands should it be necessary to do so. That message should be clear.
  Incidentally, the same message should be sent to Guatemala in relation to Belize—this country and, I believe, the world community, would, through the United Nations, stand behind the independence and sovereignty of Belize.
  Argentina has got rid of violence—the violence to the "disappeared", the violence of abductions and that of left-wing terrorists has gone. How tragic that, earlier this month, we witnessed the bomb explosion at the headquarters of the Argentine Jewish community, in which 22 people lost their lives and 140 were injured. Apparently, the perpetrators are believed to be an Iranian Hezbollah terror team. I am sure that the House will echo the message of sympathy and support that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent to the Foreign Ministers of Argentina and Israel.
  Argentina is again taking its rightful place in the world community. Its navy participated alongside ours in the campaign to liberate Kuwait, and its armed forces are shoulder to shoulder with ours on the green line in Cyprus. Argentine is again a valued trading and investment player and a major companion on the world stage, and we must give it our attention.
  Recent months have seen the drama of the GATT agreement and the saga of the European Union agriculture and trading developments. The lesson to be learnt is that the United Kingdom and Latin America are natural allies. This country's fight for free and open trade marks us out as
  464
  the Latin American countries' natural ally in Europe. Our friendships go back to the days of Canning, and of their independence struggles. Our interests run in parallel.
  We cannot ask the Latin American countries—or, indeed, other developing countries—to return to democracy and to have sound economies and free trade, and then put up barriers against them. They must earn their way in the world, and for that they need markets in which to sell their goods, to earn foreign exchange with which in turn to buy our goods.
  For that reason I alert the House to the growing phenomenon of protectionism masquerading as allegations of social dumping. Allegations of exploitation involving child labour, slavery, prison labour or dangerous working conditions are made against developing countries, and those are used as a justification for trade barriers. Clearly the House is against the misuse of prison labour, which we see taking place in the communist republic of China. Equally, child labour, as seen in far too many Asiatic countries, is abhorrent. However, we should not allow the allegations to cloud our judgment.
  Those allegations come mainly from three sources. The first source is the extreme left, who blame all injustices on the international trading system; the second is producer interests in the industrialised world, including the trade unions; the third consists of the advocates of regional blocs, such as Sir James Goldsmith. Those are indeed strange bedfellows.
  I believe that the greatest threat to our relations with Latin America would come from an introverted European Union, and the Latin American republics consequently looking inwards to a Mercosul and other sub-regional organisations, and then to an extended North American Free Trade Agreement. Such an extension of NAFTA would constitute a self-imposed subjection to a belated Monroe doctrine.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that one of the many failings of the GATT deal is the fact that there is nothing in it about the rights of workers, or about protection against child labour? If we are serious about opposing the use of penal labour or child labour anywhere, would it not be helpful if such provisions had been written on the face of the GATT treaty?
  Mr. Arnold: If such provisions were written in, they would hamstring many of the developing economies. It is all very well for us to parade our social consciences, but it is quite another thing if those countries cannot compete in the world. We must never forget that.
  We must guard against the advocates of social dumping allegations, such as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North and also against the possibility of their winning their case in the new World Trade Organisation. Batteries of European Commission lawyers and experts are already descending on Geneva, using alleged cases of child labour, which they then take from the particular to the general, as an excuse for banning third world exports. The United States is also likely to behave in the same way.
  That is a looming challenge that we must fight. Fortunately, we have an ally in Sir Leon Brittan as European Trade Commissioner. He has specifically opposed any action against social dumping when exporters have owed their advantage purely to low wages and social costs.

  465
  I shall make a few specific bids to my hon. Friend the Minister. I strongly support the call from our hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, on behalf of the British Latin American parliamentary group, for a Government-sponsored conference in London on Latin America. That can only heighten the profile of that important part of the world.
  I also support the plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe for greater emphasis on the teaching of the Spanish language to our young people. Clearly, with a multiplicity of countries in Latin America and elsewhere speaking Spanish, the language is important, certainly by contrast with French and even more so by contrast with German. I also put in a plea for the Portuguese language and I ask that we ensure that the setting of a GCSE examination in this language is continued.
  I ask that we thoroughly review the support that we give, through the British Council, to the network of the Cultura Inglesa in so many Latin American countries. Those institutions are doing sterling work in teaching the Queen's English and British culture to Latin American young people. That does much to strengthen the cultural ties between our country and Latin America.
  I am grateful for the opportunity for this seventh debate on Latin America. It is vital and we are making great progress to rekindle the warm relationship between this country and Latin America.
  2.25 am
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I, too, am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) secured what is, by now, a traditional end of Session debate on Latin America. I am sad that this will be my last such debate before I transfer from the Foreign Office to a new job in the Treasury. However, I hope that it will not be the end of my relations with Latin America.
  I have enormously enjoyed my work with Latin America over the past 14 months. It is a continent of immense dynamism, potential and diversity. I have been treated with great kindness by the ambassadors of the countries represented here and, indeed, by their Governments in many dealings with them, including when I have had to deal with some difficult and controversial matters.
  In all cases, I have received courtesy and understanding, and I have always admired the professionalism with which those countries conduct their relations with us through their ambassadors and the staff in London.
  There has been a lively traffic of visits in both directions over the past year. This week, to take an example, we have received here the President-elect of Colombia, Mr. Samper, and the Foreign Minister of Brazil, Mr. Amorim. Indeed, I dined with him shortly before this debate started. Both during that dinner and in the more formal parts of their visits, we carried forward our traditionally close relations with those two countries. Earlier this month, we welcomed President Wasmosy of Paraguay. There, too, we found a high degree of common accord.
  It is worth noting that, in 1989, nine British Ministers visited Latin America. Last year, that figure had risen to 22 visits. We are not just continuing, but developing and enriching the ministerial relationship between our two continents.
  466
  I pay tribute here to the role of Canning house in this respect. It is always a privilege for me to address audiences there and to listen to questions, points and criticisms from audiences assembled by Canning house. I know that visitors always welcome the opportunity to make contact with British business men, academics and other politicians. As for the calls for a conference on Latin America, I should not tie the hands of my successor, but I hope that he will read this debate and the particular request made by my hon. Friends.
  Relations are also helped specifically by the interest taken in Latin American affairs by hon. Members. Those hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are known for their continuing interest in the issues. That fact impresses visitors who come here; they like to know that hon. Members take not only an occasional but a continuing interest in developments in Latin America. They know well that that implies not only applause for the successes of the continent but scrutiny of its problems.
  Human rights are not a taboo issue. Provided the discussion is informed and constructive, it enriches the international debate that human relations issues and allegations should be raised and discussed. In that context, I welcome the contribution from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). We all respect the knowledge that he brings to bear on the subject, as well as his genuine concerns about human rights abuses, which we recognise still occur in at least some of the countries concerned.
  My final point is that, if hon. Members are considering a visit to Latin America during the recess or at any other time, I hope that they will let the Foreign Office know, so that our post out there can help to make their visits a success. Although I am leaving the Department, I intend to visit Latin America in August and September to complete a little business and to have a holiday in the region, which is a legitimate pursuit. I hope that the last 14 months have at least earned me a little recreation in the area, as well as a little more work.
  The matter of trade was raised several times in the debate.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before the Minister leaves the subject of human rights, I raised some specific points relating to Colombia. I asked whether the British Government are prepared to support human rights initiatives and examine seriously the situation in Colombia, because one gets the impression, from the outside, so to speak, that the Foreign Office is more interested in inward investment in Colombia than it is in looking at the human rights problems which undoubtedly are growing in Colombia, not diminishing.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I intend to come back to the issue of human rights later in my remarks. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when President Gaviria visited us last year, when I visited Colombia and, indeed, when President-elect Samper came here this week, human rights issues were raised; our concerns were made clear to the Government of Colombia and those individuals. If I may, I shall respond later on what I consider to be a particularly important aspect of human rights in Latin America.
  As for trade, hon. Members will be pleased to know that our exports to the region increased by some 27 per cent. to some £1.7 billion in 1993, and there is evidence that,

  467
  during the early months of this year, they increased by a further 17 per cent. Despite that, our market share remains disappointingly low, and we are working to correct that.
  British industry and commerce are becoming more interested in the region. It is especially pleasing to see a number of British companies which were previously Government-owned domestic utilities, such as British Gas and the water companies, emerging on the world scene and winning contracts in Latin America in the face of stiff international competition. We and the Department of Trade and Industry are working jointly to promote trade. Eight export promoters for Latin America have been appointed by the British Overseas Trade Board and business men frequently accompany Ministers on visits to the continent.
  Latin America has changed. The old development model.and Government aims of closed economies, high tariffs, nationalised industries and import substitution have given way to an opening up of markets, a lowering of barriers and a welcome of investment. Most Latin American countries have embarked on privatisation programmes, many with help from British banks and institutions.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, those economic changes are often painful. It takes political courage to undertake a programme of reform to reduce budget deficits, control inflation, get on top of macro-economic problems, as well to restructure economies. Those changes are not easy, and the fact that, in almost all cases, countries have persisted and are now seeing the fruits of their endeavours demonstrates their political maturity.
  It is not, of course, an even process—some countries' rate of change is faster than that of others—and there are exceptions to the general lowering of tariffs. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to Scotch whisky, which faces discriminatory tariffs in a number of Latin American countries. We continually point that out.
  It is of almost overriding importance that our continent and the European Union maintain their world trading vocation. We must resist any temptation to live in a fortress Europe. We must be an outward-looking trading organisation, and we must develop links with Latin America generally and with the regional groupings within that continent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham also struck a correct note of caution about any attempt to use trade policy to try to force through social changes in poorer countries. That quickly becomes a form of protectionism, and it is a way of saying, "We're not going to trade with you, you are too poor." That is quite wrong and self-defeating.
  Of course we are all repelled by the use of prison labour to undercut the market, and the use of child labour must be addressed through international mechanisms. When trade is used to effect such changes, it is an extremely blunt and clumsy instrument. As those countries recognise, such a policy can quickly become a form of disguised protectionism, which we will always resist.
  Parallel political developments have occurred, and the establishment of civilian government is now almost universal in Latin America. If we take as a general test of democracy the three requirements of the rule of law, freedom of expression and representative institutions with
  468
  free elections, those countries are democratic. It is noticeable that when they suffer from internal governmental crises, as they have done, they have recently been resolved peacefully and constitutionally.
  Some of those crises have been serious, and have involved the removal of presidents, but whereas, 20 years ago, that might have led to the military taking over, now they are coped with and resolved within those countries' constitutions. The old stereotype of Latin America suffering from frequent revolutions, military dictatorships and repression is out of date.
  The need to improve the quality of democracy in those countries is widely acknowledged. Democracy does not consist solely of periodic elections. In many instances, it requires the strengthening of the state and its administrative systems. That is why, in some countries, we have aid programmes that fall under the general heading of good government. Human rights abuses are still too common, and there is frequently a need to strengthen the judical and law enforcement systems. We from the outside can often assist with that.
  There is a similar point to be made about poverty. We on the Government Benches strongly believe that free trade, liberalisation and market economics provide the dynamic for economic growth and are indispensable. The statist model comprehensively failed. I believe that the economic changes are irreversible.
  As for the distribution of wealth, overcoming problems of poverty and ensuring that as many people as possible participate in the market, these are properly matters for the individual countries. They all require a strengthening of the administrative and legal systems, so that all the peoples of the countries that we are discussing can live under governmental systems of probity, integrity and efficiency.
  We know that Colombia is a violent country. The connection with drugs money is evident. All too often, the colossal profits made from drugs overwhelm the administrative, judical and law-enforcement systems in the country. These systems are too easily subverted by the flows of drugs money. The war on drugs is an important way of preventing the spread of poisonous drugs into the rest of the world, and of enabling the Government of Colombia to deliver good government in every sense of the term to their citizens.
  Mr. Corbyn: I understand the Minister's comments about the drugs war, but I was talking about the growing number of political assassinations of trade union leaders, of social protest groups and of people demanding education, health services and land reform. It seems that foreign Governments all concern themselves with the drugs war and ignore the vicious civil war that is being waged. The number of trade union leaders and political activists who have been assassinated is frightening. Surely that is something that should concern us.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The causes of violent deaths in Colombia are many and complex. Common crime is a factor. Far too many disputes are resolved violently. Far too many people own weapons and use them. There are guerrilla groups that refuse to come into the constitution to pursue their aims democratically. Drugs wars are financed by the profits to which I alluded. There are rogue elements in the security forces.

  469
  It is an aim of the Government of Colombia, and of the next president, to improve the judicial and law-enforcement agencies, the police and the army. It is the next president's aim to use his authority to improve those organisations' respect for human rights. That often means improving the pay of their employees, their discipline and their training, and ensuring that they are subject to the civilian authorities.
  In Europe, we are used to human rights abuses being very much connected with the overbearing power of the state. Indeed, we have dealt with two ideologies in our continent—fascism and communism—which represented states which in many respects were too powerful. There is a difference between that and what is common in Latin America, where it is often the very weakness of states and their failure to control rogue elements in the apparatus of government that lead to human rights abuses.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: My hon. Friend is right. The problem in Colombia is the vast scale of the country and its rugged terrain. Since independence, the Colombian Government have been unable to get their civil writ to apply throughout the country in the minutest detail. We must regard the issue from that perspective, not the extraordinary perspective from Islington High street.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend gives a further illustration of the point that I was making.
  May I take this opportunity to pay a personal and parting compliment to the officials and staff in the Department in which I have served for the past year? They have served me with unfailing good humour, in good times and bad. The skill and dedication our diplomats and officials in the Foreign Office are an asset of which this country should be proud.

  Child Support Agency
  2.45 am
  Mr. John Spellar: It is unfortunate that we must have this debate, not because of the hour at which we are holding it but because many of us had hoped that, before the recess, the Minister would have made a clear statement about the changes that are so necessary in the Child Support Agency.
  Given the clearly identified problems which so many constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House face, it is intolerable that nothing will be done to resolve their real and pressing problems over the next three months. We hoped that Ministers would give some hope to the thousands of families affected, especially as many of them are heading deeply into debt and face horrendous problems as those debts and related problems, such as potential repossession, pile up.
  We should also recognise the varied nature of the problems and the way in which they are continuing. I understand from press reports on the Secretary of State's attendance at the Select Committee on Social Security that, in about a fifth of the cases being dealt with—an estimated 40,000 people—individuals are now in receipt of less than 70 per cent. of their income. We have been assured time after time in debates on the CSA in the Chamber that nobody was left with less than 70 per cent. of his or her income and that we were simply hearing scare stories, yet we find that a huge number of people are so affected.
  We are not sure, however—I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter this evening—whether the standard assessment is bringing about that result or whether it is because of the clawing back of accumulated debt. Such debt is almost built into the system because of the delays in assessment. Even with a maximum of co-operation by the individuals concerned, that delay can run from 10 weeks to more than three or four months, so substantial debts are built up and the agency is trying to claw money back. Is that why so many people have been telling Members of Parliament over the past year that far more than 30 per cent. is being taken out of their money? Or is it because the CSA is stepping up the deduction-at-source orders and taking money directly from individuals' salaries, irrespective of the effect that it is having on their ability to pay other debts?
  As a result of deduction orders, some of my constituents cannot meet their mortgage repayments and face threatening letters from their building society about the future continuity of their mortgage. I hope that the Minister will shed some light on that tonight.
  It is true that we have achieved some clarification of the amount that has been collected, although, in the debate on 4 July 1994 and the Question Time before that, the figure moved around a little bit. I hope that we shall be given a clearer estimate of the amount that was collected by the CSA in the past year, although it seems as though that figure is well below target, and does not, up to now, bear especially favourable comparison with the operations of the Department of Social Security when it previously dealt with the application of recovery of maintenance. I hope that we shall obtain an idea of the figures that are involved, and also of the on-going costs—not only the set-up costs, but the running costs—of the agency.
  We must welcome the fact that, in the debate on 4 July, the Secretary of State, even if belatedly, announced
  472
  changes to deal with the administrative back-up. We all recognise from correspondence with our constituents and with Members of Parliament that, until then, the problems were horrendous. The sheer period of delay was extremely unsatisfactory, and made it difficult to pursue cases and to follow them up. The nature of the replies has, until recently, been fairly deplorable.
  We should acknowledge that there has been an improvement in the replies in the past couple of months. One has the feeling now that one is communicating with a human being at the other end of the letter, rather than a pre-programmed computer which spent the first two pages giving one the background history and philosophy of the Child Support Act 1991, and never used to discuss the details of the case that one had raised on behalf of one's constituent. That seems to have improved slightly, and the CSA now appears to be addressing itself to the specific problems, although I know that many of our constituents continue to receive letters that are both belated and relatively incomprehensible.
  Even if the administrative problems are overcome, we must recognise that the scheme is fundamentally flawed. There is also the problem that the agency and the Department seem, from time to time, to kick the ball backwards and forwards between one another, especially when issues that relate not so much to administration as to policy are mentioned. They seem, collectively and individually, reluctant to accept the real-life problems that are being created, or, if they do, it is with gradual acquiescence and after a considerable period.
  Some movement has taken place, but it has taken an enormous amount of effort to obtain that movement, and many people's lives have been blighted in the meantime.
  The underlying problems that confront the agency appear to stem from two factors. One factor is mentioned with monotonous regularity in debates on the subject—the influence of the Treasury, driven by the pressures resulting from the huge increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, and a desire to narrow that down.
  No one would deny that the Treasury must have a legitimate interest in substantial sectors of public expenditure. The real question that arises is whether that interest has passed beyond that into obsession, and is being severely overdone to the detriment of individuals. In many cases, Ministers—not only the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), but other Ministers—when speaking about the subject, have constantly asked how much all the changes would cost to the public sector borrowing requirement. Those are legitimate questions to ask, but, by emphasising that aspect as such an overriding priority, they demonstrate that, in effect, the CSA imposes a tax—a tax that falls on specific people, and has fallen with great rapidity, causing huge increases in the amounts that are being taken from those people.
  It is also clear that the initial proposals for the introduction of the CSA would have allowed longer lead times, a greater degree of flexibility and the potential for phasing in. But, under pressure from the Treasury, those proposals seem to have been put on one side, which has resulted in the enormous burdens that have been inflicted on individuals. Wiser counsel has perhaps been overcome by the pressure from the Treasury.
  In the past, although not so much recently, there have also been quotations about changing the culture. They have been reminiscent of the cultural revolution phrases which

  473
  came from another angle in earlier days in the 1960s. People at that time found how difficult it was to institute cultural revolutions. While Governments may wish to bring about some changes in behaviour, they should be extremely careful about how they undertake them, the pace at which they try to implement such revolutions and the effect that they have on the individuals who get caught up in the resulting problems. Different parts of Government policy may be pulling in different directions in the cultural revolution and various strands in the Tory party may be trying to exert influence in different ways, but the victims are getting caught up in the battle.
  Last year Members of Parliament found that huge increases in payments were being required. It was that factor that kicked off the main debates in the Chamber and in the country. People were particularly struck by the fact that, whereas changes in local authority taxation—which were fairly fresh in the mind then—had included provisions for transitional arrangements and financial provisions from the Government to ease the transition from one form of local authority taxation to another, there was no such remedy within the CSA legislation. The full force of the legislation fell directly on individuals—with catastrophic effect.
  That was only part of the problem; the other aspect that caused, and still is causing, enormous upset was the retrospective nature of the legislation. It was not as though the Government had not been warned. From time to time the reports of the Select Committee on Social Security have been quoted in debates on the CSA. In its second interim report of 30 April 1991, the Select Committee stated extremely clearly:
  "one particular aspect of the Government's plans, the intention to make the new provisions retrospective, causes us considerable immediate concern. We have therefore agreed to this initial Report to make our views known in advance of the debates on the Bill in the House of Commons."
  At the conclusion of the three-page document the Select Committee stated:
  "We recommend that provision be made in the Child Support Bill to take account of divorce settlements that have involved a capital settlement clearly made in lieu of child maintenance."
  Apart from the overall question of retrospective legislation, which excited Conservative Members when they were in Opposition and the Labour party was in power, the fact is that a considerable number of the difficulties could have been avoided had the Government taken the Select Committee's wise words, which it did not dream up out of the air. Those words were based on the experience of the established Australian Child Support Agency which, as has been said innumerable times in the Chamber, has been far more successful than our scheme and has caused less major national upset and debate. One reason is that the scheme was not implemented retrospectively.
  Many families made what at the time seemed to be prudent arrangements. Indeed, they were often advised to do so by their lawyers. Whether or not the Minister has some objections to those arrangements because of the implications for the public purse, they were perfectly legal, legitimate and sensible at the time. Now, by a stroke of legislation, those arrangements have been turned upside down. I use that phrase advisedly because it is the phrase used by so many people who have come to my advice bureaux or been at meetings that I have addressed. They have said, "Our world has been turned upside down."
  Those people have been prudent, have kept out of debt and have tried to adjust their affairs as they have moved
  474
  into a new family relationship. Suddenly, they find that all that is put at risk by the operations of the CSA. In many cases, people made settlements that involved transferring the house to one of the partners. Quite often, payments were also being made. Sometimes people took on the joint debts that had been incurred during the marriage. They did all that on the assumption that they would have to make fewer regular payments, but that has all been turned over and their financial arrangements turned upside down.
  I accept that even dispensing with retrospection would leave some longer-term problems. For example, we clearly envisage that there would be far less likelihood of the transfer of the house and therefore the family being able to continue living in the family home—with the consequences of that on the security and welfare of the children. We also envisage that divorce settlements will be more bitterly and fiercely fought. We anticipate considerably more arguments not just about access to the children, but about who will be the parent with care because of the financial implications of that responsibility. There may be further political activity on that front. Even so, it would be at a far lower level than that we are experiencing at the moment.
  We are very concerned about why the system is so inflexible. I have previously mentioned the way in which questions asked in this House, especially on policy issues, seem to be bounced backwards and forwards between the Ministers and at the Department. There is an acceptance of the system as it is rather than an examination of the problems that have been created, some of which cry out against common sense and should be resolved at a much earlier stage.
  Given the changes that have taken place and the enormous range of human experience, it is inevitable that a series of anomalies will be thrown up. There must be a system to take account of those and to deal with them before people's lives are once again thrown into turmoil.
  The Daily Telegraph today again raised the case of the grandparents who adopted their granddaughter to prevent her from being taken into care. I understand that the child is living with other members of the family and that her parents are still alive. However, because the grandparents took action to help the welfare of the child, the CSA is holding them liable for her support.
  I have a case in my constituency where a child is being looked after by the grandmother, who has chosen to direct the CSA to one of the parents even though both of them are working. That seems to be extremely inequitable.
  There is also the constantly raised question about the income of second spouses or partners. Time and again, they are told that their income is not assessed to establish how much is owed. In that case, they query strongly why they are required to give their income. It does not matter how many times they are told that their income does not affect the sum owed, nobody out there believes it.
  If, as the Minister may say, that is only done for their benefit, would it not be better to make the provision of the information voluntary and so avoid a huge amount of mistrust and ill feeling? That would be a simple, straightforward measure which would help the Child Support Agency. There is no mechanism at present within the system for such a political decision. Matters are held in abeyance between the Department and the agency.
  Considerable concern is also caused by the prospect of maintaining the spouse's new partner. Most hon. Members will have come across the problem caused by the break-up of a marriage, the circumstances of which do not concern

  475
  us, when the ex-wife, as it mostly is, marries or lives with someone who is or becomes unemployed, so that it then appears to the first partner that he is now having to pay not only for the children and the ex-spouse, but for the ex-spouse's new partner if he or she is on income support. That strikes people as absurd and unjust.
  That leads to spousal maintenance, which causes enormous resentment. Again, we need not go into the rights and wrongs of the break-up of relationships, but if we are dealing with the Child Support Act and the Child Support Agency, we must query the inclusion of spousal maintenance. In the debate on 4 July the Secretary of State conceded that spousal maintenance was a matter for the courts and it would be better left there. The Minister shakes his head. If he wishes to take up the point, I am sure that I can quote the Secretary of State directly. It would be much better if the maintenance was strictly for the children, not for spouses. It would be considerably better if most of the money went to the children rather than disappeared in abatement against income support.
  There is also considerable concern about the assessment and collection charges, particularly for those who did not request the service. The Minister must decide whether the inconvenience, cost of collect and resultant ill feeling is worth such sums of money. There is no doubt that that is causing considerable resentment.
  The Minister must also be concerned at the huge amounts of arrears that many individuals are building up. Those who have never previously been in debt now find themselves in debt. As always, one of the problems is that debt becomes a multiple problem—as people fall into debt in other areas and face repossession, penalty costs and bailiffs and join the vicious cycle that we want to prevent. That requires a speeding up of the process of assessment and perhaps a re-examination of the way in which those arrears can build up.
  The first key element of change is that more money should go to the children and the disregard should be reconsidered. In Australia, the disregard is far more generous and that leads to far wider public acceptability. Not only is it true that in many instances the money does not go to the children; the family is worse off as a result of money coming via the CSA because the mother often loses passported benefits.
  In my constituency, a mother with three children is £15 a week worse off as a result of the money coming via the CSA and having to pay for school dinners. That is a considerable dent in the family income, resulting in real problems. We would be grateful for an indication of the amount that will go to children. The original estimate, given in the Minister's evidence to the Select Committee, was £50 million out of £480 million. A variety of estimates were given on 4 July. May we have an up-to-date figure?
  I hope that the Minister will take on board the question of incurred costs, particularly in respect of travel to the individual's place of employment. They may be reflected by higher income but if there is not a similar offset, that adds substantially to the individual's CSA liability without any commensurate benefit. Also, the Australian scheme makes allowance for access. That is a much bigger country, but many people in this country are confronted by significant access costs.
  476
  There needs to be recognition of previous settlements and some phasing, to incorporate some of the huge changes. One suggestion is that after an individual has been given a notional assessment, his payments should increase £5 a week at yearly intervals. That would avoid huge disruption to people's lives and finances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has argued before for a proper appeals procedure on the lines of the Australian model, which would introduce robust common sense, which has been absent so far.
  Would such changes require amending the legislation or scrapping the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support Agency and devising a new Act? The 1991 Act and the agency in its current form are unsustainable and should certainly go.
  3.12 am
  Mr. Donald Dewar: We have had many opportunities to debate the vexed question of the Child Support Agency. I welcome this bizarrely late slot, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on his persistence and staying power. I hope that the Minister will be able to give useful information before we give way to other hon. Members who are deeply enthusiastic about very different issues.
  This is almost certainly the last time that I will address the House as a DSS spokesman for my party, until we return from the summer recess. I notice from today's events that not only the Department's budget but its ministerial team is expanding. The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) has been joined by three Under-Secretaries of State—one of them in the other place. I hope that it is not tasteless to observe that there is a newly minted Minister of State. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury, North has to be married to duty in the Child Support Agency. In the hon. Gentleman's case, no doubt, virtue will have its own reward.
  The CSA has given rise to enormous discontent, bitterness and difficulties, the like of which I have not seen before in my career in this place. In the debate on 4 July, there was broad canvassing of the issues, and I do not intend to spend time going over the whole canvas.
  I shall raise one or two points in short compass in the hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to help me with information and with clarification. Most hon. Members will know that the suggested sum of £310 million was raised by the agency in its first year of operation. That figure appears in the agency's annual report for 1993–94, which was published on 4 July—the very morning of the Opposition Supply day.
  As the Minister will know, in a letter to the Select Committee, the chief executive of the agency produced a figure of £312 million, which is a very minor adjustment, of which I would make no criticism. I wish to place on record some of the conclusions, which I hope I have justifiably drawn, from that letter, and which will be of some interest to those following the debate. I remember that, on 4 July, I asked about the contribution that had been made by the liable relatives section. I did not get a reply, but it was a detailed point, and I recognise that, in the hurly-burly of exchanges, not every point can be picked up.
  If I have understood it correctly—I say that a little tentatively, because the figures still seem to be somewhat obscure in some respects—the amount of that £312 million

  477
  that is directly attributable to the liable relatives section and to arrangements that predate the Child Support Agency was £199 million. If we take that out, we are left with a figure for the first year of operation which is directly linked to the activities of the CSA, and assessments levied by it fall to £112 million. I say this in no sarcastic or hostile way, but that seems to me to be a startlingly modest figure against all the claims that were made.
  If one looks at that £112 million, one will see that something else of interest emerges, on which I invite the Minister's comments. Apart from the £199 million for the liable relatives section's activities—its continuing legacy —we also find that £98 million is accounted for by the parents with care who are drawing family credit. Those people are of particular interest, because they give rise to the £73 million, which, rather surprisingly, popped up as the amount that was being retained by parents with care.
  I shall come to that in just a minute. Let us deal with the £98 million. It is extremely helpful of Ros Heppelwhite to have supplied the figures. She gives a breakdown of that figure, and says:
  "Of the total of £98 million, £27.9 million offset benefit spending. The balance of £70.1 million was retained by parents with care due to the application of the disregard."
  She went on to explain that.
  I hope that the Minister will confirm that, or point out to me where I am wrong—if I am wrong—but it seems almost inevitable that the £98 million must also be split in terms of deciding what can be linked directly to the activities of the CSA, in the same way that the £199 million must be separated out to get the correct figure.
  I put this as an Aunt Sally, but it would seem reasonable to assume that the £98 million would have to be split between the liable relatives section activity carrying on from a previous year and new assessments from the CSA, in roughly the same ratio as the £199 million to the rest of the total.
  Ros Hepplewhite's notes state:
  "Information is not available on how much of the amount shown in the table for Family Credit"—
  that is, £98 million—
  "was arranged by the CSA."
  I see no reason to think, however, that that split would be any different from the split represented by the £199 million. If I am right, another £60 million or £70 million, in addition to the £199 million, is not attributable to the CSA's activities but would have been paid and collected in any event under the liable relatives scheme. If that is correct, it is possible that as little as £40 million can be attributed directly to the CSA's first year of operation.
  I recognise that I have reached a fairly dramatic conclusion, but it seems reasonably logical, give or take a few million; we are talking in very large sums. When Ros Hepplewhite appeared before the Select Committee, it was put to her that effectively only £15 million—the £15 million enumerated in the appendix to the report that has just appeared—could properly be claimed as having been gathered in by the CSA. That may be a little harsh, however; the agency may be entitled to the rather larger figure that I mentioned, for the reasons I gave.
  It would be extremely helpful if the Minister would comment. He has the time: he will not be howled down by eager hecklers. I hope that I can speak even on behalf of the beleaguered Liberal Democrats who are in our midst, for we all know that they are men of peace. This is important; we all want to know the definitive figure, and I think that my exposition has been reasonably clear.
  478
  Let me put my question in brutal terms: how much new money is in that £312 million? It is self-evident that we can take out the £199 million, and that we must split the £98 million: we have that on the CSA's own figures. But am I right in thinking that that brings us to a figure of less than £40 million in the agency's first year of activity? If so, is this not an extraordinary state of affairs, given the claims, hopes, expectations and trouble that have resulted from the whole operation?
  Given that we can expect a considered reply, will the Minister also give us some explanation of the benefits savings? When I spoke on 4 July, I pointed out that, at that point, £310 million had been gathered in, and £418 million had been saved in benefits. I did not apologise for expressing some scepticism as to how £310 million could be translated into benefit savings so much greater than the total sum paid in maintenance.
  Let me be fair to myself. I said then that I recognised that certain factors—particularly cases in which a claim for income support or benefit had been abandoned—might, by applying a multiplier, have produced additional savings to explain the more than 100 per cent. translation of maintenance paid into benefit savings. I understand that that is what happened in this instance.
  As the Minister will know, the £418 million total includes the £199 million from the liable relatives total again; that must be taken out immediately. In addition, it includes what are labelled—rather mysteriously, to the layman—"non-maintenance cessations", which amount to the noble sum of £138.2 million. As I understand it, non-maintenance cessations refers to situations when benefit ceases, presumably because of the activities of the agency and its approach to the parties in the case.
  I am interested because I know that there are many reasons why the claims might be abandoned, and I can quote parliamentary answers from the Minister which show that. It may be that there has been a reconciliation between the parties, or that the party who has authorised the claim has returned to work, and there is no locus for the agency to intervene.
  There are a variety of other circumstances. I am not clear about the basis on which it was decided when a claim, having been abandoned, should be seen as collusive desertion or some other form of fraud. That is important, and it is clear that not all the claims could fit into that category. Many of them might be claims that would have fallen by the wayside anyway for some of the other reasons that I have mentioned.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on this, because those of us who are engaged in the minutiae of the issue are genuinely interested in how the split was made. If no deduction was made for honest cessation of claims, the £138 million could be an optimistic figure. As it is a key figure in terms of justifying the £418 million, we should be told how it was arrived at.
  Even in cases of fraud, perhaps the Minister could say a word or two about how the benefit saving was calculated and which multiplier was applied. I am aware that the Department of Social Security uses standard multipliers, and I have no doubt that the Minister will have them at his fingertips. I am afraid that I am not as versed as the Department in that type of detail. We should know, because page 8 of the CSA's annual report says:
  "Just as the nature of the work carried out by the Agency has changed in comparison with previous systems, so has the basis for calculating some of these savings, thus giving a better

  479
  indication of the impact of the system on benefit expenditure."
  That is an extremely interesting sentence that is full of inferences and implications. However, on any reasonable interpretation, it is implying that the basis for calculating the savings in these cases has changed from that which has been used previously in similar cases. The report uses the words
  "giving a better indication of the impact".
  If it is more optimistic in terms of giving a higher savings figure as against what has been used previously, the House is entitled to know about it and to hear from the Minister.
  I mention in passing the maintenance cessation figure of £16.3 million. As I understand it, that occurs when someone is floated off benefit; in other words, the maintenance payment is so high that the benefit claim is excluded and automatically falls. If we can calculate the figure of £16.3 million, why is it impossible to calculate the number of people involved? If we can corral the cases and quantify them to calculate the figure of £16.3 million, on that basis, we should be able to say how many people are involved.
  I have asked parliamentary questions about that and I have been told—this is an experience familiar to other hon. Members—that the figure is not available and cannot be found. Perhaps the Minister can help me. If the system cannot produce the number of people in this circumstance, it seems a little odd that it can produce a total figure of £16.3 million as the proceeds of benefit saving. I do not see how we can reconcile those two points. The Minister has some time in hand, so perhaps he will say a word or two about that issue. From that flows the final category, which involves the consequential savings in housing benefit and council tax which, at more than £28 million, are substantial.
  I should like to understand the figures better in order to be able to assess the £418 million. Even if we assume that the figures are above board, we must take about £199 million—almost half of the £418 million—away from what has been produced by the CSA. I concede that the CSA's report contains a coded message when it states:
  "We estimate that, in total in 1993/4, the payment of maintenance exceeded £310 million in cases in which the Agency was involved. Nevertheless, it is evident that not enough of this yet stems from new arrangements, and that many absent parents were not complying in full with the assessments we made."
  On a narrow inspection, and if one were in full possession of the facts, one could make a deduction from the phrase
  "not enough of this yet stems from new arrangements".
  Nevertheless, that is an inadequate way in which to flag up the fact that at least half the alleged benefit savings did not come from the activities of the CSA but comprised money that would have almost certainly been collected in any event with the run-on of what had been set up by the liable relatives section.
  I shall deal hurriedly with a couple more points, as I promised that my speech would be of narrow compass. The Labour party has an agenda for change with which the Minister is very familiar. I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West said. There has been inflexibility, and I was especially interested in what he had to say about the collecting of information on the income of a spouse in the case where the so-called
  480
  absent parent has either remarried or is living with a new partner. It seems to me that the only reason for having that information is to calculate the protected income.
  I wonder whether there is not a case for saying that, as long as the people involved are aware of the protected income rules, are satisfied that they would not benefit from them and therefore do not want to provide that information, they should have that privilege. Of course, they should recognise that they have no right to complain if they then discover that, had they returned the information and used the protected income rules, they might have benefited from them. However, I am sure that, like me, the Minister is aware of many cases in which an interim assessment has had to be made. That is in no one's interest.
  I reinforce another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, West. I, too, was fascinated by press reports to the effect that 40,000 of those who had been the subject of a mainstream CSA assessment were left with less than 70 per cent. of their net income as a result. That is a clear breach of the guidelines, which stipulate that a spouse should be left with 70 per cent. to 85 per cent. of net income—being left with even 70 per cent. puts one at the very bottom of what should be quite a generous range of possibilities.
  Ros Hepplewhite told the Select Committee that 20 per cent. of cases fell below that level, although she said that virtually none fell below 60 per cent. However, the fact is that about one in five cases falls between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent.
  We have not yet had the printed evidence but, according to press reports, the Secretary of State tried to minimise the number of such cases by saying that it was based on a rough sample, that—typically—it dealt with people who did not have second families, and that they had no or low housing costs. However, it is a serious matter.
  I should perhaps wear sackcloth and ashes. Protesting groups often told me that many people were being taken below the 70 per cent. threshold, but I expressed scepticism about that. In a sense, I now feel that I owe those groups an apology, because it is clear that the number of people affected in that way is substantial.
  Something must be done about that. We cannot simply wait and see whether anything comes out at the end of the day. When we are faced with such a situation, it is essential that we secure a commitment from the Government to deal with it, and to re-establish the guidelines that they originally presented as an important part of the system that they were introducing. I hope that the Minister will say a word or two, not to minimise the point but to show what he intends to do about it.
  That takes me neatly to my final point. I do not want to run over the arguments for an independent appeal procedure, or for the possibility of a disregard for dealing with clean-break settlements. The Minister is well aware of that agenda; I hope that it will be part of his agenda too, and that he will consider it carefully.
  May I remind the Minister of our exchanges of 4 July? I asked him whether he could
  "give us any indication of any area in which he believes reform is necessary".
  The Minister courteously replied:
  "I shall come to that too in my closing remarks … because it is a serious point."—[Official Report. 4 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 113.]
  We all know how time can overtake one when one is making a speech in this place. Sadly, the Minister did not

  481
  get round to dealing with the question or explaining what those areas might be. I do not criticise him for the omission, but he now has the chance to put it right.
  I hope that he will be able to tell us the areas on which he is concentrating, and whether he accepts, as I hope he does, that there are genuine matters of concern that must be tackled.
  3.36 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on securing the debate. As always, he made several constructive criticisms, as well as others that I consider less supportable. And, as always, I appreciate the manner in which he has put his arguments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that developing a sustainable system for the delivery of child support is important, and that we are all genuinely trying to find our way through some difficult issues to develop a satisfactory system.
  I have often explained in detail the principles that underpin the new system of assessing child maintenance, and it would stretch the patience of the House if, at this late hour, I embarked on another reassertion of those principles. I shall therefore not set them out again, but it is important not to forget that once a measure has been passed we spend much time in the House dealing with extremely detailed criticism, and may forget some of the underlying reasons for the legislation—such as the position of lone parents on income support, the vast majority of whom do not receive maintenance.
  The House has touched on that subject before, but it was not raised one whit in the debate. Perhaps it is easily forgotten, and I am somewhat frustrated by the fact that in our concentration on the detailed effects of the Child Support Act 1991 and of the Child Support Agency we may forget about the other side of the coin. Other people —such as representatives of the National Council for One Parent Families—have been before the Select Committee to make that point, and there is an occasional interview on television or in the newspapers about the other side of the story.
  Again, nothing has been said about that tonight. Shortage of time may be to blame; this is a late-night Adjournment debate, and it is easy to forget the people whom the system was set up to support. However, it is worth putting on the record that it remains a principal concern of mine to try to ensure that the system works for the benefit of those people and that we do not forget the injustices of the previous system, which were among the reasons for introducing the current system. I do not forget that, even if other people apparently do.
  I do not forget, either, the fact that the Child Support Act was passed with the universal support of the House, as something that we all wanted to do. The need for it was recognised at the time, and I am grateful for that, but when principles are put into practice they can sometimes be rather harder to swallow. However, that said, I do not stand here tonight to suggest in any way that the system works perfectly, that there are no problems in the system and that there is nothing about which the Government are concerned.
  When the Act came into operation, we said that the Government thought it right to keep any new legislation under review. That is especially true in the case of a change
  482
  that has been described on more than one occasion by the Select Committee as the most major change in social policy since 1945. The Government showed faith in those remarks by ensuring that last February, after a period of reflection on the first six months or so of the working of the Act, they made changes based on their own observations and on some of the work of the Select Committee.
  The changes that we introduced included, first, a substantial increase in the minimum amount of income an absent parent would keep after meeting his maintenance liability. Secondly, there was a reduction in the additional element where there was a liability for only one or two children. Thirdly, there was a reduction in the amount included for the care needs of the children as they grew older. Fourthly, there was an extension of the arrangements for phasing in the new amounts.
  Information is now starting to feed through on the impact of the changes. I once again appreciated the contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar) but I may not be able to go into quite as much detail as he would like. As he understood, we have said a number of times that it is important to look at the impact of the February changes and to trace them over a period before considering whether and what further reforms might be necessary.
  Our early signs are that as many as 44,000 absent parents have already benefited from the changes to the formula. On average, liability appears to have been reduced by about £9 a week. When one bears in mind the fact that the formula was designed to increase average assessments by around £20 to £30 a week, it can be seen that the changes are not just minor tinkering but a real arid substantial adjustment to absent parents' liabilities. The House will recall that, on average, figures for maintenance under previous systems were estimated to be between £25 and £30 and that the new figures were supposed to be between £45 and £50. Average liability should, therefore, be reduced by some £9 a week, which is a reasonable sign that the changes made in February had quite a considerable direct impact. It would also be helpful for the House to note that the reforms have been of particular benefit to absent parents on low incomes or with second families.
  The changes have not, of course, met all the criticisms of the scheme and some absent parents continue to be dissatisfied. It is, however, important to remember that in almost every case that the Child Support Agency has handled so far, the parent with care and her children are in receipt of income-related benefit. In contrast, the vast majority of absent parents enjoy a much higher standard of living. Two points arise from that.
  The hon. Member for Warley, West again made his comment about feeling how unfair it was that so much of the maintenance collected went back to the taxpayer by way of the Treasury. I have never felt that that was wrong. The House, in passing the Act, recognised that, for too long, the taxpayer had been the unwitting supporter of separations between parties in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that the House can hold to that opinion and then criticise the work of the agency in ensuring that the taxpayer sees some benefit from increased maintenance payments designed not only to secure higher levels of maintenance for the families involved but to ensure that the taxpayer is not bearing so much of the burden. Bearing in mind the difference in income between the parties, there is some equity in changing the balance, which was previously so heavily weighted towards second families.
  Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept the point that, even if the House and the Government wanted to make that change, to make it in such a drastic way has had a devastating effect on those families? Transitional arrangements would have been a far more sensible and equitable way in which to restore the balance that the Government wanted.
  Mr. Burt: The Government take the hon. Gentleman's point. That is why phasing arrangements were in place in the Act and that is why the phasing arrangements were changed in February to take account of just the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. They were changed to ensure that where there were second families and there had been a written agreement or a previous court order, the increases in maintenance were carefully phased. That has been done and that is one of the things that has resulted in a change in the circumstances of absent parents, which the hon. Gentleman would support. Phasing arrangements have not been forgotten; they are there.
  A number of matters were raised, both by the hon. Member for Warley, West and by the hon. Member for Garscadden. I shall cover one or two of them, but I shall not be able to cover them all at this late hour. I want to say something about the performance and administration of the CSA because the hon. Member for Warley, West mentioned those important points. I want to mention them too.
  It is perfectly straightforward for me to tell my colleagues that I am disappointed with the administration of the agency in its first year. The report was a fair and accurate reflection of the fact that the agency, its chief executive and those involved felt that their performance had not been as good as they wished; they were up-front about that. A number of reasons were advanced for that, and I stand by them.
  A new system was being set up from scratch. A number of assumptions had to be made about the operational workings of the agency and about how long it would take people to respond to the requests for information. Assumptions were also made about the ease of verification, and the like. Again, the House will know of the importance attached to verification, checking and the ruthless pursuit of accuracy on some occasions to ensure that the system works fairly on behalf of us all.
  All of that has taken more time than was anticipated, and has resulted in a backlog of cases and—as most colleagues in the House will know—a backlog of correspondence, and the like. I regard some of those difficulties as being almost unacceptable to hon. Members, and I apologise. I am deeply sorry that the administration was not able to work as smoothly as we wished.
  It is one thing to stand here and say as honestly and as fairly as I can that I am disappointed that the administration has not worked well. It would be another thing to ignore that and say, "Carry on, chaps. You must make do." We do not believe that that is right, and that is why we have taken steps to make changes to the administration and ensure better responsiveness. However, I warn my colleagues that there is a time lag because we are dealing with work that requires skills and trained personnel. We cannot simply draft in people and expect an immediate change in the workings of the agency. It takes time to train people and to see an improvement. I am sure that the measures that we have taken will show that.
  484
  I shall discuss in detail some of the things that we have been doing.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Burt: I shall outline the changes that we have made and then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Child Support Agency is currently putting in practice a range of measures to improve productivity and customer service. It is recruiting an additional 700 staff to work in areas where the agency has identified the need for the input of dedicated resources: reviews, appeals and customer inquiries. It is in the process of centralising the handling of incoming telephone calls by setting up dedicated call-handling sections in each of its six child support centres. These will handle all case-specific inquiries enabling child support officers to concentrate on processing their case loads. That is important.
  The other week, I was in Birkenhead. The difference that call handling sections make is that, effectively, the calls that were being put through to business teams checking on the progress of cases, which disrupted that work necessarily, are now screened by telephone operators who have access to the information held by the business teams. The replies can be given, therefore, by the operators with the use of that access. That prevents calls from going through to the business teams, so they can get on with the job.
  I have seen the work of the CSA centres. I have gone around on the floor and seen people constantly answering telephones and trying to deal with paperwork at the same time. I have seen the effect of that in Birkenhead and the quietness on the business team floors as they are able to do their work, in contrast with the business of the caller section downstairs. I know that call handling is just a simple, straightforward and practical thing that will pay a dividend for us all.
  The CSA has established a centralised national inquiry line for the handling of general inquiries. The line will be connected to call-handling sections to allow for the direct transfer of calls between the two. It is planning to upgrade information technology support in local offices and to give local staff the facility to process case work on the child support computer system. That will increase the productivity of local child support officers and give agency managers greater flexibility.
  The agency is also in the process of developing further the automation of its management information service, which already provides regular and accurate information on key performance indicators—although, as the House will know, not enough in crucial areas where the House has been asking for extra information. That is acknowledged by the Government and the agency, and the work that we are doing to improve the management system will help to answer some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Garscadden tonight. It will also enable the agency to deploy its resources more effectively.
  Finally, before I come to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), let me say that the agency is in the process of introducing a standard operational model for its child support centres based on the best practices which emerged during the agency's first year. For example, the centres are streamlining the procedures by which they liaise with the Benefits Agency, which must make some adjudication decisions at some

  485
  stage of the process, and they are standardising the way in which their debt management teams operate. It would be premature to attempt to quantify the success of the improvements and many of the measures must be fully implemented, but some changes are already noticeable.
  Mr. Barnes: One problem that I have discovered is that my constituents who are being dealt with by the Belfast office seem to get different information at different stages. It is almost as though two or three different people are dealing with the files in Belfast. An instruction sent on one day may be countermanded by another sent the following day. Constituents are left confused. Even after I have written to Ros Hepplewhite and I seem to have resolved the problem, it is then handed over to Belfast, where it is not resolved immediately. It is difficult to believe that any co-ordination exists. Another problem is created by the letters that are generally sent to constituents. Those computer-produced letters are unsigned and it is difficult to discover whether different people are handling cases and dealing with them in different ways.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right to criticise the fact that different information is provided to constituents or Members of the House. That is wrong and I understand that the approach be should consistent. Different people handle cases at different stages because the work is functionalised during different parts of the process. While it may be possible that different people handle the same case, the same accurate information should be offered at all times and properly given.
  Some of the problems are due to the fact that the agency has been set up from scratch. Hon. Members have discussed before some of the operational problems that I have been open enough to outline again to the House tonight. I ask colleagues to acknowledge that it is for the agency to improve its performance markedly to ensure that the problems that affect colleagues do not persist for too long.
  I should like to put on record my great appreciation of the work done by the staff of the agency. Many cases are proceeding perfectly straightforwardly. The House will be aware that the CSA took on 850,000 cases in its first year, sent out that number of forms and processed those cases. The staff are working well and are well informed. Each of the agency's centres has a notice board displaying letters thanking the staff for their work. I will not discuss the pressure under which those staff work, but the House knows my feelings, and I know the feelings of all colleagues about the unfair pressure under which civil servants, carrying out Government policy have been placed. That pressure has not helped either. The staff are working hard and they are determined to improve their performance at all levels to ensure that some of the difficulties are resolved.
  The agency is encouraged by the increased level of performance that has been achieved in the first quarter of 1994–95. More than half as many maintenance assessments were cleared in the three months up to the end of June —177,000—as in the whole of 1993–94. The number of cases now awaiting assessment is falling and more action is being taken to ensure compliance. In all those ways, the performance of the agency is improving considerably and will continue to do so.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden asked me about what areas we might be specifically concerned. The reason that
  486
  I have hesitated to pick out specific areas, and why I will hesitate again to do so tonight, is that it would be unfair for me to pick out two or three particular areas and say that we are concentrating on them. If I did that, people might say, "Oh. This is what the Government are going to do." I have already said that the Government keep the workings of the 1991 Act under review. Hon. Members have raised a number of concerns and they will know that, when the need for reform was proved, we responded in February, in good faith, with a number of changes. I ask the House to keep faith with that process again. When we say that we are keeping the entire workings of the Act under review, we mean just that—nothing more, nothing less. I know that the hon. Member for Garscadden is not being mischievous, but I will not tempted down a series of roads to suggest that we are doing one thing rather more than another.
  A number of matters have emerged. As the House will know, there are answers to—
  Mr. Dewar: I shall not try to chivvy the Minister out of his cautious stance. There is a difference between a Minister who says as a matter of routine that good Government Departments always keep systems under review and a Minister who has a determination to review things because there is a recognition that change is required. Can we at least have an assurance that we are watching the second type of Minister?
  Mr. Burt: I have said in the past, and I have repeated tonight, that the entire system is being kept under review, and that if the need for change is proved, the Government will make changes. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman as to intent and also on our approach to these matters.
  I shall move on to one or two other matters before the hon. Gentleman chivvies me for not answering enough of his questions.
  Mr. Dewar: There is plenty of time.
  Mr. Burt: I do not wish to take the time of the House. I know that it is anxious to move on.
  First, I shall deal with the 70 per cent. issue by quoting from the basic CSA leaflet that goes out to families. It reads:
  "Absent parents who do not have other children of their own living with them will usually be expected to pay between 15 per cent and 30 per cent of this net income figure in child support maintenance."
  I said in Select Committee that typically some 70 to 85 per cent. of net income would be available. I do not think that I or the Government ever suggested that in all cases everyone would be in that banding. We said that the majority would be, and that typically people would have about 70 per cent. plus of their income, but not everyone.
  Hon Members are right to say that evidence taken from Ros Hepplewhite and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the Select Committee dealt with instances where the figure had gone below 70 per cent. There are hardly any cases—I think six out of the sample that was taken—where the figure has gone below 60 per cent. The majority of the 20 per cent. of absent parents who are left with less than 70 per cent. of their net income after paying maintenance are left with between 65 to 70 per cent. The reasons for that are those that were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the Select Committee.
  Those who are left with less than 70 per cent. of their income after paying maintenance usually have low or no

  487
  housing costs and, therefore, a low rate of expenditure to offset against net income. They may also have several children for whom maintenance is payable. Those have been typically the cases that have gone below 70 per cent. No indication was given that everyone would be above 70 per cent. In fact, what we said turned out to be accurate. Usually, most people have 70 per cent. plus of their net income left. I note, however, the concern of the House, as does the Select Committee and my right hon. Friend.
  The flexibility of the formula has been raised again. It is a central issue. The formula was introduced to try to provide a degree of consistency and stability for those making decisions in maintenance matters. We cannot have it both ways. Either we provide that degree of stability by way of a formula so that everyone knows what he or she is likely to be paying or receiving, or we reintroduce elements of discretion at different levels and thereby introduce a degree of uncertainty.
  My understanding was that two or three years ago the House accepted that the discretionary system had failed those who were depending on it or paying for it. We wanted to ensure, therefore, that something rather better was in place. We opted for consistency. That is why we have the formula. Obviously, changes and adjustments could be made within the formula, and the hon. Member for Warley, West made his own selection. I put to him the same argument as I put to the Select Committee last year, which was that everyone has different priorities, so a check list can be produced in which the priority of payment to the child gradually slips lower and lower. The difficulty then is that one ends up with exactly the same system as before, in which the amount of maintenance payable to the child is less because people want other essentials to be taken into account.
  The formula was constructed to try to leave about 70 per cent. of net income available for those various obligations. If we take account of more and more expenses before maintenance is calculated and then simply reduce the maintenance that goes to the parent with care of the child, the benefit to the taxpayer who must support the whole system will also be reduced. I am not sure whether that is what is wanted.
  That matter triggers my memory about an issue that I did not cover when I wound up the last debate. The hon. Member for Garscadden said that I had been offensive by mentioning pet food. He does not toss such an accusation in my direction lightly, and I was so thrown by it that I forgot to return to it on winding up. I took the pet food example from a real case in which a woman had written to us—it was reported in the newspapers—to say that, when her husband presented to the court his list of essential expenses to be taken into account before maintenance of the child was calculated, it included £8 a week for pet food. I grant that that does not apply to every case, but it was not offensive. What is offensive is a system in which pet food could be considered more important, to the father or the court, than child maintenance.
  I was not using the example to suggest that such an expense is taken into account in every case, and it was not de minimis, simply to be dismissed. It was an example to show that, once we begin to take all sorts of essential expenses into account, according to the individual concerned, such a problem may be encountered.
  Mr. Dewar: My memory is not as good as it should be. I think that I said that the Minister's comment was described as offensive in a subsequent letter commenting on his article. I may have expressed sympathy with that view, but I was essentially quoting a letter that appeared in a local newspaper.
  It is, however, unwise to use an extreme example which none of us would defend as a reason to rule out any new flexibility in the system. I object to the Minister using a hard case to support his position.
  Mr. Burt: I fully take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I do not use the pet food example in that sense. I was simply reminded of it as we went through lists of expenses and thought that I would sort it out while we were here.
  The point that I was making did not relate to pet food, but if more and more expenses are introduced into the formula, it is an example of the risk that we run. I recognise the concerns that have been raised in the House about travel-to-work expenses and other such matters.
  I shook my head at the hon. Member for Warley, West when he was discussing spousal maintenance. Spousal maintenance is not in the formula. It is a carer's allowance, which recognises that a child cannot exist on its own but needs someone to look after it. That person may be the mother, who spends her time looking after the child and cannot go out to work or goes out to work and needs to pay for child care. Many people consider the carer's allowance to be spousal maintenance. Absent parents who feel aggrieved about it describe it thus, but it is not so described in the formula or anywhere else, so I wish that the hon. Gentleman would get off that tack.
  Mr. Spellar: Could not the Minister save himself a considerable amount of trouble merely by raising the amount for individuals? After all, if a child of five needs someone to look after it, the child needs that care irrespective of who gives it. Why does not he take out that item, which causes continual major resentment?
  Mr. Burt: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, if we took out the title of carer's allowance and moved £25, £40 or whatever into the child's personal allowance, his constituents would suddenly say, "That is all right; we are not paying spousal maintenance any more", I think that he has another think coming, because it is a deeper point than that.
  I will finish by doing the best that I can with some of the questions about the figures. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Garscadden said, at 4 o'clock in the morning, about detailed figures. He will excuse me if I say that I shall have to write to him about some of them, because he mentioned some serious matters and I am anxious to be helpful, as was Ros Hepplewhite when she wrote to the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman rightly went through many of the figures given.
  The £312 million represents the amount of maintenance in cases with which the CSA has been involved. It is not solely a figure of maintenance arranged or received by the agency's collection service, but includes an estimate of maintenance paid direct to parents with care by absent parents, as well as sums that continue to be paid from pre-CSA arrangements.
  For many reasons, we believe that comparison between the child support unit and the Child Support Agency performance is not valid. The child support unit—the old "liable relative" staff—dealt only with clients receiving

  489
  income support, and was able to direct attention to cases where it was most likely that maintenance could be arranged. The Child Support Agency is a very different organisation, offering a service to parents on income support, including those between whom no maintenance has ever been paid, to those receiving in-work benefits, such as family credit, and to parents who receive no benefit.
  Once taken on, all applications to the agency must be given equal attention, irrespective of whether maintenance will eventually be assessed. I do not believe that the old liable relative system was running down; the figures of maintenance received over the years were steadily climbing, so I do not think that that argument is proved. The hon. Member for Garscadden did not weigh too much on that.
  I shall now discuss the construction of figures—the breakdown of the figures, which show £312 million maintenance collected, and benefit savings arising of about £418 million. We could go through them piece by piece, but I do not especially wish to do that for the House.
  We have tried to draw a distinction between the maintenance administered by the Child Support Agency arising from pre-CSA arrangements, and maintenance and other savings arising from CSA assessments and other action. The information available to the House splits the amounts between benefit savings and maintenance collected. In some cases, it is one and the same.
  For instance, if we consider maintenance administered by the CSA arising from pre-CSA arrangements, the amounts paid direct by the absent parent to the parent with care receiving income support totalled £175 million, and that was all benefit savings because that directly saved income support. Similarly, the amounts paid by absent parents through the pre-agency collection service to parents with care receiving income support was £24 million, and that was also all direct benefit savings. That is how the figure of £199 million is obtained, and that is all direct benefit savings.
  The family credit figures have proved to be better, and our original estimate that about £50 million would go directly to parents with care increased as a result of the success of the family credit operation. There, the maintenance collected was £98 million, but the benefit saving was only £27.9 million, the other money going directly to the parent with care in addition to benefits, so there was a net increase in income to the parent with care. That gave a total of benefit savings of £226.9 million, compared with maintenance collected of £297 million. That all stems from the maintenance administered by the CSA arising from pre-CSA arrangements.
  Let us consider the maintenance and other savings arising from the CSA assessments and other actions. Some £50 million of maintenance was directly collected, but it yielded total benefit savings of £190.7 million. The figures are available to the hon. Member for Garscadden. They were set out in the letter, together with notes. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of detailed questions on the subject. I should be grateful if I could reply to them in detail by letter—I think that that would be the best way to deal with them. It may provide opportunity for debate in the next Session so that the issues can be amplified and placed on the record if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
  Mr. Dewar: I am happy with that. I shall read our exchanges and I might also write to the Minister. May I
  490
  raise one general policy point? With some justification, the Minister makes great play of the family credit figures. They are useful to him because they benefit children. They do so because there is a disregard. I recognise that there is a distinction between people on benefit and people who work and receive top-up benefit. It seems that there is a lesson to be learned about the large number of children living in families on income support who are not benefiting at all. Does the Minister share that view?
  Mr. Burt: I do, but the hon. Gentleman will also know that I have a strongly held view that there is a danger in introducing a disregard into the income support system. First, it would create a slightly higher hurdle for those on income support wanting to return to work—they would need to earn £5, £10, £15 or whatever more. We are anxious to reduce those disincentives to return to work; the system is designed to do so. That is why the incentive is deliberately in the in-work system.
  Secondly, there is the issue of cost, which is difficult to calculate. We all know that introducing such a system would incur considerable expense. Thirdly, it would be inequitable. Some people would receive extra amounts in their income support benefit through the payment of money to which they were entitled. Other people receiving benefit simply would not have access to that extra money in the benefit system. People would soon be lobbying me and knocking at my door to say how unfair that system was and to ask why income support should not be increased to ensure that everybody benefited in the same way. There would be problems, which is why we have not introduced that system.
  We have had a long discussion and I have probably taken up more time than I should have done. The subject is important, and I think about it carefully, as do the Government. I appreciate colleagues' concern about the subject and I do not wish to send them away for the recess under the illusion that we do not take it seriously. We know that other parts of the House, including the Select Committee, take it seriously.
  The principles are right and are strongly supported around the House. We all wish to see a workable system. We have proved in the past that, where change is needed, we have been prepared to make it. Not every change that is suggested can be introduced—it would not be right to introduce them all. It is important to ensure that the principles survive. Some of them are hard to live up to —particularly when we say to the population at large that, through their taxes, they have provided too much by way of supporting separation agreements, and we now want to give them some relief. We have all signed up to that principle, but it is hard to implement in practice when constituents who come to our surgeries are having to pay more money. We have to stand by the principles and say that they are right.
  We want a sustainable and good system of child maintenance for the future. The Government are determined to ensure that improvements in administration help to deliver that, but they are not blind to the other problems. We shall continue to keep the matter carefully under review and I have the strongest suspicion that we are likely to discuss the subject again when the House returns after the recess.
  The allotted time having expired, the debate was concluded in accordance with MADAM SPEAKER's statement—[Official Report, 14 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 1197.]

  Forestry Commission
  4.7 am
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of the Forestry Commission before the House rises for the summer recess. It gives me no comfort to drag hard-working Ministers of the Crown, such as the Minister with responsibility for forestry, to the Chamber. I am certain that he would have been up half the night anyway waiting for a telephone call from No. 10 Downing street, which I am sure will come sooner rather than later. It would be well-deserved if it did. As I get older in this place, I become more and more convinced of the need for radical reform of the way that we work so that debates such as this can be taken at more reasonable and social hours.
  I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) who, ever assiduous, is in his place. I know that he takes a great interest in the subject. I had an interesting visit to a forest not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch during the European elections. The Forestry Commission workers showed me how they had managed to erect bat boxes in the trees in the forest just north of Bournemouth. I thought that bats lived in cages, but the Forestry Commission looks after bats as well as everything else—very good work it does too.
  I am not offering the Minister an apology for bringing him to the Dispatch Box on this subject on this day. I applied for this slot in the Consolidated Fund debate last week, before there was any certainty that the Government would make a statement on this subject before the summer recess. I know that the Minister will say that it was expected. I accept that the statement was very full and I was pleased that it was made.
  I was also reasonably well pleased with the result of the Government's review committee. Its conclusion was a victory for common sense, which was welcome. It is a pity that it had to take 15 or 16 months to reach that conclusion because it caused a great deal of uncertainty among the staff and the interest groups which were closely following what was happening and which have a direct interest in forestry.
  More than anything else, what strikes me about the 15 or 16 months of consideration by the review committee was the astounding degree of public support enjoyed by the Forestry Commission, as currently constituted. I do not refer only to interest groups such as the Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the well-respected and well-organised pressure groups which we would expect to be in the vanguard of an argument involving the future of the Forestry Commission and the forestry industry. The general public also took a keen and legitimate interest. That was one of the signal lessons that we should all learn from the 15 months' work of the review committee.
  As the House will know, the committee's remit was to examine the effectiveness of current incentives for forestry investment and the options for ownership and management. It was invited by the Government to make proposals for change and to examine ways to improve effectiveness. It was of great interest to me that the Government's eventual conclusion was, as we learned a day or so ago, that Forest Enterprise should stay in the public sector. It

  493
  would be of even greater interest to know exactly what reasoning led the review committee and the Government to reject the option to privatise.
  It will come as no surprise to the Minister to be told that there is still continuing suspicion about the Government's long-term motives. The reasoning of the review committee is an important element in the consideration of what will happen in future and how convinced the Government are of the decision that they have announced. It remains a matter of serious concern that the review committee's report is to remain available only to Ministers. Any work that costs the taxpayer as much as £833,000—which I understand to be the total cost of the inquiry—should be made much more widely available, even if not published because it may be a weighty document containing a great deal of technical information that would make sense only to Ministers. It should certainly be made available in the House of Commons Library, in the Scottish Office and in forestry offices in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  If it proves to be impossible to deal with questions raised by hon. Members at this hour of the morning, I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to undertake, where necessary, to write to hon. Members with considered answers.
  I should also like to know why the consultation document has been delayed another 14 days. If the review has taken 15 or 16 months, and if the Government's announcement was made public in the past 24 hours, it is incumbent on the Government to explain why it takes another 14 days to publish a document on which the consultation will be based. Printing techniques these days can turn round such documents, even in large volume, within a few short hours, never mind two weeks or more. It heightens my suspicion that the Government are still uncertain about their long-term motives in their future disposals and dispositions for the Forestry Commission.
  That in turn leads to the suspicion that the Government were obliged to reject full-blown privatisation by the sustained and massive public opposition that they encountered. The Secretary of State for Scotland's statement, useful and welcome as it was, lacked conviction and had no intellectual coherence. The Government's strategy for the future is still unclear. If that is not true, it is certainly true that many questions remain to be answered. The Minister may say that that is what the consultation period is about. If so, this debate is a useful start to that process.
  I welcome the decision to retain Forest Enterprise in the public sector. It would be churlish to quibble about that. But the Government still have much work to do during the consultation process to persuade the public that that is not just a temporary staging post on the way to full privatisation which might be reviewed after the next election.
  I know that the Minister has been harassed almost to death on water privatisation in Scottish towns. By the end of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill Standing Committee, he was beginning to persuade me that he meant what he said. The trouble is that, while some of us consider him to be an honest man, we are not prepared to accept that position from other Ministers. However, I detect a scepticism still that this is only a temporary stay of execution. The Government still have a job to do in the consultation process if they are to win their argument.
  To be sustainable, and to provide the industry with the kind of stability that it requires, we need 20-year solutions.
  494
  The crop, as the Minister well knows, takes a long time to mature and planting grants and commercial decisions to plant have to be taken on a long-term basis. Any suggestion that this is a solution that will get the Government by the next few short years would not be good enough and would not meet the needs of the industry.
  I was interested to hear the Secretary of State refer in his statement to the need for Forest Enterprise to be put on a more businesslike footing. I could not make a lot of sense of the sentences that followed that statement, which contained much rhetoric and management jargon about priorities, performance measures and cost and benefit programmes. It would be helpful if the Minister could give clear examples of what will be done differently when the new agency is set up from what happens now. That was not clear to me, despite my careful reading and re-reading of the Secretary of State's statement.
  There are many kinds of next step agencies. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has identified about 96, so there is a range of steps towards an agency basis. The Government should and could help the discussion by making clear just what kind of agency they are moving towards.
  Mr. John McFall: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he accept that the obfuscation in the Government's report may be hiding their real intention regarding a next steps agency in that the established criteria are commercial? We and the public fear that there is an accelerated disposal programme for forestry and land. We could obtain tonight, on behalf of the public, an assurance that that is not the case.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Absolutely. That is a concise summary of the next paragraph of my speech, which I can now skip. That is the crux of the matter and I hope that the Minister will say something about it.
  What kind of agency is the Secretary of State's statement offering? Will it still be directly responsible to the Secretary of State as the responsible departmental Minister? There have been rumours that the Government would create three or four agencies for the. United Kingdom's different constituent nations. The Secretary of State seemed to make it clear that the headquarters will not move from Edinburgh, which is welcome news. Will there be a direct link between Scottish Office Ministers and the Secretary of State once the agency is established?
  The Secretary of State also made it clear that a new chief executive will be appointed. It is important to know the terms and conditions of his employment. There have been press reports that
  "demanding but deliverable performance targets will be set for this new chief executive."
  One great advantage of resisting the Government proposal that could have embraced privatisation is the sustained and unwavering support for the campaign by the existing body's director general, commissioners and senior management staff.
  Soon, new commissioners will be appointed or appointed afresh, and the current director general is due for retirement. Significant management personnel changes are almost inevitable. The Minister and the Government will have to give assurances that there is no hidden ministerial strategy to appoint to crucial positions particular persons with a hidden agenda, with the objective of ultimately moving towards privatisation or—as the hon. Member for

  495
  Dumbarton said—commercialisation in a way that would compromise other roles in the multi-role forest context and framework that we seek.
  Will the new chief executive's terms and remit be made public before he is appointed? What thought has been given to what exposure the new agency will have to market testing exercises, which are being visited on many other next steps agencies? It is important to have answers to those questions so that the consultation process may proceed in an orderly and properly informed fashion.
  As to the Borders district and south of Scotland region, which the Minister knows well, I am convinced—because I know the work that they do—that the people running that district and region under Mr. Gordon Cowie and his team need no lectures on improving efficiency. The 43,000 acres of Forestry Commission land that they oversee are managed extremely well. They run a tight ship, and it is hard to see how the new trading standards, arrangements or bodies that the Government propose will help those individuals to do their jobs any better in future than they have done them over the past 10 or 15 years. There has been a significant change in the way in which the commission has operated in the Borders forest district. It has been some 15 years since proper, full-time staff were appointed in any numbers. Local experience recently has seen much more insecure seasonal work introduced on a contracted, self-employed basis, with a steady erosion in the number of full-time jobs.
  But for all of that, the Borders forest district makes an annual surplus in the region of £500,000 to £600,000. It is coherent in what it does. It has a good rapport with the local community, and management and staff work extremely well together. I cannot for the life of me see any obvious way in which increased efficiencies could be made. It would be a foolish person who said that no improvements could be made. I think that it does a good job and in a dedicated fashion.
  The Minister will also know that the industry produces direct and indirect employment for thousands of his constituents as well as mine across the Borders region as a whole. It is a very significant industry in local employment terms. Indeed, I think that it would be safe to say that, short of the north of Scotland forestry region, the Borders and south of Scotland regions must have the most significant input of any forestry industry in any other part of the country in terms of its local economy and the contributions that it makes to the income and expenditure in the south of Scotland.
  What procedure will be required to implement the new agency? Again, the Secretary of State's statement left important questions unanswered. Will the consultation document, which we are expecting in a couple of weeks, contain details of the precise steps that are necessary to create the new structure? If primary legislation is not necessary—I understand that that is so—will we have a chance, through statutory instruments or Orders in Council, to scrutinise or sanction what is eventually proposed? That is an important question.
  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds pointed out that, from previous procedures in creating the agencies, it envisages the whole agency being generated by the publication of a framework document. Will full details of any such document be made available during the
  496
  consultation so that we can see what procedures are to be used to set it up? Will Parliament get a chance at any stage to look at the remit, objectives and, crucially, the performance targets that the agency will be invited to address?
  In all of that procedure, what is there to provide any degree of accountability other than that through occasional requests to visit and give evidence to Select Committees and the like? What transparency will there be, for example, in the hierarchy between Ministers, the chief executive and Parliament?
  I press the Minister on the meaning of his desire that Forest Enterprise should have a more commercial attitude. What implications will that have for research? I know that there are worries that some of the research functions—I know that some of them are carried out by the authority, not the enterprise—will go to the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology. There is also concern that the more commercial attitude will have an impact on the valuable interpretation and educational work that is currently done by Forest Enterprise. One thing that I discovered while increasing my education about bat boxes was the very valuable role that is played by Forest Enterprise in holding the ring between conflicting and competing users of forest land. Some of the fragile heath land that the Forestry Commission looks after in areas around Christchurch and Bournemouth was beginning to come under pressure from orienteering. That was in conflict with the conservation interests about some of the species that were under pressure. The Forestry Commission was the only institution capable of resolving in good faith some of the conflicting and competing uses of the areas of fragile heath land in its charge. It is feared that, if Forest Enterprise adopts a more commercial attitude in the future, all the valuable roles that it now plays will be sacrificed.
  If the new agency is given genuine flexibility to retain all the surpluses that it would gain from disposal, and the finance that it needs to be able to acquire substantial tracts of land as well as disposing of forestry land and estates, that will be very welcome: it will make the agency much more efficient, and promote multi-purpose forestry. But if increased commercial pressure amounts to nothing more than losing public benefits, stripping out amenity developments, imposing higher charges on the public for services, reducing the percentage of broadleaf planting or more and faster disposals, the new agency will rapidly lose the critical mass that is necessary for it to retain its crucial role as a forestry leader.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton made an important point about commercial objectives. It would be regrettable if they began to override environmental objectives; that would affect staff morale, and the new agency would simply bring about the death of Forest Enterprise by means of a salami technique—death by a thousand cuts.
  I am sorry that nothing more definite has yet been said about the disposals policy that is to be handed to the agency for implementation—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): It has not changed.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is interesting. We have heard all sorts of rumours, but I think we can all agree that some 180,000 hectares have been sold since the early 1980s. There is a rumour that 100,000 hectares will be required to be disposed of by the year 2000; indeed, either the

  497
  Ramblers Association or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds mentioned 37,000 hectares annually. If the Minister is really saying that nothing has changed, I think that we should have a discussion. The consultation period should be used as an opportunity to press the Government to clarify their plans.
  All the small parcels of land that can be disposed of easily have already been sold. Any reactivated disposals policy would mean wholesale blocks of established forest being put on the market. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton will probably know better than me, the Kilpatrick Hills area just north of Glasgow has been talked of as a major disposal. Indeed, the whole of Upper Nithsdale, much closer to home in the Minister's patch —he shakes his head—has been mentioned in terms of marketing in the recent past. If the Treasury targets are too strict in future and the new agency is given no flexibility, other forest areas will have to be sold to meet arbitrary financial targets and for no other reason.
  I remind the Minister that the sub-committee of his own review team that looked into the question of access for the public concluded:
  "As the disposals programme proceeds it will be necessary for the Forestry Commission to identify for disposal a greater number of woods with higher levels of existing access".
  That key question will have to be considered during the consultation.
  The £4 million extra in grants to be made available to the private sector is, of course, welcome and necessary, but I was interested to note Tilhill's response to the Secretary of State's statement:
  "The Statement wishes an end to the decline in conifer planting. We do not think conifer planting will increase from the present level as a result of this Review. This means that the UK forest output will not be sustained as timber volumes fall after the next twenty years."
  That is an important reaction, albeit initial, from a serious player in the forestry game. The Government should view it with some interest.
  I want to make two short points about grants. The new agency must be set clear targets and be given a clear steer in terms of what it does with the consultation processes that have to be undertaken with local communities before large blocks of monoculture sitka spruce are planted. There is a fear that some of the new grants will provide planting of commercial conifers on sensitive upland ground.
  The environmental panels have been working well and the environmental impact statements are addressing many of the concerns that were evident four or five years ago. However, there are remaining fears that in some parts of the Borders at least the forest plantation is obliterating archaeologically important sites and destroying the quality of the border hillside. If the agency is not made aware of that and does not take proper account of it, it will cause concern in areas such as southern Roxburghshire.
  The new grant regime does not provide enough scope or incentive for integrated farm forestry schemes. I know that the farm woodland scheme has been quite successful and has made some progress in promoting broadleaf amenity woods, but there is very little commercially viable timber production. I urge the Government, during the consultation period, to consider carefully providing a lead and a proper system of grants that would make it worthwhile for upland farmers—relatively small-scale farmers, not just big estate owners—to plant commercially viable holdings.
  Although it is welcome that the short rotational coppice has been given some assistance and recognition under the
  498
  grant scheme—there was a sentence or two about it in the Secretary of State's statement—I am a little worried about the reduction in planting grants for short rotational coppice on non-set-aside land. It is fair to say that the production of power from biomass, including short rotational coppice, is still an infant industry. It is nearing commercialisation, but it is in need of pump-priming finance to see it through its formative years. The Secretary of State's statement did not persuade me that the Government are doing enough to address the extent of the problems.
  I make no apology for leaving the question of access to the end because it is probably the key question motivating most of the public who will take an interest in the consultation process. I detect considerable disappointment at the lack of real progress on access. The Secretary of State said that the Government wanted to
  "strengthen the arrangements which are available to protect existing access".—[Official Report, 19 July 1994; Vol. 247, c. 178.]
  That is a meaningless statement because the current arrangements are non-existent. The Government's own research by the sub-committee on access concluded:
  "Even with improvements the existing arrangements cannot be made effective in protecting continued public access."
  That is right and it is important that the Government know that.
  Only two days ago I received a letter from Mrs. Ann Fraser. She is a serious person and is the Scottish access officer of the British Horse Society. She lives in Jedburgh and she has helped me enormously with continuing correspondence about the problems of equestrian access to forests. I declare a non-pecuniary interest in this. It was a painful interest at the Hawick common riding because I came off at full tilt in one of the first fields at the Moss Paul ride out. When I get the time, I enjoy access to Forestry Commission forests on horseback.
  Mrs. Fraser is at pains to point out in the letter dated 18 July that there is a current argument about Spottiswoode at Westruther in Berwickshire where about 50 horses currently use the area. The forest is owned by the Forestry Commission and on two occasions the wood has been offered to Borders regional council under the continued public access guidelines, giving it the opportunity to get the management procedures in place for continued public access after a sale. Both the offers have been declined by Borders regional council. The Minister may say that that is because of the legal expenses and that that has now been addressed by the Government.
  However, the problem is worse than that because, as the Minister knows, public access guidelines do not cover horse riding. Such activities, which take place exclusively and expressly with individual permissions, do not fall within the scope of normal public access agreements. That is a matter of some concern in an area such as the Borders, which has a great interest in equestrian activity. There are about 100 horses in the Spottiswoode forest. Indeed, at Westertoun, Mr. and Mrs. Isles run an excellent trekking and equestrian business for locals and visitors, and that is exactly the type of business that might be prejudiced if we do not sort out the issue of access.
  During the consultation process, we have to ask the Government what will happen if local authorities do not or cannot make access agreements when sales are contemplated. The system has not worked until now, so why should it work in the future? What will happen if a local authority does not enter into an agreement concerning

  499
  woodland that it has been proposed should be sold? Will continued access be at the whim of the new owner, or will the woodland be withdrawn from sale?
  Where will the £ 1 million needed to buy the leasehold interest come from? Will it have to come from increased disposals or from the Treasury? Will the money to be spent on the central Scottish woodland, to which the Secretary of State for Scotland referred, come from increased disposals or from the Treasury? These are important questions, and the Minister would do the consultation process a considerable favour if he answered them, if not tonight, by correspondence.
  The Government should now produce a national forestry strategy, including wildlife, access and environmental targets, which would map out the positive future which the forestry and woodland industry deserve and which the public demand.
  4.46 am
  Mr. John McFall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this debate, but I must say that I was not flushed with excitement when I was told that it was to take place at 4 am. However, the debate is pertinent for a number of reasons, not least because the Government have this week issued a statement on forestry. I shall concentrate on a few matters: first, the history of the interdepartmental group; secondly, the disposal programme; and, thirdly, access agreements, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  A number of points arose from the statement made the other day by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is deplorable that the consultation document was not issued at the same time as the statement. I was informed on Tuesday morning that the statement was not in its final form but was being hastily rearranged—that is perhaps proof of the lack of clarity in the Government's approach to the whole issue.
  Will the Minister tell us how long the consultation period will be? Will he answer the query from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire about the interdepartmental review group document? Why, after £860,000, I think, was spent on it, is the document not to be published? How transparent are the aims and objectives of the next steps agency?
  I said that I would deal with history, so let us go back to the previous general election. On 3 April 1992—six days before the election—the Prime Minister sent a letter to the forestry unions' action group. He wrote that there was
  "no intention to privatise the Forestry Commission."
  On 11 May 1992, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), told the House:
  "We have given a firm commitment not to privatise the Forestry Commission."—[Official Report, 11 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 470.]
  However, on 5 July of the same year the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), wrote a confidential letter—I have it here—to the Secretary of State for Scotland in which he revealed that privatisation was being actively considered. He wrote:
  500
  "I am inclined to favour option two in the Forestry Commission paper, despite the difficulties to which you"—
  that is, the Secretary of State for Scotland—
  "referred in your February letter. Although there would be hurdles to overcome, the key benefits are that it would raise money and get the forest estate out of the public sector … I would also like to suggest that if we decided to look into the option further we should go on to consider the possibility of abolishing the Forestry Commission in due course, and absorbing the forestry authority's policy functions into the Agriculture Departments".
  It transpires that, at that stage, apart from the ideological reasons, there was a purely financial reason for the sale, and there was also a bit of empire building for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is not universally known as a guardian of the wider public interest.
  As a postscript to the Prime Minister's letter to the forestry unions, on 27 August the Prime Minister's office sent another letter, correcting the April letter and explaining that
  "the commitment given by the Prime Minister on this matter was drafted incorrectly during the frenzied activity of the general election campaign."
  That shows that whatever the Conservatives say in their manifesto they can change a few months later. My goodness, how many times have we seen the Government do that over the past few years?
  All that led to the setting up of the interdepartmental review group of officials on March 30, to
  "review options for the ownership and management of Forestry Commission woodlands and to make proposals for changes".
  When I mentioned the desire to dispose of the Forestry Commission and take it out of public hands, I think that I heard a Conservative Member murmur, "Hear, hear." But in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom there was a massive outcry against the Government's proposals. I see the campaign that has forced the Government to back down from their naked objective of securing privatisation as a victory for public campaigning across all parties and all interest groups. That is most important.
  I shall quote just one individual on that subject—Mr. Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington, a friend of the Minister and other Members of Parliament, who is chairman of the Red Deer Commission. He had the interests of the land in mind when he said:
  "This may be public suicide. I may be sacked to-morrow"—
  that is, from his chairmanship of the Red Deer Commission—
  "But the Government is talking rubbish about privatising the commission. What is going on is ridiculous, a struggle for power, political dogma … We have to say loud and clear that we don't like this dogma, that we won't have it pushed down our throat and that our political administrators need a psychiatrist … Selling off assets is a funny way to run a country".
  Those words were true then, and they- are still true now. Selling assets is indeed a funny way to run a country—and we are still faced with the same problem.
  I hope that I shall not do the Minister any political injury when I congratulate him on his stewardship of the Forestry Commission over the past year. I know that he realises the benefits of retaining the Forestry Commission in public hands and I know that a rearguard action has had to be undertaken by the Scottish Office on the issue.
  After the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Tuesday, there was considerable relief that the Government have had second thoughts about the wholesale privatisation for a number of reasons. However, the Scottish public and the United Kingdom public still have

  501
  many pertinent questions to ask about the present situation. There is still suspicion that forest management will be based solely on narrow commercial principles and that that may yet lead to the planting of more blanket swathes of conifers. There is also concern about the private ownership that has become an increasing feature of forestry over the past 11 or 12 years, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said. Land disposal has taken place and more than 25,000 acres have now been sold in Scotland.
  From experience, we know that private ownership frequently leads to a denial of access. The Forestry Commission has previously been criticised, but during my visits to, and discussions with, conservation groups, recreational groups and local authorities, they have pointed to the fact that, especially in the past decade, the Forestry Commission has proved much more astute. It has learnt to serve the needs of industry without alienating the public interest. It has adopted a proper and responsible attitude to community, recreational and environmental interests. Tree planting is nowadays undertaken in sympathy with the lie of the land and broadleaved trees, such as oak, ash, rowan and birch, which are traditional species in the Scottish forests, are introduced to soften the geometrical patterns of the land. A lot of good work has taken place, but we must remember that 250,000 acres of forestry land could be sold off by the end of the century.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland could be described as Britain's head forester because he is in charge of the forest portfolio throughout the United Kingdom. The Scottish Office has an extremely important role to play. There is still a robust role for it in fighting against the disposal of land. There must be resistance to the Treasury's wish for a quick profit from the sale of valuable estates over the coming years.
  Although this is, I imagine, the first time that the Government have backed down over privatisation in 15 years, we still have to strike a note of caution because, although the statement by the Secretary of State on Tuesday was welcome, a number of issues are still of great concern to us. Let us consider his comment that
  "Our conclusion is that, at this stage of their development, the Forestry Commission woodlands should remain in the public sector."
  Why in the name of goodness was the phrase
  "at this stage of their development"
  put into the statement? One can only surmise.
  Sir Hector Monro: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered that point yesterday.
  Mr. McFall: The Secretary of State did not answer satisfactorily. That is the whole point.
  Sir Hector Monro: That is a matter of opinion.
  Mr. McFall: I agree that it is a matter of opinion, but I point out to the Minister that no Opposition Member believed that the point was answered. It is clear from the newspapers today that few members of the press believe that the point was answered. When the Secretary of State said:
  "at this stage of their development"— [Official Report, 19 July 1994; Vol 247, c. 177]
  did he mean that, two or three years down the line, the Forestry Commission will be reviewed again?
  Earlier, I quoted the Minister saying that the Government had no intention of privatising the Forestry Commission, yet they set up an interdepartmental review
  502
  because of the pressure from other Departments. There was pressure from the Department of the Environment and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, among others. The Minister cannot sit there, even at 4 o'clock in the morning, and deny that. I congratulate him on resisting the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury. What concerns the Opposition and other people is that that resistance will have to be maintained.
  In the statement, the Secretary of State also mentioned that a trading body would be established as a next steps agency and would deal at arm's length with other parts of the Commission. We know the situation with regard to other bodies which have been established as next steps agencies to "deal at arm's length". What that means in parliamentary terms is that when a Member of Parliament writes a letter, instead of a direct answer from a Minister, there is a response from a chief executive. All we have to go on is that simple answer from the chief executive; we cannot probe or clarify the aims and objectives of the agency and the criteria on which it is operating. That gives us no element of succour in terms of the Secretary of State's statement.
  The Secretary of State also referred to the Forestry Commission meeting legal costs incurred by local authorities in making access agreements. That is a totally inadequate response to the issue of access agreements. It is still the case that if land is sold and put into public hands, access agreements are not established. If I understand the Select Committee's report on forestry correctly, it mentions one access agreement in England and Wales but no agreement in Scotland, so effectively no access agreements have yet been established. It is a bit simple and superficial for the Secretary of State to say that giving the Forestry Commission some resources to meet legal costs will overcome the issue of access agreements because the problem is much greater than that. We need much more information on that issue.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned the disposal of land. It is a fact that land has been disposed of since 1981. Over the past decade, there has been a campaign to stop the sale of forest land. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that more than 8,000 acres of land in Upper Nithsdale near Sanquhar in Dumfries— the Minister's area—have been disposed of. Further disposal was stopped only after successful intervention by the Ramblers Association working in co-operation with local community interests. The land would have been sold but for the fact that the local community got together and campaigned against it.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned Kilpatrick Hills, which I know extremely well because most of the 4,000 acres which are about to be disposed of are in my constituency. Much of the land encompasses the Loch Lomond area. Although the Government established a working party to examine the issue of the conservation of Loch Lomond and planning for its future, and although the report of Sir Peter Hutchison's working party stated that its understanding from the Scottish Office was that there would be no disposal of land in that area until the Secretary of State had come back with a statement as to the future of Loch Lomond, the Government have allowed the Forestry Commission to go ahead with the sale of 4,000 acres of that precious land.
  In another area, delay in doing something about Loch Lomond is doing little for the environment or for public

  503
  safety. The Government have an obligation to come out with a definitive statement on the issue. The sale of the Kilpatrick land involved 4,000 acres of precious Forestry Commission woodland. Again, a local campaign was taken up when it was discovered that Cluttons of Edinburgh was selling that land. I shall quote from a memorandum from Dawn McNiven of the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh to Bill Wright of the Ramblers Association in Scotland. It says:
  "You asked for a written note on the above"—
  Kilpatrick Hills—
  "Owing to the failure of four of the five lots to achieve a satisfactory offer, we have decided to temporarily withdraw all five lots of woodlands from the market.
  The sale aroused considerable public comment, and this may have had an effect on potential purchasers. We intend to bring the woods back to the market once conditions have changed."
  I assure the Minister that if that happens, public opposition will be maintained so that we keep that land in public ownership.
  In the past couple of years, the Minister has engaged in double-speak on access agreements. On 29 January 1994, the Minister was interviewed on Radio Scotland about Forestry Commission woods—at a far more civilised time between 7 am and 8 am—and he stated:
  "I think the point you are really making is that those that have been sold to individuals or to private companies with a binding agreement on access, I think in truth the law cannot be continued to a second purchaser."
  The interviewer went on to ask:
  "So the first purchaser at the moment can make a very quick profit by selling it on to a chum somewhere down the line?"
  The Minister replied:
  " That would be possible, yes."
  Sir Hector Monro: But very improbable.
  Mr. McFall: The Minister said:
  "That would be possible, yes."
  For the past 15 years, I have kept a close eye on the Government and such a reply is as good as them accepting that that could happen. The Minister has therefore acknowledged that if a second purchaser takes over woods, access agreements cannot be guaranteed.
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is being rather unfair. He should quote from the rest of that interview, in which I explained carefully that the whole purpose of management agreements with local authorities is that they last in perpetuity. It is important to reach such agreements to ensure that the legal problem of access is not encountered on the second sale.
  Mr. McFall: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification, but if the individual who purchased the land wished to sell after six months, no one could stop that person. The Minister has now told us that no public access agreement can be guaranteed. At the moment, the Forestry Commission operates a right-to-roam policy and the public make 50 million visits a year to its land. If the piecemeal disposal programme continues, the issue of public access will become an issue of ever-greater importance to the public, because they will understand that, progressively, they may be denied access to the hills.
  The Minister has offered us no comfort, particularly when we consider that no access agreements have been
  504
  signed between a local authority and a private landlord. On Tuesday, the Secretary of State failed to respond to that issue, which is still to the fore in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire has already referred to multi-purpose forestry. In August, when the opposition to the Forestry Commission sell-off was at its height, I was invited to visit the Caledonian Paper Mill Company's plant at Irvine. That company has made a £250 million investment in Scotland and employs 430 people at the plant. It was concerned about long-term stability in the forestry and wood processing industry. That company and other industrialists told me that the Forestry Commission should stay in public hands because no long-term guarantee of supply could be offered if woods were in private hands. Whether one is talking to recreational, environmental or industrial groups, the message is the same: it is important to the keep the Forestry Commission in public hands.
  Last year, the Labour party undertook a forestry privatisation survey and contacted every local authority in the United Kingdom. There was a 100 per cent. response from Scottish local authorities. They were unanimous in their belief that privatisation was not the way forward. The Dumfries and Galloway regional council, which has responsibilities in the Minister's constituency, responded as follows:
  "Privatisation would be damaging to the nation's economic interests as well as placing at risk current public rights to access and recreation."
  Even in the area that the Minister represents, his words on access do not ring true. The council continued:
  "There might also be damage to local processors, mainly saw mills, if they are to rely on future supplies from multinational companies with purely commercial objectives. The present continuity of supply would certainly be threatened."
  Every local authority in Scotland said that it wished the Forestry Commission to remain in public hands.
  The need for a long-term policy for forestry is extremely important. After all, an oak tree that was planted in 1919, when the Forestry Commission was founded, will even now barely have reached middle age. We are one of the least afforested nations in Europe. There is only 10 per cent. woodland cover in Britain, with 7 per cent. in England. Our European partners have an average of 25 per cent. The need to continue to pursue the current long-term strategy is extremely important.
  The Royal Scottish Forestry Society, in its submission to the review group and in criticism of possible privatisation, said
  "that sudden change for political or other reasons forced onto an unwilling organisation would cause instability to both private and State forest enterprises."
  The society set out its concerns about the long-term disruptive effect on the forestry staff—their recruitment and training—and said that a
  "piecemeal 'sell off would be the worst of all worlds, with loss of jobs with a complete disruption of the woodland market, resulting in only the best forests being sold at 'rock-bottom' prices."
  We ask the Minister to take into account this wise counsel about piecemeal sales. Despite the Secretary of State's statement on Tuesday, the issue has not been addressed. It will result in a severe problem in future.
  The Conservative party's 1992 manifesto gave a clear promise to guarantee public access to a forest when the land was sold off. As with all its manifesto commitments, nothing could have been further from the truth. We were told by Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries

  505
  and Food that further restrictions to Forestry Commission land would be fiercely resisted. In the light of the Under-Secretary's remarks, the only way to resist further restrictions to public access is to bring an immediate end to the Government's policy of back-door forestry privatisation.
  I join the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire in pressing the Government on the issue. The Secretary of State's statement on Tuesday was far from reassuring. Pertinent issues remain to be considered. The Government are backing down on the privatisation proposal but they have done little to reassure the public that their long-term intentions are good.
  5.14 am
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for initiating this important debate. Like him, I would welcome reform of the procedures of the House so that we did not have to debate such matters at 5 o'clock in the morning. I must be well and truly sucked into the system to be standing here now.
  The Forestry Commission's future is a subject close to my heart and the hearts of many of my constituents. Some 12 per cent. of my constituency of Christchurch, in east Dorset, is Forestry Commission-owned land and the New Forest is on our doorstep. When I was elected last year, I conducted a survey among my constituents and found that a large majority of them regularly walk in our local woodlands. That is not surprising given the wealth of opportunity that we have to do that locally, with Ringwood forest, the Moors Valley country park, Hum commons and part of the Avon valley in the area. All those places are owned by the Forestry Commission, so it is understandable that I feel so strongly about this issue.
  Like many other hon. Members, I listened with interest to the Secretary of State for Scotland's statement on Tuesday. The news that the Forestry Commission would not be privatised was hardly Westminster's best kept secret; it had been announced on the television news and in The Times in May, and in The Scotsman in April. Nevertheless, I was relieved to hear the Secretary of State confirm it in the House, and the 4,500 people in my constituency who signed a petition against privatising the Forestry Commission feel likewise.
  The decision not to privatise the Forestry Commission is wise. The future of our woodlands does not lie in the private sector. The delicate balance between the commercial use of forestry, the public right of access and environmental protection and conservation can best be kept by a body that is publicly owned and accountable to Parliament and the public through Ministers. In contrast, a Forestry Commission plc would be accountable primarily to its shareholders, whose interest in the land would be overwhelmingly commercial. Without all-encompassing regulation and strict control, which would be impractical and make the commission unattractive to investors, the profit motive would run rampant over the public interest and the delicate balance that now prevails would be lost, possibly irretrievably.
  I know from first-hand experience how that delicate balance between the different areas is kept. I visited the Moors Valley area in my constituency and was shown round by two members of the Forestry Commission staff. One who was interested in conservation showed me the
  506
  work that the commission was doing in bringing back Dorset heath land, which is an important natural habitat. It was also impressive to go round with the employee responsible for the commercial side and see the tremendous pains to which the commission has gone to protect the environment at the same time as selling off our woodlands.
  Despite the Secretary of State's announcement, the future of the Forestry Commission and the land that it currently owns is still a matter of great concern to me. The implication of his remarks on Tuesday was that privatisation was by no means ruled out as an option for the future. Indeed, when questioned, the Secretary of State said that there was "no intrinsic reason" for Forestry Commission woodlands to stay in public ownership.
  The decision to turn Forest Enterprise into a next steps agency could be regarded as a staging post towards privatisation in the future. Even if it is not, the Secretary of State admitted that the new agency would be "at arm's length" from the rest of the commission. As has already been said, it will become even harder to hold the Forestry Commission's management wing accountable to Parliament.
  The Secretary of State also said that there will be demanding but deliverable performance targets. That sounds as though the Government will demand profit and the agency will deliver land to the private sector to get it. Will those performance targets include targets for levels of public access? Will those performance targets include targets for the preservation of animal habitats, and rare species and plants? That is especially important in my constituency, where there are Dorset heath land areas. Will those performance targets include targets for the planting of deciduous trees rather than the block planting of conifers, which are often preferred by the private sector because they are more profitable, but add to acid pollution and often destroy wildlife habitats? I strongly hope that the Minister's answer to all those questions will be yes, and that the Government performance targets are not simply profit targets.
  I know that the forestry industry is an important one for much of Britain, and I fully realise that the commission plays an important economic role in many areas. Nevertheless, there is a balance to be kept between that role, and access and conservation, which up to now has been kept fairly successfully. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me and other hon. Members and our constituents that performance for the Forest Enterprise agency will mean very much more than simply how much money can be made out of our woodlands, and that any "targets" that it is set will take those points into account.
  The Forestry Commission has an admirable record on conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned his visit to a neighbouring constituency of mine, and he told you about bat boxes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the Forestry Commission has also been involved with bird boxes. However, my hon. Friend did not tell you about the bumble boxes to be found in Wareham forest, in an effort to save the British bumblebee.
  The commission also has a good record on public access, and I make no apologies for making similar points about that. That is the issue about which people are most worried. We know that, when woodlands are sold off, access is almost always lost. In spite of the Government's much-trumpeted initiatives in 1991 to try to protect access,

  507
  I have been informed that only 19 agreements have been obtained from a total of 544 sales in the two years after that. Public access has been lost to 83,700 acres, and that can be added to the 345,000 acres to which public access had been lost in the previous nine years.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have now recognised that that state of affairs cannot continue. I look forward to studying the promised measures when they are at last published. I hope that there will be great encouragement of public access when the commission disposes of its land.
  When I read the document that we hope will arrive soon, I shall be especially interested in the proposals on how we shall pay the costs of public access. I say that as someone who came to this place from local government. I know too well the way in which local government may be promised help to pay for things, but cash does not always arrive. Permission may have been given to borrow, rather than money being forthcoming. I welcome, however, the fact that the Government recognise that it is important for local authorities to be involved in that, and I would back them whole-heartedly on that.
  The most unfortunate fact is that, while the forestry review group has been sitting, while the Government have been considering its findings, while they have been producing a consultation document that we have yet to see, and while they consult on it and finally implement any changes, new woodlands are being put on the market. In the next 12 months, a further 25 acres are scheduled for disposal.
  I ask the Government, why is that being allowed to happen? They are allowing it to happen in the full knowledge that people will lose the right of access to that land. I believe that the Government should halt the sales until new measures are in place, so that we do not lose any more access. I should very much like much more openness to surround sales of Forestry Commission land. It is difficult for ordinary members of the public to find out what land is on the market.
  The piecemeal sell-off of much of the Forestry Commission's land is happening at a time when there is an expanding demand for timber world wide that we should be helping to meet. The Government's grant proposals show that they have recognised that, but, as I think we have all said this morning, the need to maintain access is becoming more and more important because the amount of leisure time that the average person now enjoys has greatly increased. We are all aware of the importance of woodland to the global environment, especially in our hydrological cycles and in combating global warming. Our forests are one of our greatest natural assets, and the Forestry Commission is the guardian of many of our most precious woodlands.
  Many people will have been encouraged by the Secretary of State's statement, but we now have to see if the detail in the consultation document matches up to some of the expectations that have been raised by that statement. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will be looking hard at the consultation document. I know that my constituents will be looking at it very closely. I hope that the Minister will take a hard look at the submissions that come in during the consultation process.
  508
  I shall end with a few words for the Minister from one of my constituents. She speaks on behalf of the Verwood and district rambling club. Verwood is quite a small town in my constituency, but nevertheless the rambling club has 140 members. The letter was sent partly in response to a letter sent to me from the Minister which I sent to my constituent. She was not too happy with the initial letter, and said in her letter:
  "I trust my suspicions are unfounded and that when the statement is issued we will find that common sense prevails. This land belongs to the people. Let's keep it that way."
  5.26 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): I am glad to respond to the debate, and am only sorry that Opposition Members have left me so little time to do so.
  The House will be aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland made a detailed statement on Tuesday in which he outlined the Government's approach to forestry in the light of their consideration of the forestry review group's report. I think that it received a general welcome from hon. Members on both sides of the House with the exception, surprisingly, of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). He attacked what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said, but seemed to be totally out of step with almost everybody else in the House. However, I believe that his conscience may have made him realise that there was a great deal of good in what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.
  I appreciate the situation as well as many and probably better than most because my constituency is one of the most afforested areas in the United Kingdom. I have a high regard for the Forestry Commission and its staff, as well as for the private forestry groups that are equally important in providing timber for the long-term future. It is important to realise, particularly when we consider the planting grant increases that we announced on Tuesday, that we are concerned to ensure that there is an adequate supply for the major processing plants that have developed in the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland, in recent years. As the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) said, those plants are anxious to have long-term contracts. I hope that they will be able to achieve that under the plans that we have announced. In Ayrshire, Inverness-shire and Stirlingshire there are processing plants of immense importance, not only because of their products, but because they provide employment, often in areas with relatively sparse opportunities.
  This year we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the commission, and it is appropriate to begin by considering its achievements. Opposition Members have tried to spread alarm, and despondency tonight. Many of the issues they raised were hypothetical and far from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said or what is intended.
  Planting by the Forestry Commission and its support for private sector planting have resulted in the level of forest cover in Britain being doubled to reach 2.2 million hectares, more than 10 per cent. of the total land area. Wood production from the commission's forests is now more than 4 million tonnes a year, up 60 per cent. since 1980, with a further 50 per cent. increase expected by the year 2005. That wood production now supports many jobs in the wood processing sector. Over the last few years processing has enjoyed new investment of more than £1

  509
  billion. Examples of that are Caledonian Paper, Iggesund in north-west England and Shotton Paper company in Wales.
  In addition, we should not forget the sawmilling developments. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has some in the Borders and I have some in my constituency. They are often located in small communities and thus provide an important boost to rural employment.
  Under the Government's approach of multiple-purpose forestry, the commission's work is not simply restricted to wood production and encouraging investment in timber processing. Its responsibilities also include its important work in recreation and conservation. It is estimated that about 50 million people visit the commission's forests each year. It has developed an impressive range of facilities for visitors, including 671 picnic places, 751 forest walks and nature trails—those of us from Scotland well know the Southern Upland way and the Queen Elizabeth way—and a large number of cycle trails, visitor centres and forest gardens. The commission also operates a successful holiday business renting out forest cabins and providing camping and caravan sites.
  I would not want to miss out the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) from my remarks. I can confirm that the Forestry Commission is extremely interested in conservation of all sorts. I know Canford Heath, Verwood and the other areas she mentioned Many of them are sites of special scientific interest—especially Canford Heath—and are therefore protected. The commission takes a great interest in habitat, conservation and the encouragement of all sorts of wildlife. Those who last night heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)—the Minister for the Environment and Countryside—talking about our future plans for conservation will know that he highlighted all those points and stressed how important it is to look after our countryside.
  Not surprisingly, an estate of more than 1 million hectares is a key national resource for nature conservation. The commission's nature conservation initiatives include 400 sites of special scientific interest, which cover 80,000 hectares. There are also the habitat projects, 250 wildlife rangers and forest design plans to co-ordinate production conservation and recreational uses.
  Last but not least, the commission is custodian of some of the great British forests such as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, which are linked to great events in our history and whose continued maintenance and development provide a tangible link to our past.
  I must put on record a response to some of the points raised. It is wrong to say that the Government have done a U-turn. It is difficult to get into the heads of some Opposition Members that a consultation period means just that. We set out all the options and, having listened to all the arguments, we reach a conclusion. I find it incomprehensible that Opposition Members jump to conclusions before they have consulted. They were exactly the same on the issue of water. They said that Scotland's water would be privatised. We are not privatising Scotland's water; it is remaining in the public sector. Nor are we disconnecting supplies to domestic premises.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Publish the report.
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position. He knows full well, because he must have heard the reason a thousand and one times, why the Quayle-Monro report is not being published. It is exactly the same with the report of the forestry review group. Hon. Members should understand that papers containing commercial judgments are not and never have been published. The hon. Member for Dumbarton loves dishing out confidential documents, as he did tonight, but I cannot comment on them. The hon. Gentleman should have a greater sense of responsibility than to proceed by leaks.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made a constructive speech. The details of the agency will be spelt out in the consultative document that will be published shortly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no accelerated programme of disposals. He should know that we started out with the intention to sell 100,000 hectares and we are almost halfway towards achieving that and expect to do so by the year 2000. There is no intention to increase that figure.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said time and again that now that we have considered the access issue and received the report of the access sub-committee, which I accept was disappointing, we shall be careful about what parcels of forest are put on the market. Sensitive areas and areas that are used frequently by the public will not be in the disposal programme unless we can obtain an access agreement from the local authority. That is why we have put £1 million into the proposals that we announced yesterday—to assist with the legal charges and other aspects and to buy out the leasehold of Forestry Commission woodlands that are subject to leasehold and so not free for access as the rest of its woodlands are.
  Mr. Kirkwood: That is a helpful answer. From where does the £1 million that the Minister has just mentioned come? Is it a Treasury grant, or will it come from the Forestry Commission's own resources?
  Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman can work it out however he wishes. It will come from the trees that are sold and less will go to the Treasury. It will go to the operations to help with access and the grants, which is an important issue. Less money will go to the Treasury and more will be put back into the Forestry Commission, either through planting grants to the private sector or towards making access more available.
  Mr. McFall: Will the Minister give 'way?
  Sir Hector Monro: I have only four or five minutes, so I must hurry on.
  I welcome what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said—after all, it is his -debate—about the South of Scotland Conservancy Council and Mr. Gordon Cowie, whom I know well and who is doing an excellent job. That is why I am so pleased that the Forestry Commission is staying as it is with the addition of the next steps agency in order to increase the commercial aspect of the enterprise. The authority will carry on looking, as ever, to be more efficient and to include the scientific aspects that have been mentioned.
  Interestingly enough, I went recently with Gordon Cowie to south-west Scotland to see the devastation of plantations by fire. That is a serious issue that we must consider. Half a million pounds worth of timber is burnt in a day, some by vandals and some by careless walkers in the

  511
  woods. We must be careful about that in the spring when there is little green cover and the timber is particularly dry, as it was in May this year.
  I have said how proud we are of SSSIs, which are important to the Forestry Commission. There is great co-operation between Scottish Natural Heritage, English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission. All work well in harmony. It is interesting how they are developing their work together.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton mentioned Loch Lomond and safety. We put into the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill the very issue that we are trying to achieve of speeding up the by-laws for water sport.
  Mr. McFall: As to Loch Lomond, I mentioned the possible sale of 4,000 acres of Kilpatrick Hills. Sir Peter Hutchison's report, which I welcomed, referred to the disposal of land in the Loch Lomond area. Perhaps there could be a moratorium until the Secretary of State makes up his mind. Will the Minister consider that issue and write to me?
  Sir Hector Monro: Yes. I indicated that careful consideration will be given to putting on the market areas of sensitive planting—and nothing could be more sensitive than the area around Loch Lomond. That is also true of the Kilpatrick Hills, where there is also a significant problem of access to extract the timber if it were sold. That is also on the back burner.
  We must maintain a modest disposal programme to generate income to continue the Forestry Commission's overall business. We must not forget that it was established to provide sufficient timber for all sorts of purposes in this country, not for purely environmental reasons. I am glad that has developed because it is important that trees are matured and that we now have fine woodlands throughout the United Kingdom.
  The House will have to await publication of the consultative document in a few weeks' time for much of the detail. There will be adequate time—at least until the end of October—for consultation and for people to give their views, if they differ from the document. We will listen adequately and carefully, as we did throughout the progress of the forestry review group. I must have written 1,000 letters to Members of Parliament on access. Of course I was aware how strongly they felt. In the same way that we listened in respect of water in Scotland, we listened carefully in relation to forestry and made the right decision. I was pleased because I think that it is the right way forward. I look forward to the results of the consultation document, so that the commission will know that it has a stable, long-term future—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when answering questions on his statement last Tuesday—and will not feel concerned about any of the scares—
  The allotted time having expired, the debate was concluded in accordance with MADAM SPEAKER'S statement—[Official Report, 14 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 1197.]

  Air Pollution (London)
  5.42 am
  Mr. Keith Hill: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, although I dare say that he could think of more joyful starts to his new job than addressing a cold and empty Chamber at 6 o'clock in the morning.
  Twice in the past three weeks the Department of the Environment issued poor quality air alerts as photochemical smogs descended on many parts of Britain. The most recent case was Tuesday 12 July. Before that, peaks occurred over the weekend of 2 and 3 July. In London —the worst-hit area—ozone levels reached 95 parts per billion. According to the Department's health panel, they should average no more than 50 parts per billion.
  That weekend, according to Today, hospitals reported a 20-fold or 30-fold increase in admissions of patients with breathing difficulties. Some hospitals in London and the south-east were so overloaded that they were running out of medicines to treat asthma sufferers.
  It is ironical that those two poor air quality alerts coincided precisely with the inquiry into transport-related air pollution in London by the Transport Select Committee, of which I am a member. They were not without precedent. The most notorious air pollution incident in recent times was the photochemical smog in London on Friday 13 December 1993. Professor Ross Anderson of St. George's hospital conducted an investigation into the incident for the Department of Health. He said:
  "The death rate in London during that week was 10 per cent. higher than expected—equivalent to about 160 extra deaths."
  There is now good medical evidence to suggest that increases in air pollutants such as ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particulates—known as PM10s—are associated with the worsening of the symptoms and the number of attacks experienced by individuals with asthma and other respiratory disorders. And asthma is on the increase. Indeed, it is the only treatable chronic condition in the western world that is increasing in frequency and severity. The Government's figures published in April of this year show that levels of asthma have more than doubled in every region of England since 1979. Some 3 million British citizens now suffer from asthma. Some 2,000 people die from asthmatic attacks every year—with 80 per cent. of those deaths thought to be preventable. In total, there are some 100,000 hospital admissions for asthma each year. It is now the greatest single cause of hospital admissions, after heart disease and strokes.
  The national asthma campaign has drawn our attention to the anomalous position whereby this major and treatable source of ill health in our society was not included in the Government's "Health of the Nation" strategy, published in 1992. Paradoxically, however, the Welsh Office has set targets for the reduction of asthma in the Principality. I very much hope that, as a matter of urgency, the Government will draw on the Welsh model and include in their "Health of the Nation" strategy targets for the reduction of asthma deaths and hospitalisations as well as for the management of asthma in schools and the community.
  Such a development would certainly be more than welcome in the London area, for in the South West Thames regional health authority area, which covers part of London, the incidence of asthma rose by 164 per cent.

  513
  between 1979 and 1991. I am bound to say that those striking statistics are borne out in my own direct experience of case work in my south London constituency of Streatham. Indeed, so impressed was I by the number of parents referring to their children's asthma condition that I carried out a survey of the incidence of asthma among pupils at local primary and secondary schools in Streatham earlier this year. Sixteen of the 22 schools responding reported an increase in asthma over the past five years. In some cases, head teachers referred to dramatic increases over that period.
  I am, of course, fully aware that the medical evidence, such as it is, points to the source of asthma in allergic reactions to such materials as pollen and household dust. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that I consider it more than a coincidence that when Friends of the Earth carried out a seven-city survey of nitrogen dioxide levels in the UK in 1992 it found that the worst residential site was in Streatham—with a mean level of 58.5 parts per billion. The European Union's upper safety limit is 40 parts per billion.
  That monitoring exercise was carried out in the very heart of Streatham, at St. Leonard's junction, on the A23 London to Brighton road, one of London's busiest and most congested thoroughfares. The simple fact is that road vehicles are the main contributor to air pollution in urban areas; and they are overwhelmingly the source of air pollution in London. In London, road vehicles have been estimated to contribute 75 per cent. of nitrogen dioxides —which also play a major role in ozone formation—some 95 per cent. of black smoke and virtually 100 per cent. of carbon monoxide.
  In other words, if we are to improve air quality, to improve the condition of those with respiratory illnesses and, in practice, save lives, our overwhelming target must be the motor vehicle and the internal combustion engine. It is on the premise that the internal combustion engine can be cleaned up that the Government's response to the problem of air quality in London primarily depends.
  Since the end of 1992 all new petrol-engine cars have been fitted with catalytic converters, although that still applies to only about 5 per cent. of cars on Britain's roads. Other European legislation, actual and anticipated, will have a marked impact on medium-term emissions of toxics from motor vehicles. Even on the most optimistic estimates, however, the impact of those measures will not be fully felt for another 10 to 15 years—not until the year 2010—and even those measures, which are intended to produce cleaner engines and fuels, throw up their own difficulties, contradictions and disadvantages.
  Let us take catalytic converters, for example, and the problem of cold-start emissions. Catalytic converters do not function properly until they are warmed up, and they do not warm up until they have travelled 10 miles. Until that point, they produce more pollutants than traditional engines. Three quarters of car journeys in London measure just over six miles.
  When conducting its air pollution inquiry, the Transport Select Committee received deeply alarming evidence on the possible effects of the high aromatics content of unleaded petrol. Unleaded and, to an even greater degree, super-unleaded petrol have been promoted as "green" fuels; yet, especially when used in non-catalysts, aromatics in petrol lead to emissions of carcinogenic materials that may be causing an increased incidence of cancers such as leukaemia. In the United States and Germany, steps are
  514
  already being taken to limit levels of benzene and aromatics way below British standards, although those countries use catalysts far more than the UK.
  Only two years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut the price of diesel relative to leaded petrol and gave fleet car owners a tax incentive to run diesel cars. Diesel cars were deemed to be the "green" cars: more fuel-efficient, and a force against global warming. Now, however, new evidence of the link between particulates —PM10s—and mortality and morbidity have led the Government to decide that a precautionary approach, to use the technical expression, is needed.
  A recent Department of the Environment report suggested that diesel vehicles account for some 30 per cent. of PM10 emissions from all sources. There is, to say the least, a question mark over the diesel engine. Let me add this, however: the London bus may be diesel-fuelled, but, while its seating capacity gives it an efficiency of at least 300 passenger miles per gallon of fuel compared with 20 for the private car, there is no doubt that the environmental advantage continues to lie with the London bus.
  I have not cited those examples to mock, or to argue that the search for a cleaner, more efficient engine is a worthless endeavour; on the contrary, I have cited them to demonstrate that there is no guarantee for Londoners of a seamless progression to better air quality by the year 2010. The same development may remove but also create pollutants; there are no guarantees.
  In any event, no one has seriously argued that it was ever possible to create an entirely clean, green internal combustion engine. That would be a contradiction in terms. But any improvements that may result from the introduction of catalytic converters will be progressively offset if individual car usage continues to grow on the scale predicted by the Government.
  Six years ago, the Department of Transport's national road traffic forecast predicted that the total number of car miles was likely to increase by between 83 and 142 per cent. by the year 2025. The growth may be less in London than elsewhere, but the road system in many parts of London has already been effectively saturated for many years. Even a proportion of that projected growth would simply seize up the city. It would certainly overwhelm the Government's current pet scheme for traffic movement in London—the so-called red routes.
  Traffic growth will mean continuing pollution and its inevitable consequence—slower traffic—will mean more pollution. That is an unattractive and dangerous prospect for Londoners. The conclusion is obvious: we need to stabilise and to reduce the number of cars on our roads. An essential condition for achieving that, however it is done —and the Government have already told us that they are giving serious consideration to congestion pricing—is a public transport system with proper investment. Obviously, that is not what Londoners are getting from the Government now.
  Three years ago the Monopolies and Mergers Commission estimated that London Transport's annual investment requirement in order to provide an acceptably modern network stood at £750 million. This year, the capital grant to London Transport's core business stands at half that figure—£346 million. It will rise over the next two years to just over £500 million. That is well below the funding London Transport believes to be essential for what it calls a "bedrock" investment to maintain the system in

  515
  its present far from satisfactory state. A total of £600 million a year is required on the underground alone to achieve that purpose.
  In other words, the Government are responding to the challenge of a growth in the number of cars and more pollution with a deteriorating public transport system in London. The time has come for firm hard choices and Labour has made them. The excellent report, published this week, by the party's policy commission on the environment, entitled "In Trust for Tomorrow", makes clear our commitment to cuts in the monstrously inflated roads programme in order to fund priority investment in public transport infrastructure and within the existing transport budget. I welcome that commitment, as will Londoners.
  A multitude of useful measures may be taken to reduce transport-related air pollution in London, ranging from improved vehicle standards to better traffic management, and many are set out in Labour's report and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will refer to them in his speech. The Gordian knot which demands to be cut is that of car dependency. It must be done by an attractive, efficient and safe public transport system. The Labour party now offers a sensible and. realistic approach towards achieving that goal, and I am sure that Londoners will embrace it enthusiastically at the next general election.
  5.57 am
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) because it is a matter in which I have taken a great interest both before my election and since. It was within a few days of the previous general election that I had cause to write to the then Secretary of State for the Environment—he is now at the Home Office—saying that in my constituency, levels of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide already exceeded the World Health Organisation levels for sensitive vegetation and that reports carried out at that time for the east Thames councils, of all political hues, pointed to excessive levels of hydrogen chloride and predicted that those levels would rise considerably if the planned commercial and other combustion processes were to proceed in the area.
  At that time, I pointed out that figures produced by Greenwich council and the director of public health for Bexley pointed to alarming levels of respiratory illness in the area. Some of that may have been due to pollutants from contaminated industrial processes and land uses, but the evidence pointed clearly to airborne pollution from emissions from industrial process and from vehicular traffic.
  At the same time, permission had been given for a combined heat and power waste incineration plant in nearby Lewisham, and approval had been given for the Barking power station. Also under consideration were a proposal to build in Belvedere probably the largest waste incinerator in western Europe and proposals by Thames Water to build two sewage sludge incinerators, one on the north and one on the south bank of the Thames. There was also a proposal to build an enlarged power station in the
  516
  constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) which, fortunately, was withdrawn because of a public outcry.
  Cory Environmental's proposal for the large waste incinerator was initially turned down after a public inquiry, but a new application is expected. No new planning consents should be granted for incineration processes within the east Thames corridor without a comprehensive study of the potential cumulative effects of all the current and proposed combustion processes in the area.
  At the time of the inquiry into the Belvedere proposal, Professor Charles Howard of the foetal infant pathology department at the university of Liverpool gave evidence on behalf of BETTER—the Belvedere, Erith and Thamesmead Tackling Environmental Ruin campaign. Of the pollutants that would be produced in such a process, he said:
  "These chemicals cause, among other things, growth retardation in the womb, which can be shown to cause permanent damage to kidneys and reduce life expectancy."
  I believe that there needs to be a thorough examination of the damage that could be caused by an increase in the number of combustion processes in the south-east Thames area.
  In east London, the annual average sulphur dioxide levels already approach or meet EC guide values, as has been shown by the South East Institute for Public Health. However, it is not just the individual pollutants that cause the problem, but the effect of the pollutants acting together, or the synergistic action of pollutants that make up the lethal cocktail to which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham referred. There is clear evidence that ozone and higher nitrogen dioxide levels predispose individuals to a greater susceptibility to damage from other allergens such as pollen and fungal spores.
  In an Adjournment debate last June, I had the opportunity to raise those matters. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment dismissed the problem of industrial processes and emissions by saying that they made
  "a relatively small contribution, at most about 17 per cent. of existing nitrogen dioxide concentrations."
  He rejected the idea of a comprehensive study. I ask the Minister today to give serious consideration to that idea.
  Agreement was reached on one point in our previous debate. The Minister agreed that vehicles accounted for the vast majority of annual average concentrations—about 70 per cent. in London. He said:
  "The motor car is the chief cause of the relatively high levels in nitrogen oxides in east London".— [Official Report, 10 June 1993; Vol.226, c.535.]
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, the problem is that the Government are not prepared to tackle the main cause of air pollution in London. The Minister talked of controlling emissions, but pollution from the growth in the use of motor vehicles will far outstrip any reductions in emissions caused by the introduction of lean burn engines, catalytic convertors or any other measures.
  The Government remain wedded to the roads lobby. We have witnessed indecision, dithering and delay over the major public transport projects in London—the docklands light railway extension, the Jubilee line, crossrail and the upgrading of the Northern line—and a reluctance to back the London Docklands development corporation, British Rail, London Underground and Union Railways on the need for the Woolwich rail tunnel. However, the

  517
  Government have been prepared to press ahead with the environmentally damaging M11 link. They are also still wedded to the concept of the east London river crossing.
  BBC's "First Sight" programme showed the incidence of asthma and other respiratory illnesses in my constituency and highlighted a school where 10 per cent. of the pupils are regularly on medication, of which a supply has to be kept at school. Yet the Government are still wedded to the east London river crossing, which will produce 1,000 metric tonnes of gaseous and particulate pollution per year, in an area in which nitrogen dioxide levels already exceed the EC limit value.
  There may have been a temporary halt to the previous proposals for the east London river crossing, because of opposition to the destruction of Oxleas wood, and the threat from the European Commission. However, the Government have still not withdrawn the line order, although the line goes past eight schools, including a special school for children who suffer with asthma, cystic fibrosis and heart disease.
  The Government seem to be as wedded to the motor car lobby as the American Government are to the gun lobby. Has their view shifted since the time when Nicholas Ridley was at the Department of the Environment, and said:
  "If people want to commute into London, who am Ito say they shouldn't?"
  For him that was a matter of consumer choice—yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, unless there is investment in public transport, there will be no real choice.
  Nicholas Ridley at the Department of the Environment was succeeded by Cecil Parkinson, who said that people's aspirations to use a car should not be "artificially constrained". Will the Minister tell us whether that is still Government policy? We well remember the 1992 financial statement, in which London Transport's investment programme was cut by one third while the roads programme remained intact.
  My hon. Friend has referred to the levels of pollution in London in recent times. We are accustomed to the alarming stories about pollution in Mexico, in Los Angeles or in Athens, but until recently there was a belief in this country that Britain had cracked the pollution problem. After all, we had pioneered clean air legislation, and the industrial grime and killer smog of the 1950s were no more.
  However, as has been pointed out, today we face even more dangerous pollutants in the air that we breathe—pollutants that we often cannot see, but which can cause a variety of symptoms, including hay fever, eczema and asthma, especially among children. They are also responsible for various forms of cancer. Surveys of hospital admissions, the incidence of asthma reported to GPs and the number of prescriptions for asthma and asthma-related diseases all show significant and worrying upward trends. That evidence has been further supported by the Office of Science and Technology in its excellent report "Breathing in our Cities".
  There is no doubt that oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, ozone and particulate matter are all relevant to respiratory disease. In addition, there is the problem of carbon monoxide, an asphyxiant, as well as the volatile organic compounds that combine with ultra-violet Eight to produce ozone, which is known to be a major irritant.
  My hon. Friend has mentioned recent incidents in which there have been crisis levels of emergency admissions to hospital. One weekend, Whipps Cross hospital in London was so inundated that it ran out of anti-asthma medicines.
  518
  At King's College hospital, in Norwood, the casualty department was stuffed so full of asthma sufferers that all the nebulisers were in use at one time. So serious was the problem that one hospital alerted the national poisons unit and inquired whether there had been an escape of poisonous gas.
  I am sorry that the minutes of the Select Committee on Transport concerning transport-related atmospheric pollution are not yet available, but I hope that the Government will study them seriously. In particular, I draw their attention to the evidence given to the Select Committee by Dr. Barry Gray, the consultant in the department of respiratory diseases at King's college hospital.
  Can anyone now dispute that oxides of nitrogen exacerbate asthma? The concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in London last year increased by 17 per cent. Yes, there are international agreements to cut emissions, but the levels have been rising since the 1980s. Emissions from road transport rose by 72 per cent. in the 1980s. The Department of Health advisory group on medical aspects of air pollution published its report in 1993. The Government said that there was little cause for concern, but the report gives no grounds for complacency. Having reviewed all the evidence from epidemiological studies, it concludes:
  "many studies have found associations with NOx-linked pollution and health effects, at levels well below WHO guideline levels … the epidemiological evidence does not exclude. an association between the types of pollution of which NOx forms part, and various respiratory health effects".
  In my area, the latest figures available in the report by the director of public health show that asthma represented 10 per cent. of the admissions of children to hospital and that a further 7 per cent. were due to infections of the upper respiratory tract. Between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s, in my area of south-east London, hospital admissions of children for asthma rose by a staggering 207 per cent. Nationally, asthma costs the national health service between £700 million and £800 million a year. With costs to the Department of Social Security and other added costs, we are talking about a cost to the country of well over £1 billion.
  Regrettably, London is at the head of the league table in the incidence of asthma. The London air quality network warned last month that London air was the worst for 40 years. I rang the Government's hotline today to find out the current situation. I discovered that the nearest monitoring station to my constituency, in Bexley, showed that in terms of sulphur dioxide levels, yesterday the air quality was poor. The forecast for London today is poor for nitrogen oxides, for sulphur dioxide, for benzene and for ozone.
  It was suggested that the air quality for the rest of the country was good. However, I point out to those who will leave London tomorrow to return to their constituencies that there is some doubt about what the term "good" means. Under the present classification, the "good" category allows up to 100 parts per billion of ozone, whereas the World Health Organisation recommends a maximum one-hour guideline of 76 to 100 parts per billion. The National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection has said:
  "to describe ozone levels approaching 100 parts per billion as good surely requires the use of rose-tinted spectacles."
  In response to criticism from Friends of the Earth, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who was then Under-Secretary of State for Health, said:
  "WHO has set guidelines which are intended to be levels above which action should be taken to reduce pollution. They are not

  519
  indications of a health risk as they incorporate safety margins."
  The World Health Organisation itself says something quite different. It says:
  "Since the air quality guideline value incorporates little or no margin of protection, widespread acute effects of the respiratory tract may be caused. The frequent and repetitive nature of ozone exposure might contribute to the development of irreversible decline of lung function as well as to structural lung damage."
  We know that the WHO guidelines are frequently exceeded in London. Does the Minister stand by the remarks by the former Health Minister or will he now tell the truth, which would indeed be a breath of fresh air in the Chamber?
  The Government put their faith in voluntary action. They turn their face against regulation and controls in their free-enterprise, deregulated culture. They seem still to be wedded to Ridley's belief in the right of the individual to have the freedom to pollute.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham referred to buses and to diesel emissions. Why have the Government rejected the host of proposals in the report by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution of 1991? Why have they rejected all the proposals that showed ways in which the emission of pollutants from heavy-duty diesel-engined vehicles could be reduced? There were positive recommendations in the report—recommenda-tions which would involve grants and tax incentives, and use the vehicle excise duty. The Government rejected those recommendations on the basis that
  "more generous treatment for buses … would amount to a special subsidy".
  They also rejected tax incentives or the principle of taxing the polluter because that would be
  "counter to the Government's policy of maintaining neutrality and low overall rates of tax".
  They have shown that they are unwilling to take the necessary action to tackle the appalling levels of pollution and the risk to health in the capital city. It would appear that they have taken action only when they have been forced to do so by European legislation and European directives. I wonder whether the time may not be coming soon when the Government may be asking for a opt-out from those responsibilities as well.
  The Department of the Environment expert panel on air standards and the Department's consultative paper on improving air quality both talk of guidelines. Those guidelines will be little more than a wish-list or pious hope unless they are given statutory backing.
  The Government, after much pressure, have improved the air quality monitoring network in London, but little or nothing has been done on prevention. The impact of air pollution on the health of Londoners is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, extremely serious and requires urgent action now. The high rates of children with asthma and the unacceptable data associated with particulate emissions are of particular concern. As I have said, the health guidelines are regularly exceeded in London for a number of common pollutants, mainly from road transport. Unless mandatory air quality standards are set, with a target date for compliance, the proposed standards will fail to impact on transport and planning policies.
  London remains vulnerable to future severe pollution episodes, but the Government have no plans to issue smog alerts backed by powers to restrain traffic, as has been done
  520
  in other countries. The Department of the Environment survey in 1992 found that 19 million people live in areas in breach of the EC directive's annual mean guide value for nitrogen dioxide; eight of the 10 sites with the highest levels were in London. That somewhat contradicts the Minister's assurance given to the House last year that air quality in London is:
  "good or very good 97 per cent. of the time".—[Official Report, 10 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 530.]
  It is time that the Department of the Environment, if it is worthy of its name, tackled the real issues and confronted the Department of Transport.
  As my hon. Friend said, the Department of Transport traffic management policy in London is to try to accommodate the maximum number of vehicles on the roads—maximising the efficiency of the road network. The Department judges the red routes in London a success. Red routes in London have led to an increase in traffic of 10 per cent.—10 per cent. more vehicles. Is the number of vehicles on the road an effective measure of efficiency, or should we be examining the number of people or the amount of goods? In a recent debate, an Environment Minister shouted across the Chamber that buses pollute, too. As my hon. Friend said, buses do pollute, too, but a bus takes up three times the space of a car but carries 80 people, whereas a car on average carries 1.3 people in the capital city. A vehicle-centred approach to efficiency will cause more congestion and pollution, not less. I support my hon. Friend's call for a major shift in expenditure in transport policy from road to public transport.
  I shall conclude by examining briefly what the Government regard as safe in London. For whom is it safe? Certainly, there is evidence to show that levels of pollutants of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, which may have little or no effect on a healthy adult, have a different effect on someone who is predisposed to asthma or other respiratory illness. There is also evidence to show that the effects can be much greater on young children than on adults. Children take in more air pollution in proportion to the size of their lungs and the toxins processed by a child's smaller organs accrue higher concentrations. Children also tend to be shorter than adults, so, on the pavement, they are closer to the source of pollution and inhale higher levels of it.
  The dangers of other pollutants can be different in certain circumstances. I have already spoken about the high levels of products of chlorine in the atmosphere in the east Thames corridor. The director of public health for the Bexley health authority has prepared a report in which she says:
  "Chlorine has not been incorporated into the evolutionary chemistry of man, or for that matter into any animal. It is a broad system poison with a wide range of biological activity, and is toxic to all animals.
  It is also cumulative in body fat stores."
  She then quoted Dr. Howard, of the department of foetal and infant pathology, at the Royal Liverpool Children's hospital, who has said:
  "chlorine compounds can be transferred via the placenta to the developing foetus and through breastmilk to the newborn child at 100 to 200 times the body concentration of the mother."
  There is clear evidence that the whole range of air-borne pollutants in London can be transmitted to the foetus in far greater concentrations than they are ingested by the adult.
  One other pollutant represents a serious, growing problem in London, carbon monoxide, most of which comes from vehicle exhausts. In London, there are

  521
  occasions when the levels of carbon monoxide have reached double the World Health Organisation's guideli-nes. The Government's have predicted that, nationally, transport carbon emissions will rise from 38 million tons in 1990 to 62 million tons by 2010.
  The symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning include drowsiness, impaired brain functioning, slow reflexes and impaired perception and thinking. One can only assume that the Government are suffering from such poisoning, given their inaction in dealing with that menace in the capital city.
  6.21 am
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on his success in the ballot and on his good sense in his choice of subject.
  This is a timely debate, in the sense of the concern recently expressed about air quality, even though those of us who have had rather less sleep than normal would not necessarily regard this as the most timely moment in the course of the parliamentary day to be debating the subject.
  We have had an able presentation from my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham and for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) of the key issues of air quality and the clear links between that and transport-induced emissions. which are a source of ever greater concern to those of us who live in and represent London constituencies.
  The subject was highlighted graphically by the latest edition of The Independent on Sunday, with a front page leading article, entitled, "The day Britain choked". It reported:
  "Britain has experienced the greatest asthma epidemic ever recorded during this summer's heatwave … At the height of the epidemic, some London hospitals ran out of medication for asthmatics."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich drew attention to that fact. The same point was stressed in the article, which continued:
  "Startled doctors at one hospital at first thought there had been an escape of poison gas, as at Bhopal in India, 10 years ago.
  'We suspect that this is the biggest documented outbreak anywhere in the world,' said Dr. Virginia Murray, of the National Poisons Unit at Guy's and St.Thomas's Hospitals."
  That is pretty stark reading. The article reflects the seriousness of the problem.
  We are all familiar with the background. We know that in the past poor air quality—especially smog—was a real problem in London. Mercifully, the problem has reduced dramatically in the past 50 years, as a result, essentially, of the clean air legislation and reductions in emissions from both industrial and domestic users. The traditional London pea souper is now, thankfully, a memory from the past.
  In the past few years, an entirely new atmospheric threat has emerged. Industrially based pollution has continued to decline and the domestic use of coal fires has reduced dramatically, so easing pollution from that source, but pollution attributable to motor vehicles has been rising inexorably involving the emission of a range of different pollutants.
  I need to go no further than the Government's report on the United Kingdom environment to highlight the trend. The report, which was published less than a couple of years ago, refers specifically to black smoke emissions, which have declined by 20 per cent. since 1980 because of the halving of emissions from domestic sources, but it highlights the fact that over the same period emissions
  522
  from road transport of black smoke have doubled. Both my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham and for Woolwich have dealt specifically with black smoke emissions and hydrocarbon emissions, which are a specific cause of concern.
  The Government's report on our environment highlighted the extent of the increase in average UK concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, which increased by 35 per cent. from 1986 to 1991. That was mainly because of the increased emissions from traffic. The report stresses the extent to which carbon monoxide emissions have also increased since 1980 by over 30 per cent. It is a chilling fact that 90 per cent. of emissions of carbon monoxide are derived from road vehicles.
  These are all disturbing trends. They are associated with the remarkable increase in the incidence of asthma that is affecting a wide range of the population, but especially children in London and throughout the country. We have heard extremely worrying evidence of the extent of asthma incidents in Streatham. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham conducted a survey in the area and found some shattering evidence of the extent of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich rightly referred to the widespread and much reported problems of asthma in south-east London, problems with which I am familiar.
  We know about the wide range of polluting emissions. We know, for example, about the incidence of black smoke, hydrocarbons, particulates, benzine—it is carcinogetic—NOx, low-level ozone and carbon monoxide. We know also of the extent of emissions of carbon dioxide —the greenhouse gas—for which we have targets which were agreed at the Rio conference two years ago. It will be extremely difficult for the Government to meet those targets if radical steps are not taken to secure substantial reductions in emissions, especially from motor vehicles.
  Faced with all these serious grounds for concern, the Government's response has been extremely negligent. My hon. Friends have referred to the traditional Tory love affair with the motor car. We have heard references to the late Lord Ridley's wish for people to be free to drive their cars to wherever they might wish to go. He took a rather different view, however, if people proposed to drive their motor cars into the countryside where he lived privately. That was when his not-in-my-backyard instincts were aroused. He saw no problems, however, if anyone wanted to bring a motor car into London, whatever the impact on the environment.
  We know also of Baroness Thatcher's preference for the use of the motor car rather than public transport, her hatred of public transport and her wish to be able to travel in her own car wherever and whenever she wanted. The fact that that privilege would inevitably result in a disadvantage to other people never crossed Baroness Thatcher's mind due to her highly selfish approach towards policy making.
  The Government's current presumptions in seeking ever-increasing road capacity to cope with increased demand for car usage sadly perpetuates the trends set in place during the 1980s by Baroness Thatcher and the late Lord Ridley. The problem with the Government's approach is that the demand is insatiable. Their own figures show the extent of the projected increase in motor car usage. Even the low forecast of the increase in car usage over the next two decades from 1994 to 2014 gives a projected rise of 37 per cent. across Great Britain and 29 per cent. in London; the high forecast gives a possible

  523
  increase of 59 per cent. across the whole of Great Britain and 48 per cent. in London. One has to think for only a brief moment about the current state of London's traffic to realise that the prospect of an increase of between 29 and 48 per cent. in motor vehicle traffic in London is unsustainable. It would have catastrophic implications in terms of congestion, the amenity of Londoners and the increase in toxic emissions.
  The idea that we should base public policy on a wish to satisfy that level of demand for increased vehicle usage in an area that is already hopelessly over-congested is the policy of the madhouse. The very process of building new roads contributes to the increase in congestion, as many road schemes have shown. When the M25 was originally conceived, it was envisaged as a relief road which would take traffic out of London and ease congestion in London. Now that we have the M25, we have ever-greater congestion in London and the M25 is so hopelessly congested that the argument is now being advanced that it must be extended in various places to a 14-lane super-highway. If that argument is accepted, it will lead us down an utterly disastrous route to increased road capacity, attracting yet more vehicles and increasing congestion, pollution and, in turn, the demand for more road space. It is a monster whose appetite is insatiable and, if it is indulged, it will continue to demand more and more.
  The time has come to call a halt and say that a new policy approach is necessary. We cannot continue to sacrifice the countryside and the interests of ordinary people who rightly wish to enjoy fresh air and escape from the urban environment to attractive rural areas surrounding big cities. We cannot destroy those prospects by creating the massive devastation and damage that we have unfortunately witnessed at Twyford down in the past couple of years as the Government have driven through that road scheme against justified opposition from all those concerned about the environment—[Interruption.] The despoliation of our landscape may not concern the Minister, who is intervening from a sedentary position, but for Opposition Members the despoliation of Twyford down will be remembered as one of the most disgraceful actions of a Government whose whole transport policy has failed and is rightly rejected.
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): The Labour party would have done the same.
  Mr. Raynsford: In the past week, the Labour party has published a new environmental policy which has been well received by an extremely wide range of bodies concerned with the environment and the country's future. That policy document, "In Trust for Tomorrow", a concept which a Government who are in hock to the past cannot appreciate, sets out clearly how we shall change present policy. [Interruption.] The Minister, from a sedentary position, wants a price tag. I will tell him. He will be disappointed, because the price tag is a neutral price tag, as we are calling a halt to the wasteful expenditure on unnecessary road schemes, which has become the hallmark of the present Government. We shall call a halt to the squandering of millions, if not billions, of pounds on building roads that damage our countryside, which attract more vehicles into
  524
  areas where there is already excessive congestion, and which do nothing to attack the fundamental problem of inadequate investment in public transport.
  We shall achieve a significant shift in the allocation of resources away from unnecessary road schemes such as the M25 widening. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on the response of his hon. Friends from constituencies around the M25. He may not be a Transport Minister, but he is a Minister who has responsibilities, and has hon. Friends who represent constituencies around the route proposed for the widening of the M25. I wonder whether he has consulted them on their views about those proposals.
  Mr. Atkins)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Raynsford: I have to advise the Minister that there is little enthusiasm for the massive road-building schemes of his Government among his hon. Friends who represent the areas that will be affected. That should give him pause for thought as to just how unpopular and inappropriate the Government's transport policies are.
  A new approach is required—an approach that will achieve a shift in spending away from roads and in favour of public transport. A halt is needed to unnecessary, wasteful road-building projects such as the M25 extension, and instead there should be an emphasis on investing in much-needed public transport infrastructure.
  London requires the modernisation of its rail network. We need modern, comfortable, reliable, attractive train services to ensure that people use them rather than bringing their motor cars into central London. We need new lines such as crossrail to provide links across the city where they do not exist at the moment. We need new links such as the Woolwich metro, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich rightly referred, to ensure that there are good public transport alternatives to avoid the need for road-building schemes such as the East London river crossing, which would have a dire environmental impact on a part of south-east London already suffering from excessive atmospheric pollution.
  We need improved investment in the London underground. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham rightly highlighted the Government's failure to honour their pledge, made at the most recent general election, to invest £3.5 billion in improving the London underground to a decently modern metro standard. Instead, we have £1 billion less investment than was promised, and London Underground Ltd. literally has to look to every opportunity that it can to achieve basic modernisation work. For example, the Northern line rolling stock should have been replaced a long time ago, but London Underground is still waiting for news as to how the tendering process proceeds for the replacement of that stock.
  We also know the delay that has occurred over the Jubilee line. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich rightly alluded to that. We have the strange saga of the docklands light railway extension, which cannot proceed because there is uncertainty about its funding. The most absurd proposal is emerging that stations should be dropped out of the scheme to reduce the cost, to make it possible to attract private finance.
  One only has to pause for thought to realise the stupidity of a line of policy that suggests that much-needed stations, especially one at Cutty Sark in my constituency, which would attract a large number of tourists to one of the most

  525
  attractive tourist sites in London, should be deleted because it is not possible to raise sufficient private finance to fund that station in the short term. It is the worst possible example of short-termism, of failure to consider London's overall needs, and failure to provide the proper transport network that we require.
  That is no way to plan a transport system, but it is typical of the approach that has been adopted by the Government. We have to reverse that and ensure that there is increased investment in public transport, financed by a transfer of resources from the road-building programme.
  We also need to improve London's bus service. London's buses are critical to large numbers of people, particularly when undertaking short to medium length journeys and in areas where there is no adequate train or underground service. Large parts of south London are entirely without the underground system. Buses must be given an advantage to enable them to carry passengers at reasonable speed. Such an advantage means bus lanes which, in turn, will help to reduce the excess capacity available on roads that simply allows more private cars to use them. A policy that includes an extension of bus lanes, better priority for buses and restrictions on the volume of car traffic that can come into certain areas of London must be right.
  By considering the experiment that has been conducted by the City of London in the past year, we can learn some interesting lessons. The City corporation introduced, as an anti-terrorism measure, wide-ranging restrictions on people's ability to bring private cars into the square mile. The results have been startling and startlingly successful. There has been a dramatic reduction in the problems of congestion and in pollution levels in the City, and there has been a shift in usage from private cars to public transport. Those results are all benefits and virtually everyone who has considered the experiment recognises that it has resulted in a significant improvement. It gives us clear evidence of the need to pursue similar radical and positive approaches to tackle our acute transport problems.
  As well as pursuing measures to support and encourage public transport and to restrict unnecessary private vehicle movements into congested city areas, we also need effective monitoring of air quality. We need national air quality targets, local authorities with powers to be able to implement and monitor those targets and, where necessary, to specify higher targets to be achieved within their areas, particularly where there are very serious problems. Local authorities must also have the discretion to decide how they can ensure, within their local transport plans, that the standards and targets will be met.
  We need a range of traffic-calming measures. We need alternatives that encourage modern, light train and supertram systems. The Croydon initiative is very much to be welcomed in that context, as are park-and-ride schemes. We also need far more effective warning when severe episodes of air pollution are expected. It is very much the responsibility of the Government to take the lead in giving such a warning. I hope that they will work with local authorities to ensure a system under which people are advised when it will present a risk, both to them and to other people, to take cars into congested areas.
  We also need to place greater emphasis on technological responses and the extension of catalytic converters. As well as encouraging more retro-fitting, we need to encourage the whole industry to explore alternatives that will achieve greater fuel efficiency and, in
  526
  the long term, to explore alternatives to the internal combustion engine. There is a range of policy options, which are covered in detail in Labour's new environmental policy. Those options point to a positive and hopeful way forward to a new approach to tackle the acute pollution problems that we face.
  People all over London are rightly concerned about the problem, which calls out for an urgent and imaginative response. We in the Labour party have put forward that response. I hope that the Government will listen and will reverse their policy in response to London's needs.
  6.43 am
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): I congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on initiating this debate. I must correct him on one small point—I am not new to my job, I have been doing it since January. Neither am I a Transport Minister, although clearly the subject impacts on that Department, too.
  As the parent of a daughter who is a quite severe asthmatic, I am only too well aware of the pressures on, and the problems caused for, youngsters—a matter which Labour Members raised. Therefore, I hope that they will accept that we have just as much, if not more, interest in such matters as anyone else. When the Government published the United Kingdom sustainable development strategy earlier this year, we identified improving air quality in our cities and towns as one of the most significant challenges for sustainable development. We are determined to meet that challenge.
  That is why we followed the strategy almost immediately with our discussion document "Improving Air Quality", in which we put forward radical options for making the air that we breathe cleaner and healthier. We asked for full discussion, for constructive comment, for alternative views and for practical experiments to test ways of improving air quality. Some 130 organisations replied, from local government, business and the voluntary sector. They support our strategy. They have made positive suggestions and they have also expressed a willingness to work with us. We are now considering all the responses in depth and we will announce our proposals, including our plans for the first air quality experiments, later this year. I urge those hon. Members who have not read "Improving Air Quality"—especially those who suggest that nothing is happening—to read it now and, perhaps, to think again.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister spoke of the urgency of the Government's approach to the issue. Why has not the Department of Health published the report on an incident in December 1991 in which, it is claimed, 200 extra deaths occurred in London? Is not it a matter of shame for the Government that there have been two similar incidents in the past month, which may well have killed large numbers of people, yet no report has yet been published on the incident some three years ago?
  Mr. Atkins: I cannot comment on that matter, as I am not a Health Minister. However, I undertake to ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concern is registered with Health Ministers, who will doubtless pursue the matter with him in due course. I regret that I cannot give him a direct answer.
  While none of us for a second underestimates the concern that people have for the quality of air that we have

  527
  experienced during the last couple of weekends, I would not want hon. Members to run away with idea that the matter is nearly as serious as we are sometimes led to believe. It is not killer smog; we are talking about incidences of poor air quality on certain occasions. They should not be overestimated in the tabloid terms that some people use. I am not suggesting that Opposition Members are guilty of that, but the media sometimes are.
  When we publish our proposals this autumn, we will be building on the strong base of what we have already done. I remind the House that it was the Conservative party in government that brought in the Clean Air Act 1952, which was one of the most revolutionary Acts of its type. We know only too well the importance of that and what should be done to improve on it.
  As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said, we do not want to go back to the 1950s. We all know that acrid, choking, sulphur smog is no longer part of London life. Important as they still are, I shall not dwell on the measures that have halved sulphur emissions since 1970 and cut peak levels in London tenfold. We know that, as our life styles have changed, pollution has changed, especially in towns and cities where traffic is now the major source of many important pollutants. We have risen to those challenges and acted to deal with them.
  Recent claims, which have been added to in the debate, that the public were given no information about ozone levels until the EC ozone directive came into force early this year are simply patently wrong. We launched our information service—which is second to none in the world —in October 1990, to provide reports and forecasts on a number of pollutants to the media and the public. We do that every day, not just when EC information levels or limits are approached. We do it through a free telephone line and also on Ceefax and Teletext, where the information is updated every hour, on the hour.
  We spend some £4 million per year on air quality monitoring and we plan to expand those networks, doubling the number of sites in our enhanced urban network by 1997. We have consulted on integrating local monitoring with our own so that we all work to common standards. All the data from my Department's networks are published and are freely available. The national emissions inventory is updated annually and we are sponsoring the development of more detailed emissions inventories that will enable us to assess the best detailed improvement strategies for particular areas. London was the first city to be tackled.
  Taken overall, the air in even our most congested towns and cities is cleaner than it was. Levels of lead in central London have fallen by more than six times since 1980 and emissions are set to reduce during the next few years because of the action that the Government have already taken. Already, 3 million vehicles—15 per cent., not 5 per cent., of the vehicle fleet—have catalysts. Nitrogen dioxide emissions are already falling and even greater gains will follow when new EC standards for petrol and diesel vehicles come into effect in 1996.
  We have already begun pressing our European partners on improvements that we wish to see for the year 2000, such as on-board diagnostics that will tell drivers and testers whether emissions equipment is working properly. We are considering alternatives to the internal combustion
  528
  engine. The Departments of the Environment, of Transport and of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will spend substantial sums during the next two years on research into cleaner alternative technologies.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has referred to the extent to which, in his view, emissions are falling. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government are doing as against their own targets in respect of NOx and CO2missions?
  Mr. Atkins: I shall try, when I reach the point in my speech.
  Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry.
  Mr. Atkins: Not at all. We have to keep ourselves awake at this time of the morning.
  I chair the greener motoring forum which brings together central and local government, business and environmental groups in order to help our vital transport systems in a way that will reduce their impact on the environment. Naturally, we do not concentrate solely on technology. For example, we are looking at economic instruments, increases in fuel taxes and potential for congestion charging.
  Together with the Department of Transport, we have issued guidance to local authorities on how the land use planning system can help to manage the impact of transport on the environment. Local authorities have been asked to put forward complete packages for transport funding and to give higher priority to facilities for walking, cycling and public transport, in which we are investing substantial sums.
  Finally, we have certainly not forgotten other sources of pollution. London and all areas where domestic emissions are still important are covered by smoke control orders. In 1990, we introduced innovative new systems for Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and local authorities to deal with industrial air pollution. The rest of the EC is only now looking to catch up with our integrated pollution control system, which is unique and a world beater. The integrated pollution prevention and control directive, which is still being discussed in Council, takes our IPC system as its model.
  However, as hon. Gentlemen said—I do not disagree —more remains to be done. When I launched the document entitled "Improving Air Quality" I pointed clearly to three areas where the Government see a need for further work —air quality standards, short-term measures to reduce pollution from vehicles already on the road and local air quality management strategies for problem areas.
  We set up the expert panel on air quality standards in 1991 to make recommendations based on the best currently available scientific evidence of likely risks and benefits. This year, EPAQS—we have an affection for acronyms in the Department of the Environment—has published its first report on benzene and ozone and it will publish further reports later this year, which doubtless will cover the particular points that the hon. Member for Greenwich raised. I will check.
  Mr. Raynsford: So will I.
  Mr. Atkins: Good. We will check together.
  The Departments of the Environment and of Health will do all that they can to support the work of EPAQS and to

  529
  provide further assessment on pollution levels, trends and costs that will enable the Government to reach early decisions.
  To be fair, the jury is still out on what causes asthma in the first place. We know that air pollution can affect many people with asthma and other breathing difficulties. Much work is going on not only in Government health departments but outside in the medical profession, the motoring journals and other sectors, in an attempt to discover whether asthma is caused by, for example, motoring activity or dust mites. As I discovered much to my interest the other day, the biggest cause of asthma in California is barbecues. That problem may not have hit us yet, but if our weather goes on being as warm as it has been, it may yet do so.
  Mr. Austin-Walker: Is the Minister satisfied that the Government are spending sufficient money on asthma research? I understand that it totals £1 million a year. In my own health authority area, which covers the boroughs of Bexley and Greenwich, the cost to the NHS of treating reversible bronchia-constriction is in the region of £2 million a year, excluding the costs of prophylaxis, prevention, peak-flow meters and antibiotics for secondary infections. Should not more money be spent on asthma research to reduce the excessive bill for treating asthma with drugs?
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me, but I cannot possibly answer that question, which is for my colleagues in the Department of Health. However, I will ensure that they read the debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will take the matter up with them, or I will get them to write to him. I cannot comment on costs, but we are doing a lot of work, rightly so, on asthma research. I have a particular personal interest in one form or another. My daughter believes that when she goes to the garage for petrol, the volatile organic compounds that surround petrol delivery sometimes aggravate her asthma. It is probably fair to expect car emissions to have an effect.
  When I was roads Minister, I was instrumental in introducing emissions measurement into the MOT test. Although, like all aspects of that test, that applies only at the moment of testing, we should give thought to whether more regular checks ought to be made. Some London local authorities, such as Westminster and Southwark, are doing a lot. "Improving Air Quality" identified poorly maintained vehicles and black smoke from diesels as issues to be addressed. In 1992–93, the Vehicle Inspectorate carried out 16,000 spot checks and issued 200 prohibition notices as part of its regular enforcement activity. I am sure that all hon. Members would like fewer vehicles on our streets emitting black smoke and other obvious pollution. The other day, I noticed when following London taxis and open-topped tourist buses—which tend to be older vehicles—that they contribute significantly in that respect.
  I recently attended a demonstration of the Royal Automobile Club's technology testing of passing cars. It is not yet proven, but it is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Flynn: The Minister is complacent in many of the things that he says. Some countries already impose limits on PM10s—tiny, invisible soot particles of less than 10 microns that pass through our air passages and lodge in the lung. Those particles are coated with as many as 60 carcinogenic chemicals. One estimate is that they cause.
  530
  10,000 deaths a year. The lowest estimate is 3,000 extra deaths. The number is increasing because PM10s come from diesels, which we have encouraged. The worst thing that we ever did was to take lead out of petrol, because it has increased benzene in the atmosphere, which has created more carcinogens. It is unlikely that I will be called to speak in the debate, but the Minister must be told that those problems need urgent examination.
  Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep—like most people this time of the morning. I spoke all along about the work being done in those areas. I am fascinated to learn that the hon. Gentleman is now opposed to taking the lead out of petrol, which had the favour of many people across the parliamentary divide. Much work is being done on what is good and what is bad. The hon. Gentleman will know if he is a fair man—I am sure that he is, even if he is a Welshman—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I apologise, and I withdraw that remark. I am just trying to keep myself awake. In all seriousness, a lot of work is going on, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but it is not yet proven that diesel causes the problems.
  Mr. Flynn: It is.
  Mr. Atkins: I am sorry, but it is not. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that diesel is not as good as everyone thought that it was. That is fair. Much effort has been put in by the motoring manufacturers in developing the cleaner car, although they would say that the public consider the environmental aspects of their vehicles as being at the bottom of their buying agendas. None the less, the points that the hon. Gentleman makes have some validity in that there is still much work to be done, and, is being done, not only by Government but by industry and the medical profession, in trying to determine what is a contributory cause to the sort of pollution that we are talking about today.
  Mr. Flynn rose—
  Mr. Atkins: No, I shall not give way again, as I have only limited time and want to finish my point. The hon. Gentleman should have intervened at an earlier point, like all the rest of us.
  As I was about to say, before I was so rudely interrupted, it should be clear from "Improving Air Quality" that we do not rule out new measures, but I think that there is scope for harnessing public willingness to do better. After all, badly maintained vehicles, as well as affecting the air that we all breathe, probably use more fuel and therefore waste drivers' money.
  Lastly and most radically, in improving air quality, we set out the case for integrated local air quality management. The Government's national policies will reduce pollution generally throughout the country, but where there is traffic congestion or industry, or where there are other special factors, there may be a danger that standards will not be met. What we have in mind, therefore, is a menu of supplementary measures for problem areas. Each would choose the mix that would address its particular combination of problems most cost effectively. We have not yet finally determined the contents of the menu. We decided on a full and open debate. Therefore, in improving air quality, we listed the sorts of measures that might be considered and asked for comment and further suggestions.
  Among the points that we put up for discussion were suggestions that local planning and highway authorities

  531
  might be required to have specific regard to the impact of proposals on air quality; that traffic regulation orders could restrict vehicle access; and that there might be specially targeted measures to enforce controls on smoky vehicles in problem areas, more local information services and more detailed emission inventories, such as the one developed for London. Most of all, we need better integration of all the individual measures that can affect local air quality. Many of those are already in the hands of local authorities, and the hon. Member for Greenwich touched on that point in his concluding remarks. He believed that they should be, and will be, important players. It is obvious that, in an area such as London, one authority acting alone cannot solve all the problems. Local authorities will have to co-operate with each other, and they do so in London through the London air quality network. I hope that their co-operation will pay dividends.
  Central Government, the new agency, business and the local community must also be drawn in, and we must leave room for innovation and adaptation. Testing how best to achieve proper co-ordination is therefore the key area for testing alternative approaches. As I said earlier, we will be announcing later this year the first experiments with local authorities that have said that they want to work with us. I hope that their positive response in London, together with that of other organisations, will be mirrored elsewhere.
  I have looked with some interest at the Opposition's document: "Six Steps to Banish Smog" and have listened to what hon. Members have said tonight. I am only sorry that, four months after we initiated the debate, I saw nothing in that document, nor heard anything today, to suggest that what the Government have done requires any improvement from the Opposition.
  7.5 am
  Mr. Paul Flynn: It has been very disappointing to hear the Minister read his prepared speech, because his attitude and demeanour do not match the crisis that London faces. We all have an interest in the matter because we have to breathe the air in London.
  I mentioned lead earlier for a very good reason, because the campaign to remove lead from petrol won the support of all the environmental bodies. The result has been to increase the amount of aromatics—principally benzene —that get into the atmosphere. We know that benzene is powerfully carcinogenic. It causes cancer. It is in the air. One part per billion is already a problem, but it is in the atmosphere in much greater quantities. What do we do about that? We can improve the burn of the petrol to take out the benzene by adding extra oxygen, but if we do that we produce formaldehydes, which are also carcinogenic. We therefore have a very serious problem: none of the technical fixes appears to work.
  The Minister suggested that 15 per cent. of cars had catalytic converters, and I believe that that is roughly correct. Tragically, however, 55 per cent. of the petrol that is bought is unleaded, and many people are buying super-unleaded petrol when they have no catalytic converters—with the result that their cars are not just more
  532
  polluting, but 40 times more polluting than they would be if they were using the traditional leaded petrols. Catalytic converters do not work efficiently until the car has been driven for 10 km because they have to warm up, and 75 per cent. of all journeys in this city are shorter than that. Cars with catalytic converters are therefore doing more harm in those first 10 km than they would with no catalytic converters, using the old petrol.
  Having heard a great deal of evidence, many of us are in despair about London's problem. That problem cannot be underestimated. I appeal to the Minister to bear in mind an incident that occurred in December 1991 in this city. Technicians reading the meters did not believe them. That happens with all disasters: as someone who has worked all his life in laboratories, I know that when a technician sees something very strange he does not believe it. In this instance, the instruments suddenly went off the scale, showing the highest levels of pollutants ever recorded. A report made for the Department of Health has still not been published, but we know from a summary that has been made available that there were at least 150 excess deaths.
  The Minister has said that air pollution does not cause asthma. I believe that that has been established: there is no scientific link. Causal links are not established in many such cases. The Minister mentioned, however, that his daughter finds garages an irritant. That is because of the presence of benzene, which causes the pleasant smell when we put petrol into the car. Is benzene a powerful carcinogenic? We know that it comes out of exhausts as well. There are many things that we cannot prove, but we know for certain that asthmatics—whose numbers have grown in my county by 118 per cent. in the past 15 years —are greatly troubled by fumes from cars, and in atmospheres with high concentrations of particulates and poisons.
  The position is getting worse, for the reasons that I have given. We do not know what we are doing. It is easy to say that we need research; we could continue to do research for the next 100 years, but we still might not find those causal links. It took us 30 years to find the link between cancer and smoking. We cannot wait that long in this case. Every day in this city an enormous, uncontrolled experiment is taking place. We are pumping a huge cocktail of chemicals into the atmosphere; we do not know what those chemicals do when they come together, but we know that mixing two toxic chemicals produces a mixture not just twice as toxic but possibly a hundred times as toxic. Given the great soup of chemicals in the air, a still day like that day in 1991, with barometric pressure placing a lid on the city and stopping the air from moving and sunshine baking the chemicals, will lead to a mass of complex chemical reactions producing a lethal mixture that we have to breathe.
  It is certain that the ozone and particulates involved in London's pollution are a deadly mixture. We must not be complacent and congratulate ourselves on producing a number of reports or on being better than country A or country B; we must give urgent consideration to restricting the source of the pollution—cars. When the pollution reaches a certain level, we must say that cars cannot enter the city. Others countries are already taking such action. If we do not do so as well, hundreds—possibly thousands —of people will die unnecessarily in our capital city.

  North-East Derbyshire
  7.9 am
  Mr. Harry Barnes: My debate moves us towards the north, but it deals with problems similar to those that we have been discussing for London. The Minister may be interested to know that I introduced this topic in 1989 and that the Minister who replied for the Government on that occasion is now the Secretary of State for Health. I shall wait five years to see what position the current Minister has moved to.
  Pollution knows no boundaries, as was obvious internationally when the Chernobyl incident occurred. Nationally, the figures from the Department of the Environment for ozone pollution during hot weather show that often the higher levels are not necessarily in counties with the largest towns but are sometimes in neighbouring areas. Oxfordshire is in the top list and Derbyshire is fourth in that set of figures. It may be that some of the problems resulting in the high ozone level in Derbyshire derive from neighbouring areas such as Sheffield, with the pollution drifting to Derbyshire. Locally, the crossing of boundaries is illustrated by the fact that the River Doe Lea, which starts in Bolsover district and constituency and is the worst polluted river in Europe, forms part of the border between the districts and constituencies of Derbyshire, North-East and Bolsover.
  Individualism may help to create certain pollution problems, but it offers no solution to handling those problems. Action to tackle pollution has to be planned, co-ordinated and shared and, therefore, must be social in content. In tackling pollution, there is no such thing as isolated individualism.
  Pollution controls do not need to destroy production and jobs. In fact, if pollution controls are operated correctly they should work in the opposite direction. Job opportunities and production should go along with improved pollution control techniques. An example of that developed in north-east Derbyshire. Biwaters of Clay Cross in north-east Derbyshire produces pipes which are often sold internationally. The company was a polluter, producing old-fashioned muck and dirt, and was under considerable pressure to clean up its act. Pressures were being applied by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
  The firm obtained new markets in a peculiar way. When Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister, she went to Malaysia and became involved in trade and aid discussions. That opened up new markets and led to a development of rural piping throughout Malaysia. The great bulk of that production came from the Bywaters plant in Clay Cross. In order to increase production, the company agreed to instigate investment which would control the pollution problems in the area as well as helping with the expansion. So we have more jobs, greater production and less pollution as a result of that investment.
  We have sometimes missed out on those opportunities. For instance, Avenue coke works at Wingerworth is now closed. More than 300 people were made redundant; yet the product was desirable for pollution control. The plant, however, was aging and produced pollutants itself. Investment and improvements were needed to maintain jobs and to make a product that would sell; the product being produced became inferior because of the conditions
  534
  prevailing at the plant. We need policies that would allow an organisation such as Avenue coke works to continue its production without creating pollution.
  Much has already been said about the need for an integrated social transport system at the national and international level. Although perhaps not yet in a very developed form, such systems are offered through the European Community. Plans to develop a common transport policy throughout the EC were discussed recently in Standing Committee A.
  To highlight the extent of the pollution problem, I shall use north-east Derbyshire, and the Staveley area in particular, as an example. The northern part of Staveley falls within the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East while the southern part falls within the constituency of Chesterfield. That shows that boundaries are meaningless when we are debating pollution.
  Mr. Wareing, a farmer of Barrow Hill, keeps elaborate records of the pollution that he encounters. He has recorded high levels of sulphur, molybdenum and fluoride in herbage and silage. Since 1971, 25 per cent. of calves born there have had eye defects, and some have been blind. He once showed me a photosensitive cow that had to be kept in the dark. He is pursuing cases in the courts against local firms. The value of what he is doing lies in the fact that the details will be placed in the public domain. There were also problems recently when travellers arrived in a nearby area that suffers similar problems. The travellers were therefore in considerable danger.
  Asthma was mentioned in our previous debate. It is a considerable problem in the Staveley area. Many instances have been recorded at schools there; at Barrow Hill primary school, the figure is 23 per cent., which is at least twice the national average. That says something about the nature of the problems in the area. Pollution caused by transport may drift: Barrow Hill is not an area with high car use, so many other factors could come into play—some may be related to the problems recorded by the farmer to whom I referred.
  Great attention was paid to Staveley's problems because of a scare about high levels of dioxins. There had been an incident at Coalite, and an examination was undertaken. Three farms in the Bolsover area were taken out of production—two produced milk and the one that sold meat supplies reared suckling cows. What happened there has been stressed a great deal by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Because of the problems at Coalite, investigations were started over a somewhat wider area in Staveley and it was discovered that there was another strain of dioxin, different from the Coalite pollution. That was traced to Stanton plc. In 1993, eight farms in the area were taken out of milk production and had their milk tested. According to current standards, the levels were found acceptable, so the farms went back into milk production.
  Although the dioxin problems were discovered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and by the Department of the Environment, the work of cleaning them up had to be pursued by Chesterfield borough council and North-East Derbyshire district council, mainly through their environmental health officers. That produced a problem in terms of the availability of resources to tackle such tasks, but at least when we found out what the levels were we could begin to take action.
  Other problems in the area include river pollution and the difficulty of containing consent levels in what goes into

  535
  the River Rother, into which the Doe Lea eventually flows. We also have problems involving sewage treatment and the death of the river. The National Rivers Authority has tried to turn the river back into a waterway that can support fish.
  Another problem connected with sewage is the overflow from drains, caused by the inadequacy of the provision, which is in the hands of Yorkshire Water Services. There is a great need to encourage the company to extend its improvements in the area to help districts in Hollingwood where there is serious flooding, involving overflows of sewage in residential areas and in an area where there is a working men's club.
  The traffic problems that were discussed in the previous debate also exist in my area.
  There was a particular problem at Rhône-Poulenc—generally known as Staveley Chemicals—which has an elaborate warning system for local residents. A siren sounds when there is held to be danger in the area. Unfortunately, it sounded accidentally recently and there was no system for telling people that the danger was over. Luckily, because of the lesson that it learned, the company has now moved to establish a new system. The action card, which is quite elaborate, has to be distributed in the Staveley area. It tells people in great detail about going indoors and staying there, about tuning to local radio and so on, about what they have to do to assist the police and fire services, and about waiting for the all-clear. Unfortunately, within that area there are several other firms —such as Coalite, which is not too far away—and they all operate similar systems. What is required is an understanding that the signalling system is different in different areas. When the accident took place, people rang up Coalite instead of Staveley Chemicals to ask what was wrong in the area.
  Staveley's problems must be tackled in a co-ordinated way. I do not think that we have the provisions to do that. We have a junior Minister for the Environment and Countryside within the Department of the Environment who has some overall responsibilities for these matters, but who does not have the status or the wherewithal to be able to operate fully. We have environmental protection legislation which throws tasks on to local government, as I mentioned, but local government is fantastically underfunded in the areas with which I am dealing. In terms of standard spending assessment and the grants related to it, North-East Derbyshire district council is 275th out of 296 English councils. Chesterfield borough council is only a little ahead of that.
  Then there is the problem of co-ordinating the areas to which I have referred. It was interesting that in the previous debate the Minister frequently said, "That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Department of Transport or for the Department of Health." A great difficulty in pollution control is drawing the threads together and getting hold of all the information required. In terms of handling a problem such as the one in Staveley, there are Department of Health investigations and the Department of the Environment is involved. The Department of Trade and Industry is also involved because we are talking about industries in the area, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is involved because we are talking about farms in the area. The Department of Employment, too, is involved because jobs are at stake. A whole set of
  536
  agencies are involved, including Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the National Rivers Authority and the Health and Safety Executive. Local government bodies then come into it because Chesterfield borough and North-East Derbyshire district council have environmental health responsibilities. Planning arrangements, which are sometimes overridden by the Department of the Environment on appeal, are in the hands of the district and county councils. Then there are the private bodies. There is Rhône-Poulenc—traditionally known as Staveley Chemicals—and Yorkshire Water.
  The start of a solution to tackle the problems in an area such as Staveley is a full environmental survey in the area drawing the many threads together. Once we know the facts, as we eventually discovered the facts about dioxin, we can take the appropriate action to deal with the problem. But we need an agency that is able to do that. We need a new Department of Environmental Protection which will be able to co-ordinate investigations and to offer the facilities required. Such a Department could also facilitate solutions for the area.
  Staveley is by no means unique in its problems. When it was discovered that Stanton plc was responsible for the dioxin in the area, the Stanton works at Stanton, in Erewash, were investigated and it was found that a similar problem existed there. I imagine that the problem exists wherever there are large industrial complexes. However, there are hopes in the Staveley area that there will be improvements. There is even a faint hope in the Department of the Environment.
  In a letter to me dated 29 April, the Secretary of State for the Environment, when calls had beem made to him for the type of environmental survey about which I am talking, stated:
  "You will appreciate that, until the current work being undertaken by HMIP and the NRA has been completed and the results published, and the question of the prosecutions has been decided, it would not be appropriate for me to take up your invitation to visit your constituency. As soon as the additional work that HMIP is taking forward has been completed and assessed, I will write to you again about whether anything further needs to be done in response to your request for a full investigation of environmental problems in the area concerned."
  There are things which we await, unless a message arrives this morning about those possibilities.
  There is the possibility of action being taken in the Staveley area. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is due to visit us and the areas that I am describing on 15 September. That closely follows the publication of Labour's document "In Trust for Tomorrow", which was mentioned in a debate earlier today. I was keen to seek the position of chair of the Labour Back-Bench environment committee because of my experiences especially in north-east Derbyshire, often on a wider basis than the ones that I have stressed so far in terms of the Staveley area.
  There are more problems than the ones relating to Staveley. We have been involved in a pit closure programme and privatisation. No mines are left in Derbyshire. We have one National Union of Mineworkers branch at Highmoor which is associated with the Kiveton combine, but it is due to close in September. We have the problem of mine water discharges which has been stressed by the National Rivers Authority. We also have opencast problems in the area. Despite strong objection, the most recent development was that at Spinkhill, which is not too far from some of the pits that have been closed. We have

  537
  areas of considerable opencast potential in rural areas which have not had anything to do with mining since possibly the 17th and 18th centuries. We also have the areas where there have been recent closures. Moves should be made to come in and opencast an area where a pit has closed. We also have the residual problem of mining subsidence, and inadequate means to deal with that in various areas.
  The river pollution associated with the River Rother moves into other areas, apart from Staveley, to the north of the constituency through Killamarsh, where it goes close to a Leigh Environmental plant, a subject on which I had a previous Adjournment debate. We had a lengthy discussion on the matter because it was an extended Adjournment debate. Across the border in Rother Valley country park, which is in a neighbouring constituency, the water for the lake had to be imported: the water in the River Rother could not be used as it was too polluted. We also have other sewerage problems. The town in Dronfield has developed considerably and the River Drone, which passes close to a school in neighbouring Unstone, is sometimes something of an open sewer.
  Obviously, such problems are not confined within the boundaries of north-east Derbyshire. The wider northeastern corner of Derbyshire has the same problems as those at Coalite—the massive opencast development taking place at Arkwright, and the general lack of investment throughout the whole area which would enable the type of environmental improvement that I have described in relation to Biwater to take place more generally.
  The Government's failures need stressing, as does Labour's policy. For instance, the Minister and I and others have already clashed over the Energy Conservation Bill, which in many ways was a mild measure involving audit and conservation plans. From what was said at an earlier meeting of the European Standing Committee, I expected that before the end of this week we would have a statement in the House on transport and safety policies. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. We have discovered from a Court of Auditors report on environmental matters that many of the projects in which the European Community is involved are counterproductive environmentally.
  A large jump must be made to produce the right policy for the environment. To that end, I will summarise briefly some of the Labour party's proposals. We have advocated a green industrial strategy, in which new jobs and reductions in pollution go hand in hand, as I have suggested. Our sustainable transport policy shifts the emphasis to public transport, which offers many of the benefits that I described in the previous debate on this issue. Under our energy efficiency programme, no new nuclear power stations would be commissioned and the presumption is against opencast mining. That is of particular importance to north-east Derbyshire. Our proposals to democratise planning systems would also benefit my area. We have also advocated global institutional provisions and provisions about individual rights.
  Those policies represent the way forward. The problem is that we cannot wait for some of those initiatives to be introduced; the Government need to pick them up and run with them now. That is the way to tackle the problems I have outlined.
  7.35 am
  Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on his good fortune to have a debate at this cheerful hour of the morning and on the manner in which he introduced it.
  It is interesting to note that, five years ago, my hon. Friend had the good fortune, yet again, to debate the problems of pollution in north-east Derbyshire. The then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment who replied to the debate is now the Secretary of State for Health. Is she still Secretary of State?
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins)indicated assent.
  Mr. Howarth: That is the case.
  On that occasion, the then hon. Lady said:
  "The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has outlined a number of environmental concerns in his constituency. They are all subjects to which the Government are giving detailed consideration."—[Official Report, 13 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 245.]
  It is interesting that, five years on, my hon. Friend has raised exactly the same concerns, which the Government are still subjecting to detailed consideration. Insufficient progress has been made and my hon. Friend is right to outline those concerns, once again, in some detail.
  My hon. Friend is also right to say that just as pollution knows no international boundaries, equally it knows no regional boundaries. The problems of the Rivers Doe Lea and Rother, which my hon. Friend has outlined, have a regional significance and should be considered further by the Government. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who is a keen angler, would like to be able to fish in that river, but, at the moment, it has no fish worth catching. The problems caused by pollution extend beyond regions and even counties.
  My hon. Friend also drew attention to the scale of pollution confronted in his constituency, for example, at Staveley. I know that, over the years, my hon. Friend for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has campaigned against dioxin contamination in the area. The Minister will appreciate that great concern has been expressed about the impact of the incineration of various materials on public health. The burning temperatures in that process must be monitored constantly and kept up to right level, so that dioxins are not created. It is important that the problem is kept under constant review and that action is taken where necessary to try to reduce it.
  We must, as my hon. Friend said, have a properly co-ordinated strategy not only in his constituency but throughout the country. The House will be aware that there was a proposal in the Queen's Speech to introduce paving legislation for an environment agency. Sadly, that idea has sunk without trace. It seems that no such Bill exists. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Labour party—he is well aware of this—has a clear blueprint of what an environment agency should do. Indeed, the agency was our idea. I think that the Minister will concede that.
  Mr. Atkins: Certainly not.
  Mr. Howarth: If he examines the record, the Minister will find that the Labour party was talking about creating

  539
  an environment agency when he was worrying about the problems of Northern Ireland. I am sure that he still worries about those problems at length.
  An environment agency would provide the coordination that my hon. Friend rightly thinks is lacking. It would focus also on bringing together the responsible statutory bodies and other agencies so that all resources and concerns could be handled in a proper manner. Local authorities would be involved as well.
  Some time ago, my hon. Friend issued an invitation to the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit his constituency. He received what might be described as a holding letter. It told my hon. Friend that certain developments were under way and, as a result, the Secretary of State might later consider visiting Derbyshire, North-East. I understand that it might be important that investigations should be made and completed before a visit takes place.
  I have undertaken to visit my hon. Friend's constituency on 15 September. If the Minister is free on that day, I am sure that he would like to join me. I realise that he will not have his diary with him now. I am sure that my hon. Friend would make it an interesting and constructive day. Perhaps between us we could start to resolve some of the problems that my hon. Friend has been talking about for the past five years and beyond.
  I think that it is generally accepted that reform of the planning system is long overdue. That forms part of the Labour party document which was published the other day, "In Trust for Tomorrow". That reform would be helpful to our efforts to resolve some of the problems that my hon. Friend has outlined. My hon. Friend talked about the presumption against opencast mining. That, too, forms part of "In Trust for Tomorrow" and would be a helpful policy.
  It has taken five years for my hon. Friend to move from one debate to another. The problems that he referred to five years ago still face us. It is time that pollution generally, and especially in my hon. Friend's constituency, received a proper and co-ordinated response from the Government. If the Minister is not willing so to respond, the quicker we get a Government who are—that is a Labour Government —the better.
  7.43 am
  The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): As is customary, and I have no difficulty in doing so, I congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on securing this debate. He has, by all accounts—past correspondence and contributions—been signally effective in stimulating debate on environmental issues of concern to his constituents. I prepared a speech in anticipation of some of the points that he would make, but if I do not deal with all the issues that he has raised, I will write to him with such further comments as are necessary.
  I have noted the House's past interest in problems in Derbyshire and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for providing me with an opportunity to underline the Government's continued concern to protect the health of our people and the state of the environment in the country and particularly in Derbyshire, as highlighted in this debate.
  Incidentally, I visited part of the national forest, which
  540
  covers areas of Derbyshire, and saw for myself some of the activities that have been going on as a result of the successful project there. The benefits of the Government's strategy can be seen in many parts of the country. I shall take this opportunity to describe examples of the successes in and around north-east Derbyshire, which are contributing to the environmental regeneration of the area.
  At Leigh Environmental, Killamarsh, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has required a major refurbishment of the incineration plant, which is expected to come on line later this year, allowing the company to meet new plant standards in advance of the specified date. Improvements already carried out in response to improvement conditions, particularly those related to improved control of incinerator temperature and waste feed, have resulted in a substantial reduction in complaints from people living and working close to the site.
  At Rhône-Poulenc, near Staveley, part of the site is already under HMIP control. A number of improvement conditions have already been complied with. New plant standards will be achieved progressively by 1998, resulting in the virtual elimination of benzene releases. The quality of releases to the River Rother from the site have improved since the issue of the authorisation. Other processes on site are due to be controlled by HMIP soon, resulting in further reductions in mercury releases into the environment. The company is pursuing pioneering development work on reed bed technology with the active encouragement of HMIP.
  GKN Sheepbridge, near Chesterfield, has been the source of recent complaints, and agreement has been reached for improvements to be undertaken.
  At Coalite Fuels, Bolsover, some 25 improvement conditions were imposed and all the short-term conditions have now been complied with. Discharges to the River Doe Lea have improved considerably following the installation of improved settling facilities called for by HMIP.
  At Coalite Products, nine processes have come under HMIP control between October 1992 and June 1994. Many of the improvement conditions have already been completed, but a number more remain. Those improvement conditions are all aimed at the achievement of new plant standards within defined timescales.
  A close liaison is being developed between HMIP, the National Rivers Authority and the waste regulatory authorities in north-east Derbyshire in advance of the environment agency, on which good progress is being made and about which we hope to hear more later this year. Meetings are being held and matters of mutual concern discussed and progressed in an integrated fashion. There is also close liaison between the regulators, including the local authorities and regional health authority. Joint meetings have been held and initiatives established to collect environmental data. The aim is to undertake a modelling exercise studying the interaction of pollutants from various sources in the area.
  The regulatory authorities continue to attend liaison committees, which act as a forum for discussion and an information conduit between process operators and local pressure groups and members of the public.
  In May, a new rivers ecosystems scheme for classifying water quality was introduced. It will enable statutory water quality objectives to be set for the first time for individual stretches of water. Objectives will normally be set to reflect improvements expected to result from existing obligations under EC and domestic legislation and from discretionary

  541
  spending. The NRA will shortly prepare proposals for a limited number of pilot catchments. There will be full consultation informally by the NRA and formally by the Secretary of State.
  The River Doe Lea has been the subject of considerable attention by the NRA as it has sought to identify the problems and find solutions. I understand that the NRA is taking civil action against Coalite Chemicals to recover the costs of removing dioxins from the Doe Lea and Rother rivers. That civil action has taken some time to prepare because analysis of dioxin contamination is very complex, time consuming and costly.
  The Government have funded derelict land reclamation in north-east Derbyshire for many years. In the three years to April 1994, 20 schemes were completed and 12 more were in the pipeline. Those will reclaim 380 hectares and produce 30 hectares of industrial land, about 1,000 to 1,500 jobs and up to £40 million of private sector investment. English Partnerships has a continuing commitment to reclamation work in the area and the Government are also providing £250,000 for the reclamation work of the Cresswell groundwork trust in the area.
  An extensive and co-ordinated programme of environmental research and monitoring has already been carried out in north-east Derbyshire. Several reports detailing results of those studies have already been published, and the Government have given assurances that all the data will be made public. From the strategy that I have outlined, and from the examples that I have given, I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is reassured that all the agencies are committed to environmental protection and environmental regeneration, and to working closely with representatives of the local community.
  Successful environmental protection is dependent on a co-ordinated approach by all parties, to ensure that the maximum benefit is achieved, commensurate with the state of knowledge, technology and costs to the product, process and the environment.
  Mr. Barnes: Does the Minister feel that the developments that he has spoken about begin to match up to the full environmental survey that it is increasingly obvious is required in the area? Out of the bits and pieces that begin to develop, a story may be built up. We need to put together all the resources and sectors that I was speaking about, and to investigate the matter completely. Once we do that, we shall begin to know the answers that should be implemented. The Minister was also invited to join us in investigations into the area, because sometimes the equivalent of site visits are useful in helping to determine people's positions.
  Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Like any politician or Minister, I would never say "never". We believe that much work is being done in the area, although obviously there is more yet to be done. As for the offer of a visit, I shall look at the diary and if I can accept that offer, I will.

  Mesopotamia
  7.51 am
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), on his recent appointment. I know that, this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the new Minister, will be first class in his post.
  It has been a long night. It was a long day yesterday for those who waited to discover what their change of portfolio might be. It was a long day on the Opposition Benches, waiting for announcements of shadow leaders and deputy shadow leaders. Our time span of difficulties here in this Palace of Westminster is just a tiny flicker in the time span of the suffering of the people on whose plight I wish to dwell this morning. I speak of the marsh arabs of the Mesopotamian marshes, and of the southern Iraqi Shi-ites, whose lives bordered the Mesopotamian marshlands until so very recently.
  Thirty thousand square miles of antique waterways, with 10,000 square miles of that large expanse always under water, have been destroyed. Earlier this year, the Royal Air Force gave me to display, through the courtesy of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, now chairman of the Conservative party, some material showing the extent of the works that had caused that devastating damage. It was a tragic sight—enormous bulwarks, dams, the type of things that one can imagine would divert all the rivers of the United Kingdom.
  Millions and millions of dollars have been poured into taking away the ancient Mesopotamian marshlands, the waters of Babylon, and creating an arid desert. There are those who claim—Saddam Hussein and his minions among them—that the consequential burning of the reed huts, the marshland villages, the rice farms, the date palms, all the historic agricultural produce of the marshlands, is all done for beneficial agricultural purposes.
  I am chairman of the AMAR—assisting marsh arabs and refugees—appeal and chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for Iraq. In that capacity, I have had the opportunity to visit the area and to listen to the hundreds of thousands of victims whose homes have been destroyed, apparently for good, and whose lives have been wrecked irreparably.
  I recall at the end of the war, when I was a small child, people, dreadfully full of guilt, asking, "Why didn't we listen? Why didn't we listen to the Jews when they said that they were being exterminated? Why didn't we listen when the concentration camps were being built and used?" Today, there are people who still refuse to listen to victims unless they see them on the television, go to Rwanda or experience at first hand the Bosnian tragedies. I am ashamed of those people. They refuse to listen to the plight of the victims. But it is the victims who can tell us of the gruesome tortures and the lifelong incarcerations in gaols below the surface of the ground in Baghdad and who, today, tell us of the degradation of the marshlands and the despoliation of that wonderful, unique habitat for wildlife, birds, animals and, most importantly, humans.
  I am engaged in saving the survivors—there are 100,000 of them. Those survivors have fled into Iran. Some 30,000 of them are in Saudi Arabia, but it has not been possible to visit them. In Iran, we have a team of doctors, 60 medical people, 160 teachers and a number of people

  543
  who support and help us. Those people are working day and night. In conditions of acute danger, they have crept back into the marshlands where they are managing to save the lives—temporarily at least—of the remaining 50,000 or so marsh arabs who are coming ever closer to the border with Iran. I do not know whether they will come through because dams, and yet more dams, have been erected. Along the top of those dams, as I have seen, soldiers stand with machine guns and bombard the people as they attempt their final few yards to escape. Now, a road has been created along which armed vehicles are roaming along the border.
  We care for those who can get out. Last August, when I was there, 11,000 people streamed through our medical clinic. The British Government have been helping us and I want to give warm thanks for the competence of the Overseas Development Administration to the Minister for Overseas Development and her senior staff—Mr. Ron White now has the Iraq desk in the ODA.
  We have had consistent and wonderfully sensitive and thoughtful support from ECHO—the European Community humanitarian aid organisation that is based in Brussels. Mr. Gomez Reino, Mr. Donato Chiarini and Mr. Richard Lewartowski have been consistent and un-derstanding in their support. I was delighted when Dr. Rietweldt managed to visit the region and see a small portion of our work the other day.
  Iran, a country more sinned against than sinning, has given us consistent and tremendous partnership support throughout, which still continues. A representative of the president came from Iran the other day and I was fortunate enough to introduce him to the Foreign Secretary. They were in complete agreement about humanitarian work. They were wonderful supporters from Iran.
  Surely the time has come to start a proper dialogue with Iran on the cultural and, perhaps, the religious differences that have kept our countries apart for too long. I want that
  544
  dialogue to start under the auspices of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. I am co-chairman of the UNESCO committee in the House of Commons and I believe that we might manage to begin a substantial, far-reaching dialogue that could begin to knit together those unravelled threads of cultural dialogue that have stretched back over so many centuries between two historic civilisations.
  It is difficult to have any feelings other than disgust and disdain for Saddam Hussein, a man whose sole purpose seems to be to wipe out everybody who voices even the most modest disagreement for his unbearable and inhumane policies. That man is a genocidal monster. I am so grateful to the Government for all the support they have given to me and others in attempting to repair just a fraction of the damage that he has caused.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) knows that I disagree with her deeply on the substance of what she has said. However, I want to defend her right in raising a very important subject, placed at No. 9 in the Consolidated Fund debates, to have proper time for her speech and to have a proper ministerial reply— [Interruption.] I am on a point of order.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, although it is an interesting point, it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already said that, in my view, the hon. Gentleman did not raise a point of order. It might be a point of substance, but it is not a point of order.
  It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Population and Development (Conference)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Conway.]
  8 am
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: It comes as no surprise to find myself standing here this morning, but it comes as a great surprise and pleasure to find that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is on the Front Bench to reply to the debate.
  Perhaps I should declare my interest. I have had the honour to be invited to be a member of the United Kingdom delegation at the international conference on population and development which is to take place in Cairo in September. I should add that I am doing so at my own expense.
  The conference, which is to be held between 5 and 13 September, was created by the United Nations Economic and Social Council resolution in 1989. The secretary general of the conference is Dr. Nafis Sadik, the first-class executive director of the United Nations Population Fund. It is the fifth international conference on population. The first was held in Rome in 1954 and the second in Belgrade in 1965. The third was held in Bucharest in 1974, and 10 years later Mexico City set the population and family planning agenda for the next decade.
  The publicity generated by the conference in Bucharest in 1974 brought population issues to world attention for the first time. Although the less-developed countries were backing the argument that development was the best contraceptive, many Governments launched their own family planning programmes following the discussions at the conference and the publication of "World Population Plan of Action". By the time of the next conference in Mexico in 1984, most developing countries were strongly supportive of family planning programmes to improve maternal and child health and to reduce population growth rates. The conference in Cairo aims to take the next step and to provide an action-oriented plan to increase worldwide commitment to population and development issues.
  The conference is the result of growing recognition throughout the world of the interrelationships between population, environment, resources and development. It is also a recognition that the women's movement can no longer continue to grow parallel to and distinct from the movement towards sustainable development. It is now widely accepted that people are both the victims and the cause of environmental degradation of the planet. The conference will attempt to come to terms with the realisation that the process of sustainable development is made much more difficult, if not impossible, by the high rates of population growth which prevail when family planning services are not widely available and accepted.
  The expression "Development is the best contraceptive" is fundamentally a lobbying expression by those countries that have been seeking more aid. It is, to a certain extent, true, but the first thing a country has to get is development. I am always attracted to the illustration of Indonesia as an example of where a planned, carefully-thought-out planning programme, backed by a full parallel programme of education, is able to produce a reduction in population as a pre-condition of economic growth.
  546
  Indonesia is now one of the Asian tigers and it is admitted by all in government that it would never have happened were it not for that initial family planning programme.
  We all know how serious population growth can be and that it is the root cause of many of the world's problems. For example, the tragedy in Rwanda is primarily a territorial dispute brought about by overcrowding. In a revealing article in Atlantic Monthly, entitled "The Coming Anarchy", Robert D. Kaplan shows how scarcity, crime, overpopulation, tribalism and disease are raoidly destroying the social fabric of our planet, with particular emphasis on Africa. He writes of the withering away of Governments, the rise of tribal and regional domains, the unchecked spread of disease and the growing pervasiveness of war. All that is seen in Rwanda, which I believe will be the first of many similar disputes.
  In recent years, there has been a change in perspective in the developed world of how this issue is beginning to affect our planet. We saw it in Rio in 1992 and after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appeared at the Dispatch Box when a remarkable number of hon. Members rose to ask questions about population. The trend was continued at the G7 summits in Tokyo in 1993 and in Naples this year. But, above all, the USA is the country which has so shifted its position during the past decade.
  Under the new Administration, President Clinton has set up a global committee to look at global issues—matters such as the environment, drugs and, in particular, population, which the head of the global action committee, Senator Tim Worth, earmarked as the most fundamental issue of all.
  In addition, the United States has managed to separate the issue of abortion from family planning. Anyone who studies the subject for more than a few minutes will realise that family planning and abortion are separate matters, and abortion is the most ineffective and inefficient form of family planning that there could be. No one in their right mind could concede that it is a central part of any family planning programme. I regret that one group that does not seem to have changed its mind is the Pope and his advisers in the Vatican, but more of that in a moment. But it is now clear that attitudes around the world are changing, most notably in the scientific community.
  An excellent post note issued by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology published a few weeks ago referred to the science academies of the world meeting in New Delhi in September 1993 where Britain was represented by the Royal Society. They came to the overall conclusion that, while the relationships between human population, development and environment are complex and not fully understood, there is no doubt that the threat to the ecosystem is linked to population size and resource use.
  Time does not permit me to deal with some quite excellent other conclusions, but in its final conclusion the meeting called on Governments and international decision makers to take incisive action now and adopt an integrated policy on population and sustainable development on a global scale. That is not just a fringe group reaching that conclusion but the leading scientists of the world. I put it to the House that there can be no higher authority than that.
  In response to that publication by the scientists of the world, the Royal Society held a seminar on 11 July at which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was the keynote speaker on behalf of the Government. She made quite the most significant speech

  547
  on this subject that Britain has seen. It marks a fundamental and welcome shift in the Government's position and attitude.
  The Government launched the Overseas Development Administration's document entitled "Children by Choice, not Chance: Meeting the Challenge", a top-class, good-quality, informative and instructive document, in which my right hon. Friend said:
  "The challenge is there. We can ignore women's demands; we would then expect the world's population to triple to 17 billion within two hundred years. Or we can meet the demand for family planning and so ensure that the world's population stabilises at about double its present level."
  My noble Friend's speech was full of excellent observations and comments, and it set out the fundamental position. I should have liked to quote much more, but time does not permit. My noble Friend also announced a huge increase in population activities funding—£100 million over the next two years. Can it be matched by other Governments in the European Union and around the world? It would be churlish to press the Government to go further, but I give notice that I shall be pressing in due course that that course of action be taken.
  A number of outstanding points from PrepCom remain to be resolved—such as estimates of resource needs, a definition of family planning, fertility regulation, reproductive and sexual health, safe motherhood, unsafe abortion, the right of adolescents to privacy, confidentiality and so on. Those unresolved issues will be the subject of debate at the Cairo conference and I look forward to playing my own part in that.
  At the heart is the tricky question of resources. My noble Friend Lady Chalker has said many times that she does not want to set targets, and she is probably right that the quality of programmes is more important than any target. However, we should not shy away from targets. We set them for the citizens charter, inflation, education and even the Child Support Agency. One should not totally exclude targets, because one does not have to hit the bull's eye on every occasion.
  The resources question remains unresolved. As the Government have pledged an increase in funding, can my hon. Friend the Minister say whether the targets in the draft document are acceptable to the Government? If not, to what percentage of the budget does he expect the Government to commit themselves?
  I urge my hon. Friend to address himself also to the question of how he might counter the Vatican's influence. The conference is subject to intense lobbying by the Vatican. Roman Catholic countries are trying to use the conference as an ideological platform, to have set out in black and white positions that have little to do with a global family health programme and more to do with an ideological standpoint. I remind my hon. Friend that my noble Friend Lady Chalker told the Royal Society:
  "I understand the position that the Catholic Church, for example, takes on what they describe as artificial methods of birth control. But by the same token, no single group should seek to prevent the Cairo declaration and Action Plan reflecting the majority view on the importance of everybody having access to adequate reproductive health care."
  That is a substantial position, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will stand by it. I will be interested to hear his comments.
  548
  Everybody's views on abortion are well known. At such a conference, one cannot have in the final declaration a statement that sets out a position on abortion that is contrary to national law. On one hand, we have those opposed to abortion; on the other, those who are—in one form or another—supportive of it. The two are irreconcilable. I hope that the draft declaration will incorporate wording that acknowledges differences of opinion.
  Other issues that need to be addressed are adolescence and the definition of reproductive health. In all that, I urge my hon. Friend to work closely with the United States, which I believe can be a firm ally to us at the conference.
  One of the interesting things has been the emergence of the role of non-governmental organisations in the preparation of the summit, several hundred of which have attended the PrepCom conference. I draw the attention of the House to the role played by two NGOs in particular: Population Concern, and Marie Stopes International. The latter pioneered the social marketing programme in certain parts of the world and recently introduced a first-class briefing pack, which I commend to my hon. Friend.
  There is a slow shift of opinion among the NGOs towards recognising that the issue is very important. They have in the past tended to shy away from it. I was quite delighted yesterday to receive a briefing pack from Christian Aid in preparation for the debate. I am rather flattered that it should be focused on my Adjournment debate. It shows that there is growing interest in the issue.
  I give my support to the proposed chairman of the conference, Mr. Fred Sai. I hope that he will be in the chair. He is well known to many hon. Members. He chaired the May committee in 1984. He is also a specialist in health, nutrition and family planning. I seek the assurance of my hon. Friend that the Government will support him.
  I urge my hon. Friend to continue funding research into new and modern technological advances in contraception which might be appropriate to the 1990s, rather than what is now recognised as the slightly outdated contraceptive methods of the 1960s. I recognise the hard work that has been done on the conference by Overseas Development Administration officials, particularly Mr. David Nabarro. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Chalker and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who was the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs —a position now occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury—who, for the past couple of years, has spoken for the ODA in the House and taken a keen interest in the subject.
  This is the best last chance that we have to try to stabilise the world population. If we can stabilise it at 10 billion by 2025, rather than the projected 15 billion, we will all have achieved something worth while.
  8.16 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottoway) on initiating the debate. He has a long-standing and informed interest in this important subject and I know that he has taken a keen interest in it since he has been a Member of the House, and long before.
  The Government agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the international conference on population

  549
  which will be held in Cairo. We agree with him on the importance of getting the right result from it. Indeed, some of us—as he does, I am sure—see it as the most important international conference of the decade.
  Our objectives for the conference are quite straightforward. We want all women and men to be able to access good-quality family planning and reproductive health services. By "all", we mean sexually active adolescents as well as adults, poor as well as rich, country dwellers as well as those in the towns and cities. We know that between 100 million and 200 million couples cannot access those services. We know that the services available for many millions of others are either of poor quality or far too expensive. We know that if services were more widely available, they would be used. We know, too, that when the services are used, fertility rates and population growth rates fall. We have seen that transformation occur in Bangladesh and Kenya, and have supported it with selective use of British aid funds.
  We are seeing the transformation begin in other parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America. The requirement is quite simply to ensure that the services are there. That means that at Cairo we will encourage all Governments to commit themselves to offer family planning and reproductive health services. We want people to be able to access a choice of family planning methods, including natural family planning. We want to improve the safety of motherhood and childbirth, with better quality midwifery and obstetric services. We want women and men to have easy access to services that treat and prevent sexually transmitted infections; we want to help to reduce the consequences of genital mutilation and other forms of sexual violence.
  Governments, of course, must decide what levels of service should be available for their people and what proportion of the national budget should be invested in them. They must decide how the services will be provided, using private-sector providers when they are more efficient and effective than the public sector. Local culture and sensitivity will determine the exact mix of services to be offered and the way in which they are made available.
  We are against any coercion of people to use or not to use particular kinds of family planning service. We are against prescribing the services that can and cannot be offered. But we encourage Governments to take account of what happens when people cannot have access to family planning services—of the 200,000 women who die each year as a result of unsafe abortions; of the hundreds of thousands of children born to parents who do not want them and often cannot afford to clothe and feed them; and of the inevitable disruption of development programmes and, indeed, of the entire environment that results from rapid population growth.
  It would be extraordinary if the Cairo conference were not a success. Most Governments, particularly those of developing countries, have adopted population policies and are busy implementing them. In 1965, only nine developing countries had policies to promote family planning and reduce their rates of population growth. More and more couples now choose when to have children, and practise family planning—an estimated 10 per cent. did so in 1960; 50 per cent. do so now. Considerable strides have been made in recent years. Those who keep us informed of what is happening in the wider world—the nongovernmental organisation and advocacy groups, with which my hon. Friend is so closely associated—seem to
  550
  agree that action taken now will determine whether the world's population stabilises at 12 billion or 18 billion during the first century of the next millennium.
  We are working with the United Nations and others to ensure that the conference is a success. Dr. Nafis Sadik, head of the UN Population Fund and secretary general of the conference, has tirelessly travelled the world preparing the ground for success. She has spoken to the leaders of developing countries, academic groups and scientists, donor organisations and colleagues in the United Nations system. She is ably supported by Dr. Fred Sai, a highly experienced and committed Ghanaian, who will preside over the conference and in whom we have total confidence.
  The Egyptian Government are providing excellent facilities for the 20,000 or so participants, many of whom will be representing non-governmental organisations and advocacy groups. Most delegations will be headed by Ministers; I am delighted to say that ours will be ably led by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said about her excellent speech the other day on "Children by Choice, not Chance". I am also delighted that my hon. Friend himself will be joining the group of experienced officials and non-governmental organisation representatives who will be on our delegation.
  My hon. Friend asked specifically about targets. The targets in the draft Cairo plan of action are acceptable to us and we will apply ODA funds to help recipient Governments to adapt them to their circumstances and achieve those targets. We are completely committed to that. Indeed, our commitment to the subject generally has been well illustrated by the fact that the amount that we have spent directly on population and reproductive health has increased each year since 1991 and more than doubled between 1986 and 1993. At present, we are spending just over £31 million. Further funds go towards education projects specifically aimed at women and other poverty-focused programmes that will create a climate within which people can adopt family planning measures.
  The UN has arranged preparatory meetings that have been well attended by delegations from all over the world. The discussion was intense. The British delegation, as a member of the European Union, played a major part. We have helped to shape the draft plan of action for the Cairo conference and we continue to work behind the scenes, strengthening the common European Union line and negotiating with care to ensure that contentious passages will be acceptable to the vast majority of delegates. The action plan, full of realistic and sensible objectives, is one of which we can be proud, which we can support and which we expect to be agreed, with acclamation, in Cairo.
  We have discussed with UNFPA—the United Nations Population Fund—the World bank and other agencies mechanisms to follow up the conference. We propose an enhanced role for the UNFPA, working in co-ordination with other major groups, and we confidently expect our proposals to be accepted.
  There are a few countries whose delegations have expressed fundamental objections to improving access to family planning and reproductive health services. I understand that they are concerned about the increased availability of what they described as artificial methods of birth control. They are concerned that there will be easier availability of facilities for induced abortion. They fear that such actions will encourage promiscuity and, in the longer term, undermine the sanctity of the family.

  551
  That is not new. At the 1974 Bucharest conference and in 1984 in Mexico, a proportion of the delegations took that line. Compared with then, the number of dissenting voices has reduced dramatically. The 12 or so delegations that do not take the majority line are expressing their concerns in strident language, accusing the majority of an inhuman and immoral stance. They are entitled to their view, but they should recognise that it is a minority view and one which is unlikely to impede the majority world view from prevailing. We are in dialogue with the minority group. We should prefer to see a declaration that is adopted unanimously or at least by a broad consensus. We should not wish to see voting on the plan of action, as that would be seen as divisive.
  552
  During the forthcoming parliamentary recess, my officials aid representatives of non-governmental organisations will be working hard with their European colleagues to ensure that the meeting in Cairo will be a success and will herald intensified action in population and reproductive health. They will go to Cairo in the knowledge that Britain has played a leading role in advocacy and action in this important area. They will go knowing that there is strong support for their work from both sides of the House. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South will be joining them and I look forward to hearing his report when we return in the autumn. We wish him and the conference success, because the price of failure will be measured not by us but by future generations. We must succeed for their sake.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eight o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Compensation Awards
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many victims were asked by the courts to waive compensation awards in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department does not hold this information. Some information about compensation orders—for example, the number of offenders ordered to pay, is contained in "Home Office Criminal Statistics England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library of the House. Additional information about compensation orders could be collected only at a disproportionate cost.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has for the future of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Legal Aid Advisory Committee was set up in 1949. Its purpose then was to comment on the way in which the Law Society administered the legal aid scheme and to give the Lord Chancellor advice and recommendations about legal aid. The Committee has done much valuable work over many years and the Lord Chancellor and I are grateful to all its past and present members for the work they have done.

  The establishment of the Legal Aid Board in 1989 meant that a significant element of the committee's role no longer existed. The committee was however kept in being in order to establish whether there was a continuing useful role for it to play.

  The Lord Chancellor has recently reviewed the position in the light of experience since 1989 and has concluded that the changing circumstances since the Legal Aid Board was established have meant that there is no longer a need for a separate Legal Aid Advisory Committee.

  The Lord Chancellor and I have always welcomed advice from any quarter on the operation of the legal aid scheme, and will continue to do so. Unlike the position when the Legal Aid Advisory Committee was established, there are now many bodies and organisations that are interested in, and regularly comment on, developments in legal aid. The Lord Chancellor and I are satisfied that the advice that we receive from them, together with the independent advice, based on its experience of running the legal aid scheme, that we receive from the Legal Aid Board, and the involvement in legal aid matters of the Home Affairs Select Committee, give us access to the widest possible range of views and opinions. We also intend to develop our programme of research into legal aid matters.

  The Lord Chancellor will therefore shortly be laying before both Houses of Parliament an order providing for the dissolution of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee.
  224
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the 10 highest contributions made out of the legal aid fund to assist individuals in the last five years, the individuals involved and the nature of the proceedings.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: The table shows the 10 highest gross payments—including VAT—made in individual cases—excluding civil multiparty actions—in the last five years. It is not usually possible to disaggregate payments to individuals in cases involving more than one assisted party.

  £ million

  1. Barlow-Clowes (fraud)

  4·70

  2. Strangeways II (riot)

  2·77

  3. Britannia Park (theft)

  2·63

  4. Ankara II—Benn & Others (revenue law offence)1

  2·42

  5. Brinks-Matt (robbery)1

  2·16

  6. Actie & Others (murder)

  1·88

  7. Eagle Starr (fraud)1

  1·76

  8. Hatton & Others (fraud)

  1·75

  9. Strangeways I (riot)

  1·73

  10. Aveling-Barford (fraud)2

  1·52

  1 Subject to redetermination.

  2 Subject to appeal.

  The table details payments made only in respect of final bills submitted. It does not include cases where proceedings are continuing and where interim payments have been made. Excluding multi-party actions, only two cases involving interim payments of £1 million or more have been identified. In proceedings between Dr. Jawad Hashim and the Arab monetary fund, which concerns the administration of trusts, claims amounting to £4 million have been received to date and some 2.8 million has been paid on account. Some £1.8 million has been paid on account in respect of Graham and Graham, an action for damages to property. In civil proceedings, however, legal aid costs may be recovered, in part or in full, from any costs or damages received on behalf of the assisted party.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (2) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (3) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became (a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has not employed any special advisers during the past five years.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Population and Reproductive Health
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Overseas Development Administration's spending on population and reproductive health spending has changed in cash and constant price terms in the past five years.
  225
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Spending on population and reproductive health activities is estimated at some £32 million in 1993, compared with just over £17 million in 1989; this represents an 83 per cent. increase in cash terms and nearly a 50 per cent. increase in constant price terms.

  Street Children
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries and the amount of funding given by Her Majesty's Government to help develop projects involving street children in those countries.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The following amounts have been provided to non-governmental organisations to support projects aimed at assisting street children:

  Financial year

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Albania

  —

  14,225

  —

  Bangladesh

  27,539

  52,280

  —

  Bolivia

  2,375

  2,375

  —

  Brazil

  8,628

  45,315

  88,527

  Bulgaria

  —

  —

  4,595

  Chad

  11,191

  3,103

  —

  Egypt

  8,048

  2,126

  —

  Haiti

  8,297

  —

  —

  India

  —

  28,743

  —

  Peru

  —

  51,515

  45,893

  Philippines

  —

  7,446

  7,284

  Romania

  3,000

  5,300

  900

  South Africa

  —

  —

  28,054

  Tanzania

  —

  —

  8,242

  69,078

  212,428

  183,495

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he will take to enable training and enterprise councils to ensure that young people with special training needs receive support including counselling and advocacy which will enable them to complete their training successfully.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Training and enterprise councils are obliged through their contract with the Department to arrange for young people entering training to be assessed and given an individual training plan suited to their needs and abilities. Where special training needs are identified, the training plan must be individually designed to give the support and help required to enable the young people to make such progress towards general and vocational competences as lies within their reach. Training plans and progress against them are regularly reviewed and any necessary changes agreed between the trainee and the training provider.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to ensure that young people with special training needs will be able to take full advantage of the modern apprenticeship scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he wants to see modern 226
  apprenticeships open equally to all young people. We are asking industry training organisations to take account of all aspects of equal opportunities in apprenticeship models they develop including provision for the assessment and endorsement of special training needs. We shall continue to place a contractual requirement on training and enterprise councils to ensure equality of opportunity in all their activities.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 406, whether he is satisfied with the apparent discrimination against the employment of men at the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Employing more people of one sex than the other does not of itself prove discrimination. The Commission follows good equal opportunities practice in recruiting its own staff, and as one would expect, considers all candidates on their merits regardless of gender, race or other factors.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of male and female unemployment within the Greater London area at the latest available date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In June 1994, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Greater London stood at 323,000 for men and 111,000 for women, down 8 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively on December 1992.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the gender and ethnic origin of registered unemployed in the United Kingdom for each year since 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The following table gives the information available from the labour force survey:

  Number of ILO unemployed people by gender and ethnic origin

  Thousands

  Not seasonally adjusted

  Great Britain

  Spring 1992

  Spring 1993

  Winter 1993–94

  All people

  2,649

  2,804

  2,737

  White

  2,422

  2,528

  2,461

  Non-white

  224

  276

  276

  Black

  86

  110

  103

  Indian

  59

  58

  61

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  43

  61

  58

  Mixed/other origins

  36

  48

  53

  Men

  1,785

  1,904

  1,833

  White

  1,633

  1,721

  1,650

  Non-white

  151

  183

  183

  Black

  60

  73

  65

  Indian

  34

  37

  37

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  34

  46

  45

  Mixed/other origins

  23

  27

  34

  Women

  863

  900

  904

  White

  789

  807

  811

  Non-white

  73

  93

  93

  Black

  27

  37

  37

  Indian

  25

  21

  24

  Pakistani/Bangladeshi

  1—

  15

  13

  Mixed/other origins

  13

  21

  20

  1 — Estimate less than 10,000 not shown.

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers have sought guidance from the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service in each year since 1991–92.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Race Relations Employment Advisory Service does not keep records on the number of inquiries it receives. It has made the following advisory visits to employers: 1,113, 1991–92; 1,075, 1992–93; 1,177, 1993–94; and 320 in the currrent operational year, from 1 April to 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what operational plans he has for the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In common with all parts of the Employment Department, the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service agrees an annual operational plan with its departmental line management. All such plans run from April to March and seek to implement the Employment Department's objectives.

  The aim of RREAS for 1994–95 is to provide advice and guidance on racial quality in employment to those employers who are either unaware of or initially resistant to equal opportunities or at an early stage in the development of an effective policy and require expert strategic advice and guidance in taking it forward.

  Plans for the service for 1995–96 will be agreed early in 1995.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the last five years four special advisers have joined this Department and four have left:

  1989—none joined, one left;

  1990—one joined, none left;

  1991—no joiners and no leavers;

  1992—two joined, two left;

  1993—one joined and one left.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became(a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (2) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals the Government have for further reform of the national vocational qualification system assessment and monitoring procedures.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The National Council for Vocational Qualifications and SCOTVEC in Scotland set 228
  the criteria for the assessment and quality assurance of national vocational qualifications, and Scottish vocational qualifications in Scotland. At my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's request, the NCVQ is currently reviewing the criteria.

  The White Paper on competitiveness, announced on 24 May by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, provides for NCVQ to strengthen its role in the local quality assurance arrangements for national vocational qualifications.

  The White Paper also included proposals for further work to enhance and improve the NVQ system.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he intends to establish a departmental inquiry into allegations of inadequacies in vocational training in colleges of further education.

  Miss Widdecombe
  No. The Department's internal audit is investigating certain allegations related to the award of national vocational qualifications. No wider inquiry is planned by the Department.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he plans to conduct a prior options review of the Employment Service.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As a next steps agency, the Employment Service is subject to the normal prior options tests set out in the 1993 "Next Steps Review", Cm. 2430. A prior options review of the Employment Service will now be undertaken, with the aim of reporting to Ministers by the end of March 1995.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in the Employment Service and its work would be welcome and should be sent by 28 October 1994 to Peter Makeham, Director of Strategy and Employment Policy Division, Employment Department, Caxton House, Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NF.

  International Labour Conventions
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the application to the United Kingdom of international labour conventions Nos. 99 and 101.

  Mr. David Hunt
  In her statement of 14 July,Official Report, column 715, concerning the future of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred to the need for the Government to be free to make suitable arrangements for the industry when considering the board's future. This reflects calls by employers in the industry for the Government to denounce International Labour Oganisation conventions 99 and 101 so that the requirements of the conventions will not present any obstacle to the development over the next few years of more flexible working arrangements within the industry. The Government propose to denounce both conventions.

  The denunciations will take effect 12 months after the date on which they are registered with the ILO.

  Employment Schemes
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what scheme will replace the learning for work courses.
  229
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: Learning for work will not be replaced by another scheme next year. The Department, through training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service, provides a range of programmes and services to help unemployed people prepare for work. Training for work, career development loans, job clubs and restart courses all play an important part in this package of help.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report columns 400–1, which other officials of the Hong Kong Government, including officials of the Law Officers' Department such as Crown prosecuting counsel, visited Malaysia in connection with the affair generally known as Carrian; on what dates; and on how many occasions, and for what purpose in relation to the Carrian investigation Mr. Warwick Reid visited Malaysia.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are very few, if any, visits to Malaysia by members of the Attorney-General's chambers in connection with the Carrian case. Full details could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the view of the credibility of Ibrahim Jaafar as expressed by judges of the Hong Kong High Court from time to time; and whether Mr. Jaafar adhered to the terms of his grant of immunity by co-operating with the relevant Hong Kong authorities.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Mr. Jaafar is a Crown witness in the BMFL trial in Hong Kong. To comment on his credibility would not be right.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report columns 397–98, on what dates and to whom parts of Mr. Mak's statement was relayed at any other time prior to his trial to parties other than those involved in the investigation.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  With the exception of the bodies named in my answer of today, this information is not centrally recorded, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report column 397, whether it is the policy of the Hong Kong Government to have the contents of statements made by suspects in custody relayed to Government Departments in London.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no reason why the content of a statement taken by law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong should not be relayed to Government Departments in London if it is in the public interest to do So.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the name of the Hong Kong official who granted immunity from prosecution to Mr. Ibrahim Jaafar; and what was the relationship between that official and Mr. Warwick Reid.
  230
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The immunity was granted by the then Director of Public Prosecutions in Hong Kong in consultation with the Hong Kong Attorney-General. The letter offering immunity was signed by Mr. Reid in his capacity as head of the commercial crimes unit of the prosecutions division of the Attorney-General's chambers.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report column 99, why Mr. Warwick Reid was dismissed from his post in January 1990; whether Mr. Reid was prosecuted; what process of law was used to obtain the return of Mr. Warwick Reid from the Philippines to Hong Kong; and which Government requested, and which Government executed, that legal process.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Mr. Reid was dismissed from his post in the Attorney-General's chambers when it was discovered that he had breached the conditions of his bail by absconding from Hong Kong. On his return to Hong Kong he was prosecuted, and convicted, for an offence of having in his control pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his official emoluments contrary to section 10 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Mr. Reid was deported from the Philippines when he was found to have entered that country on a forged travel document and was repatriated to Hong Kong as his last known place of residence in accordance with procedures in the Philippines.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those occasions on which the Malaysian Attorney-General, Mr. Abu Talib, approached his Department or other Government Departments in London, in relation to the prosecution of Lorrain Osman; and if he will list those occasions on which the Malaysian Attorney-General approached Government officials in Hong Kong in relation to the prosecution of Lorrain Osman.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is established practice that exchanges of this kind between Governments are confidential.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, columns 397–98, which parties named by Mr. Mak Foon Than were interviewed subsequently in relation to his statement; and on which dates they were interviewed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The following persons named in Mak Foon Than's statement were interviewed by the Royal Hong Kong police:

  George Tan on 9 August 1983;

  Lorrain Osman on three occasions in July and August 1983;

  Henry Chin on seven occasions in July and August 1983 and on one occasion in March 1984;

  Ibrahim Jaafar in August 1983;

  Chueng Suk-Kwan on 8 August 1983;

  Raja Nasron on 15 September 1983;

  Tan Keng-Cheng on 16 September 1983; and

  Lee Chong-Kay on 19 September 1983.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the name of the Hong Kong official who made the charges initiated against Mr. Lorrain Osman in 1985; and what was the relationship between that official and Mr. Warwick Reid.
  231
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The charges against Mr. Lorrain Osman were drafted by counsel having the conduct of the case within the prosecutions division of the Attorney-General's chambers in consultation with leading counsel in London. Mr. Warwick Reid was not directly involved in the charging process other than in his capacity as head of the commercial crimes unit of those chambers in which it is likely that he would have been shown a copy of the charges settled by counsel.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 14 June,Official Report, column 397, who advised him of the contents of the statement made by Mr. Mak Foon Than; why that information was relayed to his Department; and what other Government offices, including the United Kingdom high commission in Malaysia, were informed of the contents of Mak Foon Than's statement prior to the trial of Mr. Mak.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Hong Kong Government kept the Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed of the progress of investigations related to the collapse of the Carrian Group and the affairs of Bank Bumiputra and its Hong Kong subsidiary BMFL. Papers connected with these investigations were copied to the Bank of England and to the British high commissioner in Malaysia.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Mr. Warwick Reid was interrogated or questioned or made a voluntary statement in relation to his role in the prosecution of Lorrain Osman at the time of his arrest or subsequently.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Mr. Reid was interviewed in relation to this matter.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of Vietnamese boat people still being held in detention centres in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  On 1 July, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 24,920 Vietnamese migrants in detention centres in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he received a copy of the report of the incidents that took place at the Whitehead detention centre in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement on that report.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We received a summary of the report's main findings and recommendations on 15 June, the day the report was published. We received a copy of the report itself shortly afterwards.

  We accept the report's findings and welcome the Hong Kong Government's readiness to act on its recommendations.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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.
  232
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We 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 administration burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate and are establishing a network of Business Links to provide high-quality business support across the country.

  The Department, together with the Department of Trade and Industry, through the Overseas Trade Services, provides advice, information, and financial support to help United Kingdom exporters win overseas business. This work is particularly aimed at smaller and less experienced exporters. An independent survey of the delivery of the services shows a consistently high level of customer satisfaction and some 90 per cent. of respondents regularly say that they will use the services again. Details of these chargeable services are given in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report 1994.

  Small firms are given full opportunity to bid for business with the Department. It remains our firm policy to pay invoices on time.

  Business transacted by the Department with small firms in the United Kingdom was £35·7 million in 1993–94 when it accounted for 27·6 per cent. of total expenditure on the purchase of goods and services—1992–93: £35·8 million; 26·9 per cent.

  The Department has no specific targets to favour small business, but will ensure that small firms continue to be given full opportunity to compete equally and fairly.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Kuwait; what assistance has been given by the Foreign Office to British companies seeking to help with Kuwait's reconstruction programme following the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs last visited Kuwait in May 1992 to attend an EC/Gulf Co-operation Council ministerial meeting. The British embassy in Kuwait was one of the first to open after liberation and its staff played an important role in helping United Kingdom companies win orders associated with the reconstruction programme. The FCO was also represented on a DTI/industry task force set up to help British exporters. In the first 12 months of the initial reconstruction phase, the United Kingdom won contracts and orders worth over £550 million.

  The official figures for United Kingdom exports to Kuwait for 1991, 1992 and 1993 are £178 million, £262 million and £312 million respectively. Exports are now at their highest level for six years.

  West Bank
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the allegations of torture against students from Bir Zeit university in the west bank who were arrested on 29 June in an Israel defence force raid; and what representations he intends to make to the Israeli Government on the issue.
  233
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The consulate-general in Jerusalem is in touch with Bir Zeit university and the International Committee of the Red Cross about the arrest of the students and about their conditions of detention. We, along with our EU partners, have raised the question of law enforcement in the occupied territories with the Israeli authorities, and stressed that it is important to avoid excessive use of force. We regularly remind the Israelis of their obligations under the fourth Geneva convention.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which section of the United Nations is responsible for arranging the deployment of United Nations forces in Rwanda; and whether he considers that section adequate in terms of quality of personnel, amount of resources and level of political support.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Under-Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, Mr. Kofi Annan, is responsible for arranging the deployment of United Nations forces in Rwanda. He enjoys the support of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and receives all necessary political support. The level of DPKO's resources and the quality of its personnel are kept under continual review by the Secretary-General. The United Kingdom is supporting DPKO through the provision of eight seconded British officers.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the principal causes of the further delay in the deployment of United Nations troops in Rwanda in terms of troops committed, and logistical support.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations has identified logistic support as the priority requirement to enable more troops to be deployed with the United Nations Aid Mission in Rwanda and while a number of countries have pledged troops they cannot be deployed until that support is in place. The United States, South Africa and the United Kingdom have offered logistical support in response to specific United Nations requests.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on a continued commitment of French troops in Rwanda beyond the end of July.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  United Nations Security Council resolution 929 of 22 June, which we supported, authorised the French Government to launch a two-month humanitarian mission to Rwanda. Their mandate does not expire until 22 August.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures exist in the United Nations for a change in the presidency of the Security Council if a country is unfit, for whatever reason, to take over the presidency.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council do not contain any provisions for changing the presidency of the Council in the circumstances described. However, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and 234
  Commonwealth Affairs gave him on 18 July, column 26, which said that consultations are in train over the question of Rwanda's presidency of the council.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the present procedures for the issuing of entry visas to citizens of Taiwan; for what reason a separate declaration of identity is required; and whether he has this system under review.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Visas for citizens of Taiwan are issued on form GV3 "Declaration of Identity for Visa Purposes".

  Declarations of identity are used because we do not recognise Taiwan as a state. We cannot therefore recognise passports issued by the "Republic of China", so the visa is stamped on a separate piece of paper rather than into the passport itself. This is inescapable for legal reasons. We have recently revised the format of the GV3 to make it as convenient as possible for the traveller.

  The visa handling unit of the British Trade and Cultural Office in Taipei provides a quick and efficient 24-hour service. We do not believe that the visa- issuing process discourages travellers, of whom there were nearly 52,000 in 1993.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1989, two special advisers left my Department and one joined. In 1990, one special adviser joined my Department and left in the same year. One special adviser joined in 1991. One special adviser left in 1993, and one joined.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became (a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  HGV Drivers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom heavy goods vehicle drivers are currently in prison in(a) France, (b) Spain, (c) Portugal, (d) Italy and (e) the whole of the European Union except the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Those known by the British Government to be United Kingdom heavy goods vehicle drivers and currently in prison are as follows:

  France

  4

  Spain

  3

  Portugal

  0

  Italy

  1

  European Union

  10

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many spouses seeking entry clearance in Dhaka have been refused in each of the past four years; and what percentage they form of the total number of such applicants.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of spouses' entry clearance applications refused in Dhaka and the percentage of the total numbers of such applications during 1991–93 is:

  Year

  Total spouse applications

  Spouses refused

  Percentage

  1991

  1,852

  301

  16

  1992

  2,614

  414

  16

  1993

  2,446

  501

  20

  Comparable data are not available for earlier years.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officers have worked in Dhaka in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of entry clearance officers in Dhaka in each of the last four years is:

  1993—12+1 temporary duty

  1992—16+2 temporary duty

  1991—18

  1990—16

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the average monthly number of refusals in the period since the abolition of appeals for visitors from Bangladesh; and what percentage they represent of the total number of applications.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The average monthly number of refusals of entry clearance applications for visitors from Bangladesh for the period July 1993 to May 1994 was 297. This represents 24·7 per cent. of the average monthly number of visitor applications. The comparable figure for the period August 1992 to July 1993 was 258, 22·3 per cent.

  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many appeals were rejected in each month in the year prior to the abolition of appeals for visitors from Bangladesh; and what percentage they represent of the total number of applications.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Available information on appeals relates to those against a refusal of entry clearance for temporary purposes. The number of such appeals by citizens of Bangladesh which were dismissed by adjudicators in the period August 1992 to July 1993 were:

  Number

  1992

  August

  47

  September

  75

  October

  134

  November

  43

  December

  69

  1993

  January

  105

  236

  Number

  February

  65

  March

  49

  April

  52

  May

  43

  June

  60

  July

  40

  782

  During the period August 1992 to July 1993, 13,870 such applications were made, of which 3,091–22·3 per cent.—were refused; 782 of those refused lodged appeals. Of that 782, 74 per cent. were dismissed, 13 per cent. withdrawn and 13 per cent. allowed.

  The figure for appeals dismissed therefore equates to 5·6 per cent. of the total number of visit applications received in Dhaka.

  Law of the Sea Convention
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answers of 14 June,Official Report, columns 401–2, whether Her Majesty's Government have now reached a conclusion as to whether to vote for the resolution and sign the agreement relating to the implementation of part XI of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea of 10 December 1982, and thereafter accede to that convention.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Yes, we will vote for the resolution and, should it be adopted by the General Assembly, sign the agreement. We intend to ratify the agreement and accede to the United Nations law of the sea convention in due course and once the necessary procedures are complete. The Government's objections to part XI of the convention, which were explained to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) in 1984, have been satisfactorily addressed in the new agreement. The remainder of the convention is generally helpful to United Kingdom interests.

  North-West Kenya
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about ethnic clashes involving large-scale deaths in the Turcana tribe in north-west Kenya; what role has been played in this by the Kenyan and Sudanese Governments; and what representations he has made.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have no evidence of large scale deaths amongst the Turcana people in north-west Kenya caused by ethnic clashes.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress being made in the confinement and disarmament of Government and RENAMO forces in Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As of 12 July, 95 per cent. of all forces in Mozambique had been assembled. Forty-eight per cent. of the Government of Mozambique forces and 82 per
  237
  cent. of RENAMO forces had been demobilised. Demobilisation is scheduled to be completed by 15 August.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library reports received by the Department from the clearing house centre for information discussion and exchange on the crossing of borders and immigration.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 18 July, Official Report, column 32.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many requests for information on third countries have been received from the clearing house centre for information discussion and exchange on the crossing of borders and immigration; and in respect of which countries.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have been asked to reply. None.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Lord President of the Council 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. Newton
  The functions of the Privy Council Office do not include the provision of assistance to small businesses.

WALES

  Nusery and Reception Classes
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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 Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information on expenditure on nursery and reception classes cannot be identified separately from data collected centrally.

  Cancer Statistics
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will examine the paper by Rooney, Beral et al in the British Medical Journal, volume 307, pages 1391–97, on prostatic cancer causation, in so far as it applies to the population of Wales; and if he will make a statement on cancer studies undertaken by his Department.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Officials have examined the paper, which suggests a statistical association between the 238
  incidence of prostatic cancer and possible occupational exposure to certain radionuclides that tend to be associated with the working environment of heavy water reactors. Exposure to these radionuclides was found to be uncommon and did not affect the overall health of the Atomic Energy Authority work force. Members of the public are unlikely to be significantly exposed to these radionuclides, and so the findings of this study do not appear to be relevant to the population of Wales. If there are any implications of the study for the Welsh work force this would be a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Within the last six years two studies on cancer incidence in Wales have been published by the Welsh Office. These are:
  "A report of an investigation into the incidence of Leukaemia in the North Wales coastal strip" by Emeritus Professor H. Campbell, FRCP; and
  "Investigation of Incidence of Cancer around Wylfa and Trawsfynydd Nuclear Installations 1984 to 1986".

  Copies of both reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Floods Llandudno
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of financial and other assistance given by his office to assist(a) individuals, (b) the local authority and (c) other organisations following the flood in Llandudno in June 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Gwynedd county council and Aberconwy borough council are receiving financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme of some £.4·5 million towards the cost of temporary rehousing, cleaning-up operations, repairs to local authority buildings and infrastructure, and the social services flood support team.

  Housing grants and loans from the social fund were made available to those qualifying. The strategic development scheme will provide assistance for the flood support team during 1994–95 and 1995–96 and fund a post for three years under business in the community to encourage investment by the private sector in new and existing economic projects in the area.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make funds available to local authorities to appoint additional staff to inspect houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Inspection of houses in multiple occupation is a revenue service which is funded through the annual local authority revenue settlement. It is for councils to determine the priority they give to these inspections alongside their other duties when apportioning resources.

  Rheumatologist, Gwynedd
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide funding to appoint a rheumatologist to serve Gwynedd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is a matter for individual health authorities and NHS trusts to decide whether funding should be made available to develop a particular service in accordance with perceived local needs.

  Student Accommodation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for ensuring that there is enough suitable accommodation for students studying in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Further and higher education institutions are independent, autonomous bodies responsible for deciding their own priorities, including admissions policies and any arrangements for the accommodation of their students.

  All Full-time and Part-time, Undergraduate and Postgraduate students at each of the constituent colleges of the University of Wales1

  Colleges of the University of Wales

  1970–71

  1980–81

  1990–91

  1992–93

  Aberystwyth

  2,592

  3,318

  4,013

  5,070

  Bangor

  2,515

  3,149

  3,819

  5,015

  Cardiff2

  3,755

  6,266

  10,069

  12,134

  St. David's, Lampeter

  354

  810

  1,012

  1,332

  Swansea

  3,510

  4,295

  6,056

  7,823

  University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology2

  2,025

  3,038

  —

  —

  College of Medicine

  423

  791

  1,201

  1,738

  Total

  15,174

  21,667

  26,170

  33,112

  1 As at December of each year.

  2 In 1988 the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology merged with the University of Wales College Cardiff.

  Source: "Statistic of Education, Volume 6—Universities" and "University Statistics; Students and Staff' published by Universities' Statistical Record.

  Cereals
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will explain how the notional yields of 3·32 tonnes per hectare for less-favoured area farmers and 5·17 tonnes per hectare for non less-favoured area farmers was calculated for the purposes of arable area payments in 1993–94;

  (2) what historical information was available to his Department in calculating yields for the purpose of arable area payments for harvest year 1993–94; and what account was taken of it in calculating average yields;

  (3) what were the wheat yields for each county in Wales in 1986 to 1992, sorted by seven-year average, according to the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service study received by his Department in January 1993;

  (4) pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) of 20 June, Official Report, column 38, what was the average cereal yield for (a) farms wholly within the less-favoured area and (b) farms wholly outside the less-favoured area for the years from 1986 to 1992; and how those figures were calculated.

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

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether it is his policy that a single cereals region would be best for Wales for purposes of arable area payments.

  Mr. Redwood
  I accept that an England and Wales region would be best for Welsh cereal farmers, but this is not a decision that I can make on my own. All four Agriculture Ministers have to agree on the regionalisation plan and take into account the interests of growers throughout the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total amount to be paid to Welsh farmers in

  University of Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of students at the constituent colleges of the University of Wales in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information on the number of students at the University of Wales in 1994 is not yet available. The number of students at the constituent colleges of the University of Wales for the academic years 1970–71, 1980–81, 1990–91 and 1992–93, which is the latest available year, are shown in the table.

  arable area payments for the harvest year 1993–94; and how much is to be paid on land (a) in the less-favoured area and (b) outside the less-favoured area.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information will not be available until all the 1994 arable aid applications have been processed.

  Nurses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide a breakdown of the spending at his Department on nurse education and training for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94, identifying spending allocated to(a) pre-registration education, (b) post-regristration education and (c) nurse teacher training and support.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Funding of post-regristration education is not identifiable centrally.

  Nurse Education and Training £ millions

  Nurse Teacher Training 000's

  1990–91

  31·8

  504

  1991–92

  33·9

  524

  1992–93

  28·5

  433

  1993–94

  27·1

  278

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1990–91 to 1992–93 include Health Authority expenditure on student/pupil salaries and Welsh National Board revenue. The figures do not include overhead costs met by Health Authorities. 'The 1993–94 figure is the expenditure on nurse education under the Towards 2000 arrangements.

  2. The figures for nurse teacher training relate to funding by Welsh National Board.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what steps he is taking to provide for the redeployment of nurse tutors in the South East Wales Institute of Nursing and Midwifery Education displaced as a consequence of the proposed reduction in nursing student numbers;
  241
  (2) 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. Gwilyum Jones
  This is under consideration.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total cost of the changes in nurse education since 1989 resulting from the introduction of Project 2000.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The total cost to nurse education of the introduction in 1991 of Project 2000 is not seperately identifiable. Additional central funding of approximately £24 million was made to health authorities between

  Billing authority

  (a) Households with outstanding banding proposals

  (b) Total of proposals made

  (c) Total of households

  (d) (a) as percentage of (b)

  (e) (a) as percentage of (c)

  Aberconwy

  873

  1,227

  24,985

  71·15

  3·49

  Alyn and Deeside

  737

  1,197

  30,323

  61·57

  2·43

  Arfon

  728

  998

  24,257

  72·95

  3·00

  Blaenau Gwent

  306

  679

  32,466

  45·07

  0·94

  Brecknock

  975

  2,122

  18,402

  45·95

  5·30

  Cardiff

  2,398

  3,942

  120,783

  60·83

  1·99

  Carmarthen

  1,544

  2,384

  24,236

  64·77

  6·37

  Ceredigion

  2,285

  3,837

  30,247

  59·55

  7·55

  Colwyn

  749

  1,312

  25,487

  57·09

  2·94

  Cynon Valley

  514

  932

  27,914

  55·5

  1·84

  Delyn

  628

  1,171

  28,033

  53·63

  2·24

  Dinefwr

  1,243

  2,025

  17,157

  61·38

  7·24

  Dwyfor

  571

  792

  14,540

  72·10

  3·93

  Glyndwr

  746

  1,229

  18,571

  60·70

  4·02

  Islwyn

  400

  705

  26,846

  56·74

  1·49

  Llanelli

  637

  1,126

  32,350

  56·57

  1·97

  Lliw Valley

  578

  968

  26,849

  59·71

  2·15

  Meirionnydd

  452

  1,040

  17,909

  43·46

  2·52

  Merthyr Tydfil

  330

  672

  25,037

  49·11

  1·32

  Monmouth

  1,598

  2,695

  32,300

  59·29

  4·95

  Montgomeryshire

  685

  1,749

  23,754

  39·17

  2·88

  Neath

  468

  945

  27,545

  49·52

  1·70

  Newport

  413

  1,318

  55,602

  31·34

  0·74

  Ogwr

  1,097

  1,623

  54,757

  67·59

  2·00

  Port Talbot

  390

  678

  21,193

  57·52

  1·84

  Preseli Pembs

  1,566

  2,605

  31,020

  60·12

  5·05

  Radnorshire

  650

  1,177

  11,153

  55·23

  5·83

  Rhondda

  230

  691

  33,177

  33·29

  0·69

  Rhuddlan

  467

  817

  24,475

  57·16

  1·91

  Rhymney Valley

  514

  979

  41,449

  52·50

  1·24

  South Pembs

  859

  1,635

  19,876

  52·54

  4·32

  Swansea

  1,874

  3,454

  78,460

  54·26

  2·39

  Taff-Ely

  715

  1,334

  39,178

  53·60

  1·83

  Torfaen

  466

  911

  37,997

  51·15

  1·23

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,314

  1,912

  47,202

  68·72

  2·78

  Wrexham Maelor

  974

  1,913

  48,020

  50·91

  2·03

  Ynys Mon

  1,069

  1,787

  31,378

  59·82

  3·41

  Totals

  32,043

  56,581

  1,224,928

  56·63

  2·62

  School Meals
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for each year since 1987, what was the percentage of school pupils entitled to free school meals.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The percentage of school pupils entitled to free school meals in Wales is shown in the following table. Data are not available prior to 1988–89.
  242
  1991–92 and 1993–94. From 1994–95 onwards this additional funding is within the authorities' allocations and is not identified separately.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for the latest available date for each district council area and for Wales as a whole(a) the number of households whose appeals against council tax bandings had not been resolved, (b) the total number of such appeals made, (c) the total number of households, (d) the proportion of (a) as a percentage of (b) and (e) the proportion of (a) as a percentage of (c).

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The position on 30 June 1994 was as follows:

  As at September each year

  Year

  Per cent

  1988–89

  18·5

  1989–90

  17·8

  1990–91

  18·4

  1991–92

  20·8

  1992–93

  22·8

  Welsh Health Staff College
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made on the setting up of and resourcing of the Welsh Health Staff College; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The matter is still under consideration.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he expects the publication of the accounts for 1993–94 of the Welsh Development Agency; what special measures he proposes to make in the published accounts in relation to the independent legal advice received in relation to the ultra vires issue concerning Welsh Development Agency grant schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The accounts will be published today and will include a statement on legal powers and expenditure in relation to certain grants and loans.

  Dentists
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 1 July,Official Report, column 771, regarding registered dentists, if he will make it his policy to collect information on what proportion of registered dentists offer a full national health service dental service.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  All dentists who are on the dental lists of family health services authorities are obliged, by their terms of service, to provide the full range of national health service treatment for patients registered with them under national health service arrangements.

  General dental practitioners are independent contractors and are free to decide how much of their time to devote to national health service work. The situation may vary from week to week. It would not be cost-effective to collect information centrally in the format suggested. Family health authorities have responsibility for managing general dental services in their area and are best placed to advise on the provision of national health service dental services locally.

  Hospitals (Information Systems)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the pilot scheme for information systems at Glan Clwyd hospital; and what is the number of hospitals not implementing hospital information support systems, and the cost thereof.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  An evaluation will be completed this year and a summary of a report published in July 1993 was widely circulated throughout the NHS. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. Glan Clwyd has the most developed system but all major hospitals have made significant investment and information on costs is therefore not available in the form requested.

  Roads
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his plans for a successor document to "Roads in Wales: Progress and Plans for the 1990s", published in 1989.
  244
  Mr. Redwood
  I have today published "Roads in Wales: 1994 Review". This sets out details of progress in improving the trunk road network since 1989; and establishes clear and identifiable priorities and plans for future improvements to the trunk road network. I have arranged for a copy of the report to be sent to all Welsh Members of Parliament, and for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Welsh Water Authority
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is now able to dissolve the residuary Welsh Water Authority.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has today dissolved by order the residuary Welsh Water Authority.

  Further Education
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what conditions are attached to the disposal of Exchequer-funded land and buildings by institutions in the further and higher education sector.

  Sir Wyn Richards
  The conditions allow further and higher education institutions in Wales to retain the proceeds of sale of Exchequer-funded land and buildings, within specified limits agreed by the Secretary of State. These conditions are set out in the financial memoranda between the Welsh Office and the Welsh funding councils, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements have been made to ensure that there is sufficient flow of water for fish to pass during and after the construction of the Cardiff Bay barrage.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Suitable measures have been agreed by the National Rivers Authority. I have arranged for details to be placed in the Library of the House and the Cardiff Bay development corporation has agreed to have copies of the information available on request.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Horbury Convent, Wakefield
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners if he will investigate the circumstances of the recent sale of the former Horbury convent, Wakefield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners have no status in this matter. They did not own the former Horbury convent, Wakefield, nor did they have any involvement with its sale.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Bellamy's Restaurant
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee (1) if he will conduct a survey among hon. Members and their staff and officers and staff of the House to discover their views on the new arrangement for Bellamy's restaurant;
  245
  (2) how many representations he has received regarding the change of usage of parts of Bellamy's cafeteria; from whom these representations were received; and how many were in favour of the change.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The changes to Bellamy's were undertaken following vigorous representations from hon. Members. I have received numerous representations regarding the change of use. I understand that the Director of Catering Services intends to take account of these representations when she reviews the operation of Bellamy's clubroom after Christmas. The Catering Committee has asked to be kept informed of the results of that review and will consider appropriate consultations at that time.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee (1) who was consulted by the Catering Committee before the decision was taken to restrict access to Bellamy's cafeteria in 1 Parliament street;

  (2) if he will make a statement to explain the criteria used to restrict usage of Bellamy's cafeteria.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  The rules of access to Bellamy's cafeteria have been changed twice, on both occasions because of overcrowding. In endorsing the decisions of the Director of Catering Services, the Catering Committee sought to ensure that the necessary consultation had taken place. The main criterion of the Refreshment Department, and of the Catering Committee, is to ensure that users requiring main meals are served without undue delay and in reasonable comfort.

  Cardiff-Wales Airport
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what plans he has to meet freight forwarders at Cardiff-Wales airport to discuss future clearance arrangements for freight containers;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that a day-night, seven-days-a-week service for deliveries from the freight transit terminal is provided at Cardiff-Wales airport;

  (3) if he will make it his policy to seek the opinions of (a) inward investing firms and (b) the Confederation of British Industry in Wales concerning proposed changes to container and other freight clearance arrangements at Cardiff-Wales airport;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the use of Cardiff-Wales airport as an approved clearance point for sea freight containers;

  (5) what recent assessment has been made by his Department of the impact of the proposed changes to freight clearance arrangements at Cardiff-Wales airport upon (a) future throughput of freight, (b) levels of inward investment into Wales in future and (c) freight-forwarding agents based at the airport.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans for Ministers to meet freight forwarders at Cardiff-Wales airport. The head of the customs executive unit at Cardiff is responsible for approving freight clearance arrangements. It is customs policy to consult fully with trade interests.

  Customs place no restrictions on the times of delivery of cleared cargo. This is a matter for the approved transit shed operator at Cardiff-Wales airport.

  Approval for clearance of freight is a matter for customs in consultation with commercial interests. Since 1 July
  246
  1993, clearance of seafreight removed to Cardiff-Wales airport has ceased as examination facilities there are unsuitable for standard shipping containers.

  Nationally, customs are consulting trade interests through a joint consultative committee and trade associations on proposals for change to arrangements for freight clearance. No decisions have been taken in respect of Cardiff-Wales airport.

  Veal
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what was the country of origin and method of production of the veal served in House canteens in the week of 11 to 15 July.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  All veal used by the Refreshment Department is of British origin and is purchased only from suppliers who use the quantock method of rearing veal calves.

  Banqueting Rooms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what new proposals he has to publish details of the organisations that use the banqueting rooms in the Palace of Westminster in the names of hon. Members.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  None.

  Upper Waiting Hall (Exhibitions)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for the exhibition relating to "BTEC—A Decade of Achievement", 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 7 November to Friday 11 November.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to natural gas vehicles 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 5 December to Friday 9 December.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became(a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (2) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sproat
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.
  247
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many special advisers have(a) joined and (h) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sproat
  Secretaries of State for National Heritage have appointed three special advisers since the formation of the Department. The appointment of one of these is current.

  Museums and Galleries Commission
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the Museums and Galleries Commission's administration of its role in the acceptance in lieu scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  Yes. There are several stages involved in considering offers of pre-eminent works of art and other heritage items, and I am satisfied that the Museums and Galleries Commission handles these effectively in dealing with individual offers. It is helpful that the Museums and Galleries Commission has asked a number of key figures in the art world to form an advisory panel. This panel's expertise in identifying those best qualified to comment on pre-eminence and valuation, and subsequently in assessing this advice, is proving effective. I am satisfied that these new procedures contribute positively to the operation of the scheme.

TRANSPORT

  Motorway Use
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has as to the effect on traffic bunching on motorways of the use of the middle and outside lanes as cruising lanes rather than as overtaking lanes.

  Mr. Key
  Poor lane discipline on motorways causes delay and reduces vehicle throughput, particularly at high traffic flows.

  Seat Belts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects to publish the report into seat belt safety in respect of mini buses and coaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on 19 July,Official Report, columns 81–82.

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

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced the 248
  publication of a consultation document on 15 July. The Department of Transport contributed to its preparation. I welcome the publication of this document and would encourage everyone interested in these issues, especially disabled people themselves, to respond with their views.

  Mr Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his Department has had with(a) manufacturers and suppliers and (b) representatives of the disabled regarding the design of taxi cabs in relation to access and safety for the disabled; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department has worked closely with manufacturers and suppliers of vehicles and equipment in the taxi industry and with representatives of people with disabilities over the past decade to develop features and facilities that will meet the needs of the wide range of elderly and disabled people who have mobility problems.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that driving tests should not be held during the hours of darkness in any part of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Driving Standards Agency under its chief executive, Dr. Ford, and I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given. The agency's deputy chief executive, Mr. Lobo, will answer in Dr. Ford's absence on leave.

  Letter from G. A. Lobo to Mr. Brian Wilson, dated 18 July 1994.
  The Secretary of State has asked the Chief Executive to reply to the question you have raised about holding driving tests during the hours of darkness. I am replying since Dr. Ford is on annual leave.
  The Driving Standards Agency is considering whether it would be sensible to conduct fewer driving tests per day during the winter, when the daylight hours are shorter, subject to extra tests being added to the summer programme. This could have the advantage of switching staff resources to be more in line with the seasonal pattern of demand.

  Motorway Accidents
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information his Department has regarding the percentage of drivers involved in accidents on motorways who have passed their driving test (i) less than three months previously, (ii) less than six months previously and (iii) less than 12 months previously.

  Mr. Key
  A recently completed research study of 29,500 learner and novice drivers revealed that, of the 7,079 drivers who answered questions on their accident experience 14—0·2 per cent. had had an accident on a motorway in the first three months; 23—0·32— in the first six months and 40—0·57 per cent. in the first year of driving. The accidents mainly involved damage to vehicles; only three were reported to have involved injury.

  Traffic Speeds
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce national and local targets to be achieved for reducing speeds driven for traffic on different types of road, including urban roads.

  Mr. Key
  Our target is to reduce road casualties. Reducing vehicle speeds can make a major contribution to this and is a key element in our road safety strategy. However, it is only one of many road safety measures and the speed distribution on different roads varies so widely that there would be little benefit in establishing secondary targets for reducing speeds.

  Consultants
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what part Sir Christopher Foster played in the Coopers and Lybrand bid for the consultancy contracts to establish a charging regime for track users during the time he acted as his special adviser.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 25 November,Official Report, column 102, what assessment he has now made of whether Sir Christopher Foster avoided any conflict of interest during his role as his special adviser.

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there was no conflict of interest.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether Sir Christopher Foster's advice to him on rail privatisation included advice on the track access charging regime during the period that Coopers and Lybrand was bidding for or undertaking consultancy contracts on the charging regime.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Christopher Foster provided advice on railway restructuring and privatisation generally. He played no part directly or indirectly in the letting or management of any consultancy contracts.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the achievements of Sir Christopher Foster as his special adviser on rail privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Sir Christopher fulfilled his remit to provide my right hon. Friend with expert advice on rail privatisation matters.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the final sum paid to Coopers and Lybrand in connection with its work on advising about a track access charging system.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on 14 July,Official Report, columns 724–27.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the powers under which salary and expenses are paid to members of the Railtrack board; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  Remuneration and expenses are paid to members of the Railtrack board as company directors in 250
  accordance with articles 87 and 88 of the articles of association of Railtrack Group plc. Remuneration is determined by the company by shareholders' decisions in accordance with article 87 and, as the company is wholly owned by the Government, such decisions are given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport. I am arranging for a copy of these articles to be placed in the Library.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safeguards he will be implementing to ensure the long-term research functions of the Transport Research Laboratory when it is privatised.

  Mr. Key
  The privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory will have full regard to the need to satisfy the Government's continuing requirement for research, whether long-term or otherwise.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what stage his Department has reached in privatising the Transport Research Laboratory; and when he expects this process to be completed.

  Mr. Key
  My Department has recently appointed Price Waterhouse as financial advisers on the privatisation of the Transport Research Laboratory, which we hope can be achieved during 1995–96. We expect to appoint legal advisers shortly to assist with the sale of TRL.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contacts his Department has had with possible bidders for the Transport Research Laboratory.

  Mr. Key
  Various bodies have approached the Department in confidence to express an interest in bidding for the Transport Research Laboratory.

  European Passenger Services
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it a condition of the transfer of European Passenger Services to the private sector that the channel tunnel link will be built.

  Mr. Freeman
  It will be a condition of the development agreement with the consortium selected to construct the Link that EPS will be returned to Government ownership if the link is not completed.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will be responsible for the outstanding debt on trains built for European Passenger Services after they have been transferred to private ownership.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is intended to transfer European Passenger services to the private sector free of debt as part of the Government's contribution to the project to construct the new channel tunnel rail link. Any liabilities that arise after privatisation and particularly payments on trains that have been leased will be the responsibility of the new owner.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the means by which the Exchequer's interest in connection with the proposed privatisation of European Passenger Services can be safeguarded; and if he will make a statement.
  251
  Mr. Freeman
  The Government intend to transfer European Passenger Services to the winner of the competition to select the consortium to construct the new channel tunnel rail link and expect to receive full value for the company in the bids of those tendering for the project.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when the Vehicle Inspectorate intends to enter into negotiations with trade unions regarding their 1994 pay claim;

  (2) if he will list for each of the last five years the number of substantive traffic examiners employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate;

  (3) if he will list for each of the last five years the number of substantive vehicle examiners employed by the Vehicle Inspectorate.

  i. Vehicle Examiners

  Grade

  30 November 1990

  31 May 1991

  31 July 1992

  31 July 1993

  16 June 1994

  SPTO

  42

  41

  39

  38

  36

  HPTO

  104

  108

  103

  100

  82

  PTO

  470

  461

  465

  432

  409

  AVE

  49

  65

  89

  89

  83

  Total

  665

  675

  696

  659

  610

  ii. Traffic Examiners

  Grade

  30 November 1990

  18 July 1991

  31 July 1992

  31 July 1993

  16 June 1994

  Enforcement Coordinator

  10

  8

  7

  7

  5

  Supervising Traffic Examiner

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Senior Traffic Examiner

  43

  32

  32

  31

  25

  Traffic Examiner

  162

  163

  174

  167

  168

  Total

  216

  204

  213

  205

  198

  4. If you have any further questions about the Inspectorate please contact me.

  Coastguard Agency
  Mr. David Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about efficiency gains in the Coastguard Agency.

  Mr. Norris
  The chief executive of the Coastguard Agency has put forward a series of efficiency measures in response to the challenging target I set the Department. I have accepted his proposals which will lead to efficiency savings of nearly £1·5 million being achieved over the next two years. The measures will include rationalising the administrative services of the agency's Southampton headquarters and introducing more flexible manning arrangments at rescue centres. They will not involve the closure of any rescue centres; the agency's coastal response capability will be maintained. These measures are consistent with those set out in agency's current business and corporate plans. They will lead to greater value for money from the Coastguard Agency without compromising safety at sea and along the shoreline.
  252
  Mr. Key
  These are operational matters for the Vehicle Inspectorate. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mrs. Gwyneth Dun woody, dated 18 July 1994:

  VEHICLE INSPECTORATE: PAY BARGAINING AND STAFFING

  1. The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about staffing and pay bargaining at the Vehicle Inspectorate (VI).

  2. On the matter of pay bargaining VI management intends entering into negotiations with the trade unions within the next two weeks.

  3. In answer to your questions on vehicle and traffic examiners, the figures below give a breakdown, by grade, of the number of staff in post over the past 5 years. Until recently our figures did not draw a distinction between substantive staff and those on temporary promotion. For the sake of consistency the figures for 1994 do not make this distinction either.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what alternative means he has considered of reducing losses of vehicle excise duty caused by evasion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The vehicle record maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency plays a key role in the fight against crime. It identifies vehicle excise duty—VED—evaders and thus helps in the fight against vehicle and traffic offences but is also an important source of data for the police in tackling serious crimes. Defects in the record are, however, hindering these efforts, and give rise to significant shortfalls in VED revenue. I intend, therefore, to introduce changes that will tackle the theft of vehicles in particular as well as crime more generally. These changes will be directed against crime and against dishonest car owners and not law-abiding motorists.

  Evasion of vehicle excise duty amounts to £145 million a year. It costs the taxpayer a further £25 million in enforcement costs in my own Department, and in addition there are costs to the police and the courts in tracking down and prosecuting evaders. We continue to make improvements in the numbers of evaders brought to book but although the level of evasion seems to have been contained, we have been unable actually to reduce it.

  A major factor that frustrates our endeavours is that vehicles without a tax disc in the windscreen cannot be

  253
  tracked to their owners if they have not notified DVLA that they have acquired the vehicle. This is because, under the present procedures, a person who parts with a car is obliged to notify DVLA—but many do not; and the person who acquires it is also obliged to notify DVLA that he is now the keeper, and although most do, they often wait until the tax expires, which may be up to a year later.

  I am therefore proposing some fundamental changes to the present registration procedures to require those who part with a vehicle to notify DVLA, at the same time and on the same form, as those who acquire it. This would mean that the vehicle record could be brought up to date immediately. It would also allow us to replace existing vehicle registration documents with log books containing a number of improvements, in particular the inclusion of features such as a list of previous keepers and a record of mileage which I know motorists are keen to have, along with new security features.

  While a more accurate vehicle record would have many benefits, it could not eliminate VED evasion completely. This is because there are other ways in which VED can be evaded which are not picked up in the records. Because the present system allows for breaks in licensing when the keeper claims the vehicle is not in use, evasion of VED for short periods is difficult to detect. I therefore propose to introduce a system of continuous licensing based on possession, rather than use, for all cars and motorcycles.

  Naturally there are many details to be settled and the needs and wishes of those that will be affected must be taken into account. I will be issuing a consultation document shortly.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became(a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (2) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The figures are:

  Number

  (a) 1992

  2

  1993

  0

  1994 to date

  1

  (b) 1992

  0

  1993

  1

  1994 to date

  0

  My Department did not exist in any comparable from before 1992. Figures for earlier years are therefore not available.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the Government's proposals for the future of the civil service are compatible with their commitment as announced at the TUC conference on full employment on 5 July to policies in support of reducing the current high levels of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend made it clear in his speech at the TUC conference that increasing employment depends on our competitiveness as a nation. That requires an efficient and effective public sector. The Government's proposals on the future of the civil service, set out in the White Paper published last week, Cm 2627, provide the framework for a further improvement in the performance of the civil service.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how his statement on 13 July concerning the future of the civil service will affect the completion and occupation of the new Inland Revenue offices in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total number of scientists employed by the Agriculture and Food Research Council(a) for 1979 and (b) at present.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of scientists employed by the Agricultural and Food Research Council in 1979 was 3,417. As at 31 March 1994, the number was 2,025.

  Institute of Food Research
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many scientists were employed at the Institute of Food Research for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of scientists employed at the Institute of Food Research since 1986 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1986

  534

  1987

  514

  1988

  517

  1989

  463

  1990

  425

  1991

  308

  1992

  338

  1993

  335

  1994

  303

  Benevolent Fund
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement regarding the trustees of the Duchy of Lancaster benevolent fund.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Duchy benevolent fund has been operating as a registered charity for the past nine months. As Chancellor of the Duchy I appoint the trustees of the fund. Because of this I have felt that I should not be a
  255
  trustee. I will continue to appoint trustees and have invited the Lords Lieutenant of Greater Manchester and Merseyside to become trustees of the fund.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of extending family credit to(a) childless couples and (b) single persons assuming the present rules otherwise remain the same; and how many additional recipients there would be in each case.

  Mr. Burt
  The estimated cost of extending family credit to childless couples is £65 million with 70,000 additional recipients. The cost for single people is £1·5 billion with 1·5 million additional recipients.

  Note: Estimates are drawn from the 1989,90 and 91 family expenditure surveys and uprated to 1994–95 prices and benefit levels. The basis of the award is assumed to be the existing adult credit rate, without child credits, to people of 18 years of age and over. Estimates of the two costs are rounded to the nearest £5 million and £100 million respectively, and numbers of gainers are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and 100,000 respectively. These estimates do not include the financial effects of any behavioural response.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sums were distributed in family credit and income support in the 12 months immediately(a) preceding and (b) following the abolition of the wages councils.

  Mr. Burt
  Levels of expenditure on family credit and income support are affected by a large number of factors.

  Information is available only for financial years. Figures for the last two years are as follows:

  Income support £M

  Family credit £M

  1992–93

  14,790

  929

  1993–94 (estimated)

  15,773

  1,091

  Note: Figures from Departmental Report March 1994

  Benefit Claims (Time Limits)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a maximum period for claiming benefits in areas outside the area of residence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  We have no such plans. Every effort is made to ensure that benefit is paid only where the conditions of entitlement are satisfied. In particular, benefits for unemployed people are paid only to those who are available for, and actively seeking, work. Housing benefit is paid only to people who have a genuine rent liability on their home. The Government are not persuaded that it is desirable or practicable to time-limit benefit entitlement of people living outside their normal area of residence as the free movement of people is essential for the efficient operation of the labour market.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the achievements of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in
  256
  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. Hague
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the United Kingdom econorny. 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 across the country.

  Measures introduced by the Department specifically to assist small businesses include:

  The Department has increased, from April 1994, the qualifying threshold for small employers' relief for statutory sick pay from £16,000 to £20,000.

  From April 1994, the Department improved and simplified the procedures for self-employed people claiming family credit, by including a new form in the claim pack on which self-employed people can provide earnings details straight away and by extending the fast-track service to the newly self-employed.

  Reductions in employers' national insurance contributions from April 1994 were substantially greater for lower-paid employees—earning under £200 a week. This is likely to help small businesses.

  From April 1994 changes have been made to the national insurance treatment of people, such as sub-postmasters, who have a salary from a main occupation as well as income from a subsidiary business. Where the income from the small business is low, they may now claim exception from self-employed national insurance even though, for income tax purposes, they chose to have all their earnings taxed together. Previously such people were liable for contributions as both employed and self-employed persons.

  Other measures aimed at business in general, which should help small businesses, include:

  Administration of the Statutory Sick Pay scheme will be simplified by abolition of the lower rate of SSP from April 1995.

  The three tests for entitlement to statutory maternity pay have been replaced by a single test for women expecting a baby on or after 16 October 1994.

  The Contributions Agency has completed the redesigning of all forms it sends out to businesses, with the aim of making them simpler to understand.

  The Department has a system to monitor proposals which have an impact on small business, to ensure that the needs and costs to small businesses are taken into account, but there are no performance indicators specifically for monitoring achievements in this area. However, we attach particular importance to action taken to help small businesses and will continue to explore further ways of doing so.

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what figure has been agreed with Andersen Consulting for it to conduct a review into the Child Support Agency.
  257
  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) by the chief executive of the Child Support Agency on 18 July 1994.

  Information Technology Services Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees of the Information Technology Services Agency there were(a) at its formation and (b) at the latest available date at each separate location and in total; and in how many cases staff have (i) been transferred to outsource contractors, (ii) accepted early retirement or (iii) accepted redundancy.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table. As at 18 July 1994 no staff have been transferred to outsource contractors, 130 have accepted voluntary early retirement/severance and there have been no redundancies.

  Number of staff

  Location

  1990 (launch of ITSA)

  1994 (as at 18 July 1994)

  Livingston

  206

  210

  Longbenton

  1,147

  1,120

  Washington

  293

  782

  North West1

  1,438

  2,294

  Swindon

  20

  6

  Reading

  196

  100

  London

  62

  96

  Sheffield

  0

  141

  Leeds

  0

  17

  Total

  3,342

  4,766

  1 North West includes Lytham and the surrounding area.

  2 Swindon operational from late November 1990.

  Child Care Disregard
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, columns 227–32, if he will now include figures showing for April and October the effects of the new child care disregard for a lone mother with two children aged four and six years working part time for 24 hours earning £80 a week.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table. The child care disregard will be introduced in October and will apply to the calculation of housing benefit, council tax benefit and disability working allowance as well as family credit. Up to £40 of child care costs for children under 11 will be disregarded against earnings, provided that care is arranged with a registered childminder or nursery.

  It should be noted that the child care costs, specified in accordance with the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 6 July at column 227–32, are significantly higher than those typically encountered at the level of earnings specified. Recent research' shows that the average weekly child care costs of working lone parents are £24·60 per week.
  1 "Families, work, and Benefit" (Policy Studies Institute, June 1993).

  Notes:

  1. The family is assumed to live in council property appropriate to their size and pay estimated average rent and council tax.

  2. The family is assumed to have no capital and take up entitlement to One Parent Benefit and all income-related benefits.
  258

  Lone Mother with 2 children aged 4 and 6 working part-time for 24 hours earning £80 per week with child care costs of £40

  Child Care allowance = £40

  Position at April 1994 £

  Position at October 1994 £

  Gross earnings

  80·00

  80·00

  Tax

  0·00

  0·00

  National Insurance

  3·44

  3·44

  Take home pay

  76·56

  76·56

  Family credit

  63·30

  66·70

  Child benefit

  24·60

  24·60

  Rent

  36·42

  36·42

  Rent rebate

  9·67

  33·46

  Council tax

  8·30

  8·30

  Council tax benefit

  0·07

  7·39

  Child care costs

  40·00

  40·00

  Total net income

  174·20

  208·71

  Net income after rent and council tax

  129·48

  163·99

  Net income after rent, Council tax and child care costs

  89·48

  123·99

  Pension Law Review Committee
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Government will respond to the fourth report of the Social Security Select Committee on the report of the Pension Law Review Committee.

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's response to the Select Committee's report is published today. Copies have been placed in the Library. We welcome the Committee's examination and recommendations on the Pension Law Review Committee report. We share its aim of safeguarding pension funds by effective regulation.

  The Government have outlined their proposals for pension reform in the recent White Paper, "Security, Equality, Choice: The Future for Pensions", Cm. 2594-I and Cm. 2594-II. In it we propose a range of practical solutions to assist pension provision and improve scheme security.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make available the annual reports and accounts for each of his next steps agencies, and the revised framework document for the Information Technology Services Agency.

  Mr. Lilley
  The annual report for the Child Support Agency was published on 4 July. The accounts will be published in October.

  The 1993–94 annual reports and accounts for the other four executive agencies operating last year will be made available as follows: today for the Benefits Agency, Information Technology Services Agency and Resettlement Agency and tomorrow for the Contributions Agency. Copies of each report will be placed in the Library.

  The revised framework document for the Information Technology Services Agency for 1994–95 will also be published today and a copy placed in the Library.

  Benefits Agency
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to conduct a review of the Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Under the terms of the original Benefits Agency framework document, provision was made for the review of the framework document by the Secretary of State. The status and organisation of all the next steps agencies are required to be periodically reviewed to establish whether further improvements in customer service and value for money can be made. I am accordingly authorising a review of the functions of the Benefits Agency to establish what future way of organising it will best support the cost-effective delivery of the social security benefits; serve the needs of those who use the benefits system; and improve value for money and security, in terms of both improved accuracy and fraud.

  The review will cover the evaluation of the agency's performance; the reconsideration of the way in which its functions are organised; and the revision of the framework document as appropriate. The current organisational structure has worked well over the past three years and there have been significant improvements in performance and value for taxpayers' money since agency status was achieved. Our aim is to build on this success.

  We shall be consulting customer representative groups to establish their views on the kind of service delivery they would like in the future. We shall also be asking business interests whether there is potential for private sector involvement in the Benefits Agency's work.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in the Benefits Agency and its work will be welcome by 28 October 1994. Anyone who would like to comment is asked, in the first instance, to contact:

  Garvin Bowen

  Department of Social Security

  Euston Tower

  286 Euston Road

  London

  NW1 3DN

  I expect to announce my decisions on the review early next year.

  Carers, Scotland
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of carers receive the carers' invalidity benefit in(a) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole;

  (2) how many carers (a) receive and (b) do not receive the invalid care allowance in (i) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow, (ii) Strathclyde and (iii) Scotland as a whole.

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

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became(a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;
  260
  (2) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hague
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows:

  1994—none

  1993—one special adviser joined the Department and one left

  1992—one special adviser joined and one left

  1991—none

  1990—one special adviser joined.

  Prisoners (Housing Benefit)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will follow up a letter to the hon. Member for South Hams, dated 24 June, regarding the review of the current rules for paying housing benefit to prisoners, and the effect of this policy on Mr. and Mrs. Shelston of Wembury, near Plymouth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  We are currently looking at the issues involving the payment of housing benefit to certain prisoners. A statement will be made when these inquiries are completed.

  Severe Hardship Payments
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, columns 148–49, what amount was paid for severe hardship in each quarter since September 1988.

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The amount of income support paid to 16 to 17-year-olds claiming income support under the severe hardship provision is determined locally.

  Child Poverty
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children were living in poverty, as defined by(a) his Department and (b) the World Health Organisation, in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Burt
  No Government in the United Kingdom have ever accepted that it is possible to identify a single simple measure to define poverty in any meaningful way.

  Statistics on the distribution of household incomes, including those for children, can be found in "Households Below Average Income" 1979 to 1991–92, published on 14 July 1994, a copy of which is in the Library.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many public surgeries were held by the war pensions welfare service in Shetland since 1985.

  Mr. Hague
  This is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  261
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Wallace, dated 19 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of War Pensions surgeries held in Shetland.
  No War Pensions surgeries have been held in Shetland since 1985. The local Benefits Agency office in Lerwick are aware of the War Pensions Welfare Service and contact is on a regular basis, discussing any matters which may arise in connection with either existing or potential War Pensioners or Widows. The Lerwick office is regularly supplied with War Pensions publicity material including posters, claim forms and the War Pensions Welfare Officer's calling cards. In addition, the Welfare Office for the Highlands and Islands has visited Shetland yearly since 1984 and all those on the island who required or asked for assistance were contacted. The next visit is scheduled for August 1994. A member of the local War Pensions Committee, who also works for the Social Services Department on the island, is resident in Shetland and visits pensioners or widows when required.

  Number of housing benefit recipients in Great Britain 1988–1993 (000s)

  All private tenants

  Other private tenants (Excluding Housing Associations)

  Local Authority

  All private tenants

  Housing Associations

  Regulated

  Deregulated

  1988

  3,132

  69

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1989

  2,971

  958

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990

  2,928

  1,067

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991

  2,945

  1,085

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992

  3,038

  1,290

  345

  378

  567

  1993

  3,053

  1,477

  412

  339

  726

  n/a=Not available.

  Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System quarterly caseload count in May of each year.

  Note:

  Information on Fair Rent is not collected. Data on Housing Association, regulated and deregulated rents is only available from May 1992.

  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 mean and median rents paid by recipients of housing benefit according to whether they live in local authority, housing association or private

  Mean and Median Rents (£/week) in Housing Benefit cases in Great Britain

  All private tenants

  Local authority

  All private tenants

  Housing associations

  Other private tenants (excluding housing associations)

  Regulated

  Deregulated

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  1988

  18·96

  18·23

  21·80

  20·15

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1989

  20·57

  20·03

  24·29

  22·50

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1990

  23·67

  22·59

  29·42

  25·98

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991

  27·29

  25·45

  35·75

  30·50

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992

  30·48

  28·29

  41·68

  35·50

  35·53

  32·91

  34·20

  30·50

  50·93

  43·20

  n/a = Not available.

  Source: Housing Benefit Management Information System annual 1 per cent. sample of HB cases in May.

  Note: Information on Fair Rent is not collected. Data on Housing Association, regulated and dregulated rents only available from May 1992.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table setting out for each year since 1988–9 how many claimants of(a) rent rebate and (b) rent allowance, divided between those claimants who are housing association tenants and those who are private sector tenants, were unemployed and how many were
  262
  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Housing Benefit
  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 housing association tenants and 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 1996–7; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: The available information is in the table. The projections for 1994–95 to 1996–97 will be announced at the time of the Budget and will be published in due course in the departmental report.

  sector accommodation, dividing the latter two groups into fair-rented and non-fair-rented accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: The available information is in the table.

  working but had earnings low enough to qualify for housing benefit; what proportion of total spending on each of these benefits is accounted for by unemployed claimants and those claimants who are working but have earnings low enough to qualify for housing benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table.
  263

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Unemployed

  Working

  Unemployed

  Working

  Unemployed

  Working

  Rent Rebate

  35,000

  137,000

  67,000

  145,000

  77,000

  147,000

  Housing Association

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11,000

  14,000

  Private

  —

  —

  —

  —

  64,000

  65,000

  Total Rent Allowance

  20,000

  67,000

  54,000

  69,000

  75,000

  79,000

  Data source:

  The Housing Benefit Management Information system annual one per cent. enquiries of May for each year.

  Notes:

  1. No information on the proportion of total expenditure is available.

  2. Information for May 1988 and May 1989 is not available.

  3. The figures have been rounded to the nearest one thousand.

  4. The information relates to benefit units, a benefit unit may be a couple or a single person.

  5. Unemployed has been defined as in receipt of Unemployment Benefit.

  6. Claimants in receipt of Income Support and earnings have been excluded, therefore, the information includes Housing Benefit-only cases where either a claimant and/or partner receives earnings.

  7. Information on Housing Association tenants was not collected before 1992.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the names and addresses of those to be consulted on the Government's proposals to tackle discrimination against disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  It is the Government's intention that this should be a wide-ranging public consultation. A copy of the names and addresses of the organisations on the initial consultation list will be placed in the Library and sent to the hon. Member shortly. The consultation document has also been sent to a number of individuals. In addition, advertising is to be placed in the national press to encourage other organisations and individuals with an interest to obtain a copy.

  Taxes as percentage of total taxes and social security contributions

  1978–79

  1991–92

  11993–94

  21994–95

  21995–96

  Rates3

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community charge/Council tax4

  —

  3

  4

  4

  3

  Business rates5

  —

  7

  6

  5

  6

  Expenditure taxes

  31

  35

  37

  37

  37

  Taxes on income

  40

  36

  34

  35

  36

  Taxes on capital

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Social Security receipts

  17

  17

  18

  18

  17

  1 Provisional outtum.

  2 From Treasury Summer Economic Forecast 1994.

  3 Includes domestic and non-domestic rates prior to introduction of community charge/council tax and business rates.

  4 Community charge for 1991–92; council tax from 1993–94. Includes some community charge arrears.

  5 Includes district council rates in Northern Ireland.

  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what commitments were made at the Naples economic summit of 8 to 10 July on raising the level of debt relief for developing countries facing special difficulties beyond 50 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11 July 1994,Official Report, col. 667–69.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 379, what part of the total outstanding debt

TREASURY

  Rates and Taxes
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), of 7 July,Official Report, columns 268–70, if he will publish a table on a similar basis, showing the share of tax accounted for by rates, community charge and council tax as a separate item and distinguishing between taxes on income and taxes on capital.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The information requested, set out in terms of the national accounts classification of taxes, is shown in the table.

  owed to the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Overseas Development Administration by developing countries is derived from defence-related contracts.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None of the outstanding debt owed to the Overseas Development Administration by developing countries relates to defence-related contracts. I regret that the information requested for the Exports Credits Guarantee Department is not readily available and could be collected only at a disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what commitments were made by the Government of Japan at the Naples economic summit of 8 to 10 July to achieve the full implementation of the Trinidad terms for indebted developing countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Japan and our other G7 colleagues signed the summit communiqué encouraging
  265
  the Paris Club to offer additional concessions on debt relief for the poorest and most indebted countries facing special difficulties.

  Pension Contributions
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate total contributions to pensions by(a) employers, (b) self-employed and (c) employees; and if he will express (a) and (c) as a proportion of total earnings by employees.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The total contributions to pensions in 1992 were as follows:

  £ billion

  Pension Schemes

  Life Assurance Individual premiums for life policies

  State1

  Other

  (a) by employers

  19·5

  19·4

  —

  (b) by self employed

  1·0

  n/a2

  31·9

  (c) by employees

  13·2

  9·8

  —

  1 The National Insurance Fund plus the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS). National Insurance Fund contributions support payment by the fund of benefits other than pensions: there are no figures for contributions relating to pensions alone. However, a breakdown of benefits paid from the fund is given in Table 7·5 of the CSO United Kingdom National Accounts Blue Book, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  2 Not applicable.

  Total earnings in 1992 were £341·0 billion: employers contributions to pensions represented 11·4 per cent. of this.

  It is not possible to split life assurance figure between self-employed and employee contributions. Therefore, the employees' contributions proportion has not been estimated.

  Inland Revenue, Dewsbury
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what attempts have been made to extend the lease on the offices used by the Inland Revenue in Dewsbury;

  (2) what is the estimated cost of the move of the Dewsbury tax district office from Dewsbury to Leeds;

  (3) what is the estimated annual cost of running the Dewsbury tax district office from Leeds.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Further detailed work is required before final estimated figures are reached and before there can be any decision about whether the Dewsbury proposal will go ahead and it will be some months before an announcement can be made.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library tables showing estimates of the share of household income taken up by water charges, by region and quintile of income, on the income scale for 1988 and 1993.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  A table showing estimates for England and Wales in 1988, based on the 1988 family expenditure survey, will be placed in the Library. Details of water and sewerage expenditure for households in 266
  Northern Ireland and Scotland are not available from the 1988 FES. Data for 1993 are not available until 5 August 1994.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 14, concerning the exchange rate and competitiveness, if he will publish a table showing the periods since 1970 when falls in the nominal exchange rate have been greater than that required to compensate for an increase in the general level of prices; and what evidence he has that such falls in the real exchange rate have been inflationary.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Tables showing sterling's exchange rate index and United Kingdom inflation can be found in "Financial Statistics" and "Economic Trends" respectively, published by the Central Statistical Office. Historical data can be found in table 5.1 of the annual supplement to "Economic Trends". Together these data can be used to calculate the information requested. The exchange rate is one of the indicators that is monitored in reviewing monetary conditions, but it is only one of a wide range of factors influencing inflation.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 14, concerning the exchange rate and competitiveness, what evidence he has that the continued devaluation of the Italian lira has raised the rate of inflation; and if he will publish a table showing for the pound and the Italian lira the fall since August 1992 in the nominal and real exchange rates against the Deutschmark, the ecu and the United States dollar.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The exchange rate is only one of a wide range of factors influencing inflation. Monthly average exchange rates and inflation indices for the currencies requested can be found in "Financial Statistics" published by the Central Statistical Office and "Main Economic Indicators" published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development respectively. Together these data can be used to calculate the information requested.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the percentage increase for the United Kingdom and each EC country in imports and exports to non-EEC countries in terms of value in dollar terms for September 1992 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The trade data are set out in the EUROSTAT publication "Eurostatistics, Data for short-term economic analysis", published monthly.

  Money Circulation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current velocity of circulation of money relative to that in 1978; and if he will publish a table showing the annual change in velocity of circulation since 1978 together with the change in (i) gross domestic product, (ii) manufacturing output, (iii) employment and (iv) unemployment.
  267
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Between the fourth quarter of 1978 and the first quarter of 1994 the velocity of circulation of M0 increased by 75 per cent., while the velocity of circulation of M4 has decreased by 43 per cent. The annual changes of these velocities are published in "Financial Statistics", table 3.1B. The table sets out the publication details for the other statistics:

  Statistic

  Source

  Gross domestic product

  Economic Trends (June 1994) Table 2.1 and Economic Trends Annual Supplement (1994) Table 1.1

  Manufacturing output

  Economic Trends (June 1994) Table 1.1 and Economic Trends Annual Supplement (1994) Table 4.1

  Employment/unemployment

  Economic Trends (June 1994) Table 4.2 and Economic Trends Annual Supplement (1994) Table 3.2

  Central Statistical Office
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Central Statistical Office performed against its key targets for 1993–94.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Central Statistical Office's performance against its key targets for 1993–94 is described in the agency's annual report and accounts which are being laid before the House and published today. The CSO achieved 27 out of the 33 targets set for the year, including 17 out of 19 targets relating to the quality of key economic statistics.

  Central Statistical Office's targets have been progressively tightened during recent years in recognition of improvements in performance. There has been a further tightening of a number of targets for 1994–95. These are set out in the "CSO Programme Strategies 1994–95 to 1996–7", which was released on 19 April.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral statement by the Paymaster General of 19 May,Official Report, column 1002, what conclusions he has reached regarding the VAT liability for the teaching of English as a foreign language; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In the light of the debate and the representations received I have decided that the order as drafted creates an unacceptable distortion in this sector of education and that VAT exemption should be available for all tuition in English as a foreign language. This expanded relief will be available from 1 August, the date the order comes into force, and will be administered by customs as a concession until such time as an amending order can be brought before the House.

  Ships (Capital Allowances)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are being made to publish the draft legislation on capital allowance balancing charges for ships announced on 21 April; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Inland Revenue is making available today the draft clauses which will implement the 268
  proposals on capital allowances for ships which I announced on 21 April 1994. These will allow balancing charges arising on the disposal of a ship to be rolled over for a period of up to three years from the date on which it is disposed of. The charge will be set against subsequent expenditure on ships within that period.

  Broadly speaking, the measure will apply to ships, including fishing vessels, disposed of on or after 21 April 1994 which are of a seagoing kind of 100 gross registered tonnes or more, but excluding those of a kind used for sport or recreational purposes. Ships brought into use by a shipowner on or after today will come within the scope of the measure where, for the first three years of use, they are registered in either the United Kingdom, its dependent territories or Crown dependencies, or another state within the European Union or European Economic Area. No registration requirement will apply to ships which the owners have used prior to today.

  Further details of the proposed measure are included in a press release issued by the Inland Revenue today. A copy of this together with the draft clauses will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons. Subject to the outcome of discussions with the European Commission we intend to introduce these clauses in next year's Finance Bill.

  Royal Family (Taxation)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 July at column 565, what are the titles of (a) the nine categories of deductible expenses in paragraph 4 and (b) the four categories of expenses under appendix B in the memorandum of understanding on royal taxation.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There are no titles to the categories of deductible expenditure, but the categories were themselves published in the report of the Royal Trustees of 5 February 1993, House of Commons paper 464, which included the whole of the memorandum of understanding on royal taxation.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many special advisers have(a) joined and ( b) left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became (a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (3) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The table shows the number of special advisers who have(a) joined and (b) left my Department in each of the last five years:

  (a) joined

  (b) left

  1989

  1

  0

  1990

  0

  2

  1991

  1

  0

  1992

  1

  2

  1993

  3

  3

  1994

  0

  0

  Special advisers are not required to provide details of their employers on leaving Government service.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Murders
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been murdered by members of their immediate family in each of the last five years in respect of whom a conviction has been obtained within a court.

  Mr. Maclean
  The table shows the number of offences recorded as homicide, as at 27 August 1993, where the victims were persons under the age of 16 years and the suspect was the parent or other relative and was convicted of homicide:

  Number

  1988

  62

  1989

  40

  1990

  38

  1991

  42

  1992

  22

  Figures for 1993 are not yet available.

  Young Offenders
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the options available to the courts for those under 21 years who are convicted of(a) theft from shops, (b) theft of a motor vehicle, (c) theft from a motor vehicle, (d) burglary of a dwelling house, (e) burglary of buildings other than dwelling houses, (f) assault and (g) criminal damage.

  Mr. Maclean
  The following sentencing options are currently available to the courts when a young person is convicted of the following offences—theft; taking a motor vehicle without authority; burglary from a dwelling place, burglary other than from a dwelling place; common assault; criminal damage:

  Where the young person is aged 10 and under 18 years

  Absolute or conditional discharge

  Fine

  Compensation Order

  Bind over of parent

  Supervision Order

  Attendance Centre Order

  Community Service Order (from age 16)

  Probation Order (from age 16)

  Combination Order (from age 16)

  Detention in a young offender institution (from age 15)

  Additionally, in respect of the offence of burglary from a dwelling place, a sentence of long-term detention under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act is available from age 14.

  Where the young person is aged 18 and under 21 years

  Absolute or conditional discharge

  Fine

  Bind over of parent

  Compensation Order

  Probation Order

  Attendance Centre Order

  Community Service Order

  Combination Order (from age 16)

  Detention in a young offender institution.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the members of the National Lottery Charity Board will be appointed; what qualifications will 270
  be taken into account in making appointments; when the board will first meet; who will be its chief executive; what will be its budget; when it will begin dispensing of lottery funds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to announce the members of the National Lottery Charities Board within the next few days. The qualities taken into account include managerial skills, experience of grant administration and an understanding of the concerns for the voluntary sector across the United Kingdom. The object is to ensure that a wide range of expertise is available to the board.

  It will be for the board, once established, to arrange its meeting, appoint its staff, and decide when to start making grants. Subject to the policy and financial directions which my right hon. and learned Friend will be issuing, the board will also set its own budget for making grants and meeting its administrative expenses.

  Street Patrols
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to require security firms to become approved or registered before appointment to private street patrols;

  (2) what plans he has to investigate the incidence and operation of private street patrols;

  (3) what plans he has to draft a national code of practice for security firms involved in private street patrols.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  We have no such plans.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for (1) entry clearance and (2) leave to remain as working holidaymakers have been(a) received, (b) granted and (c) refused to citizens of (i) India, (ii) Bangladesh, (iii) Pakistan, (iv) Australia, (v) Canada, (vi) Ghana, (vii) Nigeria and (viii) Malaysia during 1993 and 1994 to the latest convenient date.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were detained under Immigration Act powers (1) overnight, (2) between one night and one month and (3) for a period of more than one month in(a) Harmondsworth detention centre, (b) the Queen's building, Heathrow, (c) terminal 4, Heathrow, (d) the Beehive, Gatwick, (e) Haslar holding centre, (f) Her Majesty's prison Pentonville, (g) Campsfield house detention centre and (h) other establishments, by name, during (1) 1993 and (2) 1994 to the latest convenient date; and how many of these people in each category were (i) women, (ii) children under 18 years and (iii) men.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The available information is given in the table. The other information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Persons detained overnight or longer at certain locations1

  Location, length of stay, type of detainee

  1993

  19944

  Harmondsworth2

  345

  206

  Queen's Building, Heathrow

  1,321

  438

  Haslar

  432

  252

  Terminal 4, Heathrow3:

  Ovemight: Men

  688

  —

  271

  Location, length of stay, type of detainee

  1993

  19944

  Women

  515

  —

  Children under 18 years

  16

  —

  1,219

  —

  More than one night, less than one month:

  Men

  7

  —

  Women

  21

  —

  Children under 18 years

  —

  —

  28

  —

  One month or more

  —

  —

  The Beehive, Gatwick:

  Ovenight:

  Men

  1,279

  366

  Women

  335

  47

  Children under 18 years

  25

  4

  1,639

  417

  More than one night, less than one month:

  Men

  1,344

  1,019

  Women

  435

  318

  Children under 18 years

  33

  32

  1,812

  1,369

  One month or more

  —

  —

  Campsfield House, Kidlington

  Overnight:

  Men

  26

  11

  Women

  3

  5

  Children under 18 years

  1

  —

  30

  16

  More than one night, less than one month:

  Men

  95

  175

  Women

  15

  39

  Children under 18 years

  3

  2

  113

  216

  One month or more:

  Men

  64

  262

  Women

  16

  56

  Children under 18 years

  1

  1

  81

  319

  Stansted:

  Overnight:

  Men

  186

  84

  Women

  66

  16

  Children under 18 years

  2

  3

  More than one night, less than one month:

  Men

  279

  159

  Women

  76

  22

  Children under 18 years

  3

  —

  One month or more

  —

  —

  1 Unless otherwise stated, the data include persons detained initially elsewhere prior to being detained at the location given.

  2 Data mainly exclude persons detained initially elsewhere, and exclude illegal entrants and deportees detained.

  3 Not used for overnight detention after 22 October 1993.

  4 January to June 1994.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were received into prison department establishments under Immigration Act powers during(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 to the latest convenient: date, by individual prison establishment; what was the average daily population of persons so detained in each of those years; what was the average length of time spent in detention by persons so detained in each of those years; and if he will give a breakdown by nationality of persons so detained for each of those years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of detainees received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales 272
  under the Immigration Act 1971 is given in table 1 for 1993 and for January to May 1994. The number is shown by the establishment of initial reception.

  The average population in 1993, including persons originally received for a criminal offence, was 431. The average for January to May 1994 is 510. A breakdown of receptions into Prison Service establishments by nationality is given for 1993 and for January to May 1994 in table 2.

  The average period of detention for detainees released in 1993 and in January to May 1994 is provisionally estimated at 12 weeks and 15 weeks respectively.

  Table 1

  Receptions of persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971 into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales: by establishment 1993 and January-May 1994

  Number of Persons12

  Establishment

  1993

  1994

  Remand Centres

  Blakenhurst

  41

  32

  Brinsford

  5

  6

  Dorchester

  19

  2

  Exeter

  9

  8

  Feltham

  49

  4

  Glen Parva

  1

  1

  Haslar

  475

  188

  Low Newton

  2

  —

  Moorland

  6

  —

  Lancaster Farms

  —

  1

  Local Prisons

  Bedford

  23

  —

  Belmarsh

  38

  7

  Birmingham

  189

  84

  Bristol

  22

  8

  Brixton

  36

  22

  Bullingdon

  1

  2

  Canterbury

  130

  46

  Cardiff

  6

  1

  Chelmsford

  17

  —

  Dover

  35

  25

  Durham

  9

  2

  Elmley

  25

  15

  Gloucester

  8

  3

  Highdown

  56

  20

  Hindley

  1

  —

  Holloway

  59

  17

  Holme House

  10

  5

  Hull

  30

  6

  Leeds

  15

  6

  Leicester

  41

  —

  Lewes

  33

  —

  Lincoln

  12

  —

  Liverpool

  14

  14

  Manchester

  8

  17

  Norwich

  30

  16

  New Hall

  2

  —

  Pentonville

  204

  42

  Preston

  3

  —

  Pucklechurch

  3

  —

  Reading

  5

  3

  Risley

  2

  2

  Rochester

  13

  4

  Shrewsbury

  5

  6

  Swansea

  6

  7

  Wandsworth

  8

  8

  Winchester

  9

  6

  Wolds

  7

  1

  Wood Hill

  9

  —

  Wormwood Scrubs

  26

  11

  Establishment not recorded

  2

  2

  Nationality not recorded/other

  26

  11

  All Establishments

  1,785

  661

  273
  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Table 2

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments by nationality, 1993 to May 1994

  Number of persons12

  Nationality

  1993

  1 January to 31 May 1994

  Afghanistan

  5

  —

  Albania

  4

  3

  Algeria

  105

  49

  Angola

  39

  6

  Anguilla

  1

  1

  Armenia

  1

  —

  Ascensioni Island

  3

  —

  Austria

  1

  —

  Australia

  2

  —

  Bahrain

  1

  —

  Bangladesh

  36

  15

  Barbados

  —

  1

  Belgium

  1

  1

  Brazil

  3

  1

  Bulgaria

  3

  —

  Cameroon, United Republic of

  4

  1

  Canada

  2

  2

  Central African Republic

  2

  —

  Chad

  1

  —

  Chile

  1

  —

  China

  18

  6

  Colombia

  17

  3

  Congo

  4

  —

  Cyprus

  9

  3

  Czechoslovakia

  —

  1

  Denmark

  —

  1

  Dominica

  2

  1

  Djibouti

  1

  1

  Egypt

  12

  2

  Ethiopia

  5

  4

  Equador

  2

  —

  France

  19

  2

  Gambia

  4

  2

  Germany

  3

  1

  Ghana

  119

  55

  Grenada

  1

  —

  Guinea

  2

  —

  Guinea-Bissau

  1

  —

  Guyana

  3

  1

  Haiti

  —

  1

  Hong Kong

  13

  2

  Hungary

  1

  —

  India

  332

  130

  Indonesia

  2

  —

  Iran

  6

  1

  Irish Republic

  5

  2

  Indian Ocean Territories

  1

  —

  Israel

  6

  1

  Iraq

  2

  1

  Italy

  5

  —

  Ivory Coast

  16

  10

  Jamaica

  67

  18

  Japan

  —

  1

  Jordan

  1

  1

  Kenya

  18

  6

  Kuwait

  1

  —

  Lebanon

  11

  2

  Liberia

  11

  7

  Libya

  14

  2

  Malaysia

  9

  1

  Mali

  —

  2

  Morocco

  26

  7

  Mauritania

  1

  —

  Mauritius

  3

  1

  Malawi

  1

  —

  Mexico

  1

  —

  Mozambique

  —

  2

  Netherlands

  —

  5

  Netherland Antillies

  —

  1

  274

  Number of persons12

  Nationality

  1993

  1 January to 31 May 1994

  Nepal

  1

  3

  Nicaragua

  2

  —

  Niger

  5

  2

  Nigeria

  254

  87

  Pakistan

  87

  37

  Peru

  7

  —

  Philippines

  3

  —

  Poland

  12

  5

  Portugal

  3

  3

  Romania

  73

  10

  Russia

  10

  4

  Saudi Arabia

  1

  —

  Senegal

  1

  —

  Singapore

  1

  —

  Sierre Leone

  26

  4

  Slovakia

  —

  1

  Somalia

  22

  5

  South Africa

  9

  4

  Spain

  3

  —

  Sri Lanka

  24

  13

  St. Lucia

  2

  —

  Sudan

  4

  3

  Syrian Arab Republic

  1

  —

  Switzerland

  2

  —

  Tanzania

  11

  4

  Togo

  —

  1

  Thailand

  —

  1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  1

  —

  Tunisia

  4

  3

  Turkey

  117

  54

  Uganda

  12

  —

  United Arab Emirates

  4

  —

  United States of America

  9

  2

  Yemen, Arab Republic (North)

  2

  —

  Yemen, Peoples Democratic Republic (South)

  2

  —

  Yugoslavia

  9

  6

  Zambia

  3

  3

  Zaire

  39

  26

  Zimbabwe

  2

  2

  Nationality not recorded/other

  27

  11

  All

  1,785

  661

  1 The figures are those recorded centrally and are approximate: detailed checking of individual cases would involve disproportionate cost.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 253, how many of the 29 entry clearance applications were successful, how many refused, and how many of those decisions were appealed against;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 26 May, Official Report, column 253, of the 29 entry clearance applications, what is the longest period of time which it has taken for the application to be determined from date of application to notification to the application of decision; what was the average length of time of decision making; and what was the shortest period of time within which a decision was reached.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 254, what was the nationality of the citizens of the Union and the third-country national

  275
  spouses of the 39 applicants for residence documents who were interviewed in respect of their applications in 1993 and 1994;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 26 May, Official Report, column 254, how many of the 39 applications made between 1993 and 1994 for residence documents, in which an interview was carried out, applications were (a) granted, (b) refused and (c) were otherwise disposed; and in what way they were so disposed of.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18 July,Official Report, columns 36–38.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for asylum have been refused with 48 hours in which to lodge an appeal since 26 July 1993; and how many people served with such notice have lodged appeals;

  (2) how many asylum applications, by nationality, have been refused as being unfounded (a) on safe third-country grounds and (b) on other grounds.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information, covering the period 1 August 1993 to 30 June 1994, on the number of refusals on safe third-country by nationality is given in the table. There were 845 third-country refusals, of which an estimated 300 were "fast-track" refusals who had 48 hours in which to lodge an appeal. In addition, provisional data suggest that about 300 cases have been refused on other without-foundation grounds.

  Information on the number of "fast-track" appeals lodged or on the nationality of those refused on other without-foundation grounds is not readily available.

  Decisions12 to refuse asylum and exceptional leave on safe third country grounds3, by nationality. 1 August 1993 to 30 June 1994

  Number of principal applicants

  Europe and Americas

  Number

  Bulgaria

  *

  Colombia

  10

  Romania

  20

  Turkey

  110

  Former USSR

  15

  Former Yugoslavia

  35

  Others

  30

  Africa

  Angola

  40

  Benin

  *

  Cameroon

  *

  Congo

  5

  Ethiopia

  30

  Ghana

  60

  Nigeria

  25

  Sierra Leone

  30

  Somalia

  80

  Sudan

  5

  Togo & Ivory Coast

  15

  Uganda

  10

  Zaire

  35

  Others

  80

  Total

  425

  Middle East

  Iran

  10

  Iraq

  20

  Lebanon

  5

  Others

  15

  276

  Europe and Americas

  Number

  Total

  45

  Asia

  China

  10

  India

  20

  Pakistan

  15

  Sri Lanka

  95

  Others

  10

  Total

  155

  Other and unknown nationalities

  *

  Grand total

  845

  1 Excluding dependants.

  2 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with '*'=1 or 2.

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

  Deportations
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women, have been deported in the first six months of 1994; and what was the nationality of each person.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been deported from Scotland in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The number of people whose departure was enforced as a result of deportation action initiated in Scotland in each of the years 1989–1993 is shown in the table. The table also shows separately the number of people who were removed as illegal entrants. The sex of those concerned is not recorded centrally and such a breakdown could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Deportation action

  33

  11

  29

  46

  16

  Illegal entry action

  18

  12

  37

  35

  15

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Howard
  The information requested is as follows:

  year

  Number who joined

  Number who left

  1990

  1

  2

  1991

  1

  —

  1992

  2

  2

  1993

  2

  2

  11994

  —

  —

  1 To date.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many special advisers who left
  277
  his Department in each of the last five years became (a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (2) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Howard
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Fire Regulations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make new Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations; when they will take effect; what estimates he has made of the provisional costs to(a) the public sector generally and (b) schools of complying with the new regulations.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will implement the Fire Precautions (Place of Work) Regulations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The report of the interdepart-mental review of fire safety legislation and enforcement recommended that the Home Office should not proceed with the proposed Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations but that the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 should instead be amended to implement fully the framework and workplace directives relating to the health and safety of workers at work. The Government are considering those recommendations.

  The possible compliance costs to the public sector, including schools, have still to be finally assessed in the light of comments from other Government Departments. However, a compliance cost assessment will form part of any consultation document containing proposals for regulations to implement the general fire safety provisions of the framework and workplace directives.

  Racial Equality
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many race equality councils, or community relations councils, were in existence each year since 1988; and how many race equality officers, or their equivalent, grant-aided by the Commission for Racial Equality, were in post in each of these years.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of racial equality councils—RECs—funded by the Commission for Racial Equality under section 44 of the Race Relations Act 1976 from 1988 is as follows. Almost all of these also receive local authority funding.

  Number

  1988

  85

  1989

  84

  1990

  83

  1991

  91

  278

  Number

  1992

  88

  1993

  91

  These figures do not include RECs which are funded only by the local authority. In 1993 the total number of RECs in the country was approximately 104.

  The numbers of racial equality officers funded by the Commission for Racial Equality since 1988 is as follows:

  Number

  1988

  199

  1989

  191

  1990

  201

  1991

  211

  1992

  192

  1993

  150

  Prison Statistics
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost per month of keeping someone in prison in 1993–94.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average cost per month of keeping someone in prison in 1993–94.
  The estimated net operating cost per prisoner per month for 1993–94 is £2,326.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ethnic breakdown of all prisoners received into prisons in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average cost per month of keeping someone in prison in 1993–94.
  The estimated net operating cost per prisoner per month for 1993–94 is £2,326.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ethnic breakdown of all prisoners received into prisons in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what was the ethnic breakdown of all prisoners received into prisons in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years.
  An ethnic breakdown by age and type of custody for prisoners received during the period July 1984 to March 1985 is shown in Tables 5 and 6 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 17/86 "The Ethnic Origins of Prisoners; the Prison Population on 30 June 1985 and Persons Received, July 1984—March 1985"; a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The corresponding information for receptions in 1990 is in the attached table.
  279

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments in 1990: by ethnic origin, age, type of custody and sex

  England and Wales

  Number and percentage1

  Ethnic origin

  Type of prisoner

  White

  West Indian Guyanese African

  Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi

  Chinese Arab Mixed origin

  Other, not recorded (including refusals)

  Totals

  MALES

  Number

  Aged under 21

  Untried

  15,033

  1,130

  388

  422

  268

  17,241

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  6,573

  414

  129

  159

  112

  7,387

  Under sentence

  Immediate custody

  12,463

  771

  323

  283

  159

  13,999

  Fine defaulters

  3,190

  71

  29

  36

  34

  3,360

  Non-criminal prisoners

  Immigration Act 1971

  2

  19

  6

  14

  7

  48

  Others

  45

  6

  —

  —

  2

  53

  Aged 21 and over

  Untried

  26,839

  4,041

  792

  640

  351

  32,663

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  8,514

  941

  181

  163

  76

  9,875

  Under sentence

  Immediate imprisonment

  30,121

  3,031

  746

  507

  332

  34,737

  Fine defaulters

  11,638

  540

  103

  117

  56

  12,454

  Non-criminal prisoners

  Immigration Act 1971

  37

  382

  199

  117

  110

  845

  Others

  1,103

  108

  48

  21

  12

  1,292

  Aged under 21

  Percentage

  Untried

  87·2

  6·6

  2·3

  2·4

  1·6

  100

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  89·0

  5·6

  1·7

  2·2

  1·5

  100

  Under sentence

  Immediate custody

  89·0

  5·5

  2·3

  2·0

  1·1

  100

  Fine defaulters

  94·9

  2·1

  0·9

  1·1

  1·0

  100

  Non-criminal prisoners

  Immigration Act 1971

  4·2

  39·6

  12·5

  29·2

  14·6

  100

  Others

  84·9

  11·3

  —

  —

  3·8

  100

  Aged 21 and over

  Untried

  82·2

  12·4

  2·4

  2·0

  1·1

  100

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  86·2

  9·5

  1·8

  1·7

  0·8

  100

  Under sentence

  Immediate imprisonment

  86·7

  8·7

  2·1

  1·5

  1·0

  100

  Fine defaulters

  93·4

  4·3

  0·8

  0·9

  0·4

  100

  Non-criminal prisoners

  Immigration Act 1971

  4·4

  45·2

  23·6

  13·8

  13·0

  100

  Others

  85·4

  84

  3·7

  1·6

  0·9

  100

  FEMALES

  Aged under 21

  Totals

  Untried

  562

  54

  4

  32

  27

  679

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  251

  12

  2

  10

  8

  283

  Under sentence

  Immediate custody

  319

  40

  4

  14

  4

  381

  Fine defaulters

  150

  5

  1

  4

  2

  162

  Non-criminal prisoners

  Immigration Act 1971

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Others

  8

  1

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Aged 21 and over

  Untried

  1,447

  340

  28

  103

  75

  1,993

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  550

  85

  8

  19

  21

  683

  Under sentence

  Immediate imprisonment

  1,351

  253

  15

  68

  47

  1,734

  Fine defaulters

  603

  46

  1

  22

  11

  683

  Non-criminal prisoners

  Immigration Act 1971

  —

  15

  1

  3

  1

  20

  Others

  29

  11

  2

  1

  1

  44

  Aged under 21

  Percentage

  Untried

  82·8

  8·0

  0·6

  4·7

  4·0

  100

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  88·7

  4·2

  0·7

  3·5

  2·8

  100

  Under sentence

  Immediate custody

  83·7

  10·5

  1·0

  3·7

  1·0

  100

  280 281

  Ethnic origin

  Type of prisoner

  White

  West Indian Guyanese African

  Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi

  Chinese Arab Mixed origin

  Other, not (including refusals)

  Totals

  Fine defaulters

  92·6

  3·1

  0·6

  2·5

  1·2

  100

  Non-criminal prisoners

  Immigration Act 1971

  33·3

  66·7

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Others

  88·9

  11·1

  —

  —

  —

  100

  Aged 21 and over

  Untried

  72·6

  17·1

  1·4

  5·2

  3·8

  100

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  80·5

  12·4

  1·2

  2·8

  3·1

  100

  Under sentence

  Immediate imprisonment

  77·9

  14·6

  0·9

  3·9

  2·7

  100

  Fine defaulters

  88·3

  6·7

  0·1

  3·2

  1·6

  100

  Non-criminal prisoners

  Immigration Act 1971

  —

  75·0

  5·0

  15·0

  5·0

  100

  Others

  65·9

  25·0

  4·5

  2·3

  2·3

  100

  1 Percentages rounded independently and may not add up to totals.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the ethnic breakdown of all prisoners in England and Wales at the latest available date.

  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.

  Population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 31 May 1994 by sex and ethnic origin1

  Ethnic Origin

  White

  Black African, Carbbean, Other

  South Asian Bangladeshi, Indian Pakistani

  Chinese and Other Other Asian, Other, Indian Pakistani Chinese, Not recorded (including refusal)

  All persons

  Males

  39,028

  5,283

  1,372

  1,061

  46,744

  Females

  1,346

  363

  28

  51

  1,788

  Total

  40,374

  5,646

  1,400

  1,112

  48,532

  1 Provisional figures.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) sentenced and (b) unsentenced prisoners are currently being held in temporary allocation centres; and at which prisons in England and Wales.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of prisoners held in temporary allocation centres.
  The only temporary allocation centre is located at Risley prison. On 15 July, the Risley temporary allocation centre held 138 sentenced and 24 unsentenced prisoners.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male foreign nationals and (b) female foreign nationals were held in prison in England and Wales at the latest available date.
  282
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question on the ethnic breakdown of all prisoners in England and Wales at the latest available date.
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 May 1994 and is given in the attached table.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) male foreign nations and (b) female foreign nationals were held in prison in England and Wales at the latest available date.
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 May 1994. On that date there were 3,780 non-British citizens (3,470 males and 310 females) in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. This includes 600 male and 20 female nationals from the Irish Republic. A further 470 persons had no nationality recorded.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown by gender of all prisoners in England and Wales at the latest available date.

  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.
  283
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking if he will give a breakdown by gender of all prisoners in England and Wales at the latest available date.
  On 15 July 1994 there were 47,247 males and 1,859 females held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. A further 121 males were held in police cells.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give a breakdown by age of all prisoners in England and Wales at the latest available date.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking if he will give a breakdown by age of all prisoners in England and Wales at the latest available date.
  The latest available information is for 31 May 1994. On that date there were 8,366 young offenders, ie persons aged under 21 years of age or 21 year old sentenced prisoners not classified as adults, and 40,166 adults held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. More detailed information by age for sentenced prisoners is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (table 1·10 of the 1992 edition, Cm 2581), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on which occasions since 1 April prisoners have been held three to a cell designed for one; at which prisons; and how many prisoners have been held three to a cell on each occasion.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for one.
  This information is reported by establishments on the last Friday of each month.
  Since 1 April 1994, no prisoners have been reported as sharing three to a cell designed for one.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners have committed suicide in the year 1994–95 to date; and how many of those were remand prisoners;

  (2) how many of the prisoners who committed suicide in 1993–94 were remand prisoners.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994.
  284
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about self-inflicted deaths in prison.
  This information is collected by calendar year, and is given in the following table.

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Remand

  Total

  Remand

  1993

  46

  19

  1

  1

  1994 (until 18 July)

  24

  10

  1

  0

  Firearms
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the level of firearms fees and extend the period of validity of a firearms or shotgun certificate.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used in determining the level of fee paid for a firearm or shotgun licence.

  Mr. Howard
  We have been reviewing the level of fees under the Firearms Acts and considering whether the life of a firearm or shot-gun certificate should be increased. As a result of this, I will be laying an order in both Houses in the autumn increasing the following fees:

  Current Fee

  Proposed New Fee

  Firearm Certificate

  Issue

  46

  56

  Shot Gun Certificate

  Issue

  17

  43

  Renew

  11

  18

  Registered Firearm Dealer

  Issue of certificate

  94

  118

  Home Office Club Approval

  33

  84

  The following fees will remain at their current level:

  £

  Firearm certificate renewal

  46

  Firearm certificate variation

  26

  Firearm certificate replacement

  9

  Shotgun certificate replacement

  8

  Registered firearm dealer renewal

  50

  Register dealer in new area for purpose of game fair, etc.

  12

  Individual British visitor's permit

  12

  Group British visitor's permit

  60

  Museum licence

  1200

  Grant of coterminous certificate

  5

  1 Maximum.

  I also intend to lay an order before both Houses in the autumn increasing the life of firearm and shot-gun certificates from three to five years, using the power granted to me by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1992. I intend that both orders will take effect from 1 January 1995.

  The proposed fee levels are designed to reflect the cost to the police service of operating the system, taking into account the best practice guidelines for administering the firearms licensing system which we issued to chief officers in 1991 and a subsequent costing exercise undertaken by the consultants Ernst and Young.
  285
  In calculating costs we have assumed that police forces are already well on the way to operating best practice and will continue to make efficiency savings during the five-year period over which costs have been calculated. In the case of shotgun fees the cost of additional checks required since the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is reflected for the first time. In particular, on first application, the police must make a home visit to make sure that the requirement for safe keeping at all times is satisfied. The increase for issue of a shotgun certificate amounts to only £3 per year over the five-year period of certificate life. The fee for renewal of a shotgun certificate remains almost exactly the same per year as it is now.

  Those shooters who take advantage of the coterminous certificate arrangements will be better off as they will still pay £51 for five-year certificates instead of three-year certificates.

  Without these increases there would be a shortfall in income of some £8 million over the five years to meet the police costs, a shortfall which would have to be met at the expense of some other police activity.

  I have today placed in the Library of both Houses a copy of the Ernst and Young report "Firearms Licensing Costs".

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a similar separate order in relation to fees in Scotland.

  Prisoners' Compacts
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons in England and Wales prisoners' compacts were in operation at the latest available date.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about prisons in England and Wales in which prisoners' compacts were in operation at the latest available date.
  On 30 June 61 establishments were operating prisoners' compacts. A list is attached as an annex.

  Annex

  Haslar

  Askham Grange

  Hatfield

  Aylesbury

  High Down

  Bedford

  Hindley

  Blakenhurst

  Hollesley Bay

  Blantyre House

  Hull

  Blundeston

  Kirklevington Grange

  Brinsford

  Leyhill

  Bristol

  Lincoln

  Bullwood Hall

  Lindholme

  Canterbury

  Long Lartin

  Chelmsford

  Low Newton

  Coldingley

  Maidstone

  Deerbolt

  Manchester

  Dorchester

  Moorland

  Downview

  The Mount

  Drake Hall

  New Hall

  Durham

  Nottingham

  Erlestoke House

  Northallerton

  Eversthorpe

  Norwich

  Featherstone

  Pentonville

  Feltham

  Risley

  Gloucester

  Rochester

  Grendon

  Send

  286

  Spring Hill

  Wakefield

  Stocken

  Werrington

  Stoke Heat

  Wetherby

  Swaleside

  Whitemoor

  Swinfen Hall

  Winchester

  Thorn Cross

  Wormwood Scrubs

  Thorp Arch

  Wymott

  Fine Defaulters
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) female fine defaulters and (b) male fine defaulters were received into prisons in England and Wales in 1993;

  (2) what percentage of receptions into prisons in England and Wales in 1993 were fine defaulters.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions asking how many (a) female fine defaulters and (b) male fine defaulters were received into prisons in England and Wales in 1993 and what percentage of receptions into prisons in England and Wales in 1993 were fine defaulters.
  Provisional information for 1993 shows that 21,280 males and 1,340 females were received into Prison Service establishments for fine default accounting for 30 per cent. of all persons received under sentence.

  Prison Drug Programmes
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 203, what assessment has he made of the effectiveness of drug addiction programmes in prisons; and what plans there are to increase the number of drug programmes available to prisoners.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question on drug addiction programmes in prisons.
  The Prison Service are commissioning an external research team to evaluate a drug treatment programme that has been running in one establishment for over two years.
  An external researcher has also been commissioned to provide a literature review of different types of drug treatment programme used in the Prison Service, other prison systems and/or the community.
  The results of these two pieces of research will help to inform the Prison Service Strategic Plan on which treatment programmes are best suited to prisons and how many programmes will be required.

  Prison Accommodation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) certified normal accommodation, (b) operational capacity and (c) actual population at each prison in England and Wales at the latest available date.
  287
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the capacity and population of prisons in England and Wales.
  The attached table shows the certified normal accommodation (CNA), operational capacity and actual population of each prison on 30 June 1994.

  Certified normal accommodation, operational capacity and population in prisons in England and Wales on 30 June 1994

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation in use

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Acklington

  658

  658

  597

  Albany

  436

  436

  427

  Aldington

  127

  127

  118

  Ashwell

  404

  404

  388

  Askham Grange

  126

  127

  100

  Aylesbury

  230

  233

  228

  Bedford

  303

  329

  294

  Belmarsh

  841

  841

  712

  Birmingham

  562

  850

  790

  Blakenhurst

  649

  649

  612

  Blantyre House

  95

  95

  94

  Blundeston

  408

  408

  395

  Brinsford

  446

  446

  439

  Bristol

  423

  473

  426

  Brixton

  484

  668

  597

  Brockhill

  111

  120

  79

  Bullingdon

  635

  635

  615

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  125

  120

  Camp Hill

  378

  441

  400

  Canterbury

  184

  275

  271

  Cardiff

  334

  450

  430

  Castington

  300

  300

  276

  Channings Wood

  594

  594

  569

  Chelmsford

  230

  393

  348

  Coldingley

  292

  292

  282

  Cookham Wood

  120

  120

  120

  Dartmoor

  538

  538

  497

  Deerbolt

  450

  450

  385

  Doncaster

  771

  120

  169

  Dorchester

  138

  232

  212

  Dover

  316

  316

  246

  Downview

  287

  291

  279

  Drake Hall

  255

  255

  226

  Durham

  399

  577

  629

  East Sutton Park

  94

  94

  84

  Elmley

  627

  627

  603

  Erlestoke

  250

  250

  243

  Everthorpe

  228

  228

  223

  Exeter

  274

  473

  385

  Featherstone

  599

  599

  566

  Feltham

  842

  842

  784

  Finnamore Wood

  106

  106

  11

  Ford

  536

  536

  450

  Frankland

  447

  432

  426

  Full Sutton

  604

  576

  551

  Garth

  512

  512

  504

  Gartree

  277

  277

  265

  Glen Parva

  767

  788

  769

  Gloucester

  211

  271

  255

  Grendon

  190

  186

  181

  Guys Marsh

  240

  180

  176

  Hollesley Bay

  365

  365

  298

  Haslar

  131

  131

  143

  Hatfield

  180

  180

  177

  Haverigg

  381

  381

  362

  Hewell Grange

  156

  179

  168

  Highdown

  549

  549

  529

  288

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation in use

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Highpoint

  679

  679

  610

  Hindley

  280

  319

  307

  Holloway

  517

  532

  483

  Holme House

  649

  649

  594

  Hull

  328

  430

  366

  Huntercombe

  226

  225

  210

  Kingston

  154

  154

  137

  Kirkham

  644

  620

  551

  Kirklevington

  74

  74

  71

  Lancaster Farms

  364

  364

  364

  Lancaster

  260

  246

  256

  Latchmere House

  145

  145

  142

  Leeds

  814

  1,168

  1,108

  Leicester

  192

  348

  335

  Lewes

  282

  377

  306

  Leyhill

  410

  410

  398

  Lincoln

  444

  628

  627

  Lindholme

  567

  567

  539

  Littlehey

  593

  583

  553

  Liverpool

  931

  1,267

  1,169

  Long Lartin

  362

  362

  350

  Low Newton

  198

  343

  253

  Maidstone

  485

  485

  476

  Manchester

  850

  850

  850

  Moorland

  635

  635

  621

  Morton Hall

  168

  168

  165

  New Hall

  169

  169

  180

  North Sea Camp

  201

  201

  108

  Northallerton

  150

  219

  159

  Norwich

  327

  476

  384

  Nottingham

  222

  222

  207

  Onley

  520

  520

  450

  Oxford

  107

  120

  46

  Parkhurst

  306

  266

  229

  Pentonville

  559

  765

  742

  Portland

  420

  420

  330

  Preston

  382

  545

  489

  Pucklechurch

  56

  81

  62

  Ranby

  347

  347

  348

  Reading

  182

  205

  150

  Risley

  751

  716

  700

  Rochester

  294

  330

  208

  Rudgate

  287

  300

  268

  Send

  113

  113

  111

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  211

  170

  Shrewsbury

  168

  307

  301

  Spring Hill

  210

  210

  211

  Stafford

  358

  530

  511

  Standford Hill

  384

  384

  389

  Stocken

  396

  396

  389

  Stoke Heath

  300

  300

  267

  Styal

  180

  209

  227

  Sudbury

  413

  348

  351

  Sudbury (Foston Hall)

  96

  96

  92

  Swaleside

  512

  512

  499

  Swansea

  155

  220

  209

  Swinfen Hall

  182

  182

  182

  Thorn Cross

  209

  209

  177

  The Mount

  484

  484

  490

  The Verne

  552

  538

  528

  The Wolds

  320

  368

  359

  Thorp Arch

  166

  166

  164

  Usk

  241

  241

  234

  Wormwood Scrubs

  714

  1,050

  850

  Wakefield

  718

  718

  693

  Wandsworth

  821

  1,033

  866

  Wayland

  580

  580

  543

  Wellingborough

  344

  314

  308

  Werrington

  110

  110

  101

  Wetherby

  196

  196

  174

  Whatton

  216

  216

  212

  Whitemoor

  534

  524

  486

  Winchester

  368

  492

  396

  Woodhill

  566

  566

  507

  Wymott

  432

  384

  376

  289

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation in use

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Total

  48,942

  52,767

  48,897

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average wait for all Bangladeshi applicants for entry clearance in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The information available centrally is of waiting times to first interview. This 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.

  Game Licences
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to abolish the requirement for those who kill game to hold game licences.

  Mr. Howard
  I have decided that the licensing requirements for those who take or kill game, contained in the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860, should be abolished. Such abolition will also apply in Scotland.

  Firearms Licences
  Sir IvanLawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to establish a national firearms licensing board.

  Mr. Howard
  The proposal to establish a national firearms licensing authority to take over the administration of firearms licensing from the police was the subject of a public consultation paper in 1992, following a brief feasibility study. That study indicated that it would be feasible to introduce a national civilian-operated system which could be more cost-effective and achieve greater consistency in decision making.

  A comprehensive revision of the original feasibility study has now been completed and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. It concludes that the establishment of a national licensing authority would generally improve the efficiency of the system, improve the quality of service to shooters in some areas and bring a consistency of approach to decision making. It did not address the question of how this could best be achieved but made a number of suggestions to improve the administration of the firearms licensing system.

  However, the report also indicates that the original study, because of its limited remit, significantly underestimated the amount of work involved in the licensing system and that the staffing required for a national authority would be substantially higher than the levels originally proposed. The original study estimated start-up costs of £2·5 million and annual running costs of approximately £6 million. The revised study estimates that start-up costs would amount to about £4·1 million with an annual running cost in excess of £10 million. This is substantially more than the estimated cost of operating the current police system, which in 1994–95 is £7·6 million.
  290
  The report also identifies the need for a significant amount of continued police involvement in firearms licensing, the risk of duplication of effort and the difficulties involved in the interface of any licensing authority and the police.

  After careful consideration of all the factors involved, I have decided not to proceed with the proposal to establish a separate firearms licensing authority. I accept that despite the efforts of police licensing departments there is still considerable scope for improving the efficiency and the consistency of approach of the existing firearms licensing system to the benefit of both the shooting fraternity and the police. Now that the future direction of the licensing system is settled, we must concentrate on building upon the improvements already achieved and I will be pursuing with the Association of Chief Police Officers and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary how existing "best practice" guidelines can be more consistently implemented.

  Similar action will be taken on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Prison Staff
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of(a) staff posts and (b) actual numbers in post in each prison in England and Wales by rank, gender and race.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 May 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 A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 20 July 1994
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about staff posts and numbers in post in prisons in England and Wales.
  Table A lists target staffing figures (TSF) or funded posts and total staff in post at each prison on 30 April 1994. On 1 April 1993 Prison Service Headquarters devolved to governors the responsibility for recruiting prison officers and, subject to the maximum set by target staffing figures, deciding the number and mix of staff within their running costs budget. For historical reasons, some TSFs reflect former complements which were unfunded. Establishments now generally use funded posts, ie the number of posts assumed in setting the budget, as their yardstick for staffing purposes.
  A breakdown of prison officer grades in post at every prison, showing the numbers in each grade who are women or member of ethnic minorities is at tables B and C. A breakdown of other staff could only be produced at disproportionate cost. The readily available information in table D shows the numbers in each grade who are women or members of ethnic minorities for the Service as a whole. The figures for Doncaster, which opened on 27 June, have not been given as it is not yet fully staffed.
  A copy of these tables has been placed in the House of Commons library.

  EU Citizens
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom citizens live and work in other EU member states; and how many citizens of each other EU member states live and work in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Estimates of the number of foreign nationals from each EU member state who are in employment and living in the

  291
  United Kingdom are available from the labour force survey and are shown in the table. Information on the number of United Kingdom nationals working in other EU member states is not held centrally.

  Numbers of foreign nationals of each EU member state in the United Kingdom

  United Kingdom—Spring 1993

  Number aged 16 or over living in the United Kingdom and in employment

  Nationality

  Thousands

  Ireland

  223

  Italy

  41

  France

  27

  Portugal

  18

  Federal Republic of Germany

  14

  Netherlands

  11

  Spain

  11

  Greece

  10

  Denmark

  1—

  Belgium

  1—

  Luxembourg

  1—

  Source:

  1 Estimates below 10,000 not shown.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has that identity cards containing electronicallystored information have contributed to a reduction in fraud in countries where they have been used.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department holds no evidence of the contribution to the reduction in fraud levels relating to ID cards containing electronically stored information.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has instigated into the percentage or degree of error inherent in reading electronic identity cards.

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  No research has been instigated into the percentage or degree of error inherent in reading electronic ID cards. In the context of a wider study on smart cards, Office of Public Service and Science officials have discussed the error rates relating to cards used within the banking sector. The false rejection rate is believed to be in the order of one in 100,000 uses.

SCOTLAND

  Skin Cancer
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from the Association of Dermatologists on education about skin cancer in schools.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has not received any advice from the Association of Dermatologists on education about skin cancer in schools.

  NHS asset Sales
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in each case since 1991–92 of land having been sold by a health board or NHS trust, whether the land was(a) donated to the NHS, (b) donated to a body pre-dating the creation of the NHS or (c) bought with public funds.
  292
  Mr. Stewart
  Comprehensive information of the kind requested is not held centrally. This sort of detail is usually obtainable only from deeds, which are delivered to the purchaser on sale, and even these will not necessarily contain the appropriate information.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will require health board and NHS trusts to make public their decisions on what to do with the proceeds of sales of surplus land and buildings; and if he will require them to be used for improving patient services.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is for the NHS body managing the sale to consider what publicity should be given to decisions on the use of proceeds. For many years it has been the position that these proceeds should be used for the improvement of patient care.

  Disabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced the publication of a consultation document on 15 July. The Scottish Office contributed to its preparation. En welcoming its publication, my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, invited everyone in Scotland with an interest in the issue, especially disabled people themselves, to let us have their views.

  Child Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 Scotland for each of these years.

  Mr. Stewart
  Details of public expenditure on out-of-school services have not been separately identified. Indications are, however, that the number of such schemes is growing. This is being assisted by the Government's £45 million initiative aimed at encouraging the establishment of viable out-of-school and holiday schemes for school age children and by the support provided under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for the Scottish Out-of-School Childcare Network.

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available information about public expenditure on nursery schools and classes since 1989–90 is:
  293

  £ million

  1989–90

  39·69

  1990–91

  45·25

  1991–92

  51·23

  1992–93

  56·03

  That expressed as a percentage of estimated Scottish GDP is:

  Per cent.

  1989–90

  0·11

  1990–91

  0·11

  1991–92

  0·12

  1992–93

  0·13

  Information on expenditure related to children under five who attend primary schools is not recorded separately.

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total amount of funding allocated by his Department to Highlands and Islands Enterprise for development initiatives in Kintyre(a) in the current financial year and (b) over the past three financial years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The allocation of funds to specific areas for economic and social development purposes is the responsibility of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost to the nearest £10,000 of market testing and related operations in the Scottish Prison Service.

  Lord James-Douglas Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Tam Dalyell, dated 20 July 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost of market testing and related operations in the Scottish Prison Service.
  The best estimate of cost to date, including staff time and consultancy fees in connection with market testing and related operations in the Scottish Prison Service, is approximately £950,000.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has employed two special advisers over the last five years, one of whom left in 1990 and was replaced.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years;
  294
  (2) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became (a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants.

  Mr. Lang
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Foreign Prisoners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the official foreign language prison documents that are available to foreign prisoners being held in prisons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 20 July 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about official foreign language prison documents available to foreign prisoners being held in prisons.
  The Scottish Prison Service provides "Notes for Guidance of Prisoners on Reception into Prison" in a number of languages. There is also available to foreign prisoners a Home Office Immigration and Nationality Department information leaflet which provides information on prisoners' rights and welfare matters. An SPS Prisoner's Information Pack is in course of preparation and consideration is being given to its translation in other languages.
  In every establishment a member of staff has been appointed to act as Ethnic Minority Liaison Officer with responsibility for monitoring the welfare and progress of foreign prisoners. Their role includes interviewing such prisoners on admission and arranging interpreter facilities for prisoners with language difficulties.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to make a statement following the responses to his consultation paper "Tackling Homelessness".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend received a large number of detailed responses to the consultation paper which he will consider carefully before making decisions to deal with homelessness in Scotland.

  Wheelchairs
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many disabled persons were provided with powered wheelchairs by the Wheelchair Service in each of the past five years; and how many such applications were turned down in the same period of time;

  (2) how many wheelchairs have been distributed to disabled people in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the expected life of a wheelchair issued by the Wheelchair Service; and after what interval a user may seek a replacement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information is not held centrally.

  On average 5,500 new wheelchairs, both manual and powered, are purchased annually for NHS patients, but wheelchairs can be issued and re-issued on more than one

  295
  occasion in the course of a year if returned as being no longer required. There is no stipulated period for replacement of a wheelchair since this will depend on usage, the condition of the chair and whether repair is possible. It is for the staff in wheelchair centres to decide when a replacement chair would be appropriate.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of food poisoning were repotted in Scotland in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  The numbers of cases of food poisoning notified by doctors to health boards are set out as follows:

  Year

  Number of notifications

  1979

  2,657

  1980

  2,299

  1981

  2,920

  1982

  2,880

  1983

  2,632

  1984

  2,391

  1985

  1,967

  1986

  2,436

  1987

  2,480

  1988

  2,998

  1989

  3,197

  1990

  3,024

  1991

  2,938

  1992

  3,317

  1993

  3,255

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of laboratory reports of salmonella in foodstuffs in Scotland in each year since 1979; and what is the latest available figure for this year.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Information on the number of such reports of salmonella in foodstuffs is not held centrally; data are available on reported cases of salmonellosis, but these do not distinguish between cases originating from food or other sources.

  Operating Theatres
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures for operating theatre sessions postponed or cancelled in each of the past four years because there were insufficient appropriate operating theatre staff available in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures and those for the previous four years of the number of operating theatre sessions postponed or cancelled because the appropriate back-up resources were absent or insufficient for(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Carers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest figures for the number of carers in(a) the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Mr. Stewart
  The 1990 general household survey estimated that there were 150,000 carers in Scotland who were looking after someone with whom they lived, and a further 600,000 carers providing help to people who lived elsewhere. No information on individual local authorities is held centrally.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the current membership of Scottish Enterprise along with the cost associated with servicing it and remuneration or expenses paid to its members in respect of their duties.

  Mr. Stewart
  The current membership of Scottish Enterprise and the remuneration, and so on, paid to its members in respect of their duties are set out in Scottish Enterprise's annual report and accounts which were laid before Parliament on 13 July 1994. The associated administrative cost of servicing the membership of Scottish Enterprise is an operational matter for that body and I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  School Meals
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, for each year since 1987, what was the percentage of school pupils entitled to free school meals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested taken from annual school meals census returns is as follows:

  Percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals

  Per cent.

  1988

  n/a

  1989

  n/a

  1990

  16·8

  1991

  16·9

  19921

  17·2

  1993

  18·2

  1 Excludes data for 28 nursery schools in Ayr Division of Strathclyde, and 21 special schools in Dumfries and Galloway.

  n/a = Not available.

  Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much Scottish Homes spent hosting its landlord awareness seminar at its headquarters in June;

  (2) how much Scottish Homes is paying Management Consultancy Services for examining its management structure;

  (3) how much Scottish Homes has spent on its membership of the Quality Scotland Foundation;

  (4) how much Scottish Homes expects to spend pursuing its application for the charter mark under the charter mark scheme;

  (5) if he will make a statement on the costs incurred by Scottish Homes in holding its informal lunch for new employees in June;
  297
  (6) how much Scottish Homes has spent on corporate hospitality during the last 12 months.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is a matter for Scottish Homes. I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  Charter Marks
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which public bodies under the operational control of the Scottish Office are now in receipt of the charter mark.

  Mr. Lang
  The following six public bodies which are sponsored by my Department are in receipt of charter mark awards:

  Her Majesty's Prison, Dungavel, Lanarkshire

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Dumfries and Galloway Police

  Dumfries and Galloway Fire Brigade

  Tayside Police

  University of Strathclyde, Careers Advisory Service

  Her Majesty's Prison, Dungavel received its award in 1992. The other bodies received their awards in 1993.

  Agricultural Payments
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the total areas claimed by arable farmers in the Scottish non-less favoured area for crops and set-aside under the arable area payments scheme in 1994; how those figures relate to the baseline areas declared to the European Commission; what estimate he has made of the overshoot; and if he will make a statement on the scale of penalty that is likely to arise from such an overshoot.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: The total areas claimed by arable farmers in the Scottish non-less favoured area under the arable area payments scheme in 1994, and so far recorded, are as follows:

  Hectares

  Cereals

  270,491

  Linseed

  259

  Oilseeds

  63,155

  Protein Crops

  2,042

  Set-aside

  69,671

  less uncompensated set-aside1

  2,190

  Simplified scheme

  19,395

  Total

  422,823

  1 The uncompensated element of the set-aside claim is not counted against the base area.

  These figures are provisional and my Department's analysis of the claims is not yet complete. In particular, they do not include details of arable claims in respect of Scottish non-LFA land submitted to the other United Kingdom Agriculture Departments. In addition to the AAPS areas claimed, the EC rules also require that five-year set-aside land and land forming part of a forage area claim but growing cereals, linseed, oilseeds or protein crops—CLOPs—must also be counted against the base area. My Department's provisional estimate of these areas against the base area already submittted to the European Commission is as follows:
  298

  Hectares

  Total of arable claims (as above)

  422,823

  Estimate of Scottish non-LFA land submitted to the other United Kingdom Agriculture Departments

  2,721

  Five-year set-aside (provisional)

  8,810

  CLOPs in forage

  12,471

  Total

  446,825

  BASE AREA

  430,467

  Overshoot (PROVISIONAL)

  16,358

  (3·8 PER CENT.)

  Because of the measures which the Government obtained in Brussels to reduce the impact of the 1993 overshoot, only 20 per cent. of the penalties due in respect of the 1994 harvest in the Scottish non-LFA will be applied. A 3·8 per cent. overshoot would result in a 0·76 per cent. additional uncompensated set-aside requirement in 1995 and a corresponding reduction in AAPS payment rates this year. Regardless of the overshoot, between the autumn and next spring my Department will be paying over £120 million to Scottish farmers under the arable regime. This is a significant increase on last year's payments.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his target for the number of psychiatric beds by 1999; and what is the current number of such beds.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: There are no such targets setting the number of psychiatric beds although there is a long-term aim to reduce long-stay beds by around 8,000. It is for individual health boards to determine future in-patient bed numbers, based on assessment of patients who are likely to require continuing specialist medical and nursing supervision.

  The current average number of staffed psychiatric beds available is shown in the table.

  Psychiatric speciality

  Number of beds

  Adolescent psychiatry

  63

  Child psychiatry

  56

  Mental illness

  5,120

  Psychogeriatrics

  5,960

  Psychiatric specialties

  11,199

  This excludes long-stay provision for people with learning disabilities and for the frail elderly.

  Nurse Training and Education
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 July 1994]: It is for health boards as employers of Colleges of Nursing and Midwifery teaching and other staff, to determine what action should be taken in relation to surplus staff, in the light of local circumstances.
  299
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost of the changes in nurse education since 1989 which result from the introduction of Project 2000.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 19 July 1994]: The total cost to nurse education of the introduction in 1992 of Project 2000 is not separately identifiable. However, additional specific funding of approximately £57 million was made to health boards between 1990–91 and 1993–94. From 1994–5 onwards this additional funding is not identified separately in the health boards' allocations.

  Airports
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the transfer of ownership of Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. to him from the Civil Aviation Authority to take place, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: The transfer can be effected without the need for legislation. A number

  Value of the standard maintenance grant and loan

  Academic Years

  Standard maintenance grant (cash terms) £13

  Student loan (cash terms) £23

  Total (grant+loan)

  1979–80

  1,245

  (1,287)4

  —

  —

  1980–81

  1,430

  (1,478)4

  —

  —

  1981–82

  1,535

  (1,587)4

  —

  —

  1982–83

  1,595

  (1·649)4

  —

  —

  1983–84

  1,660

  (1,716)4

  —

  —

  1984–85

  1,775

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  1,830

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  1,901

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  1,972

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  2,050

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  2,155

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  2,265

  —

  420

  2,685

  1991–92

  2,265

  —

  580

  2,845

  1992–93

  2,265

  —

  715

  2,980

  1993–94

  2,265

  —

  800

  3,065

  1994–95

  2,040

  —

  1,150

  3,190

  1 Applies to students in England and Wales living away from home and studying outside London. It excludes any supplementary allowances.

  2 Applies to students in England, Wales and Scotland living away from home and studying outside London. Final year students get a lower level of loan because it does not cover the summer vacation period. The 1994–95 final year loan will be £840.

  3 Different rates of grant and loan apply to students studying in London and those living in the parental home.

  4 Includes adjustments to figures for 1983–84 and earlier for travel costs: up to, and including 1983–84, students claimed and were individually reimbursed full travelling expenses; from 1984–85 a flat—rate amount for travelling costs was incorporated within the main rate of grant.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became (a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants.

  Mr. Forth
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is as follows:
  300
  of important issues require to be resolved before the transfer takes place, including arrangements for future funding and for employee pensions. Subject to resolving the outstanding issues the transfer will take place by or before 1 April 1995.

EDUCATION

  Student Loans
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will list the value of the student loans for each year since their introduction;

  (2) if he will list the value of the student grant for each year since 1979 and for the 1994–5 academic year.

  Mr. Boswell
  Student loans were introduced in the academic year 1990–1. The table shows the value of the loans for that and subsequent academic years, and of student grants since 1979.

  Year

  Joined

  Left

  1989

  1

  1

  1990

  1

  1

  1991

  1

  0

  1992

  1

  2

  1993

  0

  0

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his forecast for pupil numbers in(a) nursery and primary and (b) secondary schools for the academic years 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The projected numbers of pupils in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England are as follows:
  301

  Thousands

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  At January of each academic year

  1994–95

  4,192

  2,989

  1995–96

  4,268

  3,023

  1996–97

  4,316

  3,061

  1997–98

  4,347

  3,094

  School Meals
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for each year since 1987, what was the percentage of school pupils entitled to free school meals.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals was collected from maintained schools in England for the first time in January 1993. At this time, 20 per cent. of pupils were reported as known to be eligible for free school meals.

  Special Schools
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which local education authorities have submitted plans for the discontinuance of a special school under section 14 of the Education Act 1981 and section 183 of the Education Act 1993 and have not received final replies; which of these have been waiting(a) three months, (b) between three and six months, (c) between six and 12 months and (d) more than 12 months; and if he will name the schools affected in each case.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is provided in the table. There are proposals from four LEAs which have been outstanding for more than 12 months. In all these cases further information has had to be sought from the LEAs concerned. My right hon. Friend has decided, in the light of the new consolidated statutory regime under section 183 of the Education Act 1993, to set a general target of seven months for the determination of special school proposals, and has asked officials to consult LEAs about ways of improving the information contained in LEA proposals to help expedite decisions.

  LEA proposals for the closures of special schools which have not had determinant or "minded to" decisions, as at 19 July 1994

  Waiting time in months

  LEA and school

  <3

  3–6

  6–12

  >12

  Derbyshire Ashe Hall

  *

  Kent Beech House

  *

  Northamptonshire

  Eastfield

  *

  Fairlawn

  *

  Brookfield

  *

  Nottinghamshire

  Appletongate

  *

  Linden

  *

  St Ann's Hospital

  *

  Kinder Hospital

  *

  University Hospital

  *

  City Hospital

  *

  Hopwell

  *

  Bassetlaw

  *

  Ewing

  *

  Oxford

  Tesdale

  *

  302

  Waiting time in months

  LEA and school

  <3

  3–6

  6–12

  >12

  Bennet House

  *

  East Sussex

  Robert Mitchell

  *

  Walsall

  Beacon

  *

  Lambeth

  Aspen House

  *

  Hyde Farm

  *

  Lansdowne

  *

  Barking and Dagenham

  Bentry

  *

  Castle

  *

  Faircross

  *

  Hampshire

  Furzebrook

  *

  Knowsley

  Cartbridge

  *

  Lancashire

  Longridge

  *

  Liverpool

  Harold Magnay

  *

  Sandfield Park

  *

  Finchlea

  *

  Longmoor

  *

  Millstead

  *

  Palmerston

  *

  Princes

  *

  Okfield

  *

  North Yorkshire

  Field Hospital

  *

  Gateshead

  Joicy Road

  *

  Bradford

  Ashfield

  *

  School Closures and Mergers
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which local education authorities have submitted plans for closure, re-organisation or merger of schools under sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 and have not received final replies; which of these have been waiting(a) three months, (b) between three and six months, (c) between six and 12 months and (d) more than 12 months; and if he will name the schools affected in each case.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I am placing in the Library a table listing schools named in proposals under either section 12 or 13 of the Education Act 1980 which have been under consideration in the Department for(a) three months or less, (b) between three and six months, (c) between six and 12 months and (d) more than 12 months. Some statutory proposals affect more than one school.

  Proposals received by my right hon. Friend within the last four months may in certain cases fall to the local authority for determination.

ENVIRONMENT

  Bicycling
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with his colleagues at the Departments of Health, Education and Transport about encouraging children to bicycle to school, in order to reduce pollution and congestion, while encouraging health.
  303
  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given and by the Minister for Roads Official Report, column 71.

  Housing
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on current trends in the number of permanent dwellings(a) started, (b) under construction and (c) completed.

  Sir George Young
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 June 1994, c. 307]: My right hon. Friend announced on 7 July, Official Report, column 307, the publication of the latest state of the construction industry report, produced jointly with the construction industry; copies are available in the Library. It points to a period of sustained modest growth, with private housing showing an improvement on last year. With steady growth in the economy and low interest rates, a vigorous and competitive construction industry is well set to take advantage of a period of steady sustained growth.

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will update the information on urban regenerations pending given in his answer of 18 March 1993,Official Report, columns 365–67, so as to correspond with the single regeneration budget information sought in the later question.

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 April 1994, columns 36–38]: I regret that the table of figures included in my reply contained some errors. I therefore have revised the table which I have also placed in the Library to the House.

  Expenditure on programmes within the SRB (£ million) UDCs

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  37

  73

  1982–83

  62

  114

  1983–84

  95

  167

  1984–85

  88

  148

  1985–86

  82

  130

  1986–87

  89

  137

  1987–88

  160

  234

  1988–89

  255

  347

  1989–90

  477

  609

  1990–91

  607

  718

  1991–92

  602

  667

  1992–93

  515

  552

  1993–94

  372

  387

  1994–95

  286

  286

  *1995–96

  253

  —

  *1996–97

  245

  —

  HATS

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1991–92

  10

  11

  304

  Year

  a

  b

  1992–93

  27

  29

  1993–94

  78

  81

  1994–95

  88

  88

  *1995–96

  90

  —

  *1996–97

  90

  —

  URA

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  —

  1993–94

  22

  23

  1994–95

  181

  181

  *1995–96

  211

  —

  *1996–97

  221

  —

  City Grant1

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  8

  14

  1984–85

  15

  25

  1985–86

  24

  38

  1986–87

  24

  37

  1987–88

  28

  41

  1988–89

  28

  38

  1989–90

  39

  50

  1990–91

  45

  53

  1991–92

  41

  45

  1992–93

  44

  47

  1993–94

  24

  25

  1994–95

  —

  —

  *1995–96

  —

  —

  *1996–97

  —

  —

  DLG

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  30

  59

  1982–83

  61

  112

  1983–84

  68

  120

  1984–85

  70

  117

  1985–86

  75

  119

  1986–87

  82

  126

  1987–88

  80

  117

  1988–89

  78

  106

  1989–90

  65

  83

  1990–91

  71

  84

  1991–92

  89

  99

  1992–93

  116

  124

  1993–94

  99

  103

  1994–95

  —

  —

  *1995–1996

  —

  *1996–97

  —

  —

  Urban Programme2

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  94

  186

  1982–83

  160

  295

  1983–84

  156

  275

  1984–85

  278

  466

  1985–86

  254

  404

  1986–87

  237

  365

  305

  Year

  a

  b

  1987–88

  246

  359

  1988–89

  224

  305

  1989–90

  223

  285

  1990–91

  226

  267

  1991–92

  238

  264

  1992–93

  236

  253

  1993–94

  170

  177

  1994–95

  83

  83

  *1995–96

  —

  —

  *1996–97

  —

  —

  Task Forces

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1987–88

  5

  7

  1988–89

  23

  31

  1989–90

  20

  26

  1990–91

  21

  25

  1991–92

  21

  23

  1992–93

  24

  26

  1993–94

  18

  19

  1994–95

  16

  16

  *1995–96

  —

  —

  *1996–97

  —

  —

  CATS

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1989–90

  4

  5

  1990–91

  8

  9

  1991–92

  8

  9

  1992–93

  5

  5

  1993–94

  3

  3

  1994–95

  1

  1

  *1995–96

  —

  —

  *1996–97

  —

  —

  City Challenge

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  1986–87

  —

  —

  1987–88

  —

  —

  1988–89

  —

  —

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  —

  1992–93

  52

  56

  1993–94

  221

  230

  1994–95

  214

  214

  *1995–96

  —

  —

  *1996–97

  —

  —

  306

  Estaate Action

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  1983–84

  —

  —

  1984–85

  —

  —

  1985–86

  —

  —

  1986–87

  45

  69

  1987–88

  75

  110

  1988–89

  140

  191

  1989–90

  190

  243

  1990–91

  180

  213

  1991–92

  268

  297

  1992–93

  348

  373

  1993–94

  358

  372

  1994–95

  373

  373

  *1995–96

  —

  —

  *1996–97

  —

  —

  Rest of SRB3

  Year

  a

  b

  1981–82

  50

  98

  1982–83

  60

  111

  1983–84

  67

  118

  1984–85

  63

  106

  1985–86

  69

  110

  1986–87

  73

  113

  1987–88

  76

  111

  1988–89

  70

  95

  1989–90

  94

  120

  1990–91

  108

  128

  1991–92

  226

  251

  1992–93

  215

  230

  1993–94

  258

  269

  1994–95

  201

  201

  *1995–96

  778

  —

  *1996–97

  768

  —

  Notes:

  a=Cash Terms.

  b=Current Prices.

  *=Current Plans.

  1includes UDG and URG.

  2includes Urban Crime Fund payments in 1992–93.

  3Up to 1994–95. Rest of SRB is made up from: Regional Enterprise Grant, Safer Cities, section 11. Ethnic Minority Grant, Ethnic Minority Business Initiatives, Programme Development Fund (PDF), TEC Challenge, Business Start-up Scheme, Local Initiative Fund, Compacts, Education Business Partnerships, Teacher Placement Service and GEST 19. From 1995–96 Rest of SRB also includes Urban Programme, Task Forces, City Action Teams (CATS), City Challenge, and Estate Action. PDF=figures are for Great Britain, except for 1994–95 when they are for England only.

  s11 (urban)=figures include payments to non-UPA ILEA authorities prior to 1991–92.

  City Challenge=also supported by £19 million per year from the Housing Corporation.

  Urban Regeneration Agency (URA)—from 1994–95 subsumed City Grant and Derelict Land Grant.

  County Hall
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria were used to distribute to the London boroughs the proceeds from the sale of County hall; if he will make a statement about the balance between the receipt from the sale of County hall and the sum distributed to the London boroughs;and when the London Residuary Body received full paymetent from the sale of the riverside building.

  Mr. Curry
  The proceeds received before 30 November 1993 from the disposal of the riverside building of County hall were distributed by the London Residuary
  307
  Body to the London boroughs in proportion to the total populations of each borough in accordance with the London Reorganisation (Capital Money) (Greater London) (Amendment) Order 1993. The terms of the sale—including the sale price—are a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what interest has been expressed recently in the purchase of the unsold parts of the County hall complex; and what were the conditions of sale for the riverside building and for the unsold part of the County hall complex.

  Mr. Baldry
  The sale of the remainder of the County hall site is a matter for the London Residuary Body. The conditions of the sale of the riverside building and any conditions for the sale of the remainder of the site area are a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Local Government, Worthing
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that any public consultation document issued to ascertain views on the draft recommendation of the Local Government 308
  Commission affecting Worthing will include a status quo option, as well as the two alternatives put forward which are identical as far as the Worthing constituency is concerned.

  Mr. Curry
  The period of public consultation on the Local Government Commission's draft recommendations for the future local government in east and west Sussex began on 12 July 1994 and will end on 26 September 1994. The recommendations themselves and the method of consultation on them are matters for the commission, not for the Government.

  Before submitting its final recommendations to the Secretary of State the commission must take into consideration any representations made to it during the consultation period. The commission's final recommendations may differ from the preliminary recommendations, as a result of its consultations. Once the final report of the commission has been submitted there is a minimum period of six weeks during which representations can be made to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can accept, modify or reject the commission's recommendations, or can direct the commission to conduct a further review. Any order implementing structural change is subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses.
  309

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether adequate statutory powers exist for elections at the commencement of shadow periods of all new unitary authorities established consequent upon the local government review for England, including new authorities which have boundaries coterminous with either(a) an existing county authority or (b) an existing district authority; and if he will specify the source of those powers.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government are satisfied that the statutory powers contained in sections 17 and 19 of the Local Government Act 1992 are adequate for such elections.

  Rural Housing Trust
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures are taken to ensure that the Rural Housing Trust accounts for public funds received by the trust from the Housing Corporation.

  Sir George Young
  The Rural Housing Trust—RHT— is not a registered housing association and does not therefore receive allocations of housing association grant —HAG—from the Housing Corporation. The corporation provides HAG to registered rural housing associations which work closely with the RHT. All registered rural housing associations are subject to the corporation's regulatory framework and their development projects are subject to the corporation's sample scheme audits.

  The RHT received a revenue grant from the corporation for £7,590 in October 1992 to develop and investigate appropriate tenant involvement in four rural housing associations in the midlands. The corporation considers that the project achieved value for money.

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funding is provided for help in the removal of toxic waste deposits from former industrial sites in the Greater London area.

  Mr. Atkins
  Under the "polluter pays" principle, the responsibility for funding the removal of toxic wastes rests with the owner or operator of the site. The availability of any public funds to help will depend on the particular circumstances. Removal of such waste as part of a regeneration scheme might be eligible for grant aid by English Partnerships. A local authority involved in a removal operation might be able to apply this Department for a supplementary credit approval.

  Diabled People
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what role will be taken by his Department in any consultation on disability; and what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on countering unfair discrimination in building access.

  Mr. Baldry
  On 15 July, the Government published a consultation document on measures to tackle discrimina-tion against disabled people. My Department will continue 310
  to be involved with other Departments in the development of measures arising from that consultation. I aim to publish, by the end of the year, a consultation paper on ways in which the building regulations could be extended to require provisions in new dwellings for the benefit of disabled people.

  Homelessness
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses his Department had on the homelessness consultation document; and how many were supportive of the Government proposals.

  Sir George Young
  We received about 10,000 responses to the consultation paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies". The paper contained at least 10 distinct proposals, some of which commanded widespread support from the more informed commentators. The responses are available for inspection in my Department's library.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received from the waste-to-energy industry regarding his Department's circular 8/91;

  (2) what plans he has to update his Department's circular 8/91;

  (3) if he will recommend improvements to the local authority tendering process for waste disposal contracts in his Department's response to the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution on incineration.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have received representations from the Energy from Waste Association, formerly the recycling waste-to-energy group, about the advice given to waste disposal authorities in circular 8/91—competition for local authority waste disposal contracts and new arrangements for disposal operations—on the duration of waste disposal contracts. In particular, the industry wishes us to emphasise the importance to waste-to-energy schemes of long-term contracts. Similar representationss have been made by the producer responsibility group in its proposals for recovering value from packaging waste.

  My Department is currently reviewing the guidance given to local authorities in circular 8/91 about tendering for waste disposal contracts and we intend to issue updated guidance later this year. Among other things, the updated guidance will re-emphasise the importance of taking environmental factors into account in the tendering process, including the benefits of the waste-to-energy option in appropriate circumstances and the contractual arrangements most likely to facilitate its development.

  The Government will publish their response to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution's report on incineration shortly. Our response will address the royal commission's recommendation that waste disposal authorities should be encouraged to enter into long-term contracts with operators of incineration plants, extending over 10 years or more. However, this is not an appropriate vehicle for offering detailed guidance on the considera-tions which should be taken into account by authorities in the tendering process.
  311

  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will replace the present rateable valuation system by a system based on council tax banding as the basis of charging for water and sewerage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 14 July 1994,Official Report, column 766.

  Bathing Water
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many samples, and from how many sites, were taken in each European member state from the sea during each of the last three years for the purpose of assessing compliance with the European Community directive on bathing water quality; how many field staff were involved; and what have been the results in respect of salmonella and enteroviruses;

  (2) how many samples were taken from the sea in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years as part of the nation's bathing water quality survey; how many staff were involved; how many samples were taken; how many sites were identified for the purposes of assessing compliance with the European Community directive on bathing water quality; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Information on the numbers of coastal bathing water sites monitored under the bathing water Directive, the number of samples and the results for each member state, but not the number of field staff involved, is included in the EC Commission annual report on bathing waters. Information for 1991, 1992 and 1993 is contained in the 1992 and 1993 reports, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The reports show the high standard of the United Kingdom monitoring programme and the continuing steady improvement in United Kingdom bathing water compliance.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which countries have received funds from the European Union for cleaning up their beaches and improving the quality of their water supplies in each of the last three years; and what are the amounts received.

  Mr. Atkins
  For the period 1989 to 1993, the European Commission allocated to member states grants from the European regional development fund of the amounts shown. ERDF grant assistance may be used for a wide variety of activities, including the provision of water infrastructure and environmental projects. There are no published figures available which show the amounts specifically allocated to the cleaning of beaches or for the improvement of water quality.

  ERDF

  (MECU 1992 Prices)

  Belgium

  330

  Denmark

  60

  Germany

  2,482

  Greece

  4,508

  Spain

  9,071

  France

  2,151

  Irish Republic

  2,019

  312

  (MECU 1992 Prices)

  Italy

  6,631

  Luxembourg

  31

  Netherlands

  166

  Portugal

  4,592

  United Kingdom

  3,235

  Total

  35,276

  Harassment (Landlords)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the harassment of women in private rented accommodation by their landlords; what representations he has received by(a) women individually and (b) women's organisations; if he will list the women's organisations concerned; and what is the total number of complaints he has received.

  Sir George Young
  We are aware of and deplore this kind of behaviour by a small minority of unscrupulous landlords. It was for this reason that the Housing Act 1988 strengthened the provisions against harassment in the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, to increase protection for all tenants.

  Since 1991, we have received a total of 24 complaints from private tenants alleging harassment by their landlords. Of these, five were from individual women, but only one of these implied sexual harassment. No representations have been received from women's organisations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has received from women's organisations for dealing with harassment by private landlords; what consultations he has had with(a) women's organisations and (b) private landlords about harassment; and what proposals he has for dealing with harassment of women in private accommodation by landlords.

  Sir George Young
  No proposals for dealing with harassment have been received from women's organisations, nor have there been any recent consultations on this issue.

  Local authorities are empowered to prosecute landlords who harass tenants under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Many local authorities have tenancy relations teams to investigate complaints of harassment.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for more investment in social housing based on need.

  Sir George Young
  My Department's expenditure plans for the period 1994–5 to 1996–7 are set out in its annual report, Cm 2507. Directing public spending towards the areas and households thart are in greatest need is a high priority for our housing programmes.
  313

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became (a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants.

  Mr. Gummer
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is:

  Joined

  Left

  1989

  2

  1

  1990

  1

  1

  1991

  6

  1

  1992

  1

  5

  1993

  1

  1

  So far this year, one special adviser has joined and one has left this Department.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures on the number of properties in each of the eight council tax bands(a) in figures and (b) in percentage terms.

  Mr. Curry
  The latest available figures are for May 1994. The numbers and percentages of dwellings in England in each valuation band are listed.

  Valuation band

  Number of dwellings

  Percentage

  A

  5,326,406

  26·3

  B

  3,888,174

  19·2

  C

  4,408,430

  21·8

  D

  2,950,065

  14·6

  E

  1,819,759

  9·0

  F

  970,612

  4·8

  G

  735,148

  3·6

  H

  117,278

  0·6

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many people in England and Wales have had their council tax bill reduced(a) through a discount, (b) through the disability reduction scheme, (c) through the council tax benefit and (d) through the second adult rebate;

  (2) if he will publish a table showing, for each collecting local authority in England and Wales, the latest figures available of the level of take-up of (a) the single person discount and (b) discounts excluding the single person discount.

  Mr. Curry
  Information on local authorities in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Information on numbers of people having a reduction in their council tax bill is not held centrally. The available information is as follows:
  314

  (a) the number of dwellings in England on 1 December 1993 subject to a single (25 per cent.) discount was 6,090,000. An additional 500,000 dwellings were subject to a double (50 per cent.) discount;

  (b) 96,000 dwellings in England on 1 December 1993 were eligible for a reduction for disabled relief;

  (c) the average caseload in England in 1993–4 for recipients of council tax benefit was 4,570,000—(Source: Department of Social Security);

  (d) the average caseload in England in 1993–4 for recipients of second adult rebates was 43,000—(Source: Department of Social Security).

  I have arranged for a table showing the number of council tax discounts for each local authority in England to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to aid local authorities in their promotion of the take-up by council tax payers of the various ways of reducing their council tax bills.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department and the Department of Social Security have produced a range of leaflets explaining entitlement to council tax discounts, exemptions and rebates. I am not aware that local authorities feel in need of further assistance.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to monitor local authorities' use of bailiffs to enforce council tax payments.

  Mr. Curry
  I have no plans to do so. Local authorities normally use bailiffs only when other means of recovery, such as attachment of earnings and deductions from income support, have been unsuccessful or are inappropriate to the circumstances.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of properties within band A is valued at(a) £10,000 or less, (b) £10,000 to £19,999, (c) £20,000 to £29,999, or (d) £30,000 to £40,000.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not available. Valuations of dwellings for council tax are carried out in order to list them in the appropriate band. Precise values are not determined.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing for each collecting local authority in England and Wales the latest figures available of the level of use of distress to enforce council tax payments.

  Mr. Curry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider introducing a requirement on local authorities to report on the remedies used to collect council tax debts once a liability order has been made.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department collects statistics on the number of liability orders obtained by local authorities in respect of council tax debts, but I have no plans to introduce a requirement for authorities to submit data on the precise method of recovery they use in each case. Having obtained a liability order, most authorities will apply an attachment of earnings if the person is working, or apply for deductions to be made direct from income support if this is appropriate. Where this is not possible, or other arrangements break down, the authority will normally seek to levy distress.
  315

  Parish Meetings
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of parish meetings in England and Wales; and what proportion of the total number of parish authorities this represents.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not held centrally.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each local education authority for each year since 1989–90(a) the total revenue expenditure of the relevant council on all services, (b) the total revenue expenditure on all education services and (c) (b) as a percentage of (a).

  Mr. Baldry
  I have arranged for the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Water Seepage and Flood Damage
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints he has received with regard to water seepage and flooding from residents in Coventry; and what was their nature.

  Mr. Atkins
  No recent complaints of this kind can be traced.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will outline the responsibilities of water authorities to the consumer for water seepage and flood damage and for the costs involved; and how the responsibility is determined.

  Mr. Atkins
  Water undertakers have the same responsibilities as anyone else under the law of torts for damage caused by water escaping from their mains and pipes. In addition, there are specific statutory obligations under section 209 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which generally makes water undertakers strictly liable for loss or damage caused by the escape of water from their pipes and under schedule 12 to that Act which imposes strict liability for, among other things, damage to land or buildings attributable to the exercise of water and sewerage undertakers' works powers. Compensation under schedule 12 is assessed by the lands tribunal or an arbitrator, according to the provision concerned. other claims are a matter for the ordinary courts.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the responsibilities of the regulator for the water industry in dealing with seepage and flooding and determination of responsibility in these matters.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Director General of Water Services has duties under the Water Industry Act 1991, among other things:

  (a) to consider complaints by consumers that a water or sewerage undertaker is in breach of requirements enforceable under section 18 of that Act and, in appropriate circumstances, to take suitable enforcement action;

  (b) to investigate complaints about water and sewerage undertakers' carrying out works on private land and, if appropriate, to award payments of up to £5,000 to the complainant for any failure, loss, damage or inconvenience;

  316

  (c) to investigate, either directly or through a customer service committee established by him, other complaints about water and sewerage undertakers' discharge of their functions, and to take such action as he thinks appropriate, including making representations to the company concerned.

  Depending on their nature, complaints about seepage and flooding from the activities of water and sewerage undertakers could come under any of these arrangements.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure the proper co-ordination between the Severn Trent water authority and environmental health authorities in Coventry in dealing with water seepage resulting in flooding; and if he will investigate the methods used by the Severn Trent water authority for establishing the source of the seepage and flooding of the Wykes family home at 19 Lindley road, Coventry, and why they have failed to accept responsibility for dealing and establishing the source of the flooding.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Severn Trent water authority ceased to function on 31 August 1989. Responsibility for water supply and sewerage in Coventry now lies with Severn Trent Water Limited, a private-sector company. Co-ordination between that company and Coventry city council is a matter for those bodies. Statutory arrangements exist under the Director General of Water Services for investigating complaints by consumers against water and sewerage undertakers. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for the Secretary of State to intervene.

  Elephants
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is Her Majesty's Government's current position towards a resumption of the inter-nation trade in elephant products;

  (2) what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to encourage South Africa to withdraw its proposals to downlist the African elephant;

  (3) if Her Majesty's Government intend to support the appendix 1 listing all African elephant populations at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Specicies meeting to be held in November;

  (4) what is the current position of Her Majesty's Government towards any resumption of the trade in ivory.

  Mr. Atkins
  At the last meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora—CITES—in Kyoto in March 1992, the Government opposed proposals on the part of some southern African countries to resume trade in ivory and to downlist some African elephant populations from appendix I to appendix II.

  As for the forthcoming meeting of the conference of the parties to be held in Fort Lauderdale in November, the Government have not yet reached any conclusions on the proposals tabled by South Africa and the Sudan. Before doing so, we wish to consider the report of the panel of experts, established by CITES, and to take account of reactions of other African elephant range states. The Government's overall position is that we would not support any change in the status of the African elephant under CITES, unless we were satisfied that this would not put at risk elephant populations in the country concerned or any other country.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the countries that have been
  317
  invited, and will be invited, to participate in the forthcoming meeting organised by the United Kingdom and designed to develop greater understanding between the range states, potential consumer states and other interested parties on the African elephant issue in the context of CITES.

  Mr. Atkins
  At the last meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora—CITES—in Kyoto in March 1992, the then President of the EC Environment Council urged that there should be more intersessional dialogue between parties on controversial issues including that of the elephant and the rhino. Since then, the European Union has been exploring the possibility of such a dialogue between the main countries concerned with the status of the African elephant. After widespread consultation among African and other Governments, including an exploratory mission, the EU has concluded that there is an opportunity for such dialogue.

  The meeting is being arranged in Botswana in September this year, and a list of those invited follows:

  Africa

  Botswana

  Namibia

  Burkina Faso

  Nigeria

  Cameroun

  South Africa

  Central African Republic

  Sudan

  Congo

  Tanzania

  Ethiopia

  Togo

  Gabon

  Uganda

  Ghana

  Zaire

  Kenya

  Zambia

  Malawi

  Zimbabwe

  Mali

  Rest of world

  France

  Germany

  Japan

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  European Commission

  In addition, representatives of CITES, the United

  Revised LCPD national plan NO1 limits for England and Wales (in kilotonnes)

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  National Power

  418

  401

  386

  369

  354

  340

  (402)

  (387)

  (371)

  (356)

  Powergen

  256

  247

  236

  227

  217

  209

  (237)

  (228)

  (218)

  England and Wales Sub-total

  674

  648

  622

  596

  571

  549

  (649)

  (624)

  (599)

  (574)

  Refineries

  25

  25

  25

  25

  25

  21

  (24)

  (23)

  (22)

  (22)

  1 The figures in the National Plan prior to the changes are shown in parentheses where any change has been made.

  Sir Bedivere
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take with regard to the regeneration of north Tyneside following the decision on the Sir Bedivere contract.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government fully appreciate the concern on Tyneside over the future of Swan Hunter following the decision on the Sir Bedivere refit. The receiver will wish to consider the position and I am asking the regional director of the Government Office for the north-east to contact him, the local authorities, Tyne and Wear development corporation, Tyneside training and
  318
  Nations Environment Programme, the world conservation union—IUCN—and a small number of expert advisers have been invited.

  The aim of the meeting is to exchange information and to discuss positions of the countries involved. It is not to make resolutions or to pre-empt discussions at the wider meeting of the CITES conference of the parties. The United Kingdom is taking the lead in organising the meeting, on behalf of the European Union and in consultation with the presidency.

  Combustion Plants (Emissions)
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the operation of the United Kingdom national plan implementing the EC large combustion plants directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The sector emission limits specified in the national plan have consistently been observed. However, the Government keep the operation of the plan under review, in order to take account of changes in the pattern of industrial activity, the structure of industries and the pace of technological change and its effects on emissions. In the light of a recent review, and after consultation with the industries concerned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided, in exercise of his powers under section 3(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to make a minor revision to the plan to allow a small increase in the sector limit for emissions of oxides of nitrogen, NOx, from the refineries in England and Wales. The increase will be offset by an equivalent reduction in the NOx. sector limit for the electricity supply industry in England and Wales. There will thus be no increase in the overall sector limits for England and Wales. The revised figures are set out in the table.

  enterprise council and other interested parties as a matter of urgency to discuss the next steps. I, as sponsor Minister for Tyne and Wear, will be on Tyneside this Friday and will be available to meet all the interested parties.

  Horses
  Mr. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's planning policy in relation to applications for horse-based development in the countryside; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Development that supports the rural economy and maintains and enhances the countryside is to
  319
  be encouraged. Planning applications for development which is in accordance with the development plan shall be allowed unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

  Within this framework, the Government wish to see a positive approach towards planning applications for horse-based development. Paragraph 2.21 of planning policy guidance note 7 makes it clear that the keeping and riding of horses for recreational purposes or as part of commercially based equestrian activities can help provide new opportunities for employment and land use in the countryside. Annexe F of the same document gives further guidance on development involving horses.

  "Streamlining Planning"
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the consultation paper, "Streamlining Planning".

  Mr. Curry
  I am pleased to announce today that we shall be taking forward proposals in the "Streamlining Planning" consultation paper to relax planning controls in respect of flats over shops; extensions to schools, colleges, universities and hospitals; flat advertisements at householders' sites and other advertisement controls. We shall also be abolishing the special industrial use classes, so that planning permission will not be required for changes between all general industrial uses within existing buildings.

  Taken together, these reforms will represent a significant benefit to business without reducing protection for the environment of amenity. They will also help improve the overall efficiency of the planning system by relieving local authorities from determining some relatively minor planning applications.

  These changes will apply equally in Wales.

  Open Government
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish his scheme for charging for the release of information under the open government code of practice and to publish details of how his Department deals with the public.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have today made available guidance on the charging arrangements operating in my Department in respect of requests for information under the code of practice on access to Government information. I have also released an index to the explanatory material which is currently available on my Department's dealings with the public. The index contains details of how to obtain this material and will be updated at regular intervals. Copies of the index and charging arrangements have been placed in the Library of the House and are available from my Department's Libraries and from the Government Offices in the regions.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the coal industry in the context of the proposed reform of old minerals permissions he announced in March.

  Mr. Baldry
  When my Department published the consultation paper on the reform of old mineral permissions in March 1994 we said that coal was being considered separately.
  320
  We have completed that consideration and, in accordance with the Government's general policy that, for planning purposes, coal should be treated no differently from other minerals, the Government intend that the proposals in the consultation paper—all of which will require primary legislation—should apply equally to coal. This would mean that old coal mining permissions will be subject to initial updating of their conditions and thereafter all coal mining permissions would be subject to periodic review at 10-yearly intervals.

  Such reviews should include ancillary mining development. However, as the consultation paper makes it clear, conditions imposed following a review should not fundamentally affect the economic structure of the operation.

  As a consequence of coal privatisation the General Development Order is being revised to attach restoration conditions to surface development at GDO mines. The Government would not therefore expect GDO mines, which will only recently have had restoration conditions imposed on them as part of that process, to require immediate further review. They would be looked at again at the start of the second phase of the initial updating programme. The consultation proposals envisage that that second phase would commence three years after any new legislation had been brought into force. In practical terms this is likely to mean that GDO mines will be exempt from further review for at least five years.

  Litter
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the report of his Department's advisory group on litter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a summary of the report of the advisory group on litter which has been reviewing the litter provisions contained in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and elsewhere. The group has concluded that overall the 1990 Act has made a significant effect but there are some areas of the legislation in England and Wales which could be usefully improved. The key recommendations of the advisory group are:Publication of information to inform the citizen about how their local authority plans to fulfil its litter duty;
  improvements to the way in which litter on private land can be dealt with by local authorities;
  improved powers to enable local authorities to target business or commercial activities which result in litter on adjacent public areas;
  replacement of the existing patchwork of dog fouling byelaws with a national offence of failure to clear up after one's dog in most public areas;
  improvements to the litter fixed penalty system so local authority contractors can, subject to certain safeguards, issue penalty notices and to allow extension of the fixed penalty system to dog fouling offences;
  increasing the fixed penalty from £10 to £25 in line with the general increase in fine levels since the litter provisions were brought into effect.

  The full report will be available on request from my Department.

  I am grateful to the members of the advisory group for its work in producing this report. I am sure that there will be wide interest in these recommendations. In view of this, I am publishing the summary report as a consultation document. I would encourage all interested parties to let my Department have their views by 14 October 1994.
  321

  Wildlife Sales Controls
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of his review of wildlife sales controls in Great Britain.

  Mr. Atkins
  I announced the outcome of the first stage of the review on 25 April 1994. This focused mainly on changes in the bird registration system. The rest of the review covered a range of issues concerning secondary controls on native and exotic wildlife, and enforcement.

  We plan to make some changes which should take effect from 1 October. These will simplify paper controls and improve enforcement. There are seven main elements:

  (i) The Registered Sellers of Dead Birds—RSDB—scheme allows people, mainly taxidermists, registered with the Department to sell dead birds. In return for a triennial fee, registered sellers do not have to submit individual sales applications to the Department. However they are required to fix a marker to specimens and to keep records which are returned to the Department every six months. The scheme was intended to discourage the taking of birds from the wild for taxidermy and to allow people already legitimately trading in birds to continue to do so without the need to apply for individual sales licences. We believe that these objectives can be achieved more effectively by issuing a general licence allowing the sale of captive-bred and legally-taken dead birds. The wording of the licence would make it clear that sellers must be able to demonstrate conclusively that the legal requirements have been met. We shall be issuing a formal consultation letter shortly.

  (ii) The Department issues about 2,500 individual sales licences each year to allow the sale of live or dead wildlife specimens, or parts thereof, for example where they have been bred in captivity or artificially propagated, or are needed for research. This means that substantial resources are being devoted to authorising legitimate activities which have little or no apparent effect on the conservation of the species concerned. We shall therefore be moving to a control system base on wider use of general sales licences which will enable us to operate more effective checks on specimens for which individual licences will continue to be required. The new system will rely on the increased use of DNA tests to check claims that specimens have been bred in captivity.

  (iii) My Department has financed research on the use of DNA testing to identify the parentage of birds, and I shall place a copy of the results in the library of both Houses as soon as they are available. DNA tests have already been used in four recent and successful prosecutions, and further cases are in the pipeline. We shall be looking into the feasibility of extending the use of DNA testing where appropriate to help enforce controls on other endangered species.

  (iv) Four amphibian species are subject to sales controls, but not a prohibition on the killing, injuring or taking of wild specimens, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—the common toad, common frog, smooth newt and palmate newt. At present these species can be sold only if an individual licence has been issued or if the vendor has obtained a 'trader' licence. The reported level of trade in these species, which is in the low thousands, is unlikely to have a discernible effect on populations in the wild, which run into millions. We shall therefore be issuing a general licence for these four species, subject to conditions agreed with our scientific advisers, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, restricing the times and locations when they can be collected. We shall also be asking the JNCC to look carefully at the effectiveness of sale-only controls in its next quinquennial review of schedules 5 and 8 of the Act.

  (v) In the past, some species have been subject to sales controls under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. In many instances, these controls
  322
  have been superseded by the EC CITES regulation or duplicated by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. These controls have taken precedence and the sale of most of the small number of species remaining has been permitted under an open sales licence for some time. In December 1992, the then Minister, my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, announced that 200 additional species would be made subject to sales controls following the establishment of the single market. On further investigation we are not convinced that sale controls are an effective means of controlling trade in these species and we do not now propose to introduce these measures. Furthermore, we do not propose to add any new species to the Act for the purposes of sales controls unless our scientific advisers judge that an undesirable level of trade in any wide specimens of particular species is taking place.

  (vi) We believe that there is room for improving controls on the import of CITES species. In particular, the Department will give greater emphasis to its powers to impose conditions on import permits and to ensure that conditions which have been imposed are complied with. Where an import of a CITES appendix I (or EC Regulation Annex C1) specimen is allowed only because of the purpose for which it will be used, for example for specific research or breeding projects, a condition will be imposed requiring prior authorisation from the Department before it is used for any other purpose. We will continue to make use of the provision to restrict the movement of a specimen from the address specified on the import permit. The Department's wildlife inspectors will carry out more inspections to ensure that specimens are used and kept as proposed.

  (vii) The Department already monitors advertisements offering endangered species for sale in a range of specialist journals. More journals will be scrutinised and advertisements followed up; to guard against possible sale offences.

  We also propose to make a number of changes which will take longer to implement. First, we will review our publicity on both primary and secondary controls, with a view to issuing additional material by March 1995. Secondly, we shall consider whether there is any scope for the conservation agencies assuming responsibility for some of the licensing controls currently operated by my Department. Thirdly, we will begin work to consider amending the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to exclude captive-bred birds and remove duplication with the EC CITES regulation.

  These changes as a whole will reduce bureaucracy, and release resources to improve enforcement of the import and sales controls which protect genuinely endangered species. The additional enforcement measures I have described—more inspections, DNA tests, stricter import conditions and monitoring of advertisements—will be introduced by October this year.

  We also recognise the scope for further improvements in enforcement and in the links between enforcement agencies. These need to be considered in detail with other interested groups, including the voluntary bodies. I therefore propose to establish an official level working group on enforcement involving relevant enforcement agencies and non-Governmental organisations. Its composition and detailed terms of reference will be announced shortly.

  I have placed a paper giving more about these proposals and the background to them in the Libraries of both Houses in accordance with our commitment to open government.
  323

  Departmental Houses
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government will respond to the report of the task force on Government Departments' empty houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  I am pleased to announce that the final report of the task force on Government Departments' empty houses was published today, along with a Government response to its seven recommendations. A copy of both documents has been placed in the Library.

  The Government welcome the task force's report and believe it has made a valuable contribution to making more effective use of empty residential Government properties. We will consider how the draft code of practice prepared by the task force to help achieve reductions in the number of empty properties can best be adopted by each relevant Government Department. I plan to circulate the code to local authority and housing association managers.

  Where a residential property in an area of housing stress has stood empty for six months and no sale has taken place, the Government will implement the policy whereby sale or short-term leasing for social housing shall have priority. The Government also propose to set annual targets for empty residential property and to publish the Department's achievements at the end of each year.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the prepartions for the establishment of the new environment agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Good progress is being made in preparing and drafting the main legislation to establish the environment agencies for England and Wales and for Scotland, and I intend to publish relevant legislative provisions in draft before the end of the recess. In these circumstances, we have decided that it is no longer necessary to seek paving powers in the present Session.

  I propose to establish a new advisory committee on arrangements for the proposed agency in England and Wales and to appoint to it persons who I hope will play a continuing role in overseeing the new body if Parliament approves the necessary legislation. I am planning on the basis that it will prove possible to establish the new agency during 1995 and incorporate the existing bodies into it at the beginning of the 1996–97 financial year.

  I am today publishing the report on a study conducted for the Department by Touche Ross which considers potential models for the geographic and management structure of the environment agency and provides an initial assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. Interested organisations have been invited to comment by 31 October. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government intend to respond to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution's 17th report on incineration of waste.
  324
  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have responded to the Royal Commission on environmental pollution's 17th report on incineration of waste today. Copies of the Government's response are available in the Library."The Royal Commission's support for incineration is based on the new generation of plant, which differs from the old in two important respects: first, provision will normally be made for electricity generation or combined heat and power, with the consequence that the process involves energy recovery and is therefore higher in the waste management hierarchy; second, the need to meet the new EC emission limits will provide much greater safeguards for health and local amenity.
  "We agree with the Royal Commission that incineration of waste in suitably located plants designed to meet these new standards is an environmentally acceptable form of waste disposal and should no longer represent a cause for concern to those who live and work close to such plants. We agree also on the desirability of recovering energy from wastes as part of a sustainable approach to waste management.
  "The Government will publish later this year, as a basis for consultation, a draft waste management strategy for England and Wales. This will set out in greater detail the potential role of incineration in relation to other waste management options."

  Gosport Borough Council
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet considered the response by Gosport borough council to the notice served on the authority on 9 May under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the response of Gosport borough council to the notice which was served in respect of the award of a contract for other cleaning work to the authority's direct labour organisation. He accepts that the council may not have intended to act anti-competitively, but takes the view that the council's actions were likely to have the effect of restricting or distorting competition, and in the event did so. Consequently he has today given the authority a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988.

  The direction requires the council to re-tender the relevant contract so that new arrangements are in place by 1 October 1995, and to seek my right hon. Friend's consent should they wish to re-assign the work to the in-house team.

  The authority restricted competition in that, prior to the return of tenders, they asserted that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)—TUPE— Regulations would apply and decided to consider only TUPE-based bids. They also failed to provide tenderers with substantive details regarding the possible availability of depot space.

  The Government will continue to act against councils whose actions amount to anti-competitive behaviour. We are determined to ensure that obstacles which stand in the way of full and fair competition are removed, so that taxpayers continue to get value for money for quality services.

  Pollution
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government have taken since 1979, following the reduction and elimination of lead in petrol, to measure and record any significant increases in the quality and quantity of pollutants in the gases emitted from motor vehicles; and if he will publish the findings.
  325
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 July 1994]: The Government have established an extensive air quality monitoring network to measure levels of transport-related air pollutants. Results are published in the Department of the Environment's annual "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics", copies of which have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information the United Kingdom Government have formally supplied upon request from the European Commission as required by article 15.2(c), on the effect on the application of directive 85/210/EEC and the consequent introduction of low-lead—.0·15g lead/l—and unleaded petrols into the 12 member states with particular reference to article 6 on the development of concentrations of polluting substitutes for lead in the atmosphere.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 19 July 1994]: The Government have received no requests from the European Commission for information under these articles.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans exist to promote greater public awareness of air quality levels in urban areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 14 July 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 18 July, Official Report, column 44.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Space Industries
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the funding provided for space activities through his Department for the exploitation by United Kingdom space industries of markets in telecommunications and earth observation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Funding for space activities, which is kept under constant review, is concentrated on the practical applications of space, and on enabling United Kingdom space industries to secure business advantage in both established markets such as telecommunications and the emerging markets for earth observation data.

  Trade Associations
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what communications he has had with trade associations to ensure that they speak with a coherent voice in each industrial sector.

  Mr. Heseltine
  As I made clear in a speech on 17 June last year, I want to see trade associations that are powerful, effective and influential and which play a significant role in promoting the international competitiveness of their sectors. These views are shared by many industrialists, and I am pleased that trade associations in a number of sectors are now coming together.
  326

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the director of the Office of Fair Trading to discuss the brewing industry.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the Director General of Fair Trading from time to time to discuss a wide range of competition issues. There have been no specific discussions on brewing recently. However, my officials are in regular and close contact with those at the Office of Fair Trading on this issue.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made by his Department of the likely impact on British industry if the social chapter provisions were adopted.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment has been made by his Department of the effect on British industry of the adoption of the provisions of the social chapter.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department of Trade and Industry has made no such assessment but the Department of Employment produced cost estimates last year. I am arranging for these to be sent to my hon. Friend.

  Post Office
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Post Office to discuss the Green Paper on its future.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I meet the chairman of the Post Office regularly, but no date has been set for our next meeting.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the impact of the cut in the post office users council budget on its service to Post Office business users and others.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evaluation his Department has made of the impact of the cut in the post office users council budget on its service to post office domestic customers and others.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am confident the Post Office Users National Council will continue to fulfil its statutory functions to its users.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what would be the cost of running Post Office Counters as a separate business.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) earlier today.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received on the future of rural post offices and sub-post offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have received a number of representations from individuals, companies and consumer organisations on the future of the Post Office. Some of these include views on rural post offices and sub-post offices.
  327
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will place in the Library the schedule of variable payments to sub-post offices and other post offices according to the volume of Department of Social Security transactions, together with the total number of transactions within each volume payment band;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a memorandum explaining the internal cross-subsidy system from large-volume to small-volume post office outlets within Post Office Counters Ltd.; and what changes have been made in that system in the last three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, as part of his consultation on the Post Office Green Paper, he will place in the Library the 1991 strategic review of Royal Mail delivery and other services.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution was made to(a) external financing limit targets and (b) overall profits by each Post Office subsidiary over the last three years with an estimate for the current year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The external financing limit is a target which is set for the Post Office Group as a whole. The businesses are not given EFL contribution targets and, therefore, information is not collected or available on this basis.

  The profits of the main Post Office businesses over the last three years are as follows:

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Royal Mail

  266

  252

  296

  Parcelforce

  (24)

  (13)

  (19)

  Post Office Counters Ltd.

  26

  25

  25

  Subscription Services Ltd.

  7

  8

  6

  It is not the Post Office board's policy to publish profit forecasts. The Post Office Group has been set a negative EFL for 1994–5 by the Government of £226 million.

  Small Firms
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to assist small firms in obtaining long-term finance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government firmly believe that finance for all businesses is a commercial matter for the banks and other financial institutions. However, where there are clearly identified gaps in provision, the Government intervene with measures such as the small firms loan guarantee scheme. We will continue to remind the banks and others of the need to provide more long-term finance for small businesses.

  China
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy for promoting trade with China.

  Mr. Needham
  China, as the world's fastest-growing economy, is a major trade promotion priority for the DTI.328
  Together with the China Britain Trade Group, we are implementing a strategy to ensure that British business is well placed to take maximum advantage of the opportunities in the market. This includes targeted geographical and sectoral initiatives and a wide range of high profile trade missions. I have made four trade promotion visits to China since July 1992 and hope to lead another team of senior business people there in October.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board' of Trade what was the balance of trade in manufactured goods(a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  In 1979, the United Kingdom had a surplus of £2·7 billion—1·4 per cent. of GDP—in manufactured trade. In 1993, there was a deficit of £8·3 billion—1·3 per cent. of GDP.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the British Iron and Steel Producers Association to discuss prospects for the steel industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, (Mrs. Jackson).

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what response he has had from companies to his White Paper on competitiveness.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) earlier today.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to discuss the White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My officials and I maintain close contact with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on a wide range of issues, including competitiveness.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the competitiveness of British industry and its export performance.

  Mr. Needham
  My officials and I maintain close contact with representatives from the CBI on a range of issues, including exports.

  Energy and Telecommunications
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects for the creation of a single market in energy and telecommunications in the light of the decisions of the Corfu European Council.
  329
  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government welcome the Corfu Euopean Council's call for the extension of the single market to telecommunications and energy. The Government's objective is to reach rapid agreement on the Commission's proposals for market opening in these sectors.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects for involving the private sector in the United Kingdom coal industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  With the recent passing of the Coal Industry Act 1994 we are on course to privatise British Coal's coal mining assets by the end of the year. Twenty-six applicants have prequalified for one or more of the regional coal companies. In addition, nine collieries which were offered for lease/license by British Coal have now been taken over by the private sector. British Coal is also pressing ahead with plans for the disposal of a large number of its non-mining businesses.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to meet the chairmen of Lloyd's to discuss arrangements to deal with past debts.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Business Confidence
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implications for British industry of the Confederation of British Industry quarterly trend survey on business confidence.

  Mr. Heseltine
  CBI surveys continue to show that British manufacturers are increasingly confident about the future. Output expectations remain positive and total order books are at the highest level for five years. These results provide further evidence of the strength of recovery taking place throughout British industry.

  Design Council
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the decision was taken that bids for separate parts of the Design Council's services should be invited; on what grounds that decision was taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department wrote to the Design Council on 20 June to say that all the proposals which had previously been submitted for the transfer of the Design Council's services to industry on an integrated basis would involve a significant and unacceptable subsidy from the Government. As a result of the failure of these proposals, the Department encouraged the Council to explore the best terms on which piecemeal disposal might be carried forward.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the support offered to the Design Council and the design museum in cash and real terms since 1989; and what provisions are made in the estimates for 1994–95.
  330
  Mr. McLoughlin
  Offers of grant in aid for the Design Council in the financial years 1989–90 to 1994–95 were as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  6·271

  1990–91

  6·435

  1991–92

  6·775

  1992–93

  7·100

  1993–94

  7·500

  1994–95

  7·200

  These amounts do not include free-standing contracts and funding for stand-alone activities and projects negotiated separately for, among other things, the enterprise initiative consultancy scheme, the materials information service and the "Managing in the '90s" programme. Nor do they include separate sums agreed for restructuring costs.

  Offers of running cost support for the design museum were as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  0·300

  1990–91

  0·200

  1991–92

  0·150

  1992–93

  0·150

  1993–94

  —

  1994–95

  —

  These amounts do not include free-standing contracts and funding for specific projects negotiated separately for design exhibitions and seminars at home and overseas.

  The above amounts are in cash: figures in real terms since 1989 are not readily available.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether guidelines similar to the Overseas Development Administration good government criteria are applied in the offering of Export Credits Guarantee Department cover; and how much the ECGD liaises with the ODA on such issues.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 111. ECGD liaises with ODA on cases where aid is involved and ODA' s good government criteria are therefore relevant.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Defence of 11 January,Official Report, column 168–9, what was the size of the line of export credit to Jordan.

  Mr. Needham
  ECGD provided guarantees for export credit loans of up to £236 million for two defence lines of credit to Jordan, signed in 1986 and 1987 respectively, which could be used to support contracts totalling up to £310 million.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost of ECGD's fixed-rate export finance scheme in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The cost of the scheme in each of the last five years was as follows, in round millions:
  331

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  349

  1990–91

  413

  1991–92

  237

  1992–93

  111

  1993–94

  1Minus 53

  1 Provisional

  Inquiries
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the number of uses in each year of operation of(a) the environmental inquiry point and (b) the innovation inquiry line.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I have nothing further to add to the reply given to the hon. Gentleman by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, on 28 April,Official Report, column 250.

  South America
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies he has undertaken through his overseas project fund with Knight Piésold Consulting Engineers about increasing United Kingdom trade with South America.

  Mr. Needham
  The DTI has awarded to Knight Piésold one grant under the overseas projects fund. This was to assist with the costs of preparing a feasibility study. Details of these grants are commercially confidential. Where appropriate in accordance with scheme rules, grants are repaid.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to improve ECGD terms to South American countries.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 12 July 1994,Official Report, columns 513–14, about the credit cover given to Latin America by the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom's major industrial competitors.

  I assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep the terms and conditions of ECGD support under close review, to ensure that these are the best possible in the context of the prevailing economic and political conditions in each market.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance he has issued to the Comptroller General of the Patent Office about public comments on the future status of the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. The Government will make a statement when the current review of the Patent Office has been completed.

  Gas Interconnector
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if it is his policy to construct an interconnector for gas between Britain and the continent of Europe; and if he will make a statement.
  332
  Mr. Eggar
  The industry project to build a major grid-to-grid gas interconnector between Bacton and Zeebrugge would benefit the United Kingdom by contributing to the continued development of the United Kingdom continental shelf, and, by providing access to gas from other sources, thereby enhance security of supply.

  British Coal
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what were the figures for British Coal stocks at each site in the United Kingdom in 1992, 1993 and at the latest available date;

  (2) what was the percentage of British Coal stocks to output for each British Coal region in the United Kingdom in 1992, 1993 and the latest available date.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards are in place during the sale of British Coal to prevent the future owners of the regional coal companies being disadvantaged in negotiations on future coal sale contracts by disclosure of confidential information to other bidders who have interests in power generation.

  Mr. Eggar
  All pre-qualifiers for the regional coal companies have signed strict confidentiality undertakings covering the disclosure or use of any information made available to them. Breach of those undertakings could lead to forfeit of their deposits, disqualification from the tender and, if appropriate, legal proceedings.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much and what percentage of British Coal's privatisation costs in 1993–94 were spent on consultants.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department spent in 1993–94 on advice on coal privatisation by consultants.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department's expenditure on coal privatisation consultants in 1993–94 was approximately £10·2 million, including VAT.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 602, what consideration was given to including D65, textiles, D84, clothing; D67, iron and steel; D78.1, motor cars and parts; D87, scientific etc. instruments; D71, power-generating machinery etc; D72, specialised industrial machinery; D74, general industrial machinery; D75, office machines and ADP machines; D76, telecommunications etc. equipment; ex-SITC5, chemicals; and D66, non-metallic mineral manufactures among the principal import competing export industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on output of industries is available only according to the standard industrial classification and the reply was given on this basis. Each activity heading within manufacturing, as defined by the SIC, was considered.

  The various divisions of the standard international trade classification listed in the present question are groups of products and not industries. Consequently no consideration was given to their inclusion.
  333

  Coal Authority
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the criteria which will be used to select members of the Coal Authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will, in accordance with the Coal Industry Act 1994, have regard to the desirability of appointing people with experience of, or who have shown capacity in, matters relevant to the Coal Authority's functions.

  Investment Aid
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy in future to consult industry about the implications for existing companies prior to reaching conclusions about the award of investment aid to encourage overseas companies to open facilities in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  It is not possible to consult directly with industry for reasons of commercial confidentiality in dealings with applicants. However, to be eligible for investment grants, projects must show they will bring a national economic benefit. Part of that test requires an assessment of the impact of the new investment on existing businesses.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to inform the House whenever his Department commissions consultations to consider the implications for existing companies of applications for inward investment aid; if he will ensure that the reports of such consultants are available to right hon. and hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  For reasons of commercial confiden-tiality it is not possible to provide this information.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department relayed to the Northern Ireland Office the estimate of job losses provided by Sir David Alliance CBE to him at a meeting of the Manufacturing and Construction Industries Alliance on Monday 13 June and associated with the award of investment aid to the Hualon Corporation in connection with the development of new textile facilities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Northern Ireland Office has this information.

  Electricity
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by what authority and on the basis of what formula regional electricity companies are permitted to deduct from payments to the levy collector an amount equivalent to green ticket payments to Electricite de France.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Electricity Act 1989 provides for levy payments to the collector to be calculated by reference to the aggregate amount charged by each licensed electricity supplier for leviable electricity supplies only: "leviable electricity" excludes electricity which is generated by a non-fossil generating station that is not contracted within the NFFO.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps the Director General of Electricity Supply and 334
  the regional electricity companies are required to take to ensure power supplied by Electricity de France comes from non fossil-fuelled power stations.

  Mr. Eggar
  Regulations 8 and 12 of the Fossil Fuel Levy Regulations 1990 set out information that licensed electricity suppliers must provide to satisfy the Director General of Electricity Supply about the electricity that they supply, including non-leviable electricity.

  Gas Supply
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislative proposals he will put forward in the next parliamentary Session to extend competition in the gas supply industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 18 July 1994,Official Report, column 23.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department or OFTEL has to investigate the coupling of the sale of mobile phones with airtime agreements.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Neither my Department nor OFTEL have any current plans to investigate the linking of the sale of mobile phones with airtime agreements. OFTEL's position is that packages linking handsets with airtime contracts are not unreasonable so long as a satisfactory range of alternatives is available. OFTEL is not aware of complaints that customers wishing to purchase handsets and airtime contracts separately are unable to do so.

  Mr. Asil Nadir
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the outcome of the application under section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 in the case of Mr. Asil Nadir, made by the official receiver.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The official receiver's application under section 279(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was heard on 1 July 1994. The court ordered that Mr. Nadir's bankruptcy should not be discharged until he complies with the following conditions:that he disclose and deliver to the trustee of his estate all property and documents possessed or controlled by him;
  that he provide the trustees with a full account of his business dealings, and all property and income to which he has become entitled since being made bankrupt;
  that he do all that is reasonably required of him by the trustee to assist them in realising and getting in property belonging to him, whether it be in and out of this jurisdiction; and
  that he fully comply with a number of orders made by the court which as at 1 July he had failed to do.

  The order is subject to appeal.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what additional criteria his Department will take account of in considering applications for regional selective assistance.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None. Any change in the criteria of the scheme would be announced before it is introduced.
  335

  Exhaust Emissions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been his response to the Warren Spring laboratory report on the compound hyperform—FXI—as a method of reducing exhaust emissions.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 15 July 1994]: I understand that Warren Spring laboratory tested a compound called FX1 for a private company in 1993. It is not departmental policy to endorse or refute the claims made for particular commercial products.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those countries which do not need to produce(a) an end-user certificate and (b) an export licence when buying arms from the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 July 1994]: Items subject to control under part III, group I of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 require an export licence for all destinations. In considering export licence applications

  Total expenditure—pre-school children

  £000

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Health Board expenditure

  Pre-school playgroups

  407

  415

  359

  239

  Grants to voluntary organisations

  1,314

  1,211

  1,238

  1,663

  1,721

  1,626

  1,597

  1,902

  DHSS expenditure

  Grants to voluntary organisations

  147

  159

  180

  199

  Total

  1,868

  1,785

  1,777

  2,101

  Total expenditure as a percentage Gross Domestic Product

  0·02

  0·02

  0·02

  n/a

  Notes:

  1. Financial data for the 1993–94 financial year is not yet available.

  2. Gross domestic product figures for the 1992–3 year are not available

  Further Education
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total capital expenditure for minor and major works for each college of further education in Northern Ireland during each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  [pursuant to his answer, 22 June 1994, c. 166]: The figure spent in the Southern education and library board during 1992–3 on minor repairs was £150,000 and not £105,000 as originally answered.

  War Veterans
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Thurrock in relation to the desire of Ards borough council to help fund the travel of war veterans to liberation celebrations in Belgium this autumn.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 19 July.
  336
  full information as to end use is always required and, depending on circumstances, this may take the form of an end-user certificate, letter of undertaking or a copy of an order or contract.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Child Care Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 provisions and grants for the voluntary sector, for each year from 1989–90 to 1993–94; and what was the total public expenditure on their services as a percentage of the gross domestic product for Northern Ireland in each of these years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The total expenditure borne by the Department of Health and Social Services and its sponsored bodies for the provision of child care services to pre-school children under the age of five years for each year from 1989–90 to 1992–93 is outlined in the table.

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

  Mr. Ancram
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People announced the publication of a consultation document on 15 July. The consultation document extends to Northern Ireland and the relevant Northern Ireland Departments have contributed to its preparation.

  Out-of-school Services
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 Northern Ireland for each of these years.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is not available in the form requested.
  337
  The Department of Health and Social Services grant-aids the Northern Ireland Childminding Association, whose members can care for school age and pre-school children. Since 1989–90, funding has been as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  15,000

  1990–91

  24,000

  1991–92

  24,000

  1992–93

  31,000

  1993–94

  46,000

  However, it is not possible to distinguish an out-of-school element in this support.

  In addition, in 1992–93 Northern Ireland's health and personal social services boards spent £1·7 million on family day centres, which provide a specialist support service to families at risk. These centres also provide specialist services for other families in the community. Again it is not possible to distinguish an out-of-school element in this expenditure.

  Water Services
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what study his Department has made on the reform of charging for water services; which other organisations his Department has consulted relating to privatising the water services industry in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what preparations his Department is making to carry out preparatory work on the reform of charging for water services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Options for new charging arrangements for water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland are being examined and I intend to publish a policy document in advance of the introduction of new arrangements.

  Discussions have taken place about water privatisation with elected representatives, district councils and representatives of interested groups. Water privatisation will require legislation and the proposal for a draft order will be published for consultation.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress his Department has made towards the development of a private finance strategy and programme for the water services industry In Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  As I announced on 30 March 1994,Official Report, columns 836–37, consultants have been appointed to carry out a study into the scope for attracting private sector finance to the Department of the Environment's water and sewerage construction programme. The consultant's report will be available very soon and it will form the basis for deciding how the private finance initiative is to be taken forward.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the Price Waterhouse study announced on 30 March into the scope for attracting private sector finance to the water and sewerage construction and improvement programme in Northern Ireland; if he intends to make the report public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The feasibility study commenced in April 1994 and a report is expected before the end of July 338
  1994. The study was commissioned on a confidential basis because of commercial sensitivities of the issues involved. I have no plans to publish the report.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent consecutively in each of the last three years on agency fees in preparation for the privatisation of the water services industry in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The following sums have been paid in each of the last three years to consultants and other non-Government organisations for preparations related to the privatisation of water and sewerage services in Northern Ireland:

  £ million

  1991–92

  Nil

  1992–93

  1·8

  1993–94

  1·9

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning disconnections of domestic water supply.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Representations have been received from 23 individuals and 21 groups arguing against water companies having the power to disconnect domestic supplies when water and sewerage services are privatized in Northern Ireland. These concerns will be taken into consideration in determining new charging arrangements for water and sewerage services.

  All-Ireland Occupational Health and Safety Institute
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy in respect of the establishment of an all-Ireland occupational health and safety institute; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  While I support cross-border co-operation in areas where substantial benefits can be achieved for both parts of the island, the viability of an all-Ireland occupational health and safety institute, from a Northern Ireland perspective, would be heavily dependent on the extent to which it could attract local support for its services and the degree to which its activities would be self-financing.

  Compensation Agency
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has begun the triennial review of the Compensation Agency.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  A review of the agency status of the Compensation Agency has commenced. The performance of the Compensation Agency will be evaluated, and a prior options review of its activities will be carried out.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became(a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;
  339
  (2) how many special advisers have (a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (3) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  One special adviser has joined the Northern Ireland Office in the last five years. He was appointed in December 1991, resigned in March 1992 and was re-appointed as my special adviser in June 1992. There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homes have been sold under the right-to-buy legislation in each year since its introduction; and what was the number of public sector housing starts in each of those years.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Northern Ireland Housing Executive operates a scheme for the sale of its houses to secure tenants which mirrors the statutory right-to-buy scheme operating in England and Wales. The chief executive has advised me that house sales under the scheme, together with the number of new build starts, are as follows:

  Year

  Dwellings sold

  New build starts

  1980–81

  1,994

  1,224

  1981–82

  7,042

  4,680

  1982–83

  5,554

  3,947

  1983–84

  5,440

  3,705

  1984–85

  5,422

  2,430

  1985–86

  4,103

  1,508

  1986–87

  3,184

  1,675

  1987–88

  2,807

  1,633

  1988–89

  3,368

  1,554

  1989–90

  4,638

  1,405

  1990–91

  4,092

  1,007

  1991–92

  3,191

  814

  1992–93

  3,228

  1,005

  1993–94

  3,972

  1,064

  Total

  58,035

  27,671

  Investment Aid
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answers of 8 July,Official Report, columns 359–60, if he will identify the leading independent internationally recognised consultants from whom he sought advice in connection with the implications for existing companies prior to reaching conculsions about the award of investment aid to encourage the opening of new facilities in Northern Ireland by the Hualon Corporation; what was the cost of that advice; if he will arrange for a copy of the advice to be made available in the Library; what was the basis upon which the consultants were appointed; what steps were taken to ensure that they had no conflict of interest with other clients; what procedures are adopted in commissioning such consultants; by whom the appointment was made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The international consultants were Kurt Salmon Associates.
  340
  KSA conducted a detailed and comprehensive appraisal of the Hualon project—including technical, production and market aspects—and it is not possible to isolate the cost of the advice relating solely to the implications for existing companies.

  The KSA report contains commercially confidential information and therefore will not be made available in the Library.

  The consultants were appointed on the basis of their international reputation and specialist expertise within the global textile industry.

  It is the established code of practice among major international consultancy firms to declare any potential conflict of interest prior to taking on any assignment. No such conflict of interest was declared by KSA prior to accepting the Hualon assignment.

  In commissioning such consultants due weight is given to the extent and availability of their expert resources, their track record and their international standing.

  KSA was selected and appointed by the Industrial Develpment Board from an internal register of specialist consultants.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answers of 8 July,Official Report, columns 359–60, how much money is being made available, and when, to the Hualon Corporation in the form of inward investment and other incentives to encourage it to proceed with plans to open a new facility in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Total selective financial assistance offered towards the establishment of the Hualon textile plant is approximately £61 million. It will be paid out over a 10-year period as the project proceeds through its four phases, mainly in the form of grants towards capital expenditure on buildings, plant and machinery.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations his Department has received concerning estimated job losses associated with the award of investment aid to the Hualon Corporation in connection with the development of new textile facilities in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  My Department has received two representations concerning potential job losses as a consequence of the Hualon project.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answers of 8 July,Official Report, columns 359–60, if he will now make it his policy in future to consult industry both in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom about the implications for existing companies prior to reaching conclusions about the award of investment aid to encourage the opening of new facilities in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  In reaching any decision to offer assistance to encourage new investment in Northern Ireland my Department is required to consider carefully the implications for existing companies both in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. My Department does not consult industry or companies about such decisions and will not do so in future. This policy is
  341
  the same as that applied in other parts of the United Kingdom where regional assistance is available and I see no reason to change this policy.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's contribution to the deregulation programme.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Northern Ireland Departments are playing a full part in the deregulation initiative and have already made significant progress in the following areas:

  (i) Enforcement Codes

  Twenty three Enforcement Bodies in Northern Ireland have produced codes of practice outlining in simple language the standards of service businesses should expect from them and detailing clear complaints procedures in the event of dissatisfaction with the service received.

  (ii) Review of "Non-parity" Legislation

  A review has been conducted of the 30 items of legislation unique to Northern Ireland which impact on business. As a result of this review, it was decided to revoke five of these items.

  (iii) Deregulation and Contracting-Out Bill

  The Deregulation and Contracting-Out Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament, includes four specific measures which have been extended to Northern Ireland.

  The remaining measures in the Bill which require action in Northern Ireland will be contained in a composite Northern Ireland Deregulation and Contracting-Out Order-in-Council.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sites of special scientific interest are listed in Northern Ireland, giving in each case their location and indicating which are at risk from proposed developments.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  There are currently 55 areas of special scientific interest in Northern Ireland; a list of them, with locations, has been placed in the Library.

  It is believed that no areas of special scientific interest are threatened by development at this time.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the establishment of an environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  In Northern Ireland most of the functions of the proposed agency in England and Wales are already carried out by one body, the Environment Service of the Department of the Environment. I will decide whether or not any proposals for change in Northern Ireland should be made when final details of the proposed agency in England and Wales are known and when I have received the results of the prior options study of the Environment Service which was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 18 January 1994.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards the Government's target of recycling 25 per cent. of reusable household waste.
  342
  Mr. Tim Smith
  Information on the volume of recyclable material collected in Northern Ireland is not held centrally. The recyclable materials most commonly collected in Northern Ireland are wastepaper; glass; aluminium cans; oil. Collection facilities are based mainly on "bring" centres. Under new legislation currently being prepared district councils will be required to prepare recycling plans for their districts.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received from United Kingdom or foreign non-governmental organisations concerning the environmental risks of THORP.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  None. Responsibility for the regulation of the THORP plant rests with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Gas Pipes
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what agency or department owns the remnant gas pipe network in Derry city; and what departments or agencies have responsibilities relating to its maintenance adaptation or disposal.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Londonderry Gaslight Company, which formerly owned the underground gas pipes, was wound up on 14 July 1993 and dissolved on 14 October 1993. Ownership of the underground gas pipes is currently under legal consideration.

  Science and Watercourse Management Division
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will make a statement about possible executive agency status for the science and watercourse management division of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have decided that the science service and the watercourse management division of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland should be considered as candidates for executive agency status, under the next steps initiative. Prior options studies will be undertaken to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. I would welcome comments from interested parties.

  Comments on the Veterinary Sciences Division should be sent to:

  The Secretary

  Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland

  Veterinary Sciences Division

  Stoney Road

  Belfast BT4 3SD

  Comments on Watercourse Management Division should be sent by 1 September to:

  The Secretary

  Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland

  Watercourse Management Division

  Hydebank

  4 Hospital Road

  Belfast BT8 4RP

  343

  Mentally Infirm People
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the admission policy in each health board area in Northern Ireland in respect of(a) the elderly mentally infirm and (b) Alzheimer's disease sufferers.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on admission policy in each health board area in Northern Ireland in respect of(a) elderly mentally infirm and (b) people with Alzheimer's disease is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. In general terms, admission to hospital, residential homes and nursing homes will be based on clinical judgment, multi-disciplinary assessment of the individual's need and the availability of appropriate services.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many patients in the Northern health board area in each of the last three years have been assessed as

  Recruiting statistics—RUC

  Total

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  CB1 Per cent.

  CB2 Per cent.

  CB3 Per cent.

  1990 Applications

  1,113

  842

  116

  155

  75·65

  10·42

  13·93

  1990 Intakes

  182

  159

  13

  10

  87·36

  7·14

  5·49

  1991 Applications

  1,704

  1,313

  191

  200

  77·05

  11·21

  11·74

  1991 Intakes

  180

  156

  17

  7

  86·67

  9·44

  3·89

  1992 Applications

  2,317

  1,716

  231

  370

  74·06

  9·97

  15·97

  1992 Intakes

  421

  368

  39

  14

  87·41

  9·26

  3·33

  1993 Applications

  733

  518

  86

  129

  70·67

  11·73

  17·60

  1993 Intakes

  207

  165

  14

  28

  79·71

  6·76

  13·53

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the goals and timetables set for the RUC and the RUC Reserve under section 31 of the Fair Employment Act; and what success the RUC and the RUC Reserve have had in achieving them.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: I understand that the RUC has no plans to publish the goals and timetables set for the RUC and the RUC Reserve under section 31 of the Fair Employment Act 1989, or to report on the success they have had in achieving them. A copy of the review prepared by the RUC under section 31 of the Act has been made available to the Fair Employment Commission.

  Table 1: Royal Ulster Constabulary RUC By Rank and Perceived Religious Affiliation 1990–1993

  Community Background

  Rank

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  Total

  CB1 Per cent.

  CB2 Per cent.

  CB3 Per cent.

  1990

  Chief Officers

  10

  3

  1

  14

  71·4

  21·4

  7·1

  Chief Superintendent

  35

  8

  1

  44

  79·5

  18·2

  2·3

  Superintendent

  104

  17

  2

  123

  84·6

  13·8

  1·6

  Chief Inspector

  135

  22

  4—

  161

  83·9

  13·7

  2·4

  Inspector

  421

  43

  17

  481

  87·5

  8·9

  3·5

  Sergeant

  1,213

  119

  30

  1,362

  89·1

  8·7

  2·2

  Constable

  5,445

  427

  186

  6,058

  89·9

  7·0

  3·1

  Total

  7,363

  639

  241

  8,243

  —

  —

  —

  CB as Percentage of Total

  89·32

  7·75

  2·92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  344
  requiring EMI—elderly mentally infirm—nursing care; and how many have been placed in (a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes;

  (2) how many patients suffering from dementia are presently placed in (a) residential homes and (b) nursing homes in each health board area in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for membership of the RUC were made in each year since 1983; from which community they came; and how many from each community were recruited.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Information is not available prior to 1990.

  Available information is as follows:

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what were the percentage make-up and absolute number of the RUC and RUC Reserve perceived by religious affiliation for each year since 1983;

  (2) what is the absolute and percentage numbers by perceived religious affiliation in each rank of the RUC and the RUC Reserve to the latest convenient date and each year since 1983.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: This information is not available prior to 1990. Available information is as follows:
  345

  Community Background

  Rank

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  Total

  CB1 Percent.

  CB2 Per cent.

  CB3 Per cent.

  Chief Officers

  10

  3

  1

  14

  71·4

  21·4

  7·1

  Chief Superintendent

  36

  7

  1

  44

  81·8

  15·9

  2·3

  Superintendent

  103

  16

  0

  110

  86·6

  13·4

  0·0

  Chief Inspector

  139

  20

  4

  163

  85·3

  12·3

  2·4

  Inspector

  422

  42

  18

  482

  87·5

  8·7

  3·7

  Sergeant

  1,228

  124

  28

  1,380

  89·0

  9·0

  2·0

  Constable

  5,407

  423

  190

  6,020

  89·8

  7·0

  3·2

  Total

  7,345

  635

  242

  8,222

  —

  —

  —

  CB as Percentage of Total

  89·33

  7·72

  2·94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  Chief Officers

  11

  2

  1

  14

  78·6

  14·3

  7·1

  Chief Superintendent

  35

  6

  1

  42

  83·3

  14·3

  2·4

  Superintendent

  104

  17

  1

  122

  85·2

  13·9

  0·9

  Chief Inspector

  139

  20

  4

  163

  85·3

  12·3

  2·4

  Inspector

  426

  47

  17

  490

  86·9

  9·6

  3·5

  Sergeant

  1,250

  123

  24

  1,397

  89·5

  8·8

  1·7

  Constable

  5,617

  456

  182

  6,255

  89·8

  7·3

  2·9

  Total

  7,582

  671

  230

  8,483

  —

  —

  —

  CB as Percentage of Total

  89·38

  7·91

  2·71

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  Chief Officers

  10

  1

  1

  12

  83·3

  8·3

  8·3

  Chief Superintendent

  34

  7

  1

  42

  80·9

  16·7

  2·4

  Superintendent

  103

  17

  3

  123

  83·7

  13·8

  2·4

  Chief Inspector

  140

  22

  2

  164

  85·4

  13·4

  1·2

  Inspector

  427

  45

  17

  489

  87·3

  9·2

  3·5

  Sergeant

  1,261

  123

  24

  1,408

  89·6

  8·7

  1·7

  Constable

  5,575

  454

  203

  6,232

  89·4

  7·3

  3·3

  Total

  7,550

  669

  251

  8,470

  —

  —

  —

  CB as Percentage of Total

  89·14

  7·90

  2·96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Table 2: RUC Reserve (Full Time)

  Community background

  Full time reserve

  CB as percentage of total

  1990

  CB1

  2,699

  90·27

  CB2

  163

  5·45

  CB3 Total

  128

  4·28

  Total

  2,990

  1991

  CB1

  2,731

  89·78

  CB2

  177

  5·82

  CB3

  134

  4·40

  Total

  3,042

  1992

  CB1

  2,817

  89·15

  CB2

  192

  60·07

  CB3

  151

  4·78

  Total

  3,160

  1993

  CB1

  2,822

  88·60

  CB2

  200

  6·28

  CB3

  163

  5·12

  Total

  3,185

  346

  Table 3: RUC Reserve (Part Time)

  Community background

  Part time reserve

  CB as percentage of total

  1990

  CB1

  1,479

  95·05

  CB2

  61

  3·92

  CB3

  16

  1·03

  Total

  1,556

  1991

  CB1

  1,440

  94·92

  CB2

  62

  4·09

  CB3

  15

  0·99

  Total

  1,517

  1992

  CB1

  1,360

  94·97

  CB2

  56

  3·91

  CB3

  16

  1·12

  Total

  1,432

  1993

  CB1

  1,320

  95·03

  CB2

  52

  3·74

  CB3

  17

  1·22

  Total

  1,389

  Note:

  CB1—Perceived Protestant Community.

  CB2—Perceived Roman Cartholic Community.

  CB3—Other.

  All statistics are compiled as at end of year.

  The RUC Reserve consists only of Constables.
  347

  Contracts
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, columns 589–90, which company was finally awarded the contract; which company was originally recommended by officials; and what were the reasons for giving a direction.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 18 July 1994]: The criteria for awarding public service contracts include such aspects as value for money, price and quality. Although officials had recommended that the contract in question be awarded to a previous contractor to the Northern Ireland civil service on the basis of, among other relevant criteria, a highly satisfactory performance, the Minister directed that it be awarded to a new contractor, Mount Charles Catering Ltd., on the determining factor of lowest cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will list the number of licensed mink farms in(a) 1964, (b) 1974, (c) 1984 and (d)

  Mr. Soames
  Information is readily available only from 1989. At 31 March 1989 there were 52 mink farms in England; at 31 March 1994 there were 12.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will show the estimated number of arctic fox fur farms in the United Kingdom in(a) 1964, (b) 1974, (c) 1984 and (d)

  Mr. Soames
  The keeping of arctic fox is not subject to control in England, Wales and Scotland and information is not collected on the number of farms keeping this animal. In Northern Ireland, the keeping of arctic foxes is subject to licensing under the Arctic Fox (Importation and Keeping) Regulations 1988. No licences have been issued in Northern Ireland to keep this animal since the regulations came into force and information on the number of farms was not collected prior to the legislation being introduced.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to her answer of 13 July, when it became Ministry policy not to discuss details of licences of mink farms; why this decision was taken; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  It has been Ministry policy over a number of years not to disclose details of licences of individual mink farms; this is to protect mink fur farmers from the attentions of individuals or organisations who might seek to disrupt by unlawful means the activity of licensed fur farming.

  Durum Wheat, Italy
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 13 July,Official Report, column 656 about durum wheat, if she will make it her policy to gather information about the durum wheat areas measured by remote sensing in Italy and the action taken by the Italian authorities.
  348
  Mr. Jack
  Responsibility for ensuring that member states fulfil their obligations to prevent fraud rests with the European Commission. The Ministry does not have the resources to monitor the level of compliance in other member states.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are taken to ensure that market traders and slaughterers make sure that farmers declare whether their cattle come from a BSE-infected herd.

  Mr. Soames
  Responsibility for checking that animals presented for slaughter and intended for the production of bone-in beef for intra-Community trade are accompanied by declarations confirming that they do not originate from BSE-infected premises rests with the slaughterhouse operator. The health certification for bone-in beef which must accompany such consignments cannot be completed by the official veterinarian unless such a declaration has been seen. As far as the export of live calves to EC member states is concerned, it is the responsibility of the official veterinarian completing export health certification to ensure that, for each of the animals being exported, an owner's declaration has been received confirming, inter alia, that the animal is not the progeny of a dam in which BSE is suspected or has been officially confirmed. Where calves for export are sold through a market the official veterinarian must be in receipt of such declarations for each calf or, alternatively, a declaration from the auctioneer confirming that the required owner's declarations for all the animals to be exported have been received and retained. In addition, computer checks are carried out on the validity of owner or auctioneer declarations.

  Rabbit Control
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will set out the areas of research funded by her Department with regard to establishing cost-effective and humane rabbit control.

  Mr. Soames
  Listed are the research projects currently funded by the Ministry on the control of rabbits by non-lethal means:

  1. Predicting damage to winter wheat in relation to the density of rabbits and the timing of population control.

  2. Developing humane, environmentally acceptable and cost-effective techniques for reducing rabbit numbers or otherwise preventing crop damage.

  3. Modelling rabbit populations and designing control packages.

  4. Irreversible immunocontraception for the control of wild rabbits.

  5. The management of mammal pests in farm woodlands.

  The Forestry Commission is carrying out research on the use of tree guards against rabbits.

  Herbal Products
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries. and Food whether she will make it her policy in future not to introduce bans on herbal products, whether voluntary or compulsory, without first consulting the House.

  Mr. Soames
  Compulsory bans on foodstuffs can be made by means of orders under existing legislation. Such
  349
  orders must be approved by Parliament. Voluntary bans on foodstuffs do not have the force of law and are not therefore appropriate for clearance by Parliament.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how many years since 1964 comfrey products have been consumed in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  Consumers have been free to choose to consume comfrey products since they have existed. Since March 1993 there has been a voluntary trade withdrawal of certain comfrey products because of their potential to give a high intake of toxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids. If consumers wish to continue consuming comfrey they may do so in the form of tea made from comfrey leaves as such products were not part of the voluntary withdrawal.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action she is taking to harmonise animal welfare standards of the remaining European Union countries with British standards; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government are pressing for the adoption of high welfare standards throughout the European Union. The arguments put by my right hon. Friend to the June Council of Ministers for improvements to the proposed rules on animal transport are a case in point.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many special advisers who left her Department in each of the last five years became(a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (2) if she will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left her Department in each of the last five years

  Mr. Jack
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left her Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Jack
  The number of special advisers who have joined or left the Department in the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Joined

  Left

  1990

  1

  1

  1991

  —

  —

  1992

  —

  —

  1993

  2

  1

  1994

  —

  1

  Commissions
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many commissions her Department had with the Agriculture and Food Research 350
  Council for each year since 1979; how many such commissions she expects to make this year; and what is the value of those commissions in (a) cash and (b) constant prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My Department has issued a single commission for its research and development programme with the Agriculture and Food Research Council covering all its institutes each year. Details of the amounts spent in cash and constant prices are as follows:

  Year

  Cash £ million

  Constant Prices1 £ million

  1979–80

  30·4

  72·4

  1980–81

  37·4

  75·2

  1981–82

  44·3

  81·3

  1982–83

  48·6

  83·2

  1983–84

  51·3

  84·0

  1984–85

  52·8

  82·3

  1985–86

  51·8

  76·5

  1986–87

  47·9

  68·7

  1987–88

  44·2

  60·2

  1988–89

  46·4

  59·2

  1989–90

  46·0

  54·9

  1990–91

  45·6

  50·3

  1991–92

  34·5

  35·8

  1992–93

  34·8

  34·8

  1993–94

  36·0

  34·8

  To date, the value of the MAFF Commission with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council for 1994–95 in cash and constant prices is

  32·7

  30·4

  1 using the GDP deflator (1992–93=100)

  Institute of Food Research
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure on the Institute of Food Research for each year since 1986 in(a) cash and (b) constant prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information on MAFF funding of research and development at the Institute of Food Research for each year since 1986 in cash and constant prices is as follows:

  Year

  Cash £ million

  1 Constant Prices £ million

  1986–87

  7·6

  10·9

  1987–88

  7·5

  10·3

  1988–89

  8·0

  10·2

  1989–90

  7·7

  9·1

  1990–91

  7·0

  7·8

  1991–92

  5·8

  6·0

  1992–93

  6·1

  6·1

  1993–94

  5·8

  5·6

  1 Using the GDP deflator (1992–93=100).

  Veterinary Service
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures available for the number of vets employed by the State Veterinary Service.
  351
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of veterinary surgeons employed by the state veterinary service as at 1 June 1994 was 403. This figure includes veterinary staff at Tolworth HQ.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current number of veterinary investigation centres in operation; what plans there are to develop these centres; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There are currently 13 veterinary investigation centres and one veterinary investigation unit in operation in England and Wales. Last year two new purpose-built centres were opened at Bury St. Edmunds and at Luddington in Warwickshire. Major redevelopments have been carried out at a number of the centres and final plans are now being prepared for major redevelopment at Penrith and Thirsk veterinary investigation centres.

  Resrarch and Developmentent
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current number of personnel employed in her Department's research and development programme; and what were the figures for each year from 1979–80.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The numbers of personnel employed by my Department in its research and development programme are as follows:

  Number

  1984–85

  2,264

  1985–86

  2,062

  1986–87

  1,924

  1987–88

  1,919

  1988–89

  2,201

  1989–90

  1,801

  1990–91

  2,514

  1991–92

  2,420

  1992–93

  2,552

  11993–94

  2,575

  1 Provisional figure.

  Figures include personnel at MAFF agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

  Figures prior to 1984 are not available.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been her Department's total research and development expenditure for each year since 1979 in(a) cash and (b) constant terms.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My Department's total research and development expenditure for each year since 1981–82 in cash and constant prices is as follows:

  Year

  Cash £ million

  Constant prices1 £ million

  1981–82

  106·8

  195·9

  1982–83

  113·9

  195·0

  1983–84

  118·6

  194·1

  352

  Year

  Cash £ million

  Constant prices1 £ million

  1984–85

  119·4

  186·1

  1985–86

  118·4

  174·8

  1986–87

  118·3

  169·7

  1987–88

  113·8

  155·0

  1988–89

  115·0

  146·8

  1989–90

  112·2

  133·9

  1990–91

  119·1

  131·5

  1991–92

  121·5

  126·2

  1992–93

  132·9

  132·9

  21993–94

  137·3

  132·9

  1 Using the GDP deflator (1992–93 = 100).

  2 Provisional.

  Figures for 1979–80 and 1980–81 are not available.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the allocated budget for the environmentally sensitive area schemes in England and Wales for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Jack
  The provision for environmentally sensitive areas in England and Wales at the beginning of each financial year since 1989 is as follows:

  England

  Wales

  1988–89

  8,300

  1,025

  1989–90

  8,430

  1,000

  1990–91

  7,850

  1,700

  1991–92

  8,687

  1,700

  1992–93

  21,442

  4,533

  1993–94

  30,200

  5,787

  1994–95

  31,234

  6,863

  Wheat Yields
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the wheat yields for each county in England in 1986 to 1992, sorted by seven-year average, according to the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service study received by her Department in January 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  The average wheat yield for each county in England for 1986 to 1992 including the seven-year average, as presented in the ADAS study, is given in the table.

  These figures are derived from the annual cereals production survey—CPS—which samples about 3,000 cereal growers. However the CPS is not designed to produce reliable estimates of county yields, and in some counties with few cereal growers the sample size may be very small. Yields also tend to be more variable within counties than between counties. The figures at county level, therefore, cannot be regarded as entirely reliable.
  353

  Wheat yields in England 1986–92 (by county)

  County

  1986 harvest

  1987 harvest

  1988 harvest

  1989 harvest

  1990 harvest

  1991 harvest

  1992 harvest

  7 year average

  Greater London (SE)

  4·38

  4·61

  4·80

  59·8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4·94

  West Midlands

  5·43

  5·27

  n/a

  3·64

  5·52

  6·65

  6·49

  5·50

  Surrey

  6·17

  5·56

  5·57

  5·15

  6·92

  5·86

  5·50

  5·82

  Lancashire

  5·61

  4·64

  5·39

  4·62

  6·52

  6·68

  6·74

  5·74

  Devon

  6·23

  6·24

  5·88

  6·39

  6·57

  6·21

  5·81

  6·19

  Greater London (E)

  4·12

  n/a

  5·00

  6·16

  n/a

  6·71

  n/a

  5·50

  Buckinghamshire

  6·73

  5·31

  5·62

  5·81

  6·37

  6·60

  6·00

  6·06

  Gloucestershire

  6·54

  6·10

  5·95

  5·12

  5·61

  5·72

  6·20

  6·03

  Cornwall

  5·70

  5·87

  6·15

  6·85

  6·18

  6·34

  5·99

  6·16

  Berkshire

  6·87

  5·80

  6·03

  5·87

  5·76

  6·48

  5·95

  6·11

  East Sussex

  6·18

  5·82

  6·32

  6·33

  6·58

  5·65

  6·56

  6·20

  Avon

  6·12

  6·11

  6·33

  5·77

  6·61

  6·23

  6·24

  6·20

  Cumbria

  7·10

  6·39

  5·55

  4·59

  8·52

  5·80

  6·42

  6·34

  Greater Manchester

  8·55

  n/a

  5·73

  5·00

  5·47

  6·81

  6·46

  6·34

  Staffordshire

  6·87

  6·25

  5·94

  5·82

  6·66

  7·52

  6·50

  6·51

  Merseyside

  6·80

  5·81

  6·59

  5·71

  6·06

  6·91

  6·02

  6·27

  Derbyshire

  6·76

  6·16

  5·77

  5·79

  6·42

  7·11

  6·20

  6·32

  Hertfordshire

  6·15

  5·57

  5·78

  6·77

  6·17

  7·05

  6·21

  6·24

  Bedfordshire

  7·04

  5·48

  5·66

  6·23

  6·15

  7·46

  6·29

  6·33

  Leicestershire

  7·16

  5·74

  6·22

  6·44

  6·18

  7·40

  6·27

  6·49

  Tyne and Wear

  6·53

  5·51

  5·55

  4·74

  8·01

  7·26

  7·70

  6·47

  Nottinghamshire

  7·07

  6·25

  5·63

  6·68

  6·57

  7·15

  6·23

  6·51

  Warwickshire

  6·65

  5·83

  6·06

  6·10

  6·28

  7·56

  6·63

  6·44

  Oxfordshire

  6·79

  6·00

  6·04

  6·32

  5·89

  6·72

  6·43

  6·31

  Northamptonshire

  6·86

  5·76

  5·99

  6·93

  6·59

  7·46

  6·52

  6·59

  Wiltshire

  6·64

  6·32

  6·26

  6·42

  6·48

  6·88

  5·84

  6·41

  Isle of Wight

  7·80

  6·98

  6·08

  6·02

  5·19

  7·27

  5·94

  6·47

  Hereford and Worcester

  6·92

  6·16

  6·48

  5·86

  6·37

  7·38

  6·79

  6·57

  Shropshire

  7·00

  6·31

  6·62

  5·95

  6·79

  7·67

  6·78

  6·73

  Cheshire

  6·55

  5·68

  6·62

  6·07

  5·77

  7·84

  7·26

  6·54

  South Yorkshire

  6·98

  6·17

  6·41

  6·57

  6·72

  7·68

  6·46

  6·71

  Kent

  6·84

  5·96

  7·20

  6·75

  7·06

  6·52

  7·24

  6·80

  Dorset

  6·72

  6·54

  6·68

  7·12

  6·62

  6·45

  6·29

  6·63

  Hampshire

  7·05

  6·08

  6·36

  6·48

  6·55

  6·45

  6·89

  6·52

  Somerset

  7·07

  6·89

  5·71

  6·25

  6·67

  6·87

  6·40

  6·52

  West Yorkshire

  6·78

  6·46

  6·24

  6·86

  6·47

  7·25

  7·11

  6·74

  West Sussex

  6·69

  6·25

  6·85

  6·55

  7·40

  6·14

  6·50

  6·63

  Cambridgeshire

  6·72

  5·84

  6·16

  6·86

  7·22

  7·21

  6·76

  6·68

  North Yorkshire (Northallerton)

  7·41

  6·15

  6·56

  7·76

  7·49

  7·56

  7·35

  7·04

  Cleveland

  6·93

  5·78

  6·34

  6·58

  7·85

  8·21

  7·61

  7·04

  Essex

  6·88

  5·68

  6·38

  6·63

  7·10

  7·58

  7·08

  6·76

  Durham

  7·17

  5·97

  6·87

  6·14

  7·87

  7·32

  7·69

  7·01

  North Yorkshire (Beverley)

  7·62

  6·21

  6·00

  7·11

  7·87

  7·86

  7·12

  7·11

  Northumberland

  6·87

  6·61

  6·55

  6·80

  8·18

  7·90

  8·15

  7·30

  Lincolnshire

  7·45

  6·14

  6·37

  7·58

  7·34

  7·91

  7·10

  7·13

  Norfolk

  7·02

  5·99

  6·35

  7·73

  7·85

  7·68

  7·38

  7·14

  Suffolk

  6·92

  5·52

  6·40

  7·45

  7·86

  7·42

  7·52

  7·01

  Humberside

  7·72

  6·77

  7·22

  7·58

  8·11

  8·20

  7·47

  7·58

  Trees
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will show for each of the last three years the area planted with(a) conifers and (b) broad leaf trees under each scheme for private planting and indicate the average area of each scheme for (i) conifers and (ii) broad leaves.

  Mr. Jack
  The information for England is set out in the table.

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Area Planted (hectares)

  Conifer

  2,143

  2,097

  2,052

  Broadleaf

  5,865

  6,766

  8,144

  Total

  8,008

  8,863

  10,196

  Average Area Approved (hectares)

  Conifer

  1·3

  2·2

  2·6

  Broadleaf

  2·0

  3·2

  3·0

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average yield used for the purpose of arable area payments for farmers for harvest year 1993–94; and how it was calculated.

  Mr. Jack
  As required by EC Council regulation 1765/92 the average yield figures for England are calculated on the basis of the historical average cereal and oilseed yields from 1986–87 to 1990–91, excluding the highest and lowest years during that period. The cereal yields determine the cereals, protein and set-aside payments, and the threshold for the simplified scheme. The oilseed yields determine the oilseed payment rate. The average yield figure for cereals used to calculate arable area payments in England is 5·93 tonnes per hectare, and the average yield figure for oilseeds is 3·08 tonnes per hectare.
  355

  Horticulture Development Council
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she has completed her consultation on the future of the Horticultural Development Council; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I am pleased to announce that, having consulted the council and representative organisations in England, Scotland and Wales, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I have decided that the Horticultural Development Council should continue with its present constitution and functions for a further five years.

  Our consultations with the industry have clearly demonstrated that the HDC commands a high level of

  Regional service centres comparative performance data for financial year 1993–94 Unless otherwise specified

  Percentage rates

  Bristol

  Cambridge

  Carlisle

  Crewe

  Exeter

  Northallerton

  Nottingham

  Reading

  Worcester

  1Total

  Farm woodland premium scheme

  Applications

  100

  99

  100

  100

  100

  99

  98

  100

  98

  99

  Claims

  99

  99

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  99

  Five year set-aside scheme

  1992–93 scheme year claims

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  99

  99

  99

  99

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  Applications

  90

  86

  100

  88

  4—

  100

  100

  100

  4—

  91

  Claims

  95

  100

  96

  92

  100

  100

  100

  100

  4—

  98

  Nitrate sensitive areas

  Claims

  96

  4—

  4—

  100

  4—

  100

  100

  100

  4—

  99

  Hill livestock compensation allowance

  1994 scheme claims

  99

  4—

  99

  98

  96

  97

  96

  4—

  99

  98

  Sheep annual premium scheme

  1993 scheme payments claim2

  82

  73

  92

  87

  86

  88

  86

  80

  86

  86

  Farm and conservation grant scheme

  Applications

  100

  100

  100

  100

  95

  89

  100

  100

  93

  97

  Claims3

  88

  96

  99

  100

  98

  98

  99

  100

  95

  98

  Agriculture improvement scheme

  Plan claims3

  100

  100

  97

  100

  100

  94

  100

  4—

  100

  97

  Ministers consent to a short-term letting or licence

  Target

  93

  98

  88

  85

  100

  98

  99

  100

  100

  98

  Permit to purchase strychnine

  Target

  94

  97

  96

  100

  100

  95

  99

  100

  93

  97

  Injurious weed complaints

  Target

  100

  100

  4—

  94

  4—

  100

  93

  100

  100

  98

  Agriculture wage inspections

  Target3

  100

  4—

  100

  100

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  97

  1 Numerical totals processed expressed as a percentage of number received.

  2 SAPS lower success rate is largely due to problems associated with quota allocations.

  3 Period July 1993 to March 1994.

  4 Not entered as numbers dealt with 10 or less—numbers of cases are included in calculation of total percentage success rates. Non plan claims for AIS, and AHDS, FHDS and FDGS schemes, omitted from table as numbers are de minimis.

HEALTH

  Deprivation Scores
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average tabular index deprivation score, used in the payment of general practitioners, for each
  356
  confidence among growers. My right hon. Friends and I welcome this positive expression of industry support for the council's work. A strongly supported grower base for research and development is vital if our industry is to compete effectively in an increasingly tough marketplace.

  Service Delivery Targets
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress her Department has made in meeting service delivery targets set out in "Commitment to Service".

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The list shows the percentages of cases dealt with by each regional service centre which have met the targets set in "Commitment to Service".

  family health services authority in order of deprivation and the average per capita spending for each family health services authority, in order of spending.

  (2) what is the average primary care deprivation score for each family health services authority; and what is the average deprivation score for all them, taken together.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information given below is a simple average of professor jarman's under-privileged area
  357
  scores, grouped by FHSA. The electoral ward data have not been weighted by resident population. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 26 May, Official report, column 305 about the per capita spending figures for each family health services authority in England, which was placed in the Library.

  The average under-privileged area scores for family health services authorities in England are:

  Average

  City and East London

  36·57

  Camden and Islington

  29·62

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  28·60

  Manchester

  28·49

  Birmingham

  26·17

  Bradford

  21·11

  Liverpool

  20·55

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  19·42

  Newcastle

  18·51

  Wolverhampton

  18·47

  Rochdale

  18·10

  Salford

  16·92

  Kirklees

  16·05

  Sandwell

  16·00

  Oldham

  15·72

  Coventry

  14·76

  South Tyneside

  14·35

  Bolton

  14·15

  Brent and Harrow

  14·06

  Sunderland

  13·69

  Calderdale

  13·59

  Enfield and Haringey

  13·08

  Gateshead

  12·63

  Tameside

  11·82

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  11·20

  Leeds

  11·03

  Cleveland

  10·16

  North Tyneside

  9·51

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  9·03

  Sheffield

  8·64

  Redbridge

  7·97

  Greenwich

  7·49

  Walsall

  6·70

  Wirral

  6·60

  Bury

  5·52

  Barnet

  5·28

  Durham

  5·22

  Wigan

  5·11

  Doncaster

  4·98

  Rotherham

  4·33

  Croydon

  3·97

  Lancashire

  3·71

  Isle of Wight

  3·49

  East Sussex

  3·03

  Wakefield

  2·86

  Sefton

  2·80

  Hillingdon

  2·34

  Trafford

  1·88

  Barnsley

  1·76

  Barking and Havering

  1·49

  Kensington

  0·84

  Kingston and Richmond

  0·47

  Cornwall

  0·43

  Dudley

  0·28

  Humberside

  0·05

  Stockport

  -0·07

  Kent

  -1·42

  Dorset

  -1·68

  Northamptonshire

  -1·87

  Northumberland

  -2·31

  West Sussex

  -2·59

  Devon

  -2·82

  Nottinghamshire

  -3·00

  Suffolk

  -3·02

  Bedfordshire

  -3·02

  358

  Average

  Derbyshire

  -3·20

  Cumbria

  -3·53

  Cambridgeshire

  -3·61

  Lincolnshire

  -3·79

  Berkshire

  -3·89

  Norfolk

  -4·00

  Wiltshire

  -4·04

  Hampshire

  -4·21

  Shropshire

  -4·26

  Somerset

  -4·52

  Cheshire

  -4·56

  Oxfordshire

  -5·24

  Gloucestershire

  -5·42

  Bromley

  -5·48

  Leicestershire

  -5·77

  Staffordshire

  -5·89

  Essex

  -6·54

  North Yorkshire

  -6·60

  Hereford and Worcester

  -6·54

  Avon

  -6·60

  Solihull

  -6·65

  Warwickshire

  -6·82

  Hertfordshire

  -7·44

  Buckinghamshire

  -7·74

  Surrey

  -9·69

  The average figure for all family health services authorities in England is 4·92.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average deprivation score for each district health authority; and what is the average deprivation score.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Jarman index of under-privileged area scores is used by the Department of Health only at family health services authority level for the purpose of calculating general practitioner deprivation payments.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 27 October 1993,Official Report, column 697.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current infant mortality rate in each regional health authority in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Infant mortality rate for the United Kingdom by Regional Health Authority and Standard Area for 1992 and District Council Area for 1991 (latest year for available data in Northern Ireland is 1991)

  Infant mortality1

  United Kingdom

  26·6

  England and Wales

  36·6

  England

  6·5

  Northern RHA

  7·1

  Yorkshire RHA

  6·6

  Trent RHA

  6·9

  East Anglian RHA

  4·6

  North West Thames RHA

  5·5

  North East Thames RHA

  7·1

  South East Thames RHA

  6·4

  359

  Infant mortality1

  South West Thames RHA

  5·7

  Wessex RHA

  5·5

  Oxford RHA

  6·0

  South Western RHA

  5·5

  West Midlands RHA

  8·2

  Mersey RHA

  7·7

  North Western RHA

  7·7

  Wales

  6·0

  Scotland

  6·8

  Standard Areas

  5·9

  Borders

  5·9

  Central

  6·1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7·4

  Fife

  6·7

  Grampian

  6·0

  Highland

  6·7

  Lothian

  7·3

  Strathclyde

  7·3

  Tayside

  5·3

  Orkney Islands

  8·4

  Shetland Islands

  3·1

  Western Isles Islands

  6·0

  Northern Ireland (1991)

  7·4

  District Council Areas

  Ards

  3·2

  Belfast

  7·1

  Castlereagh

  6·8

  Down

  9·2

  Lisburn

  5·3

  North Down

  8·1

  Antrim

  5·3

  Ballymena

  8·9

  Ballymoney

  2·9

  Carrickfergus

  17·4

  Coleraine

  8·4

  Cookstown

  8·1

  Larne

  4·6

  Magherafelt

  4·8

  Moyle

  49·1

  Newtownabbey

  8·5

  Armagh

  7·8

  Banbridge

  3·9

  Craigavon

  9·1

  Dungannon

  8·5

  Newry and Mourne

  5·9

  Fermanagh

  3·5

  Limavady

  9·2

  Deny

  9·3

  Omagh

  7·7

  Strabane

  14·9

  1 Rate per 1,000 live births.

  2 United Kingdom 1992 figure based on provisional numbers and estimates for Northern Ireland 1992.

  3 Data for the rates have been assigned to the area of usual residence as stated at the registration of each event. If the address of usual residence is outside England and Wales, these events have been included in the England and Wales aggregate but excluded from the figures for individual RHAs.

  4 1990 latest year available.

  Fundholding Practices
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what average level of funding per capita has been allocated for 1994–95 to fundholding general practitioner practices in(a) England and (b) each regional health authority to enable fundholding practices to purchase those services covered by the fundholding regulations.
  360
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Regional information on average fundholder budget allocations per capita is not directly comparable because of variations locally in the methods of compiling fundholder population data and differences in regional information systems. In addition, variations in average budgets per patient between regions are influenced by a number of factors, including differences in the age structures and relative levels of morbidity of regions, variations in local provider prices, as well as differences in historic referral and prescribing levels between practices in the scheme.

  With these caveats, the following table shows estimated average budget allocations per patient made by regional health authorities to general practitioner fundholders in 1994–95.

  Estimated average budget allocations per patient made by regional health authorities to general practitioner fundholders in 1994–95

  Region

  1994–95 £

  Northern and Yorkshire

  180

  Trent

  160

  Anglia and Oxford

  160

  North Thames

  150

  South Thames

  160

  South and West

  160

  West Midlands

  160

  North West

  170

  England

  160

  Cornwall Health Care Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the national health service will underwrite the legal costs of the non-executive directors of the Cornwall health care trust in respect of the forthcoming libel action.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No decision on the question of underwriting the costs can be made until the outcome of a preliminary hearing is known later this year.

  Nurses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many learner or student nurses were employed in England in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 17 December 1993,Official Report, column 1017.

  General Practitioner Lists
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions she has had with the North East Thames regional health authority regarding the number of patients on doctors' lists; and how many patients were removed at the instigation of the doctor in the area in(a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what discussions she has had with North East Thames regional health authority regarding the reasons doctors give when removing patients from their lists; how many patients were removed from lists in the last period for which figures are available without any reason being given to the patient; and what percentage of the total this represents;
  361
  (3) what discussions she has had with North East Thames regional health authority regarding the number of patients on doctors' lists; and how many patients in the area covering the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency were removed at the instigation of a doctor in (a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) the last year for which figures are available;

  (4) what discussions she has had with the North East Thames regional health authority regarding the reasons doctors give when removing patients from their lists; how many patients in the area covering the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency were removed from lists with no reason being given in the last period for which figures are available; and what percentage of the total number this represents.

  Mr. Bowis
  No discussions have taken place. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones) today for the available information.

  Yearly trend in report ofHIV-1 Infected Persons: Geographical area of reporting laboratories, England to end December 1993

  Number of reports each year

  Region

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  England

  Northern

  33

  29

  37

  24

  36

  20

  Yorkshire

  47

  41

  53

  52

  71

  44

  Trent

  42

  44

  90

  42

  82

  89

  East Anglia

  26

  27

  18

  35

  43

  29

  North West Thames

  502

  548

  734

  770

  568

  615

  North East Thames

  316

  390

  416

  593

  585

  661

  South East Thames

  179

  224

  262

  335

  310

  326

  South West Thames

  57

  68

  93

  146

  138

  111

  Wessex

  29

  37

  45

  42

  80

  38

  Oxford

  50

  34

  37

  53

  49

  63

  South Western

  41

  40

  54

  58

  42

  36

  West Midlands

  47

  42

  92

  66

  90

  80

  Mersey

  32

  14

  17

  14

  26

  18

  North Western

  104

  69

  76

  82

  135

  90

  Legal Fees
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the amount spent on legal fees by each district health authority in each year since 1983–84.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the amount spent on legal fees by district health authority is not available centrally.

  Health Promotion
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct commissioning agencies to continue to employ sufficient public health doctors, with sufficient support from other health professionals, to monitor the health of their local populations, advise on priorities in the commissioning process and provide leadership to the health alliances mentioned in "The Health of the Nation".

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health service guidelines issued in November 1993, HSG(93)56, copies of which are available in the Library, set out clearly the requirement for district health authorities to employ public health doctors.

  Mr. John Shepard
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she intends to take regarding(a) the conduct of Mr. Peter Raine, executive director of Brent
  362

  Mental Health
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much it costs on average to keep someone in a long-stay mental hospital at 1993–94 prices; how much it costs to resettle someone in the community for a year at 1993–94 prices; and what are the consequences for funding of health services in the community of the difference between those costs.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is not possible separately to identify the cost of care in a long-stay psychiatric hospital.

  HIV
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish a table showing the growth in each NHS region of persons with a positive HIV diagnosis in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is given in the table.

  social services department, in relation to investigation of the case of the late John Shepard, (b) maladministration and racial discrimination within Brent social services department, and (c) Mr. Raine's failure to present a report on Mr. Shepard to Brent social services committee and the suspension of a black home-help organiser.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 18 July,Official Report, column 20 and 19 July.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many special advisers who left her Department in each of the last five years became(a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (2) how many special advisers have (a) joined and (b) left her Department in each of the last five years;

  (3) if she will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left her Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no requirement for special advisers to provide details of their employers after leaving Government service. The number of special advisers joining and leaving the Department in the last five years is shown in the table:
  363

  Joining

  Leaving

  1989

  1

  0

  1990

  2

  1

  1991

  1

  0

  1992

  1

  3

  1993

  0

  0

  1994

  0

  0

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of food poisoning notifications to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Sackville
  There were 68,587 food poisoning notifications in England and Wales in 1993. The provisional number of notifications in 1994, up to and including the week ended 14 July, was 36,437. The provisional number of notifications in 1993, up to and including the week ended 16 July, was 34,058.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of laboratory reports of salmonella in foodstuffs to the Public Health Laboratory Service in England and Wales for each year since the introduction of the new reporting system; what are the latest figures available for this year; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The new reporting system introduced by the Public Health Laboratory Service in January 1992 was designed to enhance surveillance of cases of human salmonellosis and not the reporting of foods positive for salmonella.

  The number of reported cases of human salmonellosis in England and Wales since 1992 is as follows:

  1992 - 31,352

  1993 - 30,654

  Asthma
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to introduce an approved code of practice covering respiratory sensitizers used by asthma sufferers; what representations she has received on the subject; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to do so; we have received no representations on the subject.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of out-patient admissions to hospital emergency units for asthmatic complaints(a) from 24 to 26 June 1994 and (b) from 24 to 26 June 1993; and what assessment she has made of the reasons for the difference.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested. The cause of the very high number of asthma cases on 24 and 25 June 1994 is as yet unknown. We have written to directors of public health seeking information on the scale and extent of the episode.

  Infertility Services
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy in respect of the provision of infertility services to lesbian couples and 364
  unmarried women; what specific guidance is issued by her Department on the interpretation of the requirement to give due consideration to the need of a child for a father; whether adherence to that guidance is a prerequisite for licensing by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  In accordance with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, a woman shall not be provided with assisted conception treatment unless prior account has been taken of the welfare of any child born as a result of treatment including the need of that child for a father. Guidance on the application of this requirement is set out in a code of practice published by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority—the body that licenses assisted conception treatment. Copies of the code are available in the Library. It is a condition of the HFEA licence that licensed centres abide by the code of practice.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already said that she would not expect the NHS to provide fertility treatment unless there were a mother and father and that she would expect them to be married. Appropriate guidance will be issued to the NHS in due course.

  Clinical Appointments
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she holds on the postponement of clinical appointments at trust hospitals to enable consultants to attend audit meetings; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Information Division
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure of her Department's information division in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  Expenditure for the Department's information division which now includes the recently established public inquiry office and the rationalisation of the Department's printing services are as follows:

  Publicity £ million

  Manpower and running costs £ million

  1985–86

  4·513

  —

  1986·87

  12·627

  —

  1987–88

  12·381

  —

  1988–89

  10·799

  —

  1989–90

  17·248

  0·890

  1990–91

  21·008

  1·250

  1991–92

  24·471

  1·491

  1992–93

  20·710

  1·749

  1993–94

  119·405

  1·897

  1 Estimated.

  Note: Information on publicity expenditure for the year 1979 to 1984–85 and on manpower and running costs for the years 1979 to 1988–89 are not available in the form requested.

  Healthcall
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings she has had with Healthcall in the last year; and what has been her conclusion of those meetings.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no formal meetings with Healthcall in the last
  365
  year. On 13 June 1994, my right hon. Friend attended a fundraising event in aid of the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund, at the invitation of Healthcall.

  Official Secrets Acts
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if employees in the regional outposts of the national health service executive and the new combined regional health authorities are asked to sign an acknowledgement that they understand the terms and conditions on which they are employed, including the terms of the Official Secrets Acts.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 7 July,Official Report, column 311.

  Staff employed in the national health service sign their employment contract on appointment and in so doing they acknowledge the terms and conditions contained therein. There is no standard contract. Most of the staff employed in the regional outposts, which now form part of the new

  Hospital medical consultants by population in each region England—as at 30 September each year

  1989 Whole-time equivalent per 100 thousand population

  1990 Whole-time equivalent per 100 thousand population

  1991 Whole-time equivalent per 100 thousand population

  1992 Whole-time equivalent per 100 thousand population

  Northern

  30·5

  30·6

  31·6

  33·3

  Yorkshire

  28·3

  26·5

  27·3

  30·6

  Trent

  25·7

  26·2

  26·7

  28·2

  East Anglia

  28·4

  30·6

  31·4

  29·9

  North West Thames

  27·0

  29·9

  30·3

  27·0

  North East Thames

  31·2

  32·8

  32·5

  35·7

  South East Thames

  30·0

  31·0

  31·8

  31·6

  South West Thames

  26·4

  27·7

  28·4

  26·9

  Wessex

  26·2

  26·6

  27·6

  28·0

  Oxford

  26·1

  26·5

  26·7

  27·4

  South Western

  25·3

  26·0

  26·7

  27·0

  West Midlands

  27·2

  27·9

  28·7

  29·1

  Mersey

  28·6

  29·9

  30·4

  31·2

  North Western

  30·7

  32·3

  32·6

  32·3

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of whole-time equivalent consultants employed in the NHS in the London implementation zone area, per head of population, in each year since 1989.

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

  Whole-time equivalent consultants employed in the national health service in inner London per 100,000 population (estimated)

  1989

  51·7

  1990

  50·7

  1991

  50·8

  1992

  52·1

  Note: The figures refer to "Inner London" (as defined in the Tomlinson report).

  Patients' Choice
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what degree of patients' choice as to place of treatment was available(a) before and (b) after April 1991.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A key aim of the national health service reforms is to improve patient choice. Since 1991, district health authorities and general practitioner
  366
  regional offices of the national health service executive, are on secondment from national health service organisations and so their original contract remains valid. Crown servants employed in the regional offices are subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989. It is normal good practice to ensure that secondees are fully aware of the obligations and responsibilities associated with the post to which they are appointed. The changes introduced on 1 April 1994 did not necessitate the issue of new contracts of employment.

  NHS Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the number of whole-time equivalent national health service consultants employed per head of population, by district health authority, in each of the last four years.

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

  fundholders have been able to purchase services, on behalf of their patients, and in consultation with them, in whatever place of treatment offers the best quality and value for money.

  Patient Participation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 534, if she will list those health authorities that have not made significant progress to ensure arrangements were in place to seek and act upon the views of local people.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. We have asked the chief executive of the national health service executive to follow up any shortcomings with the regional directors to ensure that any necessary remedial action is taken.

  Parental Leave
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of the national health service on parental leave and leave for family reasons.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  For staff employed on national terms and conditions of service, special leave for domestic, personal and family reasons is available under an agreement of the general Whitley council, copies of which are available in the Library. Under the National Health
  367
  Service and Community Care Act 1990, national health service trusts have the freedom to determine their own leave arrangements for staff on trust contracts.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the options she has put forward for(a) NHS fee scale and (b) maintenance treatment in connection with her Green Paper on dental treatment.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) on 14 July,Official Report, column 702.

  Paper
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much paper was used by the national health service in each of the last five years; and what percentage of it was recycled.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available.

  Equipment
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of equipment used in the national health service in each of the last five years has been disposable.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available.

  Abortion
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the review of current arrangements for approving and monitoring places under the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, has been completed; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Further to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 18 January 1994,Official Report, column 531. The review of current arrangements for approving and monitoring non-national health service premises under the Abortion Act 1967, as amended, has been completed. Conditions that have to be met for approval—known as assurances—have been updated and brought together with other guidance in a single document, known as the compendium of guidance. Copies will be placed in the Library shortly.

  The approval period for non-NHS premises carrying out termination of pregnancy has been extended from two years to four years. All non-NHS premises approved under the Abortion Act 1967 will continue to be subject to monitoring and inspection by medical, nursing and administrative officials from the Department of Health, and will also be subject to the requirements of the Registered Homes Act 1984. Proprietors have been invited to seek
  368
  re-approval under these arrangements from 1 August 1994. Relevant extracts from the compendium will be sent to the NHS as guidance for those purchasing and providing termination of pregnancy treatment. The compendium of guidance includes assurances required of registered pregnancy advice bureaux.

  Administrative Costs
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the average percentage of total budget spent by(a) district and (b) regional health authorities on (i) managerial, (ii) administrative and (iii) clerical costs in each year since 1991–92;

  (2) if she will list the three regional and district health authorities which spent (a) the lowest percentage and (b) the highest of their budget on (i) managerial, (ii) administrative and (iii) clerical costs in each year since 1991–92.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 19 May 1994]: Such comparisons cannot readily be made. The information available on regional and district health authorities' total expenditure and on staff costs is derived from two different sources and covers different territory. Information about the total budgets of health authorities is derived from annual accounts which do not include the total costs of directly managed units—DMUs—and common services, such as blood transfusion and ambulance services, which may be funded from a variety of sources. Information on staff costs is derived from the financial returns of health authorities covering all employees including those in DMUs and common services. The budgets for authorities will remain the same whether or not the authorities run DMUs or common services. When a health authority has no directly managed services it will operate with a much reduced number of employees and have a consequently lower percentage of wages as a proportion of total costs. Directly managed services are the labour-intensive part of an organisation and a health authority with a DMU or regional common services will return far higher staff costs than one without. Such organisations will have income from other health authorities and other sources in addition to its own parent authority. The salary costs of staff may therefore be met from sources other than the employing health authority. It is therefore not possible to provide meaningful information in the form requested.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish details of the numbers of patients for each area and for England as a whole removed from general practitioners' lists for the latest available year; and how many and what proportion of these were removed without their consent.

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 19 July 1994]: The information is shown in the table:
  369

  Region

  (1) Registered Population

  (2) Total Number of patients deregistered from GP Lists

  (3) Column 2 as a percentage of Column 1

  (4) Number of patients de-registered excluding at request of GP

  (5) Column 4 as a percentage of Column 2

  (6) Number of patients de- registered at request of GP

  (7) Column 6 as a percentage of Column 2

  Northern

  3,152,959

  359,784

  11·4

  356,466

  99·1

  3,318

  0·9

  Yorkshire

  3,759,258

  464,879

  12·4

  457,771

  98·5

  7,108

  1·5

  Trent

  4,847,452

  593,050

  12·2

  587,442

  99·1

  5,608

  0·9

  East Anglia

  2,079,549

  249,494

  12·0

  247,667

  99·3

  1,827

  0·7

  North-West Thames2

  2,990,238

  557,198

  18·6

  546,690

  98·1

  10,508

  1·9

  North-East Thames

  4,209,244

  665,292

  15·8

  651,376

  97·9

  13,916

  2·1

  South East Thames

  3,994,252

  529,485

  13·3

  523,796

  98·9

  5,689

  1·1

  South West Thames

  3,196,570

  524,493

  16·4

  521,030

  99·3

  3,463

  0·7

  Wessex

  2,991,639

  438,328

  14·7

  436,936

  99·7

  1,392

  0·3

  Oxford

  2,676,585

  365,527

  13·7

  362,980

  99·3

  2,547

  0·7

  South Western

  3,550,215

  475,284

  13·4

  473·098

  99·5

  2,186

  0·5

  West Midlands

  5,454,584

  689,416

  12·6

  678,618

  98·4

  10,798

  1·6

  Mersey

  2,485,666

  293,162

  11·8

  288,606

  98·4

  4,556

  1·6

  North Western

  4,103,179

  486,466

  11·9

  480,389

  98·8

  6,077

  1·2

  England

  49,491,390

  6,691,858

  13·5

  6,612,865

  98·8

  78,993

  1·2

  Note—Figures include patients who have left GP area/died.

  2 Does not include data for Hertfordshire as this is not available.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 10 December 1993,Official Report, column 354, what was the total number of general practitioners and the total number of secretaries, administrators, receptionists and practice managers by each family health services authority at (a) October 1993, (b) April 1994 and (c) October 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 19 July 1994]: Information relating to October 1993 and October 1990 will be placed in the Library. Data for April 1994 are not yet available.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 June,Official Report, columns 26–27, (1) what is the average budget per patient for those of general practitioner fundholders in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94, for England and by region;

  (2) what is the average budget per patient for general practitioner fundholders in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 for England and by region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 8 July 1994]: Regional information on average fundholder budget allocations per patient is not directly comparable because of variations locally in the methods of compiling fundholder population data and differences in regional information systems. In addition, variations in average budgets per patient between regions are influenced by a number of factors, including differences in the age structures and relative levels of morbidity of regions, variations in local provider prices, as well as differences in historic referral and prescribing levels between practices in the scheme.

  Moreover, these data are not directly comparable over time as, from 1993–94, the scope of the general practitioner fundholder scheme was expanded to include the purchase of community health services; in addition, the minimum list size criterion for joining the scheme was reduced from 9,000 to 7,000 patients per fund.

  With those caveats, the following table shows estimated average budget allocations per patient made by regional health authorities to general practitioner fundholders in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.
  370

  Estimated average budget allocations per patient made by regional health authorities to general practitioner fundholders 1991–92 to 1993–94

  Region

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Northern

  130

  140

  170

  Yorkshire

  120

  140

  160

  Trent

  110

  120

  140

  East Anglian

  120

  130

  160

  North West Thames

  110

  120

  160

  North East Thames

  110

  100

  130

  South East Thames

  100

  110

  150

  South West Thames

  100

  110

  140

  Wessex

  110

  130

  150

  Oxford

  100

  110

  130

  South Western

  100

  120

  150

  West Midlands

  120

  130

  150

  Mersey

  110

  130

  160

  North Western

  110

  120

  150

  England

  110

  120

  150

  Tuberculosis
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is held by her Department on the number of children infected by tuberculosis in(a) each of the London boroughs and (b) England.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 April 1994, c. 152–3]: I regret that there were inaccuracies in my previous reply.

  Revised information is given in the table. Occasional variations in the figures appear because some physicians continue to notify children who are receiving chemoprophylaxis rather than full therapy for tuberculosis. The Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys excludes these as far as possible from the aggregated data but it is not always easy to identify them.

  The team running the 1993 survey of notifications at the Public Health Laboratory Service is examining continuing ambiguities in the notification system for tuberculosis and will report later this year. Any changes in the surveillance of tuberculosis will be discussed then.
  371

  Number of cases of tuberculosis for children aged 0–16 years in England and London boroughs for 1990–92

  1990

  1991

  1992

  England

  443

  506

  561

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  Barking and Dagenham London Borough

  2

  0

  1

  Barnet London Borough

  5

  4

  16

  Bexley London Borough

  2

  4

  2

  Brent London Borough

  2

  12

  9

  Bromley London Borough

  0

  3

  3

  Camden London Borough

  2

  10

  7

  Croydon London Borough

  6

  4

  6

  Ealing London Borough

  2

  7

  9

  Enfield London Borough

  1

  4

  2

  Greenwich London Borough

  5

  2

  4

  Hackney London Borough

  6

  7

  7

  Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough

  4

  0

  3

  Haringey London Borough

  3

  4

  8

  Harrow London Borough

  1

  5

  4

  Havering London Borough

  0

  0

  1

  Hillingdon London Borough

  0

  4

  6

  Hounslow London Borough

  2

  1

  10

  Islington London Borough

  4

  2

  3

  Kensington and Chelsea London Borough

  6

  3

  0

  Kingston upon Thames London Borough

  0

  0

  0

  Lambeth London Borough

  3

  2

  8

  Lewisham London Borough

  6

  1

  1

  Merton London Borough

  1

  1

  0

  Newham London Borough

  13

  13

  9

  Redbridge London Borough

  6

  7

  2

  Richmond upon Thames London Borough

  0

  0

  0

  Southwark London Borough

  9

  9

  9

  Sutton London Borough

  1

  2

  0

  Tower Hamlets London Borough

  5

  9

  9

  Waltham Forest London Borough

  6

  5

  1

  Wandsworth London Borough

  0

  3

  1

  City of Westminster London Borough

  3

  6

  5

  Note:

  Although excluded as far as possible some of these include cases where chemoprophylaxis is being given rather than full therapy for tuberculosis.

  Nutrition
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answers of 27 June,Official Report, columns 413–14, and 12 July, Official Report, columns 525–26, if she will list the reports issued by her Department since 1985 in which information is specifically given about the relationship between family disposable income and the extent to which the daily amounts for energy and nutrients, recommended by the panels and committees appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture, have been met.

  Mr. Jack
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the relationship between nutrient intake and family disposable income is not available. However, each annual report of the National Food Survey Committee gives the percentage of the estimated average requirements for energy and reference nutrient intake for nutrients met by the household diet in families in different income groups based on the gross income of the head of household. Copies of these reports are in the Library of the House.
  372

DEFENCE

  Royal Yacht
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he had received prior to the announcement that the royal yacht Britannia is to be decommissioned; and what representations he has subsequently received.

  Mr. Hanley
  Over the last year, my Department received a number of letters on the subject of the royal yacht, in which a wide range of views was expressed. Since the decision to decommission Her Majesty's yacht Britannia was announced, my Department has received some 60 letters from hon. Members and members of the public.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cost and effectiveness studies have been made of(a) the royal yacht Britannia and (b) the royal Danish yacht; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The decision to decommission the royal yacht Britannia was reached after an extensive and detailed review of the issues involved, including the cost and effectiveness of the yacht. My Department has made no specific study of the royal Danish yacht.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 116, if he will name the people described by him as honest and independent, who concluded that the Iraqi Government are deliberately trying to harm the Shia marsh Arabs.

  Mr. Hanley
  The answer referred, in the main, to the work of trained analysts in my Department. It is not our practice to reveal the names of officials engaged in work of this nature, but their conclusions are consistent with those of the United Nations special rapporteur on Iraq and the wetland ecosystem research group at Royal Holloway university of London.

  Hercules Replacement
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the Hercules future large aircraft replacement.

  Mr. Aitken
  My colleagues and I have been contacted in recent months by a number of interested parties.

  Spearfish Torpedoes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he now intends to proceed with the procurement of Spearfish torpedoes for Trident submarines as well as the Swiftsure and Trafalgar class.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Spearfish torpedo, which entered service with the Royal Navy earlier this year, replaces the Tigerfish torpedo in all Royal Navy submarines. The tender for the main production order for Spearfish torpedoes is currently being considered.
  373

  PEE Pendine
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which establishment the dynamic test track work currently undertaken at the proof and experimental establishment, Pendine, will be transferred.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is the subject of further detailed study. On present assumptions it is planned to transfer the dynamic test track work to PEE Shoeburyness.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the establishments to which he expects the work currently undertaken at the proof and experimental establishment, Pendine, to be transferred.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is the subject of further study but, on present assumptions, it is planned to transfer this work to PEE Shoeburyness, but some work may also be transferred to PEE Eskmeals and the test and evaluation establishment, Larkhill.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department will complete further studies of the technical aspects and the assessment of the likely future work load in a trading environment of the long and short test tracks at the proof and experimental establishment, Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  The technical studies and the initial assessment of future work load should both be completed by the end of the current financial year. Under another recommendation of the defence costs study, it is planned that the Directorate General of Test and Evaluation will become part of the proposed science and technology agency and be managed within its trading fund. The effects of trading will not be clear until some time after trading starts, currently planned for 1 April 1995.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his evaluation of the possible reprovision of facilities currently at the proof and experimental establishment, Pendine, for work formerly undertaken at Cold Meece will be completed.

  Mr. Aitken
  We hope to conclude this evaluation by the end of this calendar year.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which establishment the work currently at the proof and experimental establishment, Pendine, and formerly carried out at Cold Meece will be transferred.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is the subject of further study. On present assumptions it is planned to transfer this work to PEE Shoeburyness, but some work may also go to PEE Eskmeals and TEE Larkhill.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the decontamination costs of the proof and experimental establishment, Pendine, following its proposed closure.

  Mr. Aitken
  If the closure of this establishment is confirmed following consultation, it is planned to place a commercial contract for this work. The estimates of cost are, therefore, commercially confidential. I can confirm, however, that these costs are included in the summary investment appraisal attached to the Director General Test and Evaluations consultative document.
  374
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the rundown of the proof and experimental establishment, Pendine, to(a) begin and ( b) be completed, if the decision to close the establishment is confirmed after consultation.

  Mr. Aitken
  Precise timings are still under consideration but, if closure is confirmed, a phased rundown is expected to begin in 1995. The duration of the rundown will depend on further studies of the technical aspects and the impact on demand for DGTE's facilities of full cost trading in the light of the organisation's move to the proposed science and technology agency.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence staff and contractors currently employed at the proof and experimental establishment, Pendine, he expects will be offered work at other establishments if and when work is transferred from Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is too early to give an accurate assessment of how many Ministry of Defence staff at PEE Pendine would be offered work elsewhere in the Department. Recruitment of ex-contractor's staff by contractors at other establishments would be a matter for them.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what increase in low-flying activity he expects to arise from the increases in training announced as part of "Front Line First" and from the relocation of RAF personnel from Germany to the United Kingdom; and whether he will ensure that any increase in low-flying is not borne by areas which currently experience intensive levels of low flying.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is too early to say whether the overall increase in aircrew flying training hours, and the changes to the organisation of RAF Germany, will lead to an increase in the amount of low flying carried out in the United Kingdom. We will, however, continue to spread low flying activity within the United Kingdom as widely as possible.

  "Front Line First"
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the planned level of defence expenditure for each of the next three years following the publication of "Front Line First";

  (2) what percentage of gross national product will be spent on defence in each of the next three years taking into account "Front Line First".

  Mr. Hanley
  Planned levels of defence expenditure for 1994–95 to 1996–97 announced last December and set out in the "Statement of the Defence Estimates 1994", Cm 2550 are unchanged as a consequence of "Front Line First". Spending in each year as a percentage of forecast gross domestic product is expected to be as follows:

  Per cent.

  1994–95

  3·4

  1995–96

  3·1

  1996–97

  2·9

  375

  Music Training
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the costs of training military bandsmen in each service on a comparable basis which is consistent in its treatment of(a) music training and (b) military training and sets out under appropriate accounting headings the direct and indirect costs and in addition separates out excess security costs arising from military establishments with surplus capacity.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on 20 June 1994,Official Report, column 64.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the capital and repair costs incurred at(a) the RAF music training school at Uxbridge, (b) Kneller hall and (c) Royal Marines school of music at Deal in each year since 1986; and if he will show separately rebuilding and security costs incurred as a result of the IRA bombing of Deal.

  Mr. Hanley
  Central records are not available which give the information requested in the form available, or over the period requested in all cases. Where readily available, the information is as follows:

  Year

  Maintenance £

  New works £

  RMSM Deal

  1986–87

  1,079,605

  34,604

  1987–88

  864,127

  36,487

  1988–89

  90,831

  224,231

  1989–90

  1,090,000

  50,000

  1990–91

  1,694.000

  260,000

  1991–92

  1,631,000

  126,500

  1992–93

  1,277,000

  61,000

  1993–94

  982,000

  163,000

  Expenditure as a result of bomb incident:

  Security works £784,697. Building works £193,852.

  RMSM Kneller Hall

  1989–92

  2,008,000

  1992–93

  230,000

  1993–94

  156,000

  Maintenance and new works

  RAFSM Uxbridge

  £

  1990–91

  14,476

  1991–92

  19,785

  1992–93

  17,676

  1993–94

  20,088

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the current market value for the freehold sites at(a) the RAF music school, Uxbridge, (b) the Army music school at Kneller hall, Twickenham and (c) the Royal Marines school of music at Deal on the basis of an arm's-length sale of land and buildings in their present state and condition.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is commercial in confidence.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the financial and accounting reports produced by the defence costs study dealing with military music and the Royal Marines school of music at Deal.
  376
  Mr. Hanley
  The reports prepared by the defence costs study teams are internal working documents. It is not our normal practice to publish such documents. Relevant financial information on the proposal to transfer Royal Marines music training from Deal will, however, be included in a consultative document to be issued in due course.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Aitken
  The Government continue to place a high priority on helping small businesses through improvements to the business climate, through deregulation and through specific programmes of support and assistance.

  Measures operated by my Department to assist small businesses include:
  1. The services of the New Suppliers Service (NSS) which meets and corresponds regularly with several thousand suppliers each year, a very large proportion of which are small firms, offering advice on ways in which they can bring their goods and services to the attention of our buyers. The NSS also supports the Training and Enterprise Councils which provide business counselling and support small businesses.
  2. We continue to promote the many opportunities which exist to sell to my Department by publicising contracts in various publications including the Defence Contracts Bulletin, which is a particularly useful source of sub-contract opportunities.
  3. Businesses of various sizes have been successful in tendering competitively for the provision of contracted-out services for the Department.
  4. My Department is systematically reviewing its contracting processes to ensure that all administrative procedures are still required and to reduce any unnecessary burdens on businesses. When considering new contracting policies and procedures, we take particular account of the implications for businesses of all sizes.

  Challenger Tanks
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place an order for further Challenger 2 tanks.

  Mr. Aitken
  An order was placed with Vickers plc for a further 259 Challenger 2 main battle tanks on 14 July.

  Service Redundancies
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel he expects to make redundant by the end of 1994.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the financial year 1994–5, 11,095 service personnel are due to leave on redundancy terms. Over 90 per cent. of these personnel are volunteers.

  Civilian Employees
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether civilian employees applying for employment with the Ministry of Defence are always security-vetted by the Royal Ulster Constabulary prior to taking up employment.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our practice to discuss in detail the ways in which security vetting is carried out.
  377
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether all employees working in Fort Whiterock or Northern Howard Street Mill bases from 1988 to the present were security vetted.

  Mr. Aitken
  All civilian staff employed in Northern Ireland by my Department are vetted to the appropriate security level.

  Commonwealth War Graves Commission
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes(a) he has recently made or (b) he proposes to make in the funds available to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department will continue to honour to the full its obligation to fund the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in maintaining the war graves and memorials of British and other Commonwealth war dead to the very high standard they deserve.

  Rio Declaration
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 198, if he will identify the specific training activities for members of the armed forces which are undertaken in connection with treaty obligations under the terms of the Rio declaration in relation to providing protection for the environment in time of armed conflict; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the likely willingness of potential future military opponents to abide by the terms of the Rio declaration and to protect the environment in time of armed conflict; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact upon the United Kingdom's military effectiveness of treaty obligations under the terms of the Rio declaration to protect the environment in time of armed conflict; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 6 July, Official Report, column 198, what specific guidance is given by his Department to the armed forces on the interpretation of treaty obligations under the terms of the Rio declaration to protect the environment in time of armed conflict;

  (5) if he will list those weapons and defence systems the use of which he has identified as being contrary to treaty obligations under the terms of the Rio declaration to protect the environment in time of armed conflict; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  The Rio declaration is a statement of principles, balancing environmental concerns with the need for economic development. The declaration is not an international treaty which places specific obligations on signatory states. Principle 24 of the declaration states:"Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development. States shall therefore respect international law providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict and cooperate in its further development, as necessary".
  Accordingly, chapter 39 of agenda 21 identifies the UN General Assembly and its sixth committee as the appropriate forums for the development of international law to protect the environment in times of armed conflict. The United Kingdom is participating in the work of the sixth committee, which is being undertaken in conjunction
  378
  with the International Committee of the Red Cross. This work has not yet reached the stage which would enable specific guidance to be issued to the armed forces.

  Wrens
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Wrens have served at sea on Royal Naval vessels since the introduction of this policy by his Department.

  Mr. Hanley
  Between the introduction of sea service for female personnel on 1 September 1990 and mid-July 1994, 1,673 have served at sea in royal naval vessels. This figure consists of 265 female RN officers, 1,365 female RN ratings and 43 female ratings from the Queen Alexandra RN Nursing Service.

  Salisbury Plain and Otterburn
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of alternatives to the use of AS90s and multiple launch rocket systems on Salisbury plain and Otterburn; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 15 July 1994:] My Department keeps possible alternative training areas under review. Apart from Salisbury plain and Otterburn, however, there are no training areas in the United Kingdom able to accommodate AS90 and MLRS. As far as overseas locations are concerned we will of course consider any viable alternatives while taking account of the financial and political implications of such training.

  The only existing overseas training area which could accommodate the training needs of AS90 and MLRS is the British Army Training Unit at Suffield, Canada (BATUS). This facility is already utilised extensively by the British Army for battle group training. Climatic conditions and the emphasis placed by the Canadian authorities on their own increased in-country training requirements may not allow additional British training to take place.

  Research Agency
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets he has set for the Defence Research Agency in 1994–95.

  Mr. Aitken
  The targets recently set for the Defence Research Agency in 1994–95 and subsequent years are as follows:

  a. To meet profit and cash targets consistent with a 6 per cent. ROCE.

  b. To maintain overall utilisation at a level of 51 per cent.

  c. To reduce the total overhead expressed as a percentage of total variable costs from 15 per cent. at 1 April 1994 to 12 per cent. at 31 March 1995.

  d. To market test 4 per cent. of DRA's turnover; to achieve secondary competition amounting to 3 per cent. of turnover; and to achieve competition in subcontracts amounting to 6 per cent. of turnover.

  e. To maintain achievement on time of customers' milestones at the 1993–94 level of 85 per cent.

  f. From December 1993 survey baseline to achieve 2 per cent. improvement in overall performance by December 1994 and a 4 per cent. increase in the quality and project management measures.

  g. To have met by the 31 March 1995 all 1994–95 rationalisation project milestones as specified in BP94 and to have achieved a running cost reduction of £70 million per annum.

  h. To achieve a non-MOD income of £64 million in 1994–95.

  To achieve formal quality certification to 1S09000 for one sector by 31 December 1994.

  379

  Analytical Services Agency
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what performance targets have been set for the Defence Analytical Services Agency for 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  The following key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency for this financial year and beyond. These reflect the continuing need to secure economies in defence spending and an increased capability to meet the Department's evolving needs. They build on progress already made by the agency in meeting its targets in 1992–93 and 1993–94. The revised targets are as follows:

  Delivery of customer services

  a. About three quarters of the Agency's business is suitable for coverage by Service Level Agreements with Customers, which set out targets and standards for the level of service, timeliness and quality of work. For this part of the business Key Targets are:

  1. To increase the coverage to 100 per cent. for Service Level Agreements in the areas suitable.

  2. To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets set in the established Service Level Agreements.

  b. For the remaining parts of the business (for which Service Level Agreements are not appropriate) to meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets in each Project Agreement.

  c. For all parts of the business, to achieve, in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey, at least 90 per cent of customers expressing themselves satisfied or better with the timeliness, quality of work and helpfulness of staff.

  Efficiency and use of resources

  The agency will be expected, by using improved information technology, to increase efficiency in the production of regular satistical reports by 5 per cent. The chief executive will also be responsible for the development and implementation of a system for identifying the full cost of each of DASA's outputs.

  Decoy System
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to upgrade the existing decoy system fitted to Royal Navy frigates and destroyers.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am pleased to announce that, following a competition, we have recently placed a contract worth around £80 million with GEC-Marconi Defence Systems Ltd. covering the development and initial production of an offboard active decoy and a ship fitted control system for the Royal Navy.

  The offboard active decoy, known as DLH, will upgrade the existing SEAGNAT decoy system. It will be fitted to all frigates and destroyers as well as major auxiliaries as a soft kill device forming an integral part of the Royal Navy's layered defence in anti-air warfare by providing a means of decoying radar homing anti-ship missiles through the use of electronic protection measures.

  The work is expected to last six years and maintain approximately 100 jobs at GEC-Marconi initially at Stanmore, and then around 250 jobs at the company's Portsmouth site as the project moves into the production phase, as well as sustaining a similar additional number of jobs within their sub-contractors.

  This order is good news for the Royal Navy and for GEC-Marconi.
  380

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation Defence Agency has reported its performance in financial year 1993–94; and what targets have been agreed for it in financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  In respect of financial year 1993–94, copies of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation Defence Agency's annual report and accounts have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  In respect of financial year 1994–95, the Director General Aircraft (Navy), acting as the owner of the agency on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence under the terms of the agency's framework document, has been set the following targets for the coming financial year:

  Quantity:

  To complete 100 per cent. of the funded task as detailed in the DGA(N) Tri-Service Schedule of Identified Repair Work.

  Cost and Productivity:

  The target achieved to be maintained or improved.

  Quality:

  To improve quality by reducing the NARO index by 2.

  Timeliness:

  To complete more than 95 per cent. of contracts on time.

  Efficiency:

  To improve the NARO efficiency index to 65.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has begun his review of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation Defence Agency.

  Mr. Hanley
  A review of the agency status of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation has now started. As a defence agency the performance of the NARO will be evaluated and NARO activities will be subject to the normal prior options tests set out in the 1993 "Next Steps Review", Cm 2430.

  Comments from interested parties should be sent by 23 September 1994 to Rear-Admiral Roger Moylan-Jones, Director General Aircraft (Navy), Ministry of Defence, Room 114, Quay House, The Ambury, Bath, BA 1 2YP.

  Gulf Trust
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made for the winding up of the Gulf trust.

  Mr. Hanley
  The trust deed governing the Gulf trust expires on 31 July. As originally envisaged, the united services trustee, which is the trustee of the trust, will pass the remaining money, including the accrued interest, to the three service benevolent funds—the King George's Fund for Sailors, the Army Benevolent Fund and the RAF Benevolent Fund. It is the three service benevolent funds which have been dealing with individual applications for assistance from the Gulf trust from eligible personnel. The provisional amounts being passed to each of the benevolent funds are set out; these may change marginally to take account of payments out and interest accruing between 11 July 1994 and the date the Gulf trust is formally wound up. The money will be held separately for the exclusive use of those eligible to benefit from the Gulf trust for as long as is necessary to ensure, so far as reasonably practical, that all accepted claims are fully provided for. This will be for a minimum of 10 years. Provision is also being made for portions of the money to be transferred between the benevolent funds, if necessary,
  381
  for the benefit of personnel covered by the Gulf trust. These arrangements are designed to ensure that the objectives of the Gulf trust continue to be met and in particular fulfil the stated intention of meeting needs arising from the conflict over the long term.

  £

  King George's Fund for Sailors

  153,108

  Army Benevolent Fund

  2,238,318

  RAF Benevolent Fund

  427,017

  Criminal Justice
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of time which elapses between the committal of an offence and a court martial hearing in the military criminal justice system.

  Mr. Hanley
  The average length of time between the date an offence was committed—or it was discovered, or investigation of it started, where appropriate—and the date of the court martial hearing, across all three services, is about six months.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proportion of the Army legal aid scheme budget was spent on the employment of civilian lawyers in 1991, 1992 and 1993;

  (2) in what proportion of cases soldiers and NCOs use civilian rather than Army advocates when facing district courts martial;

  (3) how many soldiers were retained and for how long, despite the expiry of their time in the Army, awaiting the conclusion of a district court martial proceeding in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

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

  Chinook Helicopters
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has taken from pilots of Chinook helicopters regarding their experiences with the computerised control box, the FADEC.

  Mr. Hanley
  As part of normal flight safety procedures, all Chinook helicopters are required to submit reports on any unusual occurrence experienced with the aircraft systems and this includes the full authority digital engine control—FADEC—system.

  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions there has been an engine cut out while a Chinook helicopter in flight was using the computerised control box, the FADEC.

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no incidents of an engine cut-out in flight on RAF Chinook helicopters using the full authority digital engine control—FADEC—system.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 437, if he will set out the reasons for his departmental conclusion that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament report's proposals do not represent a realistic approach to disarmament.
  382
  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's speech to the Centre for Defence Studies on 16 November 1993 set out the reasons for the approach to disarmament adopted by Her Majesty's Government. A copy of this has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had with Mr. Mick Roche in regard to claims for compensation for former soldiers who have been involved in experiments on chemical and biological warfare protection as scientific guinea pigs at the chemical and biological defence establishment at Porton Down.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department is aware of a number of letters from a Mr. T. M. Roche about participation in trials at Porton Down, but we know of no specific compensation claims from either him or other individuals on the matter.

  Naval Equipment Programme
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future naval equipment programme following the decisions taken in the defence costs study

  Mr. Aitken
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his statement to the House on 14 July, the defence costs study "Front Line First" has enabled us to make a number of significant enhancements to our front-line naval capability. During the course of the statement, an order was announced for a further batch of seven Sandown class single role minehunters, and an invitation to tender for the design and build of a second batch of the highly successful Trafalgar class of nuclear-powered submarines. We shall also shortly issue an intiation to tender for two new assault ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. In addition, we plan to issue an invitation to tender for a further batch of type 23 frigates during the coming year. The Government will assess the case thereafter on the basis of price and operational need. The purchase of additional antisubmarine and gunnery targets was also announced, and this will allow more realistic training for ships and naval aircraft deployed away from usual target facilities.

  We announced that we will be examining the case for acquiring conventionally armed Tomahawk land attack missiles for the Navy, and we will be seeking information from the Government of the United States of America and from industry.

  Other major projects in the future naval equipment programme, such as Trident, the common new generation frigate—Project Horizon—and the EH101 Merlin helicopter, continue to make good progress.

  This is a substantial programme of investment in new equipment, and the decision announced on 14 July represent a major boost to British industry, as well as providing vital enhancements to the Royal Navy.

  Defence Spending
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latest figures available for defence spending as a percentage of gross domestic product for each of the members of the NATO alliance and the same figures for the year 1985.
  383
  Mr. Hanley
  Details of NATO countries' defence expenditures in 1993 as a percentage of gross domestic product, are contained in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994", Cm 2550. Corresponding figures for 1985 are set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986", Cm 9736-I. Copies of both documents are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, at 1993–94 prices, the total for United Kingdom defence spending for each year since 1970 including the planned total for 1994–95.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:

  £000

  1970–71

  16,467

  1971–72

  17,015

  1972–73

  18,815

  1973–74

  19,668

  1974–75

  21,387

  1975–76

  22,193

  1976–77

  22,524

  1977–78

  21,872

  1978–79

  21,799

  1979–80

  23,134

  1980–81

  23,798

  1981–82

  24,267

  1982–83

  25,881

  1983–84

  26,596

  1984–85

  28,091

  1985–86

  27,854

  1986–87

  27,279

  1987–88

  26,717

  1988–89

  25,339

  1989–90

  25,610

  1990–91

  25,453

  1991–92

  26,352

  1992–93

  23,776

  1993–94

  22,881

  1994–95

  22,222

  Notes:

  1. Figures include exceptional expenditure on Falklands/Gulf conflicts but exclude Gulf burden sharing contributions from other Governments.

  2. Figures from 1978–79 take account of the technical changes in the treatment of Armed Forces and civilian pensions described in the 1992 Autumn Statement (Cm 2096) and other classification changes. It has not been possible to adjust figures for years before 1978–79 on to a fully consistent basis and comparisons with 1978–79 and later years may therefore be unreliable.

  3. Figures from 1992–93 onwards exclude provision for the security and intelligence services.

  4. Figures for 1993–94 reflects provisional outturn as published in the Cash Limit Outtum White Paper on 14 Jul 94 (Cm 2617) and is adjusted in line with Note 3.

  Research and Procurement Projects
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has made to the statement issued on behalf of 11 European defence manufacturers associations on 21 June; and if he will list the current defence research and procurement projects on which he is engaged with partners in Europe.

  Mr. Aitken
  I have noted the views of industry as expressed in the statement made on behalf of 11 European defence manufacturers associations on 21 June. Details of our current collaborative defence projects are given in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994".

  Al Yamamah Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a table showing the unit price in each year of the barrels of oil used as a basis of payment in the Al Yamamah programme.

  Mr. Aitken
  No. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to comment on detailed matters concerning individual defence export sales.

  Sir Bedivere
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, in considering the bids for the contract for the refurbishment of the motor vessel the Sir Bedivere, he will apply the same attention to the foreign business links of all bidders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  All bids have been evaluated against the same criteria.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many parliamentary questions have received(a) written and (b) oral answers from his Department in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is, however, a matter of public record.

  Departmental Papers
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the White and Green papers and consultative documents published by his Department in the last five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  Records are not held centrally.

  My Department does, however, issue an annual White Paper entitled "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Other White Papers and consultative documents are issued as appropriate and copies are placed in the Library of the House.

  Ship Refitting Contracts
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on current ship refitting contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) on 19 July,Official Report, columns 114–15.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became(a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (2) how many special advisers have (a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (3) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The figures for the special advisers in my Department are given in the table.
  385

  (a) Joined the Department

  (b) Left the Department

  1990

  —

  1

  1991

  1

  —

  1992

  1

  1

  1993

  1

  1

  1994

  —

  —

  Special advisers are not obliged to advise the Department of their subsequent employer upon leaving.

  RNSD Eaglescliffe
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement setting out the precise reasons why RNSD Eaglescliffe is to close;

  (2) when he will publish consultation papers on the future of RNSD Eaglescliffe;

  (3) when he next intends to visit RNSD Eaglescliffe.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is estimated that the proposal to close RNSD Eaglescliffe would save my Department some £52 million over 10 years and £7 million per annum thereafter. Savings on this scale are made possible as a result of continuing reductions in the level of naval stocks coupled with more efficient operating arrangements. The closure of RNSD Eaglescliffe would be part of a long-standing process of rationalising the naval logistic support area through concentrating storage facilities closer to the waterfront and away from inland areas. The rationale for, and implications of, the proposal to close RNSD Eaglescliffe will be set out in a detailed consultative document which will be issued to all interested parties as soon as possible.

  (All figures in £000)

  Year

  Eskmeals

  Shoeburyness

  ETC Foulness

  Pendine

  1989–90

  1,338·52

  1,219·6

  —

  805·11

  1990–91

  1,008·98

  720·9

  13·6

  661·92

  1991–92

  1,049·32

  1,077·4

  3·33

  1,043·77

  1992–93

  694·77

  432·0

  66·3

  651·51

  1993–94

  915·64

  1,006·9

  80·0

  580·39

  Note: The Proof and Experimental Establishments at Inchterf and Cold Meece, which closed in 1992 and 1993 respectively, are excluded from these figures. P and EE Lavington is included in the figures for P&EE Shoeburynes.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the capital costs incurred in facilitating the transfer of small arms and cannon work from Cold Meece to Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  The cost was £858,300.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legally enforceable powers covering gunnery range safety currently exist at(a) Shoeburyness and (b) Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  The following statutory instruments have been made under the provisions of the Military Lands Acts 1892 to 1903:

  (a) Shoeburyness

  Number 1189 of 1935

  Number 714 of 1936

  (b) Pendine

  Number 1627 of 1973

  Number 475 of 1981

  386
  Although neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence nor I have any current plans to visit RNSD Eaglescliffe, we will consider all representations made concerning our proposals as part of the consultation process, the period of which has been extended to three months from 14 July.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions he has given the defence land agent to consult the work force at RNAD Trecwn about the suitability of bidders before disposing of the site.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is not our practice to do so.

  Proof and Experimental Establishments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the existing length and area of the gunnery range at(a) Shoeburyness and (b) Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  The area and maximum length of the numerous gunnery ranges are as follows:

  (a) Shoeburyness

  Area: Over 34,000 acres including foreshore Gunnery Range: 25·7km.

  (b) Pendine

  Area: Over 4,700 acres including foreshore Gunnery Range: 20km.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the gross income generated from private contractors by each of the proof and experimental establishments in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the capital costs required to facilitate the proposed transfer of small arms and cannon work from Pendine to Shoeburyness.

  Mr. Aitken
  If the closure of the establishment is confirmed it is planned to place a commercial contract for this work. The estimate of cost is, therefore, commercially confidential. I can confirm, however, that the costs are included, but not separately identified, in the summary investment appraisal, attached to the Director General Test and Evaluation's consultative document.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those customers of the dynamic test bracks at proof and experimental establishment, Pendine who have been consulted by his Department during the Directorate General of Test and Evaluation study.

  Mr. Aitken
  The commercial customers concerned were the Society of British Aerospace Companies and Royal Ordnance plc. Discussions were also held with relevant internal Ministry of Defence customers including the Defence Research Agency.
  387
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the gross income generated by the dynamic test tracks of proof and experimental establishment, Pendine in each of the last five years; and how much of this was from(a) private contractors and (b) Government organisations.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is as follows:

  Private £'000

  Government £'000

  FY 1989–90

  253·18

  —

  FY 1990–91

  260·73

  —

  FY 1991–92

  485·23

  —

  FY 1992–93

  5·55

  —

  FY 1993–94

  —

  1,086·60

  The large amount of Government work in financial year 1993–94 is explained by the move of the Defence Research Agency to a trading fund.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the decontamination costs to date at Cold Meece.

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

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the total decontamination costs for Cold Meece.

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

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of MOD police for proof and experimental establishment, Pendine in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information is as follows:

  £K

  1990–91

  553

  1991–92

  570

  1992–93

  598

  £000

  Year

  Eshneals

  Shoeburyness

  ETC Foulness

  Pendine

  1989–90

  —

  24·6

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  0·8

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  112·4

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  61·0

  —

  —

  1993–94

  536·57

  1,139·7

  —

  1,678·62

  Note: The Proof and Experimental Establishments at Inchterf and Cold Meece, which closed in 1992 and 1993 respectively, are excluded from these figures. P and EE Lavington is included in the figures for P and EE Shoeburyness. Figures for financial year 1993–94 are higher than previous years because of the Defence Research Agency's move to a Trading Fund.

  Music Schools
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the requirements for prior training in basic music which apply to bandsmen entering(a) the Royal Marine school of music at Deal, (b) the military music school at Kneller Hall and (c) the Royal Air Force school of music; how many musical instruments bandsmen are fully trained at each of those schools; and to what level of orchestral playing bandsmen are trained at each of those schools.

  Mr. Hanley
  The entry qualifications at each of the three schools is as follows:Deal
  There is no set musical grade ability requirement. On completion of the normal recruitment procedures and a musical assessment, all entrants are subject to a week long audition which determines
  388

  £K

  1993–94

  630

  1994–95

  1640

  1 Estimated for full year.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current restrictions on safety grounds at the gunnery ranges at(a) Shoeburyness and (b) Pendine.

  Mr. Aitken
  The proof and experimental establishment has no nett explosive quantity limitation but of the 20 batteries currently in use only eight can be used at any one time because of safety considerations. PEE Pendine, which has an NEQ limit of 125 kg, has 22 facilities of which up to 12 could be used at any one time.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his best estimate of the capital costs required to facilitate the transfer of small arms and cannon work from proof and experimental establishment, Pendine to Shoeburyness.

  Mr. Aitken
  If the closure of the establishment is confirmed it is planned to place a commercial contract for this work. The estimate of cost is, therefore, commercially confidential. I can confirm, however, that the costs are included, but not separately identified, in the summary investment appraisal, attached to the Director General Test and Evaluation's consultative document.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the gross income generated from Government Departments by each of the proof and experimental establishments in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Aitken
  The information requested is as follows:musical ability. Guidance given to RN/RM careers officers is that potential recruits will require a minimum musical standard equivalent to a grade 5.
  Kneller Hall
  A musician with some experience in bands or orchestras who holds a certificate of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music at grade 8 or equivalent.
  Uxbridge
  The RAF requires potential bandsmen to be of a minimum Grade 8 Associated Board standard in one instrument. It is current practice, however, to recruit musicians direct from music college/University.
  The numbers of bandsmen who undertake basic bandsmen training at the three establishments are as follows:

  Deal — 15–0 per annum (Note 1)

  Kneller Hall — 100 per annum (Note 2)

  Uxbridge — Nil

  The levels of orchestral playing to which bandsmen are training at each of the schools is as follows:

  389

  Deal

  Musicians: Performance Diploma

  Sergeant: Pre-course to LRSM

  Bandmaster: LRSM

  Kneller Hall

  Musicians: O-A Level, GCSE/Diploma

  Sergeants: A Level, GCSE/Diploma

  Serg Majors: Diploma

  Bandmaster: Diploma/Degree

  Director of Music: Advanced Diploma/Degree

  Uxbridge

  The structure of further musical training at RAF Uxbridge enables bandsmen to attain a high level of orchestral playing.

  Notes:

  1. In addition, some 10–5 Corporals, Sergeants and Bandmasters also undertake further musical training at Deal each year on courses of varying length.

  2. In addition, around 100 Sergeants, Sergant Majors, Bandmasters and Directors of Music undertake further musical training at Kneller Hall each year on courses of varying length.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the proposal to move the Royal Marines school of music from Deal has been fully appraised in accordance with commitment by the then permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence set out in paragraph 510 on page 7 of the "11th Report of the Committee of Public Accounts for Session 1985–86"; and if he will publish the investment appraisal.

  Mr. Hanley
  A full appraisal has been made of the proposal to transfer the training of Royal Marine musicians from Deal, in accordance with the commitment by the then permanent secretary. A consultation document setting out the options considered and the rationale for our proposals will be issued as soon as possible. Except for commercially sensitive details, this will include all relevant financial information.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to shorten the training of Royal Marines bandsmen from the present period of two years and eight months.

  Mr. Hanley
  As indicated in the defence cost report "Front Line First", further work is in hand to establish whether there is scope to conduct the initial training of military musicians through bursary or scholarship schemes at civilian colleges of music. This could be expected to have implications for the duration of training.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will conduct an investment appraisal to determine the savings to the Exchequer resulting from the intelligence centre moving to the marine barracks at Deal assuming(a) the Royal Marines school of music remains at Deal with the intelligence centre and (b) a combined defence school of music is set up at Deal with the intelligence centre.

  Mr Hanley
  As announced in the report on the outcome of "Front Line First", we intend to transfer Royal Marines music training from Deal by 1 April 1996. Further work is in hand on the future requirement, and on possible locations for a defence school of music. The role of the defence intelligence centre, and the suitability of its current location, is being examined in the context of the continuing study into defence intelligence, which is being carried out under "Front Line First".

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the requirements in terms of(a) training on a second instrument and (b) orchestral training for the bandsmen who played on board the royal yacht
  390
  Britannia and for heads of state at the recent D-day commemorations; and which military school of music provides these requirements.

  Mr. Hanley
  All members of the Royal Marines band service are currently trained at Deal and are required to learn a military band instrument and an orchestral instrument. The members of the Royal Yacht band are drawn from the Royal Marines band Portsmouth and are able to perform as a marching band, a concert band, a dance band and as an orchestra.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the consultation procedure to be followed in relation to proposals involving the future of the Royal Marines school of music at Deal; if he will list and place in the Library the investment appraisals which(a) have been carried out and (b) are to be carried out; and if he will make available accounting and other relevant information concerning (i) retaining the Royal Marines school of music in Deal and (ii) establishing a defence school of music in Deal.

  Mr. Hanley
  The proposal to transfer the training of Royal Marines musicians from Deal will be subject to the same consultative period applicable to the whole series of "Front Line First" initiatives which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced to the House on 14 July 1994; this lasts until 14 October. The proposal has resulted from a detailed study of the current costs of military music provision and music training in all three services. Further work is in hand to establish whether there is scope to conduct the initial training of military musicians through bursary or scholarship schemes at civilian colleges of music.

  Intelligence Centre, Templar Barracks
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the annual economic contribution of the intelligence centre at Templar barracks to East Kent including the value of goods and services purchased from local suppliers and direct and indirect employment.

  Mr. Hanley
  The defence intelligence centre buys in local goods and services to the approximate value of £220,000 a year. The centre employs 108 civilian and 136 military personnel, the majority of whom live locally and so contribute to the local economy.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the number of(a) civilian and (b) military personnel employed in the school of intelligence and the security school at the Templar barracks intelligence centre; and what is the maximum accommodation requirement for students during the course of a normal year.

  Mr. Hanley
  The defence intelligence and security school is an integral part of the defence intelligence centre. The centre employs 108 civilian and 136 military personnel of which 21 civilian and 45 military personnel work in the defence intelligence and security school. The centre has a throughput of approximately 3,000 students a year, around 2,500 of which attend courses at the defence intelligence and security school. The maximum number of students requiring accommodation at any one time is around 300.
  391
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the construction of a channel tunnel high-speed rail link will have on whether the intelligence centre can remain in Templar barracks at Ashford.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the intelligence centre based at Templar barracks in Ashford and the long-term suitability of that location.

  Mr. Hanley
  The future organisation of defence intelligence is still being examined as part of continuing defence costs study into defence intelligence, which, as indicated in the report "Front Line First", is due to report by the end of July. The role of the defence intelligence centre at Templar barracks, Ashford, and the long-term suitability of that location in the light of the channel tunnel rail link, is being addressed in that context.

  Portland Bases
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money he has planned to spend in transferring facilities from Portland naval base into Portland naval air station; how much has already been spent; and what plans he has to reduce this spending consequential on the announcement of his intention to close the air station by 1999.

  Mr. Hanley
  The original estimate of the cost of transferring facilities to Portland naval station following the decision to close Portland naval base was £3,900,000, of which £83,000 has been spent to date. The current estimate of total costs has been revised to £2,900,000 to reflect the planned closure of the naval air station.

  Abbey Wood Building
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned spending on providing, equipping and staffing the new Ministry of Defence building at Abbey Wood; how much has already been spent; and how many staff could be accommodated at Abbey Wood.

  Mr. Aitken
  The estimated works cost of the Abbey Wood development, inclusive of site acquisition, construction, fitting out, professional works management fees and VAT is £254·136 million at 1993 prices with an additional £93 million for non-works elements, inclusive of staff relocation and removaUrecommissioning of IT systems existing at the time of collocation. The construction programme continues to proceed within budget and a total of £72·138 million, at the same price base, has been approved for payment to date. As a result of the use of more stringent space standards and work undertaken in support of the defence costs study, it is anticipated that a maximum of some 5,700 personnel could be accommodated within the existing scheme. The estimate for the non-works costs will be revisited in the light of the recently announced decisions resulting from the defence costs study.

  Naval Support Command
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed by the naval support command; where they are currently located; and where it is planned to locate these staff.
  392
  Mr. Hanley
  At 1 April 1994 there were some 24,000 staff employed in the naval support command—NSC—at a variety of locations throughout the United Kingdom, overseas and at sea. The largest concentrations were in the naval bases and, for headquarters staff, in the Bath area. Some locations will be affected by the defence costs study and details are contained in the report "Front Line First". For those elements of the headquarters staff who need to be collocated, we are looking at the most suitable site in the Bath/Bristol area.

  Capital Projects (Portland and Weymouth)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list and give the cost of the major capital projects undertaken in Portland and Weymouth over the past 10 years, with, where appropriate, the payback period for these projects as calculated when these projects were approved by the Treasury.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the past 10 years there have been 19 capital works projects—over 300,000 in value—in the Portland and Weymouth area, at a total cost of £44·5 million. Only one project, the building of the new wardroom and senior rates' mess at HMS Osprey, which cost £30 million, required Treasury approval. Details of the payback period are not available because the Property Services Agency—PSA—was responsible for the submission to Treasury in 1985–86 and the records are not available.

  The projects were as follows:

  Capital projects in Portland/Weymouth

  £000

  DRA

  1992 DRA Southwell telephone exchange

  535

  1994 DRA Bincleaves refurbishment

  620

  HMNB

  1985 RM building improvements

  677

  1985 Shore to ship services

  974

  1986 Rotherham Road Construction

  940

  1986 New build for QHM

  927

  1986 Portland Bill transmitter upgrade

  570

  1986 Verne reservoir and pump house

  1,000

  1988 FOST building extension

  1,500

  1992 Connections to local authority sewer

  484

  1992 Breakwater maintenance

  690

  HMS Osprey

  1988 Osprey Wardroom/Senior Rates' mess

  30,006

  1990 Storage

  1,604

  1991 Secondary surveillance radar

  336

  1990 Permanent DWO

  1,186

  1989 Car parking

  510

  1990 Security enhancements

  312

  1994 Hillside stability monitoring

  412

  1994 Hardy site remedial works

  1,175

  Helicopters
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the planned spending on new hangars and facilities to accommodate the Merlin EH101 helicopters at Culdrose; how much money has already been spent; what other plans the Ministry of Defence has to expand helicopter facilities throughout the United Kingdom; and how many helicopters the Ministry of Defence has now and plans to have by 1999.
  393
  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of new hangars and facilities that would be required to accommodate the Merlin EH101 at Culdrose naval air station is estimated to be between £80,000,000 to £100,000,000, none of which has yet been spent. Helicopter facilities elsewhere in the United Kingdom may change depending on the investment appraisal of the options for a joint helicopter basic flying training centre and decisions on future RAF support helicopters which have yet to be taken. The number of helicopters currently owned by my Department is published annually in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". The number of helicopters that we will have in 1999 depends on the equipment decisions which have yet to be taken.

  Farnborough Airfield
  Mr. Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of flying at Farnborough airfield beyond 2000.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Ministry of Defence is committed to making Farnborough airfield available to the Society of British Aerospace Companies for the biennial airshow until the year 2000. Against the background of the collocation of procurement executive flying at Boscombe Down, the concentration of Defence Research Agency activity on part of the Farnborough site and the consequent requirement to dispose of the remainder of the site, an interdepartmental group of officials has been set up, under the chairmanship of the Department of Trade and Industry, to consider the future of Farnborough airfield, including its use for the SBAC airshow.

  Aircraft and Equipment
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which foreign Government received the aircraft and equipment as listed under Appropriation Accounts, class 1, vote 2, "Other Notes".

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer, 18 July 1994]: The Government of Saudi Arabia.

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has, under the provisions of part IV, paragraph 21 of circular 18/84, to refer to the Secretary of State for the Environment to determine whether the development should proceed of two radomes, support buildings, security fencing and extension to a service road at Menwith hill station, Harrogate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 13 July 1994]: The local planning authority raised no objection to this development. It did, however, draw to my Department's attention a number of objections received by the local council. We have considered the substance of these pursuant to paragraph 21 of part IV of circular 18/84 and have concluded that there is nothing in these objections that would make it appropriate to refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Ferranti/ISC Fraud
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all those charged with offences relating to the Ferranti/ISC fraud; and if he will list, in each case, the pleas entered and the sentences imposed.

  The Attorney-General
  The investigation by the Serious Fraud Office commenced in September 1989 and was carried out in close co-operation with the United States prosecuting authorities because it was apparent that all the potential defendants were United States citizens residing in the United States.

  At the conclusion of the investigation, a United States grand jury indicted 17 individuals and three corporations on charges of fraud. They included James Guerin, the former deputy chairman of Ferranti International Signals plc—the company which resulted from the merger of Ferranti and ISC in 1987.

  In December 1991, Guerin and subsequently various other defendants pleaded guilty before the federal court in Philadelphia to offences involving fraud in respect of the merged company, committed both in the United Kingdom and the USA. All offences which might have been the subject of a United Kingdom trial were fully encompassed in the United States indictment which alleged, inter alia, the creation of fictitious contracts, with attendant false accounting designed to bolster the share price of ISC and achieve the merger with Ferranti. Accordingly, no extraditions can be, or have been, sought and no persons were charged in the United Kingdom with any offences in relation to the Ferranti investigation. Guerin was sentenced in June 1992 to a total of 15 years imprisonment and confiscation of substantial personal assets. Other defendants have yet to be sentenced and at least one trial is still pending.

  At the conclusion of the investigation stage, the United States Attorney for Philadelphia issued the following statement:
  "The US Government received extensive co-operation and assistance from Britain's Serious Fraud Office and the Metropolitan Police. Their efforts exemplify the level of international law enforcement co-operation essential for the prosecution of criminal activity that ignores national boundaries."

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many special advisers have(a) joined and (b) left his Department in each of the last five years;

  (2) how many special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years became (a) management consultants and (b) joined a firm of consultants;

  (3) if he will publish the names of the employers joined by special advisers who left his Department in each of the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  No special advisers have either joined or left my Department during the last five years.

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.

Lord Quirk
Sir Charles Randolph Quirk, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Quirk, of Bloomsbury in the London Borough of Camden, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Wolfson and the Lord Porter of Luddenham.

Wandsworth Borough Council: Housing Policy
2.49 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that Wandsworth London Borough Council is acting in the best interests of the council tax payers of the borough by selling off accommodation which gives less financial return than if the accommodation was rented.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, whether the policies and decisions of Wandsworth Borough Council are in the best interests of its council tax payers is a matter for the council tax payers to judge.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware than when I and others in your Lordships' House were involved in local government there was almost a statutory duty on members of local authorities to do the best financially for the people in the area. Have the rules changed? If not, why is Wandsworth not being brought to heel and made to deal with the situation referred to in the Question in the interests of the taxpayers in Wandsworth?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has considerable experience in local authority management. However, I think he will agree that it is for each local authority to ensure that it exercises its discretion in a manner which does not conflict with statutory obligations.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, as a council tax payer in the borough of wise Wandsworth,
230
I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that we are altogether satisfied with our council in comparison with some of the neighbouring bodies.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am delighted to hear what my noble and learned friend says. Indeed, I have heard the same from many other people besides the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as another taxpayer and ratepayer in Wandsworth, may I say that Wandsworth Borough Council is beginning to smell and will soon have a similar effluvium to that already emerging from Westminster?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, frankly, I do not think that that is playing the game. The noble Lord well knows that there are some serious and grave allegations against councillors in Westminster and that an able and qualified district auditor is pursuing the case as quickly as he can.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is it not the answer that, first, if anything was occurring which was not right the district auditor would already have taken action? Secondly, did not the sensible inhabitants of Wandsworth re-elect their council only a few months ago? Surely they are the best judge of the situation?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Of course the district auditor would have taken action if he had thought it appropriate in the particular circumstances.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, may not speak from the Gangway.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I had thought that I was within the precincts of the House. I thought that one was outside those precincts a little further to the right. Having moved slightly to the left, perhaps I may ask my question. Is it not right that local councillors have a legal duty to respect and protect the fiduciary interests of their local inhabitants? Surely the case identified by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, would suggest that local councillors in Wandsworth are not abiding by their legal duty. What action are the Government going to take to investigate the matter and ensure that the law is upheld?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is a statutory obligatory duty upon the councillors in every local authority to house the homeless as they think appropriate in their particular local authority. That is what is happening.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there are serious allegations that Wandsworth's housing policy was illegal and that it failed to fulfil the council's obligation to the homeless as part of its duties under the Housing Act 1985, to which I believe the noble Earl was referring? Is he further aware that distinguished lawyers have reported that the impact on the homeless of sales policy in Wandsworth is,

231
"close to the margins of legality"?
Will the noble Earl take this opportunity to make sure that the Government give Wandsworth Council proper notice that it is "close to the margins of legality" and that it should not stray over those margins?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. But I also understand that the council has reviewed its procedures with a view to reducing the maximum time that is spent in bed-and-breakfast and other forms of temporary accommodation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his Answer a few moments ago the noble Earl referred to the question of homelessness. A Statement on homelessness was made in another place earlier this week which, because of the pressures of business in this House, unfortunately we could not take. Is the Minister aware that Wandsworth, and the other councils that follow the same policy, are exacerbating the present plight of the homeless in London? Is he further aware that, according to independent bodies in the area which deal with the homeless, the situation has now once again begun to deteriorate and more homeless people are appearing on the streets in London?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the local authority in Wandsworth is not exacerbating the situation on the homeless. As I recently said to another noble Lord, there is a statutory obligation upon each local authority to house the homeless. That is precisely what Wandsworth is doing.

Local Government: Reorganisation
2.55 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is still their intention to increase the area of the United Kingdom in which local government is organised on a single-tier basis, and what progress has been achieved in this respect.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in England, the Local Government Commission is due to complete its review of the shire counties by the end of 1994. We have so far accepted the commission's proposals for the creation of unitary authorities in the Isle of Wight and Cleveland. In Scotland and Wales unitary authorities will be established by primary legislation. In Wales there will be 22 unitary authorities from 1st April 1996. A Bill for Scotland is currently before this House.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive Answer. However, is he aware that many of us feel that there is far too much reorganisation of local government in the areas where there are two tiers operating; and will the Government exercise their influence to bring about the economy in administrative costs which follows as widely as possible where there is a single-tier authority?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as regards cost, this is part of the point of the whole exercise in having a
232
look again at local government. I believe that my noble friend would agree that after 20 years of one particular structure it is only sensible and justifiable to take a very close look at local government in order to see that it gives good value to those whom it serves.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree that there are large cities where it is necessary to have not merely a borough type of organisation for the various parts of that city but also another tier over and above it, so that the interests of the city as a whole can be represented? Is it not the case that that is sadly missed in London? While they are looking at this matter, will the Government reconsider the possibility of recreating a body to take the place of the late lamented Greater London Council?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it was some time ago (back in 1986) when the Greater London Council expanded. The noble Lord raises a point; but what I am saying is, very simply, that each particular county is being looked at extremely carefully to see that the considerations that are given are appropriate to that particular county.
Lord Pym: My Lords, is there any reason why counties where the electorate and the inhabitants prefer the existing two-tier arrangement rather than any of the alternatives that are proposed should not continue as they are?
The Earl of Arran: No, my Lords, I want to make it quite clear to my noble friend that there is no national blueprint; and that may well be the case in some counties.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can we have an absolute assurance from the noble Earl that the Government are still committed to the unitary authority system, since it is quite clearly the most democratic system of local government, being nearest to the people, responsive to their wishes, and far more economical?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords. Of course the Government are committed to the unitary authority system. But they are having a very good look at each particular case to see how many unitary authorities might be necessary.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend remind his superiors elsewhere of the views expressed in this House in a debate not very long ago and of the anxiety that was then expressed that the commission did not listen quite as carefully as it might have done to local views and local preferences?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope very much that the commission did consult widely and indeed listen very carefully. On the first point that my noble friend mentioned, I am aware of the strength of opinions and

233
views on this matter among many of your Lordships. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is also well aware of that.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the dissatisfaction in Scotland is not with local government but with his government?
The Earl of Arran: No, I am not aware of it, my Lords. Furthermore, I totally dispute it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in regard to the question of my noble friend Lord Pym and the reply given to him, where local people find that a unitary authority is proposed and they have expressed their wishes in favour of it, does my noble friend Lord Arran agree that their wishes should be observed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is the whole point of the consultation exercise; namely, that the views of local people should be taken into account and widely known.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, under the present system, in Wales there are eight education authorities, eight directors of education and so on; but under the new system there will be 22 education authorities and 22 directors? Does he believe that that is an improvement?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is for the people concerned to decide. I understand that most of the existing authorities are already co-operating in the transition process.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the case of Leicestershire and the boundary commission's welcome proposals for the restoration of the historic county of Rutland, unfortunately the consultation process is seriously flawed? Will he accept that whole villages have not received the consultation paper and houses in multi-occupation in Leicestershire have received only one form? Will he look at that situation? Does he agree that it is also important that the consultation process should include a section giving people the option to vote for the status quo?
The Earl of Arran: Yes, my Lords, the status quo is certainly an option, as my noble friend said. With regard to the flawed consultation to which he referred, I shall pass that information on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we on these Benches support the unitary principle wherever possible so that local people know who does what and who is to be held accountable? Does he fully appreciate that our continued support of the review process - support which he may come to need—is entirely conditional on two matters? The first is that all elections to shadow authorities should be all-out; in other words, the Cleveland fiasco should not be repeated. The second is that there should be
234
satisfactory and civilised arrangements for the transfer of staff. Will the Minister give us proper assurances on both those points?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am certainly aware of the conditions which, according to the noble Baroness, we shall have to observe in order to have the support of her party. I feel that that may perhaps be a kind of blackmail or something of a threat, so to speak. But perhaps not—let us take it in the lightest possible way. It is certainly something of which the Government are aware and at which they are looking extremely closely as the process continues.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is clear from all sides in the other place today that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the outcome of the review? He has made clear that it is the Government's intention to pursue it, however mistaken that may be. He referred to the Government having made a decision in respect of Cleveland. Will he accept that, although the judicial review found nothing to set aside, it made a number of pertinent criticisms of the way in which the commission was operating? In those circumstances and in view of the strong local feeling in favour of the re-creation of the Borough of Teesside, will he think again and accept further consultation to that end?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there is the possibility that as regards Cleveland there may be a wish to appeal. I gather that they have until the end of July to appeal.

Pensions: UK Nationals Overseas
3.4 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now cease the practice of freezing the pensions of British nationals living overseas at their level on departure from the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, it would cost some £230 million a year to unfreeze these pensions fully. In view of the continued need to contain public expenditure, we have no plans to change this longstanding policy.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, which I expected from the Government. Is he aware that the principle I raise arises from cases such as the following example? My ex-secretary was widowed early. She worked all her life and did not live in a subsidised house. When she retired she went to live in South Africa where her son was working. Now, 14 years or so later, she is £20 a week worse off. It appears to me that that is a case of gross injustice. Does the Minister agree that the £230 million of which he spoke would be better saved elsewhere?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, social security spending is running at more than £80 billion a year and is the Government's largest expenditure programme. We are

235
committed to an efficient, effective and affordable social security system that is appropriate to modern needs and protects the most vulnerable. But we have to ensure that spending on social security does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay for it. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced some specific proposals for the reform of the social security system which are designed to help restrain the growth in cost. To achieve that aim, the control of spending must be tight. Payments to people resident overseas cannot be an exception. We cannot hold out any prospect of an increase in our expenditure by adding to spending on pensions overseas.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether any of the people at present in receipt of frozen pensions left this country before the pensions were frozen? Is it a fact that all of them were aware of the rule at the time that they took the decision to leave this country?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the answer is that probably most of them were aware of the rule when they decided to leave this country. We pay over £800 million a year to nearly 700,000 pensioners worldwide. Of those, about 300,000 receive annual uprating increases. That is largely because they are resident in the European Community or the wider EEA.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, apart from the cost to the British taxpayer of unfreezing those pensions, does my noble friend agree that a pensioner receiving a pension in this country pays UK taxes whereas pensioners living abroad do not pay any taxes to the United Kingdom Exchequer? Does he further agree that consequently it would be extremely unfair not to differentiate between the two pensions?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Many of the pensioners living abroad may also qualify for assistance in the countries in which they now live.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister accept that in 33 countries (so I understand) where there are reciprocal relationships pensions are inflation-proofed? As the old age pension is a contributory benefit, will he tell the House why reciprocity is an issue? Why are inflation-proofed pensions paid to British people in Jamaica but not in Trinidad?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the national insurance scheme works on a pay-as-you-go basis. That means that this year's contributions go to this year's pensioners. The funds that an individual pensioner contributes are not earmarked for that individual pensioner. The scheme has never been and is not a fully funded scheme. The noble Baroness is quite right. We have reciprocal arrangements with some 15 countries. Most of those arrangements were negotiated some years ago.
Earl Russell: My Lords, having made my apologies to my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, does the
236
Minister agree that the key principle is reciprocity? For example, Australians living in this country have their pensions uprated by the Australian Government. If that should not happen, the cost to his department could be considerable. Does he understand that the Australian Government believe that that policy is doing considerable harm to this country's international relations.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, with Canada, Australia and New Zealand we have a social security convention. That convention does not provide for pension increases to be paid. There are situations in which someone might receive a pension—for example, someone with, say, 20 years' residence in Australia, who has paid full Australian tax or national insurance equivalent, and who moved here prior to retirement, working here until retirement age. That person would qualify for full uprated UK pension while he was here or for a non-uprated pension if he moved back to Australia after retirement.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House the saving to the National Health Service in not looking after these people in their old age?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we do not know what calls these people, as individuals, have on the National Health Service. Many went abroad long before reaching pension age and therefore for many years did not contribute to the national health cost. The pensioners concerned chose to live abroad, and to pay them unfrozen pensions would be an extra cost to the Exchequer.

South Glamorgan: Youth Unemployment, 1993
3.10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to Viscount St. Davids' reply of 4th July (H.L. Deb. col. WA62) to the question, how many 16 or 17 year-olds in South Glamorgan were not in education, training or employment in each of the first four months of 1993, and what percentages of the age group these figures represent, whether they have anything to add to the reply that "the information is not available in the form requested".
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the information which I gave in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was the basis on which the Government monitor the performance of South Glamorgan Training and Enterprise Council in meeting the youth training guarantee. It therefore represented the closest approximation to the information requested which could be provided from the records held by the Careers Service and the South Glamorgan Training and Enterprise Council.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he answered the wrong Question? He mentioned the Youth Training Guarantee group. We have now available a report published by South Glamorgan TEC which

237
pointed out that as an indicator of what was requested— the number of people not in education, training or employment—
"it is not a defensible indicator".
Is the Minister aware that that report indicates that those in this condition comprise 1,673 persons or 17.9 per cent. of the age group? Is he aware also that the records available to his department do not enable him to refute or even criticise that figure?
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, the Government are aware of the report commissioned by South Glamorgan Training and Enterprise Council. The source figures used in the report relating to the Youth Training Guarantee are consistent with those provided by the Careers Service and the TEC to the Government. The Government are not able to comment on the reliability or accuracy of other tables in the report without detailed information being provided on survey methodology, including the basis of assumptions made in compilation of the tables.
The figures I gave in the written response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have no direct counterpart in the South Glamorgan report. The report used the Youth Training Guarantee figures, which he will find on Table 3.1, of which the figures quoted in the earlier reply are a. sub-set.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, if I may say so that is an exercise in obfuscation. Is not the nub of the Question the fact that there are several hundred young people at any one time in South Glamorgan of the age of 16 and 17 who are neither in training, in a job nor, alternatively, continuing with their education? That is supposed to be the Government's policy. It is failing by between 15 and 25 per cent. In those circumstances, instead of arguing about figures, should not the Government find out by means of a pilot survey whether or not the information from the University of Wales, Cardiff, is accurate? If it is, will they please take steps to make sure that this vulnerable group of young people are found in one or other of the categories to which the Government are directing their policies?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government made sufficient funds available to meet demand for youth training. In addition, training and enterprise councils in Wales were invited to bid against £250,000 available in the current financial year for pilot schemes aimed at encouraging young people to take up employment, training or further education. That is intended to help the TECs work with both voluntary and statutory organisations to trace and identify those young people who may have fallen through the net.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply sounds unpleasantly complacent? A major problem exists and my noble friend Lord
238
Callaghan of Cardiff expressed the deep anxieties of people in South Glamorgan at the figures revealed by those responsible people in the University of Cardiff.
Viscount St Davids: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that the Government, and through them the Welsh Office, are far from complacent in this matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, are we not in danger of going off the rails? Surely what matters is not so much the figures—1,673 was quoted from a particular source—but why some young people, for one reason or another, are unable to take advantage of the Government's guarantee of work, training or education. Is it not a fact that some people will inevitably be waiting while courses are arranged for them?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the youth training scheme is not a compulsory programme. It is therefore entirely reasonable that compliance with the YT guarantee should be measured with reference to those registered with the Careers Service.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, are the Government aware that, contrary to what was suggested in the previous response, it is not a marginal or transitory problem? The South Glamorgan study bore out the results of research conducted by many other organisations including, for example, the NCH report on a "lost generation". If the noble Viscount is doubtful about the quality of the statistics or the results, will he commission independent research to examine the reasons for this, the consequences and the actions that should be taken both by government and other organisations to deal with what I am sure he accepts is a serious social problem?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Government have examined many studies in this area which include the labour force study, the pupil destinations statistics prepared by the Careers Service, the youth cohort study and the national on-line manpower information service prepared by the University of Durham. I can only repeat that the Government are extremely concerned and that is why they are making extra funds available for TECs to bid against in order to find a solution to these problems.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that this is a serious problem in South Glamorgan for 16 and 17 year-olds, who now seem to have no interest in their future and no one else seems to be interested in their future, will the noble Viscount make an examination of 16 and 17 year-olds throughout the entire nation who may be suffering from this form of deprivation? It is extremely serious for the future of our country and should command the immediate and full attention of the Government.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, the Welsh Office and other departments of the Government are concerned

239
with these matters and do everything they can to relieve the situation and bring themselves up to date with all the statistics available.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the replies of the noble Viscount thus far, particularly to my noble friend Lord Callaghan, have not satisfied the House that the Government are in possession of the facts. Will he now give an undertaking that they will conduct a survey in the area so that we may be satisfied that the Government know what are the real facts?
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I shall ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to read today's Hansard and consider your Lordships' expressed anxiety. If possible he will ensure that any further statistics and guidance will be made available.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the Government have had five months to digest the report. First, do they now accept that the YT guarantee group information, which they gave in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on 4th July, is a gross underestimation of the young people aged 16 and 17 not in education, training and employment? Secondly, in response to the question posed by my noble friends Lord Murray of Epping Forest and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, can we urge the Government to commission research in South Glamorgan in order to validate those figures? Will they initiate research also on an all-Wales basis and on a Wales and England basis? This is a matter of great anxiety to the people of Great Britain generally.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I have just assured the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that I shall bring this matter to the attention of my right honourable friend and I shall certainly make sure that it is drawn to the attention of other departments.

Sittings of the House: Report
3.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The House will recall that earlier this year my noble friend appointed a working group, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham, to consider the practices and procedures of the House in so far as they affect the sittings of the House.
The group has submitted its report to my noble friend and on his behalf I should like to take this opportunity publicly to thank all the members of the group for the work which they have carried out. With the approval of the Procedure Committee, my noble friend has proposed that the report should be printed, and thus made available to all Members of the House, and that thereafter a debate on the report be arranged for after the Summer Recess. In the light of that debate, the Procedure Committee might be invited to consider ways in which the report's recommendations might be implemented.
Moved, That the Report to the Leader of the House from the Group on Sittings of the House be printed.— (Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords' Expenses
3.21 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the second Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. It may be for the convenience of the House if, in moving this Motion, I speak also to the three other Motions standing in his name relating to Lords' expenses. I can only apologise to the House for the apparent complexity of these Motions. Their purpose is as set out in the answer my noble friend gave to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, last Wednesday. It may, however, assist the House if I were briefly to clarify the effect of the Motions before the House today.
As your Lordships will be only too aware, the usual uprating of your Lordships' expenses, which is due at the beginning of August each year, did not take place last summer. I know that that has caused your Lordships some disquiet, for which I can only express my regret. The reason for the delay is that the basis on which your Lordships' expenses have been uprated since 1984, by reference to increases in corresponding Civil Service subsistence rates, and in respect of the secretarial allowance by reference to changes in Civil Service secretarial pay, no longer holds good. The Civil Service no longer promulgates central subsistence rates, which have been delegated to individual departments. And a new system for secretarial pay has been introduced.
The Government have therefore been investigating proposals as to how the subsistence rates applicable to your Lordships should in future be uprated. The conclusion we have reached is that upratings should in future be determined by reference to the retail prices index. I believe that this offers the most practical and convenient mechanism for the future, which preserves the value of the allowances without changing their nature (and which, importantly, preserves the existing tax position of the allowances).
For the future, the allowances will be uprated from 1st August by reference to the RPI in July. This means that at the end of this month the subsistence allowances will be further increased by the RPI index for this month. That will be in addition to the increases in the three Lords' allowances, up to an aggregated maximum rate of £2 per day, which your Lordships will be entitled to recover backdated to 1st August 1993.
I should also point out one small change in the eligibility for claiming expenses. This concerns those Members of the House who attend the boards of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited. As Members of the House are appointed to these bodies by the Committee of Selection, and as the bodies themselves are very much parliamentary in their character, it seemed to the Government that Peers who attended meetings of the board should be eligible for

241
expenses in the same way as if they had attended a committee of the House. I trust your Lordships will look on that small change favourably.
The second Motion concerns the London allowance for office holders. This Motion follows the Motion which was agreed to in another place last week and is necessitated due to the replacement of the London allowance in the Civil Service by a recruitment and retention allowance.
The third Motion uprates the motor mileage allowance in accordance with the proposals which were agreed to by the other place last week. This Motion maintains the single rate allowance applicable to your Lordships, to which the House agreed in 1984. Again, this Motion is required because the schedule of motoring costs by which parliamentary motor mileage allowances were calculated is no longer available in a form which can be operated within the terms of the resolution.
Finally, the fourth Motion corrects an anomaly in the eligibility to claim expenses incurred in respect of a recall of Parliament during a Recess. The effect of the Motion, which again is similar to a Motion agreed to in another place, is to enable those of your Lordships who are abroad and who wish to attend the House in the event of a recall during the Recess to reclaim any necessary extra costs as may be incurred in respect of travelling back to London, together with the return journey. Ministers are currently able to recover such expenses from their departments, and this Motion will place other Members of the House on a similar footing. Lest there be any doubt about this, let me add that there are. no plans for such a recall! I hope that all this is sufficiently clear.
Moved, That this House approves the following proposals with respect to expenses incurred by Members of this House after 31st July 1993—
(1) The limit on the expenses incurred in a year which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1) (d) of the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 (office, secretarial and research allowance) should be the amount obtained by multiplying—

(a) the number of days of attendance by him in that year at relevant sittings or relevant meetings, by

(b) the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in that year;

but this paragraph is subject to paragraph (4).
(2) In paragraph (1)—
"relevant sitting" means a sitting of this House or of a Committee of this House, other than a judicial sitting;
and
"relevant meeting" means a meeting of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology or the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)—

(a) the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in the year beginning with 1st August 1993 should be £30–50; and

(b) the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in any subsequent year should be the amount obtained by increasing the appropriate amount for expenses incurred in the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(4) In calculating the limit under paragraph (1) for any year there should, if a Lord so requires, be added to the number of days of attendance by him in that year such number of days in that year on which this House does not sit as are specified by him, but subject to a maximum of thirty days.
(5) The limit on the expenses which a Lord may recover under paragraph (3) of the Resolution of 22nd July 1980 (office holders' secretarial allowance)—

(a) for expenses incurred in the year beginning with 1st August 1993, should be £3,684; and

(b) for expenses incurred in any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the limit for expenses incurred in the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(6) The references in the Resolution of 25th July 1991 (day and night subsistence) to a sitting of this House or of a Committee of this House should include references to a meeting of the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology or the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited.
(7) In determining, in accordance with paragraph (2) of the Resolution of 25th July 1991, the limit on the expenses which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1) (a) of that Resolution (day subsistence), the maximum daily amount—

(a) for a day in the year beginning with 1st August 1993, should be £31·50; and

(b) for a day in any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the maximum daily amount for a day in the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(8) In determining, in accordance with paragraph (4) of the Resolution of 25th July 1991, the limit on the expenses which a Lord may recover under paragraph (1) (b) of that Resolution (night subsistence), the maximum daily amount—

(a) for a day in the year beginning with 1st August 1993, should be £70; and

(b) for a day in any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the maximum daily amount for a day in the immediately preceding year by the relevant percentage for that subsequent year.

(9) In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st August, and for the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) the relevant percentage for any year is the percentage by which the retail prices index for July in the immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous July;

(b) any amount obtained under paragraph (3) (b), (7) (b) or (8) (b) should be calculated to the nearest multiple of fifty pence; and

(c) any amount obtained under paragraph (5) (b) should be calculated to the nearest pound.

(10) The references in paragraph (9) (a) to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Cental Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Resolution,

243
those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to see that I have risen to speak on this subject. I fully agree with him, as will other Members of the House, that this is a long and complicated Motion. I shall restrict my remarks to three items which I would say cover Back Benchers in your Lordships' House.
I express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, who, unfortunately, is no longer with us in his former capacity, for spending time yesterday discussing some of the intricacies of the report. The overnight allowance has risen from £69 to £70. That is not adequate. I rent a flat in London in order to carry out my duties here and I do not think that an increase of £1 is adequate. I am told that these rises have been determined by the Treasury and not by any independent adjudication body. The daily subsistence allowance rises from £31 to £31·50. Members of your Lordships' House who come in to make the place work—and the House is working harder now than when these allowances were first introduced—take three meals a day here. In addition they have other refreshments. They are also expected to pay their postage out of the allowance. They are expected to use some of it for telephone calls made outside the House. Worst of all, they are expected to pay for taxis from the £31·50, after paying for their meals and sustenance for the day.
I think noble Lords will agree with me that it is absolute nonsense. It is almost essential at night, with the hours we are sitting, that noble Lords go home from here by taxi. A number of Members of your Lordships' House and members of staff working here and in another place have been mugged on the way home. Going home by Tube from this House late at night is not the most pleasant experience. People are seriously at risk. A couple of years ago I was on a train travelling only from Victoria to Pimlico, where I live. I have never been on a train late at night since then. A gang was "steaming" through it from the back mugging everybody, taking rings and wristwatches from people. As I was only going the one stop and I was at the front of the train, I got off before the gang reached me. That is the scenario. The payment of £31·50 to Peers who are attending here in order to make the place work needs to be looked at again.
The secretarial allowance goes up by 50p to £30·50p. When this allowance was first awarded it was to cover 18 days a year. Due to the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that was increased to cover 30 days a year. I still believe that the secretarial allowance for 30 days a year, when we sit four days a week for over 30 weeks a year, is grossly inadequate. I do not think the rate of payment is sufficient to pay for reasonable hours of work from a secretary. The question of the number of days ought to be looked at.
As I said at the commencement of my remarks a few moments ago, I understand that these proposals are the brainchild of the Treasury. As the noble Lord said in his very detailed explanation of what is before us, the difficulty is that we used to be linked to a grade of civil servant which is no longer applicable. The proposal now
244
before us is that we are now linked to the retail prices index. But if the base is too low now there is an inbuilt deficiency, and an increase related to the retail prices index will not make up the difference. I do not want to follow another place in voting themselves sums of money. That is not the right way to go about it. We are entitled to an independent adjudication for the changes which we shall have to live with in the foreseeable future and I do not believe that that should be undertaken by the Treasury.
Perhaps I may make a constructive suggestion to the Minister. Would it not be better, through the usual channels, to refer the matter back to the Top Salaries Review Body in order to return next year with some proposals which will at least protect the position for us in future? I hope that that suggestion meets with some approval. I do not want to delay anything. What the Minister has said is very welcome at this time; but the danger lies in the future and not today.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord opposite for what he has just said because this is a matter which concerns a great many of your Lordships.
I am sure that the House is indebted to my noble friend and his colleagues for the care with which they have outlined these proposals, even though the increases in remuneration which they provide are modest on the whole. I rise to raise one particular point with which they do not deal and which I hope may be dealt with in future— that is to say, the cost of postage. I believe that many of your Lordships find, as I do, that one gets a great deal of mail from outside institutions, organisations, public relations firms and pressure groups of one sort or another, all of whom expect a reply. The cost of postage for these replies is quite substantial. In another place they have free postage, and any correspondence that comes there can be answered without having to pay for the stamp; whereas our replies, even if one is prepared to use second class stamps—which some organisations regard as slightly offensive—incur still quite a substantial cost.
I hope that this matter will be looked at carefully. It is a little illogical that if your Lordships desire to respond by telephone to representations made to them they generally get a free telephone service; but if noble Lords desire to reply more formally—and, from a practical point of view, perhaps more wisely—by letter, then they have to pay the current very high rates of postage.
I do not believe that we could propose an amendment to these particular proposals at this stage; but I hope that the various organisations which go into these matters such as the usual channels or the Rippon committee, or whatever it may be, will look at the question of postage— and, if necessary, take evidence from those of us who have a great deal of correspondence—and consider bringing forward some recommendations in respect of postage in the near future.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said. At some point in the past, I tried to get something done about postage. I have written to the authorities in the House; and

245
I believe that at my instigation the question of postage was put on the agenda at one time. The committee which looked into this matter decided that it was not a good idea to have free postage at this end of the corridor as there is in another place. There is an additional factor which reinforces the plea which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The more work that one does in this House, the greater the cost of postage. In no way is any part of the allowance paid to your Lordships performance-related. This is one way in which it could be made to be so. The proposal which I made several years ago was to work out the average amount that a noble Lord spends on postage and then to reduce the secretarial allowance by that amount. Then there is free postage. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, makes interventions on a great many different subjects and receives a large postbag which he feels duty bound to reply to. I respect the noble Lord for that. Why should he be "in the red" because he has so many varied interests and takes such an active role in your Lordships' proceedings whereas some other noble Lord simply "clocks in", receives the allowance and does not receive any letters because he does not speak and therefore whatever element of the allowance is attributed to postage is for nothing? That is grossly unfair.
I cannot see that the Treasury can possibly have any objection if there was no net addition to the bulk allowance paid to your Lordships for secretarial purposes. If that amount remained the same and was redistributed in favour of those who received a large postbag, then I am sure that the Treasury would be happy, and those who face a large postbag would have some recompense for the work that they do.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may say that the alternative of the telephone is only available to those who have an office in this building, and there are many of us who do not.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Avebury: My Lords, noble Lords say no; but if one wants to make a confidential telephone call to someone who has intervened with you on a matter, it is not very satisfactory to do so in the corridor, as we are obliged to do. Many of us have been in this House for years and years. I have been in this House for 20 years and I have not got a desk yet, whereas in another place, being in the Whips' Office, I was fortunate enough to be equipped with proper office facilities from the word go. I do feel the contrast. For that reason, very largely I work from an office in my own home and I incur all the telephone costs which, in some cases, may be an alternative to answering by letter. There are also fax charges, which can be sent free from downstairs in this building. However, if I am not on the premises and am working in my office at home, that means I have to spend money on the telephone and also incur fax costs.
The third point I wish to raise is on the opposite side. Do not noble Lords believe that the motoring allowance of 44p per mile is excessive? I know, as the noble Lord explained, that this is not something which we decided
246
for ourselves but copied from another place. I believe that the other place is being extraordinarily greedy—and we are, too. The average cost of running a motor car could not possibly amount to as much as 14p per mile unless one has a Rolls-Royce. I know that there are one or two of those in the car park here. But those who are rich enough to afford a Rolls-Royce do not need the 44p. It is all very well for the noble Lord to wave his hand—he may well have a Rolls-Royce; I do not know. I am asking for this matter to be included in the reconsideration of our allowances for which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has asked. I hope that this matter can be considered at the same time.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I appreciate what has been done by the committee. During the committee's proceedings I took the trouble to submit certain details. I sought to ascertain the average cost of staying in a hotel fairly near to the House. I can advise your Lordships that the allowance of £70 per night, which is an increase of £1 on our overnight allowance, hardly covers the cost of staying in a reasonable hotel within a reasonable distance of this House. I fear that members of the committee might have been influenced by the proximity of their homes to this House and by the fact that they are not required to travel 500 miles to come to this House or to incur overnight expenses, as many noble Lords from Scotland have to do.
I travel frequently by plane and train with civil servants from the Scottish Office who come down here regularly to serve their Ministers. The last time that I asked about their overnight expenses, I discovered that they were allowed something like £120 per night as against the £70 which is allowed to Members of your Lordships' House. I have submitted those figures to the Minister. I am not a poor man, but I do not think that we should be out of pocket for attending the House of Lords. I believe that the expenses of staying overnight in a reasonable hotel incurred by Members of this House should be properly covered. That cost is not covered by the £70 which is now to be granted although, as I have said, we are thankful for the increase of £1 per night.
All this is related to the retail prices index, but the RPI has little to do with hotel costs. Hotel costs fall into a different category. It cannot be right to apply the RPI to the matter of our overnight allowances. Indeed, I do not think that hotel costs feature in RPI calculations. Therefore, the House should try to relate our overnight allowance to the actual cost of staying in reasonable accommodation overnight.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I shall be very brief indeed—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: All right, I am a decent sort of chap.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I shall be brief. The noble Viscount referred us to a Written Answer of last Wednesday. Does he accept, on reflection, that it is misleading because it says nothing about any maximum? Indeed, it reads as follows:

"

£

Backbench Peers (Daily rates)

Day subsistence

31·50

"

—[Official Report, 13th July 1994; col. WA 104.]
That leads the reader to suppose that Back-Bench Peers get an attendance allowance of £31·50 per day.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is altogether good that we are having this discussion. I should like to thank not only the Government Chief Whip and my noble friend but also other noble Lords who have spoken for raising some of the issues which have been raised. Noble Lords are very diffident, and have been diffident over a long period of time, about discussing their own expenses. That is altogether to the credit of this House. However, I think that the time has come when we have to discuss our expenses and, at the same time, the way in which this House is resourced and whether the resources that are given to this House are adequate for it to do the very important job that it has to do, which is to check the Executive.
There seems to be some worry among Members of this House that if they shout too loud, the moves for them to be abolished will be increased. That is not a very good reason for telling the truth about what happens here, and it is about time that we did begin to tell the truth about what happens here. Furthermore, if there is to be a discussion —and undoubtedly in the years to come there will be discussions—about what happens in this House, about whether it is to be reformed and, if so, how it is to be reformed, the House will have not only the opportunity but the duty to contribute to that debate because Members of the House will be very much involved. Therefore, we must discuss not only our expenses, but the way in which this House is resourced and whether it is able to do the job that it is supposed to do.
The work of the House has increased markedly over the past 20 years. It has increasingly had to act as a check and a brake on the excesses of government and of another place. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that even since I became a Member of this House—that was getting on for 11 years ago—the nature of the House has changed completely. I happen to believe that it has changed for the good. The House is now sitting far more days and hours than ever before. We now find that the House of Lords is sitting into the early hours when the House of Commons has long gone home. We find that we are often sitting when the House of Commons is still in Recess. Indeed, in the present term this House returned to its duties on 6th June; the House of Commons returned to its duties on 14th June—eight days later. We find that the House of Commons will rise tomorrow. The House of Lords will not rise until 26th July, so the House of Lords is now quite a different place from what it used to be. Indeed, it is doing a lot more work than ever before.
248
The costs of this place are minimal. Noble Lords might well have seen the Written Answer to a question that I tabled last December in which I asked Her Majesty's Government:
"What is the total cost of running (a) the House of Commons; (b) House of Lords; (c) the European Parliament: and how much this cost represents per active member in each case".
The answer read:
"The total voted costs of the House of Commons this year are some £170 million. This represents £261,000 for each Member of Parliament The corresponding costs for the House of Lords are £39·5 million, or some £38,000 for each active member of the House. Equivalent costs for the European Parliament are some £476 million; £919,000 for each MEP".—[Official Report, 17/12/93; col. WA 155.]
I understand that the total costs of the House of Lords for 1993–94 are only £36,260,000. You can bet your life that the costs of the European Parliament have soared in the same period.
One of the arguments that is used against Members of this House having proper expenses and proper places in which to work rather than slummy offices is that this House is not elected. I suppose that that has some legitimacy. However, I should like to examine it. It is true that the House of Commons is elected, but whether its Members remain representative for the whole of their five-year tenure is a different matter. What is more, the Members of the European Parliament, who enjoy lavish expenses as well as a salary, were elected by just 36.4 per cent. of the electorate. Nearly two-thirds of the electorate showed its utter contempt for the whole business by not voting at all. So where is the legitimacy in all that? However, that is not the only point about the legitimacy that I wish to make: £40 billion of government money is expended by unelected quangos, all of which are made up of people who are paid a salary and lavish expenses. So even the legitimacy or illegitimacy of not being elected does not wash.
The House of Lords is the only second Chamber that we have. If we believe in a bicameral system of government, we have to ensure that both Chambers are enabled to do the job that they have to do; that is, to check on the Executive; to examine legislation; and to examine it closely to ensure that when it leaves this House and receives Royal Assent it is in good order. I expect that all of us wish that the Government would lay off legislation a bit so that both Houses could spend much more time in examining legislation more closely to ensure that it reaches the statute book in good order.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene as one of the members of the usual channels who is in the position of a Back Bencher in relation to expenses. I am not trying to make a particular point there, except that that is the position upon which I stand. The House is clearly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for introducing this topic in response to the noble Viscount the Government Chief Whip, with whom I have to say I have considerable sympathy at having been forced into this position at a very late hour due to certain circumstances outside his control.
First, I should like to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Airedale which was a trap into which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, also

249
fell: we should not be talking about allowances; we should be talking about reclaiming expenses which are paid out in the course of our duties here. It is important that we should always remember that.
Mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, of the overnight allowance. He talked about the difficulty of obtaining hotels within the scope of the £70 expenses maximum. I believe that the problem—I should be glad to hear from the noble Viscount the Chief Whip—is that civil servants have some kind of arrangement with a group of hotels in London whereby they can obtain hotel rooms at lower rates than can the average member of the public, among whom we count ourselves. If the Government can come to some arrangement with a suitable hotel chain whereby noble Lords can obtain cheaper accommodation I am sure that they would all be grateful. That might be why the calculation included here is inaccurate. It has been based on the false presumption that we can tap into that network of hotel rooms which civil servants can use.
My noble friend Lord Avebury, in an interesting plea to get a desk, which I heard, raised the question of the mileage allowance. He will not remember because, at the time, although he was a Member of the House he was not attending as frequently as he does now—I am glad to see him back fully in action—we had a debate in the House as to what the mileage allowance should be. I remember vividly that I had a head-on collision with the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, because the other place has three separate rates of mileage allowance for different sizes of cars. I argued that we should dispense with the top rate since the lower rate was for Mini Minors into which noble Lords would find it difficult to prise themselves in most cases. I was not thinking then of the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, and others. We have that allowance because your Lordships decided to agree with me and not the noble Viscount. I do not disagree with the fact that the rate may be higher than it should be in environmental terms, but still it is better than it might have been.
I agree on the subject of postage. It is a strange facet of our life here that we have to lick stamps all the time to reply to the correspondence which the more active Members of your Lordships' House receive.
There is one issue that I should like to raise which is not covered by this Motion and which is something that occurs in another place but not here; that is, the ability of spouses to be given some type of travel facility to get to London from distant parts of the country. It is unfortunate that there is not some mechanism whereby spouses of Members of your Lordships' House could receive some allowance or warrant to come to London on a certain number of occasions a year. I wonder whether the Minister would care to look at that issue.
Finally, I am not at all sure—this is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick—that the RPI is the right index. He was right when he talked about taxi fares. They have escalated out of all measure in the past few years compared with the RPI. Although noble Lords will undoubtedly agree to the Motion today, I wonder whether the noble Viscount the Chief Whip, and through him the Lord Privy Seal, whoever that may be, is prepared to take this matter away to see whether
250
it is possible to produce some index which is more applicable to the job that we do here and the expenses that we incur here so that we can get on to a sensible index and not have to discuss these issues in the future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I would not wish to stir up any undue controversy in a matter of this kind, but I must say that when my noble friend said that he thought the existing proposals were some kind of punishment it occurred to me that the microscopic increases which your Lordships will have over the next few years possibly result from the number of defeats that your Lordships' House has inflicted on the Government in increasing quantity over the past few years. If a graph were drawn showing the various degrees of expenses to which we are entitled and the number of defeats that the Government have suffered, it would not surprise me to see at any rate a mild correlation.
There has been a tendency, since we have seen the new rates, to heap undue criticism upon the Treasury. I believe that that is entirely misplaced. Those to whom we should address ourselves are the Government themselves and, beyond that, the general public, including the media. There is in your Lordships' House a second Chamber. In addition to its revising functions, and the other useful functions it performs, it happens to be one of the two public forums for public debate on public issues. There are only two: the Commons and the Lords.
I am bound to say that over the past few years when subjects come up for public debate—important issues of principle, policy and action—the quality of debate in your Lordships' House is not inferior to me quality of debate in another place. Often that is accomplished without the catcalls which occur from time to time in another place in order to enliven the proceedings.
We in this House perform a useful function. It may be that we are on our way out and that we shall be replaced by some other body. However, while we are here we are serving a useful purpose in public and constitutional terms.
The question is what reward we should receive for performing our function. As I read the allowances to which we are to become entitled, I could not help comparing them with those of European Members of Parliament. Your Lordships may know that I have had some four years' experience in that capacity. The average attending Member of the House of Lords works more hours here than do MEPs in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere. We in this House sit many more days than do the MEPs in the plenary, the committees and the various study groups of the European Parliament.
I do not suggest that we should receive the same lush terms —and, believe me, they are lush!—as Members of the European Parliament. However, it is wrong that when considering the expenses that are. to be made available to Members here the Government and the public at large take one view, but when it comes to considering those of MEPs they take a totally different view.

251
I could go into some detail about the expenses of a European Member of Parliament but it sticks in the craw a little to realise that MEPs are entitled to £20,000 per annum general expenses without having to account to anybody as to their expenditure. I do not deny that they have expenses; but when I look at our increases of 50 pence per day, I believe that people should re-think the matter.
What bothers me is not the extent of the difference in principle that arise when Her Majesty's Government consider the proper remuneration for MEPs and your Lordships but the insult that is implicit in a rise of 50 pence per day for any Member of this House, wherever they sit, whether hereditary or life Peers. We are peers of the realm, we serve a useful purpose and we try our best to do the job as we see it. The Government should think again before offering yet another insult to your Lordships.
4.4 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful for the somewhat qualified welcome that the Motion has received. I am sensitive to the feeling which many noble Lords have expressed about the existing maximum rates for expenses. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was right in pointing out that they are maximum rates rather than daily flat rates.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, informed your Lordships that yesterday he had a useful meeting with the then Lord Privy Seal. I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning that because that discussion has been taken on board. His anxiety was with the basic rates rather than with the method of increase, which is the subject of today's Motion. The rates were originally set in 1983 on the recommendation of the Top Salaries Review Body, as it was then called. That recommendation was based on a full examination of the relevant costs that your Lordships might incur.
It appears from our discussions today that there may be a good reason why that should be looked at again. I suggest that the basic levels, the costs of postage, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the increase in the workload, which was implied by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and travel, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, could be dealt with in another review or another discussion which could take place through the usual channels, in order to see whether the basic levels are correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, can be comforted by the fact that his party is most anxious about the cost of motoring. His noble friend moved a Motion to cut the top rate for Members of this House. It is interesting that we should talk about these allowances being too small and then have one being criticised as being too large.
252
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that the price of hotel accommodation does not always obey the RPI. I understand that during the past four years, for instance, the cost of hotel accommodation has fallen by a considerable amount and therefore—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course it depends on which hotel one goes to but average prices have not risen with the RPI. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked about the cheap hotel accommodation that has been arranged through the Civil Service. The basis on which the allowance has been made to your Lordships pays no regard to the fact that a deal may have been done through the Civil Service. The allowance has not been agreed on that basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was anxious about the legitimacy of this House. I have no such anxiety. This House does a very good job as a second, non-competitive Chamber to the other place and long may it remain a second, non-competitive Chamber.
Requests have been made for a different index on which your Lordships' expenses can be reviewed. I am standing at this Dispatch Box almost a year to the day when the expenses should have been up-rated, which indicates the great difficulty that we have had in finding an index which will properly measure the increase in the levels. It became apparent to those involved in the task that the use of the RPI as an up-rating mechanism is perceptibly fair and reasonable both to your Lordships and to the taxpayer—
Baroness White: My Lords, am I wrong in supposing that it does not include value added tax?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Baroness means by that. No value added tax is placed on the expenses—
Baroness White: My Lords, does the index include value added tax in its calculation? If it does not, one is not given a fair idea of the increase in costs.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course, the retail prices index includes the rate of VAT on the goods measured by the index because that is the cost of the goods. Therefore, in as much as the goods carry VAT, it measures that proportion of VAT placed on them.
I hope that your Lordships will approve the Motions. They are reimbursement allowances. They have a special tax status and we should be conscious of that fact.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down at the end of this interesting and valuable debate, perhaps I may assure him from this side of the House that we would welcome any invitation by the Government to discuss those issues through the usual channels because we have not been party to reaching the agreement placed before the House today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Office Holders' London Allowance
4.11 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the third Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House approves the following proposals—
(1) Members of this House who receive a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees should receive a supplementary London allowance at an annual rate determined in accordance with paragraph (2), but this paragraph is subject to paragraph (3).
(2) The annual rate of the supplementary London allowance—

(a) for the period of three months beginning with 1st January 1994, should be £1,240;

(b) for the year beginning with 1st April 1994, should be £1,245; and

(c) for any subsequent year, should be the amount obtained by increasing the rate for the immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.

(3) Any Member—

(a) who receives a salary under section 1(1) (a) of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 and an allowance under section 5 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, or

(b) who holds (whether as a Minister or otherwise) a paid office in respect of which an official residence is provided from public funds,

should not be entitled to receive (he supplementary London allowance.
(4) In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.
(5) Any amount obtained under paragraph (2) (c) should be calculated to the nearest pound.
(6) The references in paragraph (2) (c) to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Car Mileage Allowance
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House approves the following proposals with respect to the rates of car mileage allowance—
(1) The allowance payable in respect of a journey commenced in the year beginning with 1st April 1994 should be payable—

(a) subject to the limit specified in paragraph (3) below, at the rate per mile shown in column 1 of the following Table; and

(b) in respect of miles in excess of that limit, at the rate per mile shown in column 2 of that Table.

TABLE

Mileage up to limit

Further mileage

44·4p

20·4p

(2) Paragraph (1) should have effect in relation to journeys commenced in the year beginning with 1st April 1995 or any subsequent year as if the rates per mile shown in the Table were the rates obtained by increasing each of the rates for the. immediately preceding year by the percentage by which the retail prices index for March in that immediately preceding year has increased compared with the retail prices index for the previous March.
(3) For the purposes of this Resolution the limit on the number of miles in respect of which car mileage allowance may be paid at the rate specified in column 1 of the Table is 20,000 miles for each year.
(4) In this Resolution "year" means a year beginning with 1st April.
(5) Any rate per mile determined in accordance with paragraph (2) should be calculated to the nearest tenth of a penny.
(6) The references in paragraph (2) to the retail prices index are references to the general index of retail prices (for all items) published by the Central Statistical Office; but if that index is not published for a month which is relevant for the purposes of this Resolution, those references in that paragraph shall be construed as references to any index or index figure published in place of that index.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lords' Expenses—Recall During a Recess
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move the fifth Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the following provision should be made with respect to any occasion on which, during a recess, this House is recalled before the expected end of the recess—
(1) Members who attend the House during the recall, except any Member who is permanently resident abroad, should be reimbursed in respect of such extra costs which are wholly and exclusively attributable to the recall as are necessarily incurred by them in connection with travelling—

(a) from any place to London; and

(b) during any further recess immediately following the recall, from London to any place (provided that the purpose is to fulfil, before the expected end of that further recess, plans which were in existence before the recall).

(2) For the purposes of this Resolution—

(a) "recess" means not only a period when Parliament stands prorogued to a specified date but also any period when this House stands adjourned to a specified date, and the references to the expected end of a recess are references to that specified date; and

(b) "extra costs", in the case of a Member, means costs in respect of which the Member cannot be reimbursed by virtue of any resolution other than this.— (Viscount Ullswater.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House
4.12 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the sixth Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken through all its stages this day.—(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the circumstances, this Motion is a farce. The object of the rule about taking not more than two stages of a Bill on the same day is obviously to facilitate debate and to prevent debate being crowded. But we know perfectly well that thanks to the decision of the Procedure Committee, the usual channels, or both—and I do not know which it was—we are not permitted to debate the Consolidated Fund Bill. It is my understanding that that ban still stands and, if so, it makes a farce of the Motion.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I acknowledge that there has been discussion between Front Benches with regard to economic debates. I believe that the Government have agreed that extra time should be made available for economic debates and that will substitute for our usual wrangle in relation to the Consolidated Fund.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will confirm that that is so. The Opposition spokesman has made a very helpful comment, but it is for the Government to answer.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I believe that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to say that we cannot debate the Consolidated Fund. I understand that debate is permissible but we cannot vary any decision made by the other place. If I am wrong about that, then I stand to be corrected. However, my understanding is that year after year noble Lords have reasserted the right to make comments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to save time. A ruling was made, which I unsuccessfully sought to contest, that we are not
256
permitted to debate the Consolidated Fund Bill. As far as I know, that is still the Government's ruling, although I believe it to be wholly wrong.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. I must admit that, for once in my life, I find myself in total agreement with him.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Notwithstanding anything that has been said by the Government or any ruling that has been made, on future occasions I wish to reserve my right to raise again the whole question of debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has returned to a theme which I understand that he has aired on one or two occasions. Also, I gather that the noble Lord has written to my noble friend the Leader of the House and has recently received a reply which intimated to him that the Government intend to allow economic debate and the timing of it.
Perhaps I may remind the House that it is not the Government's decision to move formally the Consolidated Fund Bill. That is the decision of the House as set out in the Companion to Standing Orders. It is important to realise also that during the course of 1994 we had three debates on economic matters: on 30th March there was an Unstarred Question on export promotion; on 29th April, there was the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill; and on 22nd June we had a debate on job creation in a technological age.
I believe that opportunities have been afforded to the House to have those debates but I note what my noble friend said.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. The point is that it has not been agreed that the Consolidated Fund Bill should be debated. A general offer was made of an economic debate some time after the Recess. The point which I desire to stress is that the Consolidated Fund Bill is extremely important. It is perhaps the most important Bill in the whole of our annual calendar. It is a wrong and foolish decision that it cannot be debated.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I must reaffirm that that is a decision which the House has taken.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Bill
4.17 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
4.19 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 197F:
Before Clause 58, insert the following new clause:
("Preliminary consultation on contracting out
.—(1) Before a Minister makes an order under sections 58 or 59 below, he shall

(a) consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by his proposals (including, in the case of an order under section 59, persons representative of local government); and

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

(2) If it appears to the Minister, as a result of the consultation required by subsection (1) above, that it is appropriate to vary the whole or any part of his proposals, he shall undertake such further consultation with respect to the variations as appears to him to be appropriate.
(3) If, after the conclusion of—

(a) the consultation required by subsection (a) above; and

(b) any further consultation undertaken as mentioned in subsection (2) above, the Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an order under sections 58 or 59 below, he shall lay before Parliament a document containing his proposals in the form of a draft of the order, together with details of the matters specified in subsection (4) below.

(4) The matters referred to in subsection (3) above are—

(a) the burden, authorisation or requirement which it is proposed to remove or reduce;

(b) whether the existing provision affords any necessary protection and, if so, how that protection is to be continued if the burden, authorisation or requirement is removed or reduced;

(c) whether any savings in cost are estimated to result from the proposals and, if so, either the estimated amount or the reasons why savings should be expected;

(d) any other benefits which are expected to flow from the removal or reduction of the burden, authorisation or requirement,

(e) any consultation undertaken as required by subsection (1) or subsection (2) above;

(f) any representations received as a result of that consultation; and

(g) the changes (if any) which the Minister has made to his original proposals in the light of those representations.

(5) In giving details of the representations referred to in subsection (4) (f) above, the Minister shall not disclose any information relating to a particular person or business except—
258

(a) with the consent of that person or of the person carrying on that business; or

(b) in such a manner as not to identify that person or business.

(6) If, before the day on which this section comes into force, any consultation was undertaken which, had it been undertaken after that day, would to any extent have satisfied the requirements of subsection (1) above, those requirements shall to that extent be taken to have been satisfied.")
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 197G and 205 and to the Motion That Clause 66 shall stand part of the Bill.
Perhaps I may have the attention of the Minister who I believe is still the Minister of State for the Department of Trade and Industry. We are now embarking on the contracting out provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. My purpose in moving the amendment and speaking to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, is to draw attention to the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Perhaps I may quote first from paragraph 6 of the 9th report of that committee which reads:
"The Committee accordingly urges the House to consider whether the procedure for deregulation orders, with the improved safeguards for parliamentary scrutiny, should apply not only to orders under Chapter I of Part I of the bill, but also to delegated legislation made under Clauses 27, 58 and 59 of the bill".
As Members of the Committee will be aware, we are dealing with Clauses 58 and 59. There is; no doubt that the Bill as drafted gives power to Ministers in pursuance of the contracting out provisions to amend, by order— or, indeed, possibly by contract, although I am open to advice on that aspect of the matter—primary legislation. The question is whether the Committee is prepared to see those provisions made without the safeguards which are contained in the deregulation part of the Bill; namely, Part I.
Perhaps I may draw the attention of Members of the Committee to the provisions of Clause 66. Subsection (1) (b) says:
"An Order under Section 58 or 59 above—
(b) may contain provisions"—
and I emphasise the following words—
"(including provisions modifying enactments)".
An enactment is defined in Clause 68 as,
"an enactment contained in an Act … [or] an enactment contained in subordinate legislation",
and that applies whenever an Act is passed or whenever an order is made.
We have had many arguments and much discussion on the deregulation part of the Bill; but to date this Committee has not addressed the matter raised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The amendments to which I speak would satisfy the concerns of the scrutiny committee. Amendment No. 197F provides for,
"preliminary consultation on contracting out".
Amendment No. 197G tracks the arrangements made in Part I of the Bill for parliamentary consideration of contracting out.
We are advised by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to look most seriously at the matter. The amendments are designed to enable this Committee to look very seriously at the matter. Members of the Committee will know the arguments involved. Therefore, I shall not repeat the arguments that were put forward during earlier stages of the Committee. I shall simply say that I believe that what we propose is right. We should like to ensure that noble Lords in Committee, or, if not in Committee, then at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings, accept the recommendation—and I believe that it is a recommendation—of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that all orders made under Part II of the Bill should be subject to the same procedure as orders made under Part I. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is absolutely right on two counts. First of all, this is the first of the amendments dealing with the contracting out proposals in this part of the Bill. Secondly, the decision as to whether such orders should require the use of the special powers which were debated in connection with Clauses 1 to 4, is immensely important. Further, the amendments would implement one of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
The Government fully accept that the powers provided for in Clauses 1 to 4 are exceptional. They could be used to make deregulatory changes to primary legislation across a wide range of policy areas. It is for that reason that requirements for the consultation and a unique parliamentary procedure have been proposed for orders made under that power. The Government have carefully considered the committee's view that Clauses 58 and 59 confer a widely drawn order-making power for which the same parliamentary procedure could be appropriate.
The powers in Clauses 58 and 59 can be used only for a narrowly defined purpose; namely, to allow the authorisation of contractors to exercise statutory functions on behalf of Ministers, office holders or local authorities which may be exercised at present only by their staff. The nature of the function itself remains unchanged, although the people who carry out the day-to-day business may alter as a result of the powers in Clauses 58 and 59.
During the passage of the Bill, Parliament will have had the opportunity to consider in detail the principle of extending contracting and market testing to such statutory functions, and the application of that principle in practice. For example, in Clause 61 the Bill makes explicit provision to preserve existing lines of accountability for statutory functions contracted out following the use of the power. Explicit safeguards are also provided on the face of the Bill to preserve and extend existing protection for confidential information disclosed to a contractor. Further, subject to a few express exceptions, Clause 60 excludes any function which would necessarily interfere with or affect the liberty of an individual: it is a power or right of entry, search or seizure into or of any property; or it is a power to make secondary legislation.
260
Parliament will thus be able, during the Bill's passage, to consider in detail the key issue to which the principle of contracting statutory functions covered by the Bill might give rise in any individual case and the safeguards which are needed. The order-making power in Clauses 58 and 59 would be used only to apply the principle to particular cases.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, Clause 66 provides that an order may contain provisions which are consequential upon, or supplemental or incidental to the provisions made by the order. I believe that such provisions do not constitute a wide power to amend primary legislation. They are well precedented in order-making powers subject to the normal affirmative resolution procedure and are always strictly and narrowly construed. Where more than minimal sweeping-up changes to current legislation would be required to permit contracting out of a particular statutory function, primary legislation would then be needed to achieve them; indeed, some such provisions are included on the face of the Bill in Schedule 14. The power in Clause 66(1) (b) could not be used to make any of the amendments to legislation contained in Schedule 14.
Against that background, and having taken careful account of the Committee's views, the Government remain of the view that the affirmative resolution procedure will offer an appropriate level of scrutiny for orders made under Clauses 58 and 59.
As regards consultation, again it is important to recognise the differences between the order-making power in Clauses 1 to 4 and the contracting out order-making power in Clauses 58 and 59. The contracting out order-making power could not be used to change the purpose of a statutory function; it merely makes it possible for contractors to be employed to carry out a function. That is only possible if at present the staff of a Minister, an office holder or local authority are able to carry out such a function. The function itself remains unaltered. In that way the interests of third parties are unaffected by the change in who carries out a particular function.
Therefore, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to define the requirements for consulting third parties in legislation. However, there will be circumstances, perhaps because the clients of a service may feel that they are affected by a change in provider, in which the Minister may consider it necessary to consult more widely. I can assure Members of the Committee that consultation will be undertaken as appropriate. As an example, the Central Statistical Office has already conducted a survey of business attitudes to possible contracting out in the collection of business statistics. But we do not believe that it would be appropriate to impose an additional statutory consultation requirement. Such a requirement would prevent Ministers from responding flexibly as appropriate to particular cases.
At the beginning I joined with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in saying that this was an important issue. It is one that the Government have considered in great detail, not least because of the recommendation of

261
the Scrutiny Committee. I hope that this Committee will agree to go ahead in the way that the Bill is currently drafted.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My wits may have been dulled by the earlier business, but, as I understood it, the Minister sought to reply to an amendment that I had not yet moved to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred in his opening remarks: Amendment No. 205 standing in my name, which was taken with this group, and Clause 66 stand part. The Minister's remarks make it more difficult for me to make a powerful case, to which I hope he will reply sympathetically.
Having listened to him carefully, either my wits have been partly dulled by the business so far or he has not sufficiently explained why Clauses 1 to 4 are exceptional, whereas there is nothing exceptional in Clauses 58 and 59. Further, he has not explained, at least to my satisfaction, except in the most peremptory and passing way, why the recommendations of the scrutiny committee, which on previous occasions he has acknowledged have validity, have no validity on this occasion. In the case of Amendment No. 196, which sought to implement the recommendation in paragraph 8 of the ninth report of the Scrutiny Committee in respect of Clause 39, the Minister found it impossible to accept the amendment but found a better way to achieve the same purpose with his amendment. Perhaps it is still not too late to hope, given that we are only at the Committee stage of the Bill, that he may likewise say that, whereas Amendment No. 205 in its drafting falls short in its purpose, he is prepared to bring forward an amendment of his own at a later stage.
Grave concern has been expressed on all sides of the House about the scrutiny provisions of the Bill. That is not to say that the Minister did not anticipate some of them and that steps have not already been taken to provide safeguards. But it remains the case that the House is disturbed. I should have thought that it would require only a very small gesture on the part of the Minister now to accept the recommendations as they apply to Clauses 58 and 59, which are in paragraph 6 of the report of the scrutiny committee. The Minister will recall that because of the late hour we did not seek to move the amendment that related to Clause 27. Therefore, on that occasion the Minister was not called upon to respond and indicate his wishes.
I am sorry that he has anticipated what I may say about Amendment No. 205 this afternoon. I simply ask him to reconsider whether the views of the scrutiny committee should be set aside and perhaps a clearer way found to explain to your Lordships why Clauses 1 to 4 are exceptional but the clauses at present being considered have no exceptional quality.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like to raise an incidental matter that relates to the power to make transitional orders which the Minister mentioned particularly. I raise it because of the very curious use made of the power to make transitional orders that arose out of the Child Support Act. It applied a series of
262
formulae for the assessment of child support by absent parents in place of the flexible and much more satisfactory assessment of maintenance by the courts.
Your Lordships thoroughly examined that Act as a Bill and disapproved of it thoroughly. Your Lordships disapproved not only of that provision, which was at the heart of the Bill, but of a great many other provisions. Unfortunately, as happens so often, the debates were carried on very late at night so that your Lordships had no effective parliamentary opportunity to amend the Bill. When one looks back at it, undoubtedly it ought to have been voted against at Third Reading in view of the lack of response by the Government. As soon as that Act came into force it was apprehended that the formulae operated capriciously and harshly. There were loud outcries, so much so that Members of another place had a bigger volume of correspondence than they have ever had on any other issue. It even caused the department to take notice. Even though some of the assessments had had statutory force and had been applicable in law, nevertheless the department changed the formulae in some respects under the rubric that they were operating the power to make transitional provisions. They said that what had happened was not what they expected when the Bill was passed into law, which was undoubtedly true, and they were therefore entitled to operate the transitional power to alleviate the hardship that the Act had caused.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, under the very able chairmanship of the late Mr. Bob Cryer— whose demise is so much regretted—immediately pointed out that the use of the word "transitional" was, in a phrase that rang alarm bells, unusual and unexpected, as of course it was. It was used not to ease the provisions so far as they had not come into law but to alter them so far as they had come into law. I believe that all that is required at this moment is an assurance from the Minister that he does not intend to use the word "transitional" and operate the power to make transitional orders in any unusual or unexpected way, as the Department of Social Security did in relation to the Child Support Act.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I am sorry if I pre-empted what the noble Lord intended to say. The point that he made and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, are very similar. Their amendments are grouped together on the Marshalled List. Therefore perhaps I should have been rather slower to get to my feet and allowed the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, to make his comments.
The fundamental principle with which we are dealing here, and the difference between Clauses 1 to 4 and Clauses 58 to 59, is that Clauses 1 to 4 provide for the power to amend a great deal of primary legislation whereas in these later clauses we are discussing the principle of contracting out. It is well precedented in legislation that once the principle has been decided the detail is dealt with under orders which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Before the noble Lord continues, will he explain to the Committee exactly

263
what is meant by "the exercise of functions"? Does it imply that the legal responsibility for, say, a public service is contracted out? Or does the legal responsibility for the performance of that service remain with the person to whom the statute confers that obligation?
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord is right. As he said in the latter part of his intervention, the legal responsibility remains with the office holder, the Minister or the local authority. That responsibility cannot be contracted out. All we are talking about is the contracting out of the function itself.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are talking about the contracting out of the exercise of the function, not the function itself.
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, that is exactly what I meant. It is the exercise of the function.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, dealt with a point which had not been drawn to my attention previously. I do not pretend to be an expert on the Child Support Act and all the ramifications of the orders. However, I am in a position to confirm to the noble and learned Lord and to give him the reassurance that he seeks that we have absolutely no intention of using the power to make transitional provisions in any unusual way. I hope that that is helpful to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I said unusual or unexpected.
Lord Strathclyde: I am happy to give the noble and learned Lord the reassurance that the power will not be used in an unusual or unexpected way.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may raise this point. In response to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, the Minister said that the clauses refer to the exercise of functions. Can he help the Committee by indicating a practical example of how matters will be dealt with differently in future as a result of these clauses?
Your Lordships' House considered the final stages of the Local Government Bill in the early part of 1992. Clause 8(2) (b) dealt with new powers for contracting out and extending that to services. It may not be that these clauses apply to that part of the 1992 Act, but can the noble Lord explain which particular services will now be dealt with by contractors as a result of this provision, subject to orders being made?
Lord Strathclyde: That is an entirely fair question. It is one which is not easy to answer. This part of the Bill allows for the contracting out of the exercise of statutory functions. Therefore, those functions which are currently governed by statute and which have to be carried out either by a Minister, an office holder or a local authority will be able to be carried out by third party contractors.
264
The noble Lord seeks an example. For instance, the contracting out of the administration of a government pension fund, which at the moment is a statutory function of a Minister—and which can obviously be undertaken by his civil servants—could not be undertaken by a private company. That is the kind of operation which we are seeking to contract out.
We have been able, or sought, to contract out non-statutory functions either through primary legislation or, where there is no necessity for primary legislation, we have gone ahead and market tested in the normal way. The Government's competing for quality programme, through the introduction of competition, has already brought about significant improvements in efficiency and achieved considerable savings in public expenditure. Indeed, since April 1992 more than £1.1 billion worth of activities have been market tested. That has been extremely helpful. I hope that that explains the position.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may pursue the argument which the Minister has brought forward about the contracting out of the exercise of functions. He quite rightly responded to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, with an example. At the moment a government pension fund is a statutory responsibility of Ministers. According to the Government's view it may well be contracted out. As I understand from what the Minister said previously, the legal responsibility remains with the Minister. In that case—and the question whether Clause 66 shall stand part of the Bill is part of this grouping—why do we have in Clause 66(1) (b) the words:
"may contain provisions (including provisions modifying enactments)"?
As I understand the logic of the Minister's argument, there is no delegation of responsibility for the functions. The functions and responsibilities set by statute will remain with those whom the statute has indicated. The functions will be contracted out without legal responsibility.
Lord Strathclyde: I think that I can assist the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Clause 61 deals with the question of liability. It is made plain in subsection (2) that the authorised person passes his liability back to the Minister, the office holder or local authority and so on. That is important.
What I have not understood is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is making in relation to Clause 66, which deals with the orders. I understand that this is a form of words which is commonly used in legislation and that there is nothing mysterious about the phrase "including provisions modifying enactments" because that is qualified by the words:
"which are consequential upon, or supplemental or incidental to"
and so on. Those words are fixed and well understood as to their meaning. Therefore the Government cannot rampage through the statute book.
Lord Williams of Elvel: With respect to the Minister, that is the whole point of my argument. If there is provision to amend primary legislation under the contracting out part of the Bill, then that provision

265
should be subject to the same criteria as are contained in the deregulation part of the Bill. If there is, as the Minister seems to be arguing, no provision to amend primary legislation by order, therefore he will no doubt wish to oppose the Motion that Clause 66 stand part of the Bill.
I accept that it is perfectly in order for contracting out to take place by contract and that the Minister, local authorities, or whoever has the statutory function, will remain responsible in law. That is not a small point, as I am sure the Minister understands. The transfer of the legal responsibility for a public service, in whatever form that may take, as opposed to contracting out its implementation, is in my view likely to be seen as a turning point in the history of public service provision at national and local level. For that reason I believe that the Minister should concede the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and I are making that he should accept our view on the amendments that I am moving.
Lord Strathclyde: I believe that we are talking at cross purposes. I am not sure on which exact point we disagree. There is the issue of whether the order-making powers of Clauses 1 to 4 should be appropriate for contracting out. I contend that they are not, for the reasons I explained. Nothing that the noble Lord said has led me to believe that I am wrong in that view. I do not think that he has argued the point.
The noble Lord made a point about legal liability. As I explained, that is firmly dealt with under Clause 61. We shall deal with Clause 61 in a moment.
The noble Lord said one thing which confused me. He gave the impression that the order-making power was not amending primary legislation. Of course it amends primary legislation; there is no question about that. However, it amends primary legislation in a small way. The principle of contracting out is being dealt with now using the full force of the parliamentary process. Once the principle is agreed, then I believe that it is entirely appropriate that the detail of how it will work in practice should be done using the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I do not wish to take up the Committee's time for longer than I have to. I believe that we do not have a meeting of minds. I am sorry that the Minister has not understood the point that I sought to make. The point is simply this, if I may repeat myself for the hundredth time. Where an order amends primary legislation, affirmative procedure is not enough. We have had the argument under the deregulation part of the Bill. I believe that the same argument applies under the contracting out part of the Bill. I believe that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House made the same point. I invite the Committee to consider that.
Having established that we do not seem to have a meeting of minds on the basic point of the argument, I hope that the Minister will read what I have said. I shall read what the Minister said. No doubt we shall have another opportunity to consider the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 197G not moved.]
Clause 58 [Functions of Ministers and office-holders]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 197H:
Page 53, line 11, after ("(2)") insert ("or (2A)").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 199A. The two amendments go together. The first is a paving amendment for the second. The substantive amendment is Amendment No. 199A.
I find this such an obvious amendment that I am sure the Government will have no difficulty in accepting it. It is perfectly clear that in all defence matters where there is no threat to the defence of the United Kingdom, it is in order for certain procedures of contracting out to take place. I hope that no Member of the Committee will challenge the contracting out of the washing of chief of staffs' cars, or whatever it may be.
Amendment No. 199A is therefore rather precisely drafted. It states:
"A function is excluded … if the contracting-out of that function would adversely affect the defence of the United Kingdom".
I should have thought that that was an absolutely obvious amendment. We cannot contract out the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. We cannot contract out the fundamental core of the defence of the United Kingdom. If the Minister disagrees with that, I shall be interested to hear his arguments. I emphasise that I do not refer to the peripheral services where there would possibly be no adverse effect on the defence of the United Kingdom. I am simply making sure that the functions which represent the core defence of the United Kingdom should not be subject to contracting out procedure. I had thought that that was perfectly obvious. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that my noble friend has an answer to the question because, on the face of it, what the noble Lord says is rather disturbing.
Lord Strathclyde: I always like to be in a position to give my noble friend some comfort. I think that I shall be able to do so on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, says that since it is so perfectly obvious to make the provision, why have we not done so? We have not done so for some very good reasons.
The plain fact is that there are very few functions in the defence field which would fall within the scope of the contracting out power. Many functions in the defence area involve the exercise of prerogative powers which fall outside the terms of Part II, whereas others, the functions of the defence council, for instance, to make regulations, are excluded by the Bill itself by virtue of Clause 60.
However, there is more to this argument than meets the eye. For many years the private sector has been right at the heart of the defence of the United Elingdom. As but one example, the ballistic missile early warning system at Fylingdales, hardly a peripheral activity, has

267
been ran by a private contractor for three decades with notable and repeatedly verified benefits. The dockyards have benefited greatly from private management, and the Government intend to remove them completely from the constraints of the public sector. During the Gulf War, the private sector played a major part in the rapid and effective supply of behind-the-lines services, as did many other parts of the private sector already operating from within and completely separate from the Ministry of Defence. Long may that continue.
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is probing our views on the matter. I hope that I have explained the issue in some detail. As the Committee will know, the Secretary of State for Defence recently published his report, Front Line First. That includes further possible extensions to the principle of contracting out. All those factors will simply make our defence forces even more effective than they currently are. I hope that after that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: From what the Minister says, I take it that he accepts my amendment and that there will be no contracting out of any function which adversely affects the defence of the United Kingdom. I take it that that is what he says.
He is right in saying that the private sector plays a part in this, that, and the other area of the defence of the United Kingdom. I do not wish to challenge that. I assume that the assurances that he has given to the Committee are tantamount to accepting the point that I make. He is right to say that it is a probing amendment. I believe that I am right to ask the Government for a proper response on the matter. Whether that response is satisfactory, we shall have to see.
If the Committee decided to insert the proposed provision into the Bill, it would be incumbent upon the government of the day, whichever party forms that government, to demonstrate that any contracting out which took place did not adversely affect the defence of the United Kingdom. The onus of proof would be on the government of the day to demonstrate that. Otherwise they could be challenged under the Act, as it would then be.
I take it from what the noble Lord said that he accepts the basic thrust of what I say and that the Government will not contract out any function which would adversely affect the defence of the United Kingdom.
Lord Strathclyde: The noble Lord encourages me to rise to my feet once more. I was trying to say that, apart from anything else, I do not think that there is any particular reason that the defence services should in themselves be excluded from competition.
Furthermore, it is worth remembering that the provisions in this Bill are enabling only. They also ensure that the Minister remains accountable and legally liable for the carrying out of a function when contractors are employed. The safeguards in the Bill set out parameters within which each potential candidate for contracting out can be considered on its own merits.
268
These amendments are ultimately unnecessary. We should not be in the business in this Chamber of putting into legislation unnecessary amendments.
As I said earlier, the vast amount of defence regulation and defence work falls under the prerogative powers which fall outside the terms of Part II. It is an unnecessary burden for the Government to have to prove, in the words of the amendment, that each piece of contracting out does not
"adversely affect the defence of the United Kingdom".
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister has slightly changed his tune. I thought when he started off, in his first reply, that he was saying that he accepted the basic premise of what I was trying to establish, but that it was unnecessary because of this, that and thus. Now he seems to be sliding away from that position, saying that it is not right to have this sort of thing in the Bill because there is no reason why the Armed Forces like anybody else should not be subject to the contracting out procedure. If that is the case, I would simply insist that if the defence of the United Kingdom is adversely ' affected by any contracting out procedure, it is up to the Government to prove that.
Having said that, I do not think that we shall get very far with this argument. I shall look at the matter to see whether we shall return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 197J.
Page 53, line 11, after ("(2)") insert ("or (2B)").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who cannot be with us today. To be blunt, I am disappointed that there is no Home Office Minister in the Chamber to deal with this issue.
The question that I raise is that of the interface between this legislation and the present Home Office inquiry into core police functions. However well the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has been briefed, he does not have any direct personal knowledge of these matters. It is most unfortunate that a Home Office Minister is not here to deal with this situation, which is causing serious disquiet in the police service. When we come back to this subject at Report—as we probably shall— let me make it quite clear that I, and 1 am sure others, will expect the matter to be dealt with by a Home Office Minister and not by somebody from the DTI.
The purpose of this brief debate and the questions that I intend to ask raise an issue of considerable importance to the police service and the public. The question that we want answered by the noble Lord—uninstructed other than by, presumably, a Home Office official—is this: precisely what are the Government planning to do in respect of the present inquiry which is now taking place into core police responsibilities? Is there a likelihood that the present Bill could be used to transfer major responsibilities from the police to private security firms?
The purpose of this amendment is to allow the Government to explain what precisely are their intentions. As I have indicated, there is serious concern in the police service, and indeed outside it, about what is now going on. If anything, that concern has intensified as a result of Mr. Howard's speech to the British Security Industry Association a few days ago, when he indicated that it could rest assured that more work would be coming the way of its members.
The Government's review of police functions has, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will have been told in the briefing material supplied to him, the following terms of reference:
"to examine the services provided by the police; to make recommendations about the most cost-effective way of delivering core police services; and to assess the scope for relinquishing ancillary tasks".
Those are the terms of reference. They were announced by the Home Secretary; but of course in reality they are the terms of reference that have been determined by the Treasury. The central objective is clearly to cut police budgets.
The dangers of that approach are, I would have thought, obvious. What ancillary tasks, as they are now described, are likely to be dropped? Will this Bill be used to effect such changes? What about the crime prevention activities of the police? Are they not a core police function? What about visits to schools? What about help to confused elderly people who may inadvertently have lost their keys and go to the police station in order to get assistance from the police? What about helping to trace missing people? The reason that the British police service has such a high international reputation is that it performs just those social service functions with considerable skill and sensitivity. There is a growing fear that in a crude cost-cutting exercise there will be pressure for those responsibilities to be abandoned.
The Committee should have no doubt—as I am sure those who follow these matters have no doubt—about the risks involved in an approach along those lines. We have seen the police outside our shores reduced to the status of exclusively law enforcement agencies. That is true in particular in many inner-city areas of the United Slates and in many parts of continental Europe. The effect of such an approach has been deeply damaging. Public confidence in the police in those countries has declined sharply and, as a result, their capacity to deal effectively with law enforcement problems has been diminished.
Fortunately, so far we have declined to follow this particular approach. The reason that British police officers—by and large; there are obviously notable exceptions—get on better with the public than is the case with their colleagues in the United States and many other parts of Europe is precisely because of the social service responsibilities that they cheerfully carry. They are probably this country's only 24-hour social service.
I have indicated already the alarm in the police service about the Government's intentions. Let me summarise the view of a number of chief police officers
270
who have expressed concerns on this matter. The chief constable of South Yorkshire—an experienced officer, formerly with the Metropolitan Police—said this:
"What I see is all the antecedent action which in other public services—health and education—has led to privatisation … We ask the Home Office: 'Please tell us what is different this time. Why should we be different to health?' And we get back: 'Privatisation is not on the agenda'. So we are mistrustful".
The chief constable of Derbyshire said:
"We need a Royal Commission. There has to be a proper debate … There is a feeling among chief officers that there is a hidden agenda, a great deal of suspicion".
The acting chief constable of North Wales said:
"I am cynical about the Home Office's aims. If you privatise it means you do it cheaper, and the public will lose out. If we are left with the functions which the Home Office sees as important, we will be left dealing with the public only in situations of conflict".
The chief constable of the Thames Valley force said:
"The review could change the whole face of policing without the public being aware. It's ironic that at the very time, more and more countries are taking a look at our policing because it's perceived to be the best, there are policies in train which could change the very things that make us unique".
The chief constable of Avon and Somerset said:
"The stark reality is that we have already been,given the verdict and now they are trying to fill in the facts".
Those are the views of just a handful of chief officers. So far as I am aware, they are the views of every senior chief officer in this country; and in the debate when we are discussing this matter we do not even have a Home Office Minister sitting on the Government Front Bench. In my view this is no way to conduct business which is as serious as this.
The reality of the matter is that there is now a climate of deep suspicion in the police services. They simply do not believe the assurances that they have been given that there is not a hidden agenda in the Treasury to compel the police to divest themselves of some of their most important responsibilities. Some believe that legislation of this character can be used to effect dramatic changes.
It is hardly surprising that there is such suspicion. Many noble Lords will remember only too clearly the follies of the Sheehy Committee whose members were hand-picked by Mr. Clarke to produce the report that he wanted. Those recommendations were largely dropped after 20,000 policemen had gathered together at Wembley to express their views on the matter. They remember also the present Chancellor's attempt to put political placemen into the chairmanship of every police authority in this country—a proposal which was destroyed as a result of opposition in this House. Now, once again the Government appear to be preparing to take action which could have deeply damaging consequences. Once again there is no form of genuine independent inquiry offered in order to analyse the issues before us.
In a few moments the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, no doubt will tell us that the Government have no such intentions; that they are looking only at ancillary tasks, such as, perhaps, escorting wide loads on motorways; and that in any event the public will be consulted, probably some time next January, according; to the leaks which have appeared in the newspapers.
I believe that this debate, brief though it will be, is of considerable importance. It gives the Government the opportunity to set out their intentions with some clarity. But I hope that we will remember that the police service in this country is not the property of one group of politicians who happen to form the current Government of this country. To quote a former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, they are the people's police. No sensible person wants yet another major conflict between the police service and the Government. But Ministers should be under no illusion: if there is any attempt to impose on the police privatisation of functions which the service and the public see as essential to carrying out the wide social service responsibilities to which I referred, I suspect that many of us in all parts of the House will resist them with all the power at our command. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I regret the absence today of both the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who would have been extremely persuasive on this issue, and my noble friend Lady Hilton of Eggardon. The Minister must not say that it is not his fault. I do not say that it is his fault. I merely regret their absence. If the Minister will allow me to proceed without interruption and without mutterings from the Privy Council Bench opposite, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, one simple question. Do the Government propose to contract out the police national computer? If so, let them say so.
Lord Strathclyde: I now have an opportunity of taking part in this debate, much to the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I have to say that I have not come across the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, before in my ministerial capacity. I have come across many of his colleagues and have much enjoyed doing business with them. I do not feel that the relationship that I must have with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be a particularly fruitful one because he is very unhappy that I am here. I have to say that I am very unhappy that he is over there. In fact, if he felt quite so strongly about the lack of a Minister from the Home Office, perhaps he should not have moved his amendment in the first place.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, that is an absurd suggestion. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that there is a major review going on at the moment of core police functions. It did not occur to me before entering the Chamber today that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would not be here. I automatically assumed that he would be anxious to deal with these particular issues. I know that he has been working very hard recently. But the idea that I would not move the amendment simply because he was not here is a quite extraordinary statement to make.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: I have no idea whether or not my noble friend Lord Ferrers wanted to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is not a subject that we discuss on many occasions. However, I am the
272
Minister responsible for the Bill and I shall deal with the Bill for as long as I am responsible. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, does not like it, that is his problem and not mine. I found his words at the beginning gratuitous and insulting. I would not wish to hear him speak in that vein again; otherwise, I can assure him that I shall be less than helpful in my responses to him.
The statutory functions of the police are multifarious. The most important involve the exercise of powers of stop and search, entry, search and seizure, arrest and detention. More minor powers involve regulatory powers of inspection and licensing across a wide range of activities, for instance, inspecting chemists' registers.
Clause 60 of the Bill, which we shall detail in a moment, excludes from the contracting out order-making power in Clause 58 any functions which affect the liberty of any individual or are powers or rights of entry, search into or seizure of property. Clause 60 therefore excludes the core functions of the police from the contracting out order-making power. The police authorities already successfully employ contractors to carry out services and activities. There is no reason that that should not continue.
Your Lordships may also be aware that the Home Office is currently reviewing police tasks to see whether any can be carried out more effectively and efficiently through transfer to other more appropriate agencies. It is not in the interests of the police or the taxpayer to have widely trained police officers performing routine or administrative functions which do not require their skills or powers. However, I should point out that there are no plans to use the contracting out order-making power in respect of any functions of the police. But it would not make sense at this stage to rule out completely the consideration of exposing the services to competition should they fall within the scope of the Clause 58 order-making power.
That includes the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I am not certain whether or not the national police computer is a statutory function. If it is a statutory function, it could fall under the provisions of the Bill. If it is not, it falls outwith the statutory powers and contracting out could be dealt with in the normal way.
The Committee will also be aware that the Security Service Act 1989 put the security service on a statutory footing for the first time. That Act sets out the functions of the security service. They are functions of the service and not of a Minister or an officer. Such functions therefore lie outside the scope of Clause 58.
The 1989 Act also confers functions on the director general of the service. Those functions are personal to the director general and may not be carried out by her officers. Again, therefore, they lie outside the scope of the contracting out order-making power.
The 1989 Act does not permit the functions of the Secretary of State to be performed by one of his officials except in cases of urgency and even then they are of temporary validity. In any event, Clause 60(1) (c) excludes such functions from the order-making power. In respect of the security services therefore the amendment would be negatory.

273
The exclusions to the Bill which currently exist offer a significant safeguard. Also, the great extent to which functions in the areas of defence and of the police are able at present to be contracted out successfully, without the need for additional order-making powers, suggests that the amendments are both anomalous and unnecessary. I urge the Committee therefore to resist the amendments if they are pressed, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, can withdraw them.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand that the Minister cannot reply immediately to my question regarding the police national computer. He does not know its status. But will he be good enough to write to me stating the Government's intentions in regard to the police national computer? It is an important point.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall be delighted to do so.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I can intervene on one matter. Both in his answer to an earlier amendment on defence and now in this one, the Minister referred to Clause 60. I find it impossible to see any reference to defence in Clause 60. I did not raise it then and the Minister refers again to Clause 60 with regard to the police. I assume he received high-powered legal advice. If he looks at Clause 60(1) (a), which refers to the liberty of the individual, he may agree that I could persuasively argue that everything the Government do refers one way or another to the liberty of the individual. Therefore I could interpret that provision as saying that no contracting out could possibly take place in any way whatever. That is my first point and perhaps the Minister can explain it.
Secondly, can the noble Lord interpret Clause 60 in terms of the safeguards that he says exist? I cannot see them with regard to the police in the terms referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and I cannot see them in connection with defence. The noble Lord emphasised Clause 60 as being important; but I have difficulty in understanding what it is meant to do for these purposes.
Lord Strathclyde; I cannot remember referring to Clause 60 vis à vis defence. I may have done so but I cannot remember in what regard. I shall no doubt be able to read it in Hansard tomorrow.
Lord Peston: I took the noble Lord to say that Clause 60 prevented what he referred to as the "core" function—in that case of defence—being in danger. It may be that it was a slip of the tongue; I am willing to accept that. But I was intrigued by his reference to it because I cannot see any connection.
Lord Strathclyde: Flicking briefly back to my notes on the last amendment, I cannot see that I mentioned Clause 60 at all. However, I may well have done. In my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I said that Clause 60 excludes the core functions of the police because of Clause 60(1) (b) which refers to the,
"power or right of entry, search or seizure into or of any property",
and of course Clause 60(1) (a) dealing with liberty. I shall not be drawn into a great debate on Clause 60 at this stage because we shall be dealing with it in some
274
detail—including an amendment which seeks to define the word "liberty", and that is something to which we can look forward—later this afternoon.
The fundamental point is that we do not believe that the core functions of the police can be contracted out under this Bill because of Clause 60. Other aspects of services are provided by the police which it may be appropriate to contract out. We are not even suggesting that in the Bill. All we are suggesting in the Bill is that where there exists a statutory function, the Government should be able to look at it in terms of whether or not there should be contracting out. An order will then be made and brought before Parliament at that time.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The beginning of the speech of the noble.Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was even by recent standards unusual. I understand that if one is not nice to him he will not feel obliged to answer questions. I have not heard a more preposterous statement made by a Minister of the Crown since being involved in politics.
The reason for my original statement was obvious. When we are discussing what are essentially Home Office issues, it is not sensible to have a DTI Minister answering. An inquiry on core police functions was announced by the Home Secretary. The various questions I raised have not been answered in any way by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. He merely read out his briefing material—supplied, no doubt, by the Home Office. I do not blame him for that. He relies on that because he has no day-to-day ministerial responsibility. But if we are to discuss these matters in a sensible fashion it means that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—who always goes to considerable trouble to assist the House and who has direct personal responsibility for the police—should be here to answer questions. For instance, he would have been able to answer the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel; namely, what is the position about the police national computer? It is a reasonable question to ask. For the most understandable reasons—because he does not come from the Home Office—the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is unable to answer the question. I put other questions to him which have not been answered.
This is not a sensible way of proceeding. We shall certainly come back to the matter—if I can have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for a moment —on Report. I urge the noble Lord to suggest to his noble friend Lord Ferrers that he assists the House. Would the noble Lord like to intervene?
Lord Strathclyde: In this Chamber I reply for Her Majesty's Government. If the noble Lord does not know that by now then he should make it his business to find out.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Having been in this House and having been a Minister rather longer than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I know that as well as he does. All I can say to him, in the nicest possible way because I want an answer to some of these questions— now that we have this appalling threat hanging over us that he may not wish to give us an answer in the future—is that I hope he will discuss the matter with the

275
noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, between now and Report stage. Unlike the demeanour of the noble Lord, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, always goes to the greatest personal trouble to answer serious questions. He would have known the answer to the police national computer issue; he would have known the answer to all the other questions raised which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—again, for understandable reasons—had not the faintest idea about other than the briefing supplied by the Home Office. It is not a sensible way of proceeding when we face a situation of widespread concern in the police service in relation to what is happening at the moment. All they will see in Hansard tomorrow is a reply from a DTI Minister who had not the faintest idea what the facts of the matter were other than what appeared in his briefing note.
As I indicated, the amendment was tabled for probing purposes. We shall probe further on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 198 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 53, line 18, at end insert:
("(f) any other function which is of a judicial nature.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 199 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 201K, 201L, 206A and 215B. Amendment No. 199 is a probing amendment.
Exclusions from judicial functions which are contained in the Bill, particularly in Section 58(2), do not seem to clear up the matter. What I mean by the "matter" is that there are many functions exercised by judicial or quasi judicial bodies and we need to know whether or not they are to be contracted out. As I understand the Bill as drafted, a number of sensitive areas could easily be contracted out. For instance, certain aspects of the High Court—the Queen's Bench, the Bankruptcy Court, the Restrictive Practices Court, the tipstaffs and the taxation of bills—and certain tribunals and part of the Lord Chancellor's Department could be contracted out. Possibly some aspects of the Crown Court could be contracted out. On all these matters we have tried—when I say "we" I mean that my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn and I have tried and indeed other noble Lords have tried—to ascertain from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor exactly what is and what is not within the ambit of the Bill. It has been very difficult to get a final reply.
In moving the amendment and speaking to the amendments to Schedule 14 I am asking exactly what the Government believe should be contracted out in the way of organisations which have a judicial function. Others much more expert than I will be able to enlarge on the argument but that is the basic premise. It is a probing amendment at the moment, although we may
276
well wish to come back to it at a later stage. We wish to know from the Government precisely what this means. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: In the Notes on Clauses to Clause 58(2) it is stated in regard to the judiciary:
"The functions are identified so as to mark the constitutional separation of the judges from the executive".
The clause does not do that because, as your Lordships see, all it does is to specify that there is to be excluded from the section,
"if its exercise would constitute the exercise of jurisdiction of any of the following".
There is then set out from (a) to (e) the senior appellate courts down to the county court. That seems to be the Government's limit of their understanding of where the judiciary are to be found.
My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman, who regrets that he is not able to be present today, asked of the Minister in a Written Question on 28th June:
"To what judicial functions of what office-holders Clause 58 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill (as at present drafted) will apply".
The rather limited answer he received from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was in these terms:
"The functions of the judges are excluded from the ambit of the clause by the conditions in Clause 58(1) coupled with the exclusions in Clause 58(2). There is no comprehensive list of functions of office-holders. Nor is there a clearly defined distinction between judicial and other public functions. It is not, therefore, practicable to compile a list of judicial functions as requested".—[Official Report, 28/6/94; col. WA39–40.]
It is therefore a little difficult to see how Clause 58(2) has identified functions so as to mark the constitutional separation of the judges from the Executive.
There is an interesting schedule—Schedule 11 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990—which identifies judges who are barred from legal practice. Those who are included, and clearly are not included in Clause 58(2), are as follows: stipendiary magistrate; social security commissioner; president of Social Security Appeal Tribunals; president of the Industrial Tribunals; president or member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal; member of the Lands Tribunal; president of Value Added Tax Tribunals; special commissioners appointed under Section 4 of the Taxes Management Act 1970; charity commissioner appointed under the first schedule to the Charities Act 1960; coroner appointed under Section 2 of the Coroners Act 1988. They have been specifically identified as judges and they are not, as I see it at first sight, within the protection which is referred to here.
I have consulted the Lord Chief Justice in order to see whether he wished any observations to be made. He has authorised me to say that the ambit of the clause is a source of considerable concern both to him and to other senior judges. Speaking at the Mansion House on 6th July, the Lord Chief Justice referred to recent press reports that some tribunals were being considered for possible privatisation which made it necessary, in his

277
view, to reassert the importance of maintaining inviolate judicial independence. These are the words which I quote very shortly from his speech:
"Neither the Queen's Courts nor statutory Tribunals must be, nor be thought, susceptible to pressure or influence from any outside body which would be inevitable should any aspect of the judicial process be put in the hands of private contractors".
As I have indicated, the Lord Chief Justice very much regrets that he is unable to be here, but he has told me that he will read the report of today's debate, and in particular what the Minister says in response to it, with great interest. Should it be necessary to do so, he will certainly speak at a later stage of the Bill's progress.
I invite the Minister to agree with the observation that it is axiomatic that the authority of determination of the rights and obligations of individuals as between each other or in relation to the Executive is the exclusive and fundamental responsibility of the judicial arm of the state. Judicial independence requires that the Queen's courts and statutory tribunals—I emphasise them—are not, and are seen not to be, susceptible to pressure or influence from any outside body or faction, as would inevitably be the case should any aspect of the judicial process be placed in the hands of private contractors.
There is grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, Amendment No. 215B, which seeks to leave out paragraph 2 of Schedule 14. The paragraph and the schedule enables contractors to take over from the Lord Chancellor's Department activities of that department. Section 27 of the Courts Act 1971 vests in the Lord Chancellor the power to appoint the officers and staff of district probate registries, the Supreme Court and the county courts. The section as it stands thus prevents most of the work of court staff being undertaken by independent contractors rather than by civil servants. The amendment proposed in paragraph 2 would allow any of the functions of court staff to be undertaken by private contractors.
Some of the tasks undertaken by civil servants of the Lord Chancellor's Department have a substantial judicial element; for example, court listing. That is done on behalf of the judiciary. The drawing up of court orders is again done on behalf of the judiciary. Others are exercised under the direct supervision of the judiciary; for instance, court clerking and the personal support to judges. Those functions should be taken only by servants of the Crown.
It may also be relevant to your Lordships to know in this context that Section 110 of the Courts and Legal Services Act, which for the first time gave the parliamentary ombudsman jurisdiction to investigate the actions of court staff, of which I know my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has distinct recollection, expressly excluded the possibility of inquiry into acts which have this judicial element. According to Section 110(2), the ombudsman is denied jurisdiction over,
"Action taken by any person appointed by the Lord Chancellor as a member of the administrative staff of any court or tribunal, so far as that action is taken at the direction, or on the authority (whether expressed or implied), on any person acting in a judicial capacity or in his capacity as a member of the tribunal".
Perhaps I may finally emphasise this matter. The impartiality of the courts and support for the judiciary is based on trust between the staff, the judiciary, the
278
professions and the public. Continuity of staff employment and relationships built up over time are a crucial part of that trust. Quite understandably, contractors are motivated by profit. The varied operations run by contractors can, if applied in particular areas, create conflicts of interest and possibly undermine that trust. That makes it all the more important that this form of contracting out does not take place.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebune: Perhaps I may add a word or two by way of inquiry. I do not believe that this amendment of itself is very well drafted, but there are points to be discussed. Why are the judicial officers limited in the way in which the clause would appear to suggest? For instance, there are the stipendiary magistrates who, until recently, were the only minor judiciary in London; then there are the lay magistrates all over the country. There are also quite a number of stipendiary magistrates in provincial cities. What is the situation or intention as regards the statutory tribunals which exist throughout the country and which are certainly quasi-judicial in character, although I doubt whether my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner would describe the officers who man them as judges.
There is a functionary called the president of the Employment Appeals Tribunal. It is quite certainly a court, but it is not mentioned in Clause 58 of the Bill. One can go on almost indefinitely. My noble and learned friend Lord Ackner referred to the fact that listing has been claimed—and I believe rightly claimed—by a succession of Lord Chief Justices as being a judicial and not a purely administrative function. What about the position of the ushers in courts and the persons who take charge of juries? I may be talking out of turn.
The drafting of Clause 58 may require a certain amount of attention. I know that there has been a good deal of trouble about the difference between purely administrative functions and judicial functions. There are people such as district judges who are probably part of the county court for this purpose. There are a great number of quasi-judicial officers who do not seem to be mentioned at all. I cannot speak for the judiciary of Scotland. The only specifically Scottish reference appears to be the sheriff court. But is that so? I do not want to bully my noble friend on the Front Bench, but the drafting needs looking at. I am sure that the intentions of the Government are perfectly honourable.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Much of the debate on this Bill has rightly concentrated on the need to avoid any excessive delegation by Parliament, under Part I of the Bill, of its law-making powers. The constitutional issues raised by the contracting out provisions in Part II are, if anything, more important. But as I read Hansard they were scarcely touched on at all during Second Reading.
It has been said by all Members of the Committee who have spoken so far—and I gratefully and respectfully adopt what they have said—that the powers in Clause 58 in one way or another threaten the basis of the rule of law in this country, unless I misinterpret

279
them. On the face of it, they would authorise serious breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Perhaps I may deal with just one point to show why I share the views expressed so far. Clause 58 in its present form empowers a Minister by order made by statutory instrument, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to contract out any function of an office holder which is conferred by or under any enactment. "Office holder" is defined by Clause 68(1). It is apparently intended by the Government that it should include those who exercise judicial functions. I say that because, as has been said, Clause 58(2) excludes functions from the contracting out provisions if their exercise would constitute the exercise of jurisdiction by the ordinary civil courts, from the county court or, in Scotland, the sheriff court, to the Appeal Committee of this House.
Clause 60(2) also excludes any function of the official receiver attached to any court. In other words, but for Clauses 58(2) and 60(2), even the judicial functions there referred to could be contracted out and, conversely, according to the old maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, any judicial functions exercised by any other independent courts or tribunals established by law to exercise judicial power in this country remain within the scope of the contracting out powers conferred by Clause 58.
Clause 60(1) (a) provides somewhat ambiguously that a function is excluded from Clause 58 if,
"its exercise, or a failure to exercise it, would necessarily interfere with or otherwise affect the liberty of any individual".
At first blush, one might have thought that the exercise of judicial powers in civil cases—for example, about the determination by industrial tribunals of the fundamental civil right to equal pay or equal treatment without sex discrimination in employment under British and European legislation—would be classic examples of functions whose exercise would necessarily affect individual liberty.
Unfortunately, that is not how I read the relevant statutory provisions. Clause 58(2) must have been included because the Government do not consider that the exercise of jurisdiction by the ordinary civil courts comes within the Clause 60(1) (a) exception. It follows that the Government are apparently seeking powers which will enable them to contract out the exercise of the power to determine civil rights and obligations by any court or tribunal other than those specifically mentioned in Clause 58(2). I find that so extraordinary that I have read, re-read and read yet again the Bill in the hope that I am mistaken. But I believe that I am correct. Clearly, my elders and betters in the noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner and Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, are also concerned for similar reasons.
What then is so objectionable and repugnant about a power to contract out the exercise of judicial functions carried out by the many independent courts and tribunals not exempted by Clause 58(2)? A philosophical answer is given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in his fascinating, profound and perfectly timed new book, Values: Collapse and Cure,
280
which I am delighted to advertise this afternoon. The noble and learned Lord wrote—this seems entirely apt to this issue:
"If the state is to operate a near monopoly of the use of force, it has to take upon itself the responsibility for the peaceful settlement of all private disputes which might lead individuals to use violence themselves as a means of self help".
That is the reason why judicial power is vested exclusively in independent and impartial courts and tribunals. It is because the state has taken upon itself— and not delegated to some private contractor—the responsibility for what Article 6 of the European Convention describes as the determination of civil rights and obligations by an independent and impartial court established by law.
Very regrettably, the Government have not incorporated Article 6 into our legal system. That means that the only effective safeguards of the rule of law are safeguards which Parliament writes into the Bill to ensure that the judicial functions of all courts and tribunals in this country cannot be contracted out. Otherwise it will have to be left to the courts to construe these very ambiguous provisions and ensure compliance with Article 6 of the convention. It would surely be preferable for the matter to be put beyond doubt by accepting Amendment No. 199, or a similarly drafted amendment, which provides a crucial safeguard which is at present missing from the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: Grouped with Amendment No. 199 are two amendments that I have tabled relating to the part of the Bill dealing with the functions of local authorities. The fact that I shall not mention the amendments which have already been debated should not be taken as an indication that I do not believe that the points raised are extremely serious. With hindsight, it may have been more convenient if the amendments had been degrouped but, in order to allow us to move on—I suspect that there is a mood to move on at something between a trot and a canter—I shall speak to the amendments briefly now.
Amendments Nos. 201K and 201L seek to exclude from the ambit of Clause 59 those functions exercised by local authorities which constitute quasi-judicial functions. I have in mind two particular areas: licensing and development control in town and country planning. Local authorities exercise many functions in relation to licensing ranging over, to take something of a random list: acupuncture; tattooing; ear-piercing and electrolysis; food and food premises; house-to-house collections; music, dancing and entertainment licences; sex shops and sex cinemas; street trading—the latter are not connected—and wild animals and zoos. The Committee will be aware that local authorities decide on the granting or refusal of planning applications.
It is not always easy to mix democratic accountability and the exercise of quasi-judicial responsibilities, as I know having juggled the various criteria myself and having observed them being juggled for some years. That is particularly the case where those elected to serve at local government level are applying rules which they have not drawn up. However, it is an area of work that

281
needs to be sensitive to the aspirations of local communities and in which democratic accountability is an important element.
In the area of development control, I dare say that the Minister would argue that it is up to the elected members to work out their planning policies and that, using the guide of the local plan, matters are currently delegated to planning officers although they might equally be performed by contractors. However, I believe that most local authorities will not be slow to use their powers now to call back to the elected members the exercise of those functions from officer level if they feel that the decisions should be made by elected members with, as I have said, a sensitivity to the needs of the local community and an understanding of local pressures. Frankly, I am appalled at any prospect of contracting out the exercise of what, as I have said before, I believe to be local government, not merely local administration.
I refer finally to the fact that members of local authorities are required to make declarations of interest and to make it clear if they have an interest in the matters that are being determined. It is important that that is seen to be done. Many of your Lordships could speak far more forcefully than I on the need for justice to be seen to be done, but it needs to be seen to be done in this area as well as others.
Lord Strathclyde: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and of course, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who moved the amendment. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in speaking to all the amendments in the group. It was the noble Baroness who said that these are important amendments. They are. I recognise that the amendments were tabled because of a concern, shared by the Government, about the continued independence and probity of the judicial process. I welcome the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that these are probing amendments. I shall treat them as such.
I should like first to deal with Amendments Nos. 206A and 215B and then turn to the wider questions raised by the other amendments. Clause 60(1) may already address the heart of the concern that lies behind Amendment No. 206A. That is because where the issue of proceedings will directly require an individual to attend a court or some other place on pain of some sanction, paragraph (a) will take that function outside the scope of the order-making power.
We shall be discussing the provisions of Clause 63 shortly, but this example illustrates the point well. Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 63 would, following an order and due authorisation, allow a contractor not only to take the decision to seek a liability order for non-payment of local taxes, but also to decide on what method of collection is to be used. However, that ability does not extend to an exemption from the exclusion made in Clause 60(1) (a) and an order would not extend to enabling a contractor to seek committal of a debtor to prison. At that level, the Government share the
282
concern that a general order-making power might be used to facilitate the use of contractors to exercise such functions. In the light of the pre-existing exclusions of subsection (1) I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary and will prevent the efficient use of contractors in areas where it is entirely appropriate to consider their use.
Turning to Amendment No. 215B, approximately 10,000 staff work in the Court of Appeal, the High Court and the county courts, carrying out a wide variety of jobs ranging from mechanical and clerical tasks through to managerial functions and areas of technical expertise, such as information technology. Amendment No. 215B would give a right of monopoly supply to the public sector across a wide range of jobs, irrespective of the merits, and it cannot be right to preclude the use of non-civil servants where their use would be a more effective way of meeting the needs of the judiciary and court users and represent improved value for taxpayers' money.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is currently exploring with the senior judiciary what functions it might be inappropriate to contract out. Subject to the outcome of those discussions, any particular proposal would be considered on its own merits, always bearing in mind the paramount need to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.
Perhaps I may turn to the wider issues raised in the debate. I can assure the Committee that we would not compromise the probity and independence of the judicial process. We attach the highest importance to the constitutional principle of the separation of the powers of the judiciary and the Executive. To mark that principle, we brought forward an amendment in another place to exclude the functions of the judges, even though it is not clear that any of them would have fallen within the scope of the Bill.
Amendment No. 199, and, in the context of local governments Amendments Nos. 20lK and 201L, would further exclude from the Bill functions of a judicial nature and quasi-judicial functions. Those go very wide, and would introduce a great degree of uncertainty into consideration of which functions were in practice covered by the Bill. They could, on some interpretations, cover activities involving little or no discretion, currently carried out by very junior public servants, which we might wish to contract out. We recognise that there are important points about judicial functions, such as those of the magistrates, the tribunals and others, raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. We attach the greatest importance to ensuring that the judicial process is not, and cannot be thought to be, susceptible to pressure or influence from any outside body. In order to allay the anxiety expressed, the Government will look again carefully at the list of functions excluded from Clause 58 in order to mark those points of principle. In particular, we believe that it would be appropriate to make a further exclusion for magistrates.
We recognise also the serious worries about tribunals which have been expressed. Only those tribunals which are statutory office-holders and can delegate their functions to their staff currently fall within the scope of

283
Clause 58. We are prepared to look carefully at which functions should be excluded. In principle, we believe that the functions of tribunals which amount to the exercise of the judicial power of the state should not generally be susceptible to contracting out. However, that is a complex matter. There is a wide variety of tribunals performing a wide variety of functions. Indeed, in relation to some functions mentioned in the Bill, we have made it clear that we are considering a range of options, and that the option of using those powers should not be precluded.
We intend to look carefully at those issues and bring forward appropriate amendments on Report. We are fortunate at this stage of the parliamentary year to have a considerable amount of time before we reach the Report stage, and so, having given that commitment to the Committee, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will feel that his probing has been successful and that he can withdraw the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. As he quite rightly said, some very important issues have been raised in this debate. I am grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part. I take it from what the Minister said that he agrees—I think that it is with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—that the impartiality of the courts and support for the judiciary is based on trust between staff, judiciary, professions and public. That seems to be the fundamental principle which the noble and learned Lord set out, and I hope very much that when the Government bring forward their amendments on Report they will reflect that principle. I expect also that in studying the matter the Government will pay attention to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, as related by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord does that, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he proposes to deal at a later stage with the questions of local authority functions which I raised or whether I should continue to wish!
Lord Strathclyde: With respect to the noble Baroness, I am not entirely certain to which function she is now referring. If I have not done the noble Baroness justice—as she knows I always try to do so—perhaps I could look at the matter further. I am reminded that the noble Baroness asked a question about licensing and development control. Those are issues raised in the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 205H. Perhaps she will bear with me, and I shall give her a fuller answer at that stage.
Baroness Hamwee: Again, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him whether, if he does not respond this afternoon, he will at least consider not merely the specific functions—I used those as the example and they are probably the primary example—
284
but that there are quasi-judicial functions exercised by local authorities and so there is an issue of principle as well as particularity.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, with drawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199A and 199B not move.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 199C:
Page 53, line 20, leave out ("or by employees of").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 199C is grouped with Amendments Nos. 199B and 199E. With those three amendments I am seeking some clarification on the drafting of Clause 58(3). Amendment No. 199C refers to employees. The subsection provides that a function may be exercised by a person or by that person's employees. In moving an amendment to delete that reference, I am asking whether the function is exercised by the person who is authorised or by the employees of that person. Is it the employees who exercise the function or are they merely doing work on behalf of the authorised person? In other words, who takes responsibility?
I am further confused by the fact that the definition of "employee" in Clause 64 seems to include an employee of an employee. That is because "employee" is defined as including a person who performs ancillary services for the authorised person, and any employee of such a person. That is difficult to understand without having the words before one, but there are two persons referred to in that definition, and so in referring to an employee of such a person it is not clear whether that means an employee of an employee.
The second amendment deals with the words in parenthesis. The subsection provides that the function may be exercised by:
"such person (if any) as may be authorised".
Having read that provision several times, I do not understand what is meant by a "person (if any)". That subsection seems to be the meat of the clause; but who is authorised if no person is authorised by it? I am sure that due to the heat of the last few days I have been unable to conclude what that is driving at.
Amendment No. 199E leaves out the phrase "the office-holder". Subsection (3) provides that:
"a function … may be exercised by … such person … authorised by the office-holder or the Minister whose function it is".
Should it be for the office-holder to authorise or should it always be a ministerial matter? I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): I am grateful to the noble Baroness for agreeing to take the three amendments together and for explaining that they are merely probing amendments. Amendment No. 199C appeared to me to wreck the purpose of the order-making power, which is to allow the Government the ability to involve the private sector where a contractor can offer the best value for money in the delivery of that service. It would be impossible to do

285
that if each function or part of one had to be carried out by a named individual, with each of whom the Minister or office-holder had a discrete contract.
The contracting-out provision in the Bill will allow the benefits of competition to reach areas of the public sector where at present because of restrictions contractors may not be employed. I recognise that the Minister or office-holder would need to be assured that the employees of a contractor would be capable of carrying out the function properly so that the rights of third parties are protected. I assure the noble Baroness mat Clause 61 and the other safeguards in the Bill and in law will ensure that the rights of third parties are unaffected by the Bill. The noble Baroness was keen to have stressed exactly who takes responsibility.
The noble Baroness asked about the definition of "employee". I assure her that the definition in Clause 64(9) is exclusive to that clause. The noble Baroness will see that it states "In this section". The interpretation given by the noble Baroness was correct for Clause 64 but not otherwise.
Amendment No. 199D would delete words which were added to the subsection in another place in order to clarify the respective roles of Ministers and office-holders under Clause 58. Concern was expressed in another place that, as originally introduced to Parliament, what is now Section 58(2) could have been interpreted to mean that a Minister could make both an order and an authorisation for the contracting out of an office-holder's functions. That was certainly not our intention. Our policy is to provide for an enabling measure in this Bill. The words "if any" make it quite clear that the letting of a contract would not follow automatically from the making of an order. They thus underline that the provisions are permissive and that nothing in the Bill provides for any powers to force an office-holder to use contractors.
Amendment No. 199E removes from office-holders the power to authorise contractors to carry out a function following the making of an order. It means that, although a Minister may still specify an office-holder's functions, under Clause 58 the logical corollary— namely, an authorisation given to a contractor to carry out that function where appropriate—can never occur. That is because the Minister does not have the power under Clause 58(3) as drafted to give such an authorisation, and this amendment would delete the office-holder's power to do so. It would, therefore, render Clause 58 useless as far as the office-holder's powers are concerned.
I assure the noble Baroness that there is no difference in principle between the functions conferred on office-holders and those conferred on Ministers. The need for improvements in value for money in the delivery of office-holders' functions is just as great as it is for the functions of a Minister. Office-holders cannot be replaced by contractors by virtue of Clause 58. The office-holder will remain in place; and safeguards in the Bill, which ensure that accountability remains unchanged, apply equally to the functions of office-holders as they do to those of a Minister. Any function which must be exercised personally by an office-holder is outside the order-making power.
286
Finally, perhaps I may stress that the order-making power is enabling only. It would be for a Minister to make an order specifying a function, subject to consultation with the office-holder concerned. The order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses.
I believe that that explanation deals with the various probings of the noble Baroness, but if it does not I shall try to do better.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the Minister for those explanations. I am not sure whether he dealt with the phrase "such person (if any)" but I shall read his response to check. I pause to see whether be is aware of doing so. Perhaps I had better leave the matter and read his reply in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 199D and 199E not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 53, line 22, at end insert ("provided that, in the case of employees, they are fit and proper persons.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 200 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 201, 201A, 201C, 203A and 217AA. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to the Committee—
Lord Henley: I can assure the noble Lord that I was earlier involved in the Committee. The noble Lord may remember that we had an exchange about the admissibility of certain amendments. I believe that it was some weeks ago.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I remember that very well. I was wondering whether this was a permanent or temporary change on the Government Front Bench. No doubt we shall see.
Lord Henley: We can only speculate.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We can only speculate, as the noble Lord rightly says.
These are probing amendments. There is an important point that I wish to raise and it is right to do so by way of amendment. The whole principle of contracting out involves risks. Members of the Committee would be wrong to ignore the risks that are inherent in this procedure. Many Members will be able to cite cases where the contracting out of functions has been achieved—in particular, in local authorities and I do not blame them or any firm—where some undue influence was brought to bear on the contract that was finally let. In other words, and not to put too fine a point on it, I am talking about the possibility of corruption.
I wish to hear from the Government a strong assertion that they are committed to rooting out corruption wherever it may appear and, in particular, preventing corruption in the contracting-out procedure. I see nothing in the Bill which in any way restricts those people to whom contracts may be let in the event of the exercise of a function being contracted out. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help me on that matter.

287
Although the amendments to which I speak are probing, they seek to suggest how that might be done. As regards Amendment No. 200, it could be done, for instance, by ensuring that they are "fit and proper persons". That expression is used, among others, in the Financial Services Act and the Banking Act. There could be a limitation on former servants of the Crown and of local authorities or there could be a period of delay. All those suggestions are possible.
I am not particularly concerned about the precise formula but I am very concerned about the principle. I hope very much that when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, replies, he will give an indication of the Government's thinking on the matter so that we can be satisfied that even if the Committee accepts the principle of contracting out, which I think it has now accepted, we can be quite certain that there will be no corruption in its performance. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: This is another slightly odd grouping. Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 201A and 203A which deal with consultation in regard to Ministers and office holders and local authorities. Both amendments seek to extend the consultation to representatives of persons who have previously carried out the function.
I hope that it is not necessary to spend any time on the importance of consultation and what good consultation should be. That is a matter which your Lordships have discussed on many occasions that I can recall. I am sure that as good employers, apart from anything else, there will be an awareness of the need to consult those who are at the sharp end. I say that not simply because their personal interest is important, although it is. Staff who have been carrying out the function need to have their interests considered very fully—and I make the point briefly in order to keep us moving forward—but they should be consulted also because by giving their views, staff can contribute to the whole process. They have been carrying out the functions and have seen the day-to-day problems and opportunities. They have experience and expertise which should not be ignored.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord, Lord Williams, is right to draw attention to the importance of impartiality and probity and to the dangers of corruption. It is right that I should take the opportunity on behalf of the Government to spell out how strongly we feel about those matters.
Obviously, impartiality and probity in the exercise of statutory functions have to be at the heart of our policy. We should be the first to recognise that they are issues of absolutely vital importance. I hope that I can assure the noble Lord that the safeguards in existing law and in the Bill as drafted address that issue. I appreciate that the amendments are probing amendments but I believe that those safeguards are more direct and effective than those proposed in the amendments.
Amendment No. 201C would preclude any of those organisations which had contributed to a government review, however slight their contribution, from making
288
bids should that function be put out to competition. That could make an effective process of review before the introduction of competition unworkable in practice.
Ensuring regularity and propriety in the conduct of competitions for the supply of services is a responsibility which rests firmly with individual Ministers, office holders and their accounting officers. That responsibility, for which these individuals are accountable to Parliament, is underpinned by the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Thus Ministers, office holders and their accounting officers must ensure that there is no conflict of interest on the part of any of those involved in the competitive process, including civil servants. If in any case there is the potential for conflict, then they must resolve this or exclude that organisation or individual from the bidding process. Guidance issued to departments makes that perfectly clear.
Given the variety of different circumstances in which advice may be sought, and competitions organised, it would be undesirable, and probably impossible, to codify that guidance in statutory form. The attempt to do so in this amendment shows that only too well.
In addition the rule in law against bias and the appearance of bias will offer further safeguards to the interests of third parties who may be affected by a contract where a decision-making function is involved. That rule means that if a contractor was biased in making a decision affecting a third party, or even where there was a real possibility that he might be biased, then the decision would be invalid and would be overturned by the courts.
Strong safeguards are also provided for the protection of confidential information. Contractors would be subject to all the same restrictions and penalties as are those public servants and others who may currently handle such information. An additional duty to safeguard the information is also imposed on contractors and their employees.
I turn now to consultation with staff, which was raised by the noble Baroness in Amendment No. 201A. Authority for personnel matters is the responsibility of individual departments and, where appropriate, office holders. Consultation arrangements with staff about market testing and contracting out are therefore matters for discussion between departments and their trade union sides. It is right that local staff are able to meet local management and consider particular circumstances, and to negotiate their own arrangements for doing so. Consultation will also be affected by the nature of existing collective agreements with trade unions in individual cases. It would be inappropriate to specify a statutory requirement for consultation in the general case. There must be freedom to negotiate appropriate consultation arrangements.
I turn now to Amendment No. 203A in the local government context. The process of consultation with the representatives of local employees is a delegated process which individual local authorities undertake with local representatives. It would be quite exceptional—even unprecedented—for a Minister to adopt a direct consultation role such as that suggested by the amendment.

289
Perhaps I may return to the heart of the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that he will accept that there are appropriate safeguards in the Bill and in existing law. I hope that he will accept also that we take those matters extremely seriously and that we are as concerned as he is to ensure that corruption should in no circumstances rear its ugly head.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance. Of course, I accept it. That is a view which we share with him. I just wonder whether it might be sensible—and I offer it as a suggestion to the noble Lord—to incorporate into Clause 58(3) a "fit and proper person" provision both with regard to the "contractee", if I may put it like that, and the employee of a contractee. That would certainly ensure that any person who takes on the exercise of a function which is a statutory function laid on a Minister or an officer by Parliament is a fit and proper person.
The Banking Act makes a similar "fit and proper person" provision. I do not believe that: the Government would be giving away any vital point of principle. It would go a long way towards reassuring us that there would be absolute and total implementation of the principles which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, announced and with which we agree.
Lord Henley: I am always prepared to consider those matters between now and the next stage, or I and others may like to consider them between now and the next stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: You are the Government.
Lord Henley: As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde reminded us earlier, we all speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. However, I am sure that we will be prepared to consider such matters between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. But obviously I cannot give the noble Lord any assurance that we may consider them as appropriate. I do not believe that it would necessarily add that much to the Bill to include the words suggested.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I understand that the noble Lord, in whatever capacity he speaks, cannot give us any assurance. However I am grateful that the Government will at least look at my suggestion. Although I do not believe that it would contribute substantially, it would reassure those of us who are especially worried about the point if such an expression, suitably drafted, could find its way into Clause 58(3). Having said that, and having expressed my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I must just point out to Members of the
290
Committee that if Amendment No. 200A is agreed I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 201 or 201A under the pre-emption rule.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 200A:
Page 53, line 24, leave out ("first consulting him") and insert;
("(a) consulting him; and
(b) showing that substantial value for money savings will be achieved during the period of the contract").
The noble Baroness said: When Mr. Heseltine was Secretary of State for the Environment in 1992 he said that with CCT,
"we will obtain better value for money and higher quality services".
The above amendment would ensure that VCT (voluntary competitive tendering) would only be pursued where the Secretary of State's objectives were likely to be met. After all, DLOs (direct labour organisations) and DSOs (direct service organisations) within local authorities are required to show a 5 per cent. return on notional capital. If not, they will be closed down. Indeed, directions have only recently been given to half a dozen local authorities which have failed to meet that 5 per cent. return and they may indeed experience a closure of their DLOs and DSOs.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect similar savings at the very least when a contract goes out house, otherwise the local authority would be worse off. That is an obvious point; but is it? There are two problems involved. First —and this is the main reason for moving the amendment—is the experience we have had of CCTs since 1988. Secondly, there is the impact of TUPE—the transferred rights directive.
As regards the experience of CCT since 1988, by the beginning of 1993 about one-third of all local authority contracts had been won out house to a value of about £2 billion. In their White Paper of 1991 the Government asserted that they expected CCT to generate savings for local authorities of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. at the very least. But what have we found? Well, I have with me a copy of the report of the Audit Commission which states that the first round of tenders resulted in gross cost savings on average not of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent but of 6.6 per cent. Moreover, those savings were heavily concentrated in a handful of areas—for example, ground maintenance, catering and the cleaning of buildings—where the average savings came mainly from the cutting of wage rates.
Such savings in those areas were on average 15 per cent. That meant that other contracts barely produced savings for the local authority. Further, much of the first year's savings were in turn offset by the in-house cost to the local authority of the contracting process itself— that is, separating the client and contractor function, the preparation of specifications, the possible cost of management consultants, advertising, processing, evaluating tenders and, finally, instituting financial and administrative arrangements for their monitoring. As the Audit Commission and the DoE's research conducted by INLOGOV have shown, such considerations have cost between 7 per cent. to 10 per cent. of the first year's worth of contract. Therefore, for the most part, that has fully offset the first year's savings.
One might argue that, although in the first year of CCT very little savings would generate to the local authority, subsequent savings might trickle in. Yes, that may be so for a couple of years, but only until the renewal of the contract falls due, which is usually in the third or fourth year. Then, with no in-house contract as competition, and often with a relatively weak market outside, prices in our experience have leapt. In other words, predatory pricing in the first round of CCT has done what it set out to do; namely, to wipe out competition. Subsequently, the losses associated with that predatory pricing have been recovered on the second round of bidding where there is no in-house contract to bring the price down.
Again—this is also the experience of the Audit Commission —we have had evidence of cartels. For example, the Office of Fair Trading found that cartels were probably operating in contracts of the Property Services Agency, and in some cases price fixing contractors are clearly operating in various regions. That has all been done against a worsening background for local authorities in which they have had to lower their service specifications by, for example, extending house painting cycles from five years to six years, grass cutting from 10 days to 12 days, and so on. That means that it is quite hard to disentangle the savings coming from CCT and those coming from the need to reduce budgets.
It is clear from the first few years' experience of CCT since 1988 that most of those contract savings have been paid for by cuts in staff, by cuts in their wages, their hours, their holidays and in their sick pay and pension entitlement. In Leicestershire, for example, because of the contracts that went out, the cleaners of school buildings took pay cuts which brought their hourly wage down from £3.77 to £2.83. As regards holidays, 25 days in local government has been reduced to 10 days in the private sector. We have also seen the replacement of full time staff with part time staff to avoid obligations regarding sick and maternity pay.
That brings me to the second reason for the amendment. In future, if our understanding of TUPE is correct, contractors will not be able to make such savings from CCT or VCT. As John Hall of the Cleaning Support Services Association said:
"Contractors would be required to employ all the existing staff on exactly the same rates of pay, terms and conditions as they previously enjoyed. Under these circumstances, competition would not be viable".
TUPE will not protect staff indefinitely, but it will mean that the contractor will not be able to win contracts by predatory pricing which is at the direct expense of employees' rights. Therefore, that, too, means that the likelihood of significant savings will recede. Moreover, as the value for money arguments recede we shall merely be left with a washed-up, beached-up corpse of Thatcherite ideology about privatisation which is no way to discharge one's fiduciary duty to the council tax payers. Hence the amendment.
There are real costs to competition, especially compulsory competitive tendering. It tends to casualise the workforce and undermine their employment and trade union rights; it worsens employment conditions as
292
regards pay and hours; it means the end of contract compliance which has often brought the most marginal people—namely, the disabled and disadvantaged—into the labour market; it means less control over services provided by elected members and, therefore, by customers; and, significantly, the service provided by contractors has often sharply deteriorated. We have experienced a vicious cycle in which low wages have demoralised staff. In turn, that has led to a high turnover, has meant little or no training, poor work and an increase in complaints, which has led to more dismissals and a still higher turnover rate.
Members of the Committee may think that the latter is an exaggerated statement. However, I must point out that my information comes from the research project of the Department of. the Environment conducted by INLOGOV last year. What does the DoE's research project on CCT show? It shows that three out of four contracts have suffered from a notable failure to perform, especially in the areas of ground maintenance and building cleaning, and that most savings have been screwed out of the system by wage cuts. There was also a noticeable failure to perform in terms of poor standards of work and work not completed in time. One-in-four of all contracts going out under CCT have given rise to substantial public complaint. In one contract in 10 going out to CCT the complaints have been so severe and the work so shoddy that the contract had to be terminated. The record of CCT in savings has often been dubious and the service extraordinarily poor. Of 150 schools surveyed by the Audit Commission one-third were extremely unhappy about the quality of school cleaning performed by CCT.
A poorer quality of service may be a price worth paying if the savings are substantial: if they are not, it is not. In 1992 the Audit Commission warned the Government as well as local authorities that CCT proposals ran the risk of producing a system which was bureaucratic and unwieldy, difficult to administer and maintain, and gave rise to substantial costs that far exceeded benefits. It is precisely to ensure that we do not carry forward into VCT the problem that costs exceed benefits that I move this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee:In supporting this amendment, I should like to mention one aspect of cost savings. I ask that the Government take seriously the cost of tendering and going out to competition. To ensure that services are provided appropriately, by which I mean cost as well as quality, is something that must be considered and revisited frequently. Sometimes the costs incurred in person hours in preparing tenders for specification and going through the whole process are quite out of scale with the savings that can be made. Indeed, it may cause a hidden cost to be incurred which will become not quite so hidden and a source of regret when, at the end of the day, it appears that relatively little can be saved and achieved.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: I should like to support the amendment. Contracting out appears to have reduced the price of some local authority services but at the cost of driving down wages and reducing employee benefits,

293
such as holiday entitlement, sickness benefits and pensions contributions. Whether or not that is desirable or brings any benefits to the wider economy is questionable. It is a trend that the recent White Paper from the DTI on competitiveness does not encourage. The reduction has been possible because most of the jobs in these services are unskilled. In the past 10 years the number of unskilled people without work has remained high. That has enabled contractors to drive down wages and force people to work longer hours. However, the whole legal basis of this matter is being challenged. TUPE is being tested in the courts and the jury is still out. If the courts decide that the Government are wrong, some contractors will find themselves in severe financial difficulties. That does not bode well for the future of these services.
The President of the Board of Trade (if he is still the President of the Board of Trade) exhorts us to become more competitive, not by predatory pricing but by investing in new equipment, improving the skills of our workforce and being more innovative. That requires both local authorities and contractors to take a longer-term view of their relationships. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind when he considers this amendment. Short-term relationships discourage investment. In addition, the Government discourage innovation by local authorities by institutionalising compulsory competitive tendering and setting it in stone. They, too, must find new ways to achieve their objectives. For instance, people can themselves cut costs by taking their rubbish to a small local depot or skip. Local authorities can provide new services, such as digging up the streets only once and laying large pipes in which they lease space to telephone, gas, cable and electricity companies. Some of us who live in London will certainly appreciate that.
The CCT has been successful in delivering quality. In a small number of cases it has been achieved by the use of better systems and methods. It has been achieved largely by making contractors and their staff aware of the need for quality. To make people aware of the need for quality and more responsive to customers' needs is a function of management and responsiveness to the market, not a function of CCT. Improvements in quality have been achieved in cases where services have both been contracted out and kept within the local authority.
Does not the Minister agree that it is poor management practice on the part of the Government to institutionalise CCT when the price reductions achieved appear to have a dubious legal and economic basis? Does not the Minister prefer to encourage both contractors and local authorities to improve services and cut costs by innovation, training and investment? That is what the Government exhort the rest of industry to do. Why should these public services be different?
Lord Henley: I have to say that I find hypocrisy in the party opposite in regard to TUPE quite staggering. The noble Baroness will be aware—if she is not, I shall remind her and the Committee—that when the party opposite were in government they tried to bring in the acquired rights directive with their draft TUPE proposals and proposed to exclude the entire public sector. I can assure the noble Baroness that that is the
294
case. If she cares to look at Hansard covering 1981 or thereabouts, she will find that her noble friend Lord McCarthy confirmed that that was exactly the case. The draft proposals of the Labour Party when in government to bring in the acquired rights directive excluded the entire public sector.
Lord Peston: Is the Minister referring to 1981?
Lord Henley: I refer to the time when the House debated the Government's TUPE regulations. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, confessed or admitted to the House that the draft proposals of the Labour Government in the late 1970s would not have included the public sector. It is not fair that we should now witness the crocodile tears of the party opposite about our failings with regard to TUPE.
I reject the suggestion that savings can be made only by cutting staff numbers or pay. Savings can come from a whole variety of novel methods and approaches to undertaking tasks. I shall give examples in due course. There are a number of problems in regard to this amendment. The amendment focuses purely on the savings and as a result can prevent contracting out of an office-holder's function where it is done in order to secure not so much savings as improvements in quality without cash savings. I am sure that even the noble Baroness does not wish to rule out the capacity of the private sector to improve the standard of service, even if the same or greater cost is incurred by the current in-house team.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may be permitted to interrupt the noble Lord. It may be a matter of clarification, but the expression used in the amendment is "value for money savings". That includes both the quality and benefits from the service and any substantial pecuniary savings on the other side. It does not refer to money savings; in other words, I believe that it means what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, thinks it ought to mean.
Lord Henley: My guess is that it does not mean that. However, there is no point in arguing over such things. I presume that the amendment of the noble Baroness is only a matter of probing, anyway. I stress that we are keen that competing for quality is about quality and standards as well as about price.
The noble Baroness, quite rightly, drew on her vast experience of CCT in the local government sector. She quoted the figure of 6 or 7 per cent. as being the average saving from CCT. She suggested to the Committee that there would be only similar savings by contracting out in central government. That is simply not the case. So far I believe that the average savings have been more of the order of 25 per cent. I can give other examples from my experience of other departments in which I have worked. I believe that to look at central government and local government savings is to compare apples with pears. Central government market testing is selective. In the case of local authorities, the 6 or 7 per cent. average applies to services that are subjected to compulsory competitive tendering across the board. In some areas subject to CCT, such as building, cleaning and refuse disposal, the figure is closer to the central government average. In any event, there cannot be the slightest doubt

295
that savings at the average achieved by local government or above would yield millions of pounds to the Exchequer. Resources would obviously then be deployed far more efficiently.
The noble Baroness spoke from her experience of local government. Perhaps I may give one example from central government based on my own experience in the Department of Social Security. I can assure the noble Baroness that there the Contributions Agency microfilming service has, as a result of the process, reduced its costs by £1,360,000—over 40 per cent.— after a market test. That market test was won by the in-house team. The noble Baroness will accept that in other departments there are equally large savings to be made. The average is of the order of 20 per cent. to 25 per cent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was quite rightly worried about the actual costs of the tendering process. I hope that she will be reassured when I point out that in the Competing for Quality programme in central government annual savings of at least £150 million have been achieved compared with the overall annual cost of supporting the programme that produced the saving which is estimated at some £20 million. That represents a fairly good investment.
The next point I wish to make is that the scheme of the Bill is to enable Ministers to lay orders under Clause 58 which would specify functions which they consider may be appropriate for contracting out. As an order requires an affirmative resolution in each House, Parliament will then have the opportunity to debate whether the function so specified is appropriate in principle. The Minister will be able to say whether he thinks savings are likely. However, at mat stage no decision as to whether to contract out would necessarily have been taken; nor would it be possible for either the Minister or office-holder to undertake the detailed evaluation necessary to satisfy the condition which the amendment seeks to impose. An order would typically be followed by a competitive tender to choose a provider.
I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that office-holders would satisfy themselves that contracting out would provide good value for money, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, put it, before authorising a contractor to carry out one of their functions. That is because Clause 61 makes sure that all the present accountability arrangements, including scrutiny of the position by the Public Accounts Committee, would remain in place. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that reply. There was one aspect with which I agreed; namely, that this is a probing amendment. I did not agree with much else in his reply. In my view he made precisely the same judgments of error that infused the Local Government Act 1992, which required local authorities to take the cheapest tender and did not allow them to introduce service level specifications that could be deemed uncompetitive.
296
As my noble friend said, the amendment is concerned with inputs and outputs. It is about value for money. If a competitive tender is not better—in other words, if it is not either cheaper while providing the same level of service or, for the same price, offers a better level of service—it should not be pursued. The reason for bringing forward the amendment is that experience of local government CCT shows that too often contracts have not delivered either a cheaper price for the same level of service or, for the same price, a better level of service. Where cheapness has occurred it has been at the expense of wage levels and quality of service. A great deal of additional local authority time has been taken up in implementing penalty clauses and the like in order to get grass cut, street lights repaired and roads mended. We want an appropriate level of service for VCT.
We shall obviously study the Minister's reply. At this stage obviously I wish to withdraw the amendment. However, I have to say that nothing in what he said tonight persuades me that there are any safeguards that VCT will produce value for money. If it does not, then it is merely ideologically driven. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 201 and 201A not moved. ]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 201B:
Page 53, line 24, at end insert:
("( ) A Minister shall not make an order under this section unless—

(a) the function is to be exercised by acceptance of the offer of the person authorised to carry out the work;

(b) the person authorised makes the offer in response to an invitation by the Minister to submit such offers, and

(c) the invitation is made to at least three other persons who are willing to carry out the function."

The noble Baroness said: This too is a probing amendment on the issue of market testing. The purpose is to give the Government the opportunity to explain why, having made so much of market testing to underpin the objectives of the Bill, they have not referred to it on the face of the Bill.
The words that I have used in the amendment are a rough adaptation of part of the Local Government Act 1988. I have used them merely in order to highlight the issue.
Local government is required to go through considerable hoops in order to market test the exercise of its functions. It seems to me that if the Government believe that it is necessary to include so many hundreds of words in legislation about precisely how local authorities should go about the job, then they should at least justify why they include no words at all as to how central government should go about contracting out. In other words, if that is right for one part of government, it should apply to the other. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to give the Government the opportunity to explain why there is no reference to market testing on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Strathdyde: I thank the noble Baroness for explaining her amendment. It is clearly designed to ensure that contracts are awarded after a proper process of competition and not at the whim of a Minister or

297
office-holder. It sets out a number of detailed preconditions before an authorisation could be given to a contractor to carry out a function specified in an order made under Clause 58, which would not always be appropriate.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the purpose of the amendment. Competition is central to the process of government procurement. It is required for most large procurements by our obligations under the European procurement directives. Where it is not required it is recommended, except in the most exceptional circumstances. The Government have stated, in the Competing for Quality White Paper, that competition is the best guarantee of quality and value for money.
However, the Government also recognise that competition can take many forms, and that government departments and office-holders should have flexibility to choose the most appropriate method of procurement, subject to the directives and provided that value for money is always the key consideration in the process.
Although departments are likely to wish to choose a service provider through competition, and it is part of the Competing for Quality policy that they should do so, there could be circumstances where it was evident that only one provider was capable of delivering a service. In those cases it might be wholly inappropriate to impose a competition condition.
The circumstances that I have in mind are in a sparsely populated rural area where there is limited scope for competition. There may be only one business capable of providing a service. If it fulfils the terms of the contract, there is no reason that it should not be awarded the contract. Indeed, in some such circumstances it might be a waste of both private sector and departmental resources to require a competitive process. I emphasise that I regard that as being a relatively rare occurrence, but that is why I have difficulties with the detail of the noble Baroness's amendment rather than with the fundamental purpose behind it.
The noble Baroness also asked why the Government are less prescriptive for themselves than for local government. The point is that it is central government policy to involve the private sector to extend competition. Sadly, I doubt whether that proposition is true of the policy of many local authorities. The Government, regrettably, feel that they must be more prescriptive for the local government sector than for themselves. That is a perfectly appropriate division of powers.
I conclude by saying that the amendment is unnecessary. Because of its inflexibility it may on occasion possibly be harmful. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: I did not intervene earlier because I was keen to hear the Minister's reply in order to learn from it. He has left me extremely puzzled. It is a subject on which I have taught for many years. I do not understand what the expression, "competition can take many forms" means. Competition is competition. It means having an alternative set of potential providers. If competition is desirable, it is desirable. What puzzles
298
me is that, having said that competition takes many forms, the Minister then switched away from competition to discuss a monopoly. He referred to the case of the single possible provider. He admitted that that situation is rare. My judgment is that it is rare, and should be made even rarer. In my judgment, any rational person on being offered something should always ask the question, "Can I not obtain it better or more cheaply elsewhere?".
Lastly, I must admit that I was not happy on this point. I should like the Minister to reflect on it. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will speak again in a moment. The Minister referred to being less prescriptive for himself than for local government. I should have thought that the minimum position, not logically but philosophically, is that what is appropriately prescriptive for local government is precisely appropriately prescriptive for the Minister on the usual ground that one should always do oneself what one tells others to do. That is a golden rule in life generally. I would apply it to Government at central level.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness wishes to pursue the matter in greater detail. However, will the Minister at least reflect on the matter? I believe that some such principle or statement incorporated into the Bill would make the Bill a good deal more acceptable, not necessarily to me —the noble Lord knows my general view of the Bill—but to a number of people whom I think the noble Lord wishes to convince.
Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord, Lord Peston, dealt with two areas of the Minister's reply. However, I wish to speak further on them. I, too, wrote down the words, "competition can take many forms". That being so, and if there are circumstances where market testing might not be appropriate, then, perhaps at another stage, as part of our deregulation we should deregulate some of the regulations which apply to the other level of government which prescribes that local government market test to the umpteenth degree.
Secondly, the issue relates to what constitutes government. The Minister makes it perfectly clear that he regards local government as merely some tedious arm of central government which rather too often fails to do the bidding of central government.
It is a matter which deserves further reflection on all our parts. I shall certainly reflect further on the issue and consider whether the amendment which I drafted swiftly as a means of introducing the issue could be altered or defined. I shall return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 201C not moved. ]
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at not before five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th January be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft Ports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 is to enable a relevant port authority, if it so desires, to form a successor company, registered under the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and to transfer to that company all of the port undertakings. It would introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Ports Act 1991, which was designed to provide a more efficient means than currently existed for ports to privatise themselves. It is right that Northern Ireland should have the same freedom as Great Britain.
At the same time I would like to speak to the draft Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order 1994 which deals with taxation.
Noble Lords will be aware that to advance the strategy of progressively opening up the ports industry to market forces, the Government concluded that it was in the public interest for most of the major trust ports in Great Britain to enter the private sector although it was accepted that immediate privatisation might not necessarily be right for all of them.
The main thrust of the Government's policy was to enable these ports to develop their potential by giving them access to share capital as well as loan capital. It was intended that this would make them more attractive as partners to companies that might wish to go forward in joint ventures. It would also enable them to stimulate the development of land surplus to their requirements and make it easier for them to diversify their activities, thereby ensuring their viability for the future.
It may be helpful if I say something by way of background about the position of the Northern Ireland trust ports although the order is not confined to these alone. There are only four; namely, Belfast, Coleraine, Londonderry and Warrenpoint. In addition, Carlingford, which is essentially a navigational authority, is also included in this category. These ports are independent statutory bodies, each established under its own local legislation. They are not owned by anyone, nor are they accountable to anyone. Their status makes them neither properly public nor properly private, answerable neither to shareholders nor to the Government. Nor is there an overall pattern to the scope of, or the restriction on, their powers and duties, which differ from port to port.
The order before your Lordships is essentially a technical measure to extend the Government's policy on the privatisation of trust ports to Northern Ireland. It is an enabling measure which recognises that since many different circumstances affect individual ports, it would not be appropriate or sensible to have a blanket policy which automatically applied to all ports.
The order would empower any relevant Northern Ireland port authority, as defined in the order, to submit a privatisation scheme to the Northern Ireland
300
Department of the Environment for approval. The port authority would be required to pay to government a 50 per cent. levy on the sale proceeds, with a further levy payable by the new owners on gains arising from any disposals of land within 10 years of privatisation.
The order would recognise the desirability of employee participation in the privatisation process by empowering a relevant port authority to reimburse the costs incurred by a management-employee buy-out team in mounting a bid for a port's undertaking.
While it is essential enabling legislation, the order would also empower the department to give a direction requiring a harbour authority to bring forward a transfer scheme. This reserve power has been made subject to a number of constraints. It cannot be used until a period of two years has elapsed from the enactment of the order, and only then after consultation with the port authority concerned. Moreover, it will apply only to those ports with an annual turnover of £5 million. This amount will be index-linked and in a Northern Ireland context. This effectively excludes all ports except Belfast.
Finally, if after two years the department consults a port about the application of its powers of compulsion but decides not to apply them, it will not be able to reconsider the application to that port for a further period of five years. I hope that these important safeguards in the order will reassure your Lordships that the Government have the clear intention of applying reserve powers only in a careful and responsible manner.
I would, in closing, stress again that this is not an order to privatise Belfast port. It is an enabling order, following the Ports Act 1991. It may be useful for the House to know that in Great Britain, where the powers of compulsion have been available for over a year, they have not been used. I hope tonight we may discuss the orders in front of us, and not hypothetical scenarios. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th January be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Fitt: My Lords, there is one very short question that must be asked at the beginning of this debate. That question is: why? Why have the Government embarked on this exercise to privatise Belfast harbour? I listened very intently to what the noble Baroness said. This is not an order to privatise; it is only an enabling order to allow the Government after two years to compel the harbour authorities in Belfast to privatise. So this is a matter of semantics. It is a play on words. If the Government were not intent on, at some time or other in the future, pushing the Belfast harbour authorities into the position of privatising themselves by the compulsory acquisition of harbour property, why would they go ahead with this provision?
It may be said—I believe it was said on another occasion by the Minister—that the purpose of this measure is to bring legislation in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain. In this House and in another place it has been said repeatedly that Northern Ireland—and in this case Belfast—is totally unlike any

301
other part of the UK. The port of Belfast is not like any other port in the United Kingdom. The port of Belfast is situated on the island of Ireland. It is not in competition with other UK ports. But it is very, very much in competition with ports in the Republic of Ireland.
If we read carefully the words on what is liable to happen if and when privatisation takes place, then the port of Belfast, and Northern Ireland, will be at a serious disadvantage. It has been clearly stated—and I leave it to the noble Baroness to clarify the position tonight— that a trust port such as Dublin will be eligible for a 75 per cent. European Union grant, while a private company, if it were to go on to own the port of Belfast, would be liable for only a 50 per cent. grant.
The British and German governments have been until now—it may change within the next year or two—the main contributors to European funds. Here we have a British Government, one of the main contributors to the EC and continuing to be so into the foreseeable future, denying the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland the extra 25 per cent., or indeed 35 per cent., grant from European funds. One must ask: is this Tory philosophy? Is it Tory philosophy gone haywire? Is it pure ideology and Tory dogma —a case of, "We have done it in Great Britain so it must be good for Northern Ireland?"
Many times in this House I have had to say that Northern Ireland is not like Kent. It is not like any other part of the UK. And it has been proved repeatedly that it is certainly not like Finchley. The situation in Northern Ireland is totally different. What applies to ports in other parts of the United Kingdom certainly may not be applicable to the port of Belfast.
I speak with some experience on this issue. For many years I was a Member of Parliament in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I was also a Member of Parliament in the UK for the Belfast West constituency. At one time my constituency covered the whole of the Belfast harbour area. I remember the times when there were hundreds and hundreds of dockers. Now there are 85. I remember when the dock labour scheme was in operation. Now it is no longer in existence. And perhaps advances have taken place on the running of Belfast harbour.
The reason given for privatisation throughout the 1980s by the then Conservative Government was that it brings about more efficiency; that it does away with overmanning; that in the situation that existed then it was to the advantage of the taxpayer to transfer from a failing industry or a failing enterprise to one which the Government, with private enterprise, could remedy. That is not so in Belfast.
Since 1785 the port of Belfast has been a trust port. It is rather questionable whether the Government can legally undertake what they are trying to do with this legislation. It has been said—the noble Baroness herself said so this evening—that trust ports are not owned by anyone. But the facts of life in Northern Ireland are that the trust port of Belfast does not receive one single penny from the Government. Over a number of years the authorities have run that port and its accessories in so successful a way that they pay very heavy capital gains tax to the Government. They do not ask for
302
anything in return. All they ask for, and get—which is their entitlement—are grants from the European funds, which have nothing to do with the Government unless the Government make application to the funds. So why —I keep asking the question—have the Government done this?
At the moment there are nine harbour commissioners in control of Belfast harbour. They are appointed by the Government. Whatever may be said of the present situation, the Belfast harbour commissioners over many decades—indeed it runs to over a century—have carried out their functions with efficiency, and indeed honour to the city of Belfast. By all the agencies of direct rule since the abolition of Stormont, the Government have now taken over the position whereby they appoint the commissioners. I must ask—one would be foolish not to ask—seeing that the Government are in the position of appointing the commissioners, will there not be a gun pointed at their head? Is it not likely that the Government will appoint "yes" men. They will make the appointments in October this year. Within two years, if the present Government are in existence, and certainly in the run-up to the two-year period when the Government will begin thinking about compulsion, they will want to have as many people as possible among the harbour commissioners who support their ideas on privatisation. That is a very, very unfair way to treat the harbour commissioners in the port of Belfast, and indeed in Northern Ireland.
When we talk about Belfast, we are not talking about one little area of the harbour commissioners, or about one little port in Belfast. We are talking about the whole Northern Ireland economy. Belfast is crucial to the whole six-county economy in Northern Ireland. If the port of Belfast fails, it will affect not only the people of Belfast; it will affect the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone and the outlying districts of the Province. So again I ask: why are the Government laying down this edict that within two years the harbour commissioners must come up with their own privatisation scheme?
With a great deal of regret I say to the noble Baroness that not for the first time I am deeply offended by the way in which Northern Ireland business has been conducted in this House. If the port of Belfast were situated in any other part of the United Kingdom—on the land mass of Great Britain—there would not be such a sparse attendance in the Chamber as there is this evening. We should not be threatened by an Order in Council which is of such major and crucial importance to the future of Belfast. We should not be threatened that it would go through on a negative resolution. It would not be an order if it affected any other part of the United Kingdom; it would be a Bill. There would be a debate: first and second readings and a Committee stage to go through. The Bill would probably come to this House. I believe that the people of Northern Ireland have a right to feel seriously aggrieved by the way in which the order has been promulgated.
I listened to the debate in another place. The new Minister who introduced the Bill did not do himself any favours. I am not sure how he conducts himself in the other place as such, but so far as concerns Northern Ireland he did not do himself any favours. Let me put

303
to the noble Baroness what was put to him in that debate. The Government say that they asked for submissions from those who would be interested in the development of the harbour and future developments. They said that they received 50 representations—in fact, I understand that the number was 54. So there are that number of organisations in Belfast who are connected with the port and who are very fearful of future developments. They made submissions to the Minister who, in quite an airy-fairy way, said: "I read them all but it didn't really matter."
The people of Belfast and Northern Ireland must not be treated in such a high-handed fashion. I ask the noble Baroness whether she can give some detail tonight of who were those 50 or so people who made representations. Were they connected with Belfast harbour? Were they or had they been involved in the running of the harbour over many years? Did they have misgivings about what was liable to happen in the future? Let me ask the noble Baroness a straight question: did any of those 54 representations say, "Yes, yes, we are standing up and applauding the Government for taking this initiative." I have serious doubts whether any one of those representations were in fact in support of the Government.
The question has not been fully answered. Perhaps the Minister will say that they do not need to answer these questions because nothing will happen for two years. But that is not the way the people of Northern Ireland see the matter. They see this order as the first step down the very short road to privatisation.
What will happen to the harbour police, a body which has been in control of the security of harbour property over many years? They have carried out their functions very visibly and very well. They are an armed force in Belfast. The reason that they are armed is to prove that they are not like the police in Finchley. You do not need armed police in Finchley; you do need them in Northern Ireland. If that armed police force is to be privatised, will a Group 4 organisation be set up in Northern Ireland? Is there to be a privately armed police force to look after harbour property in Northern Ireland? That is quite unlikely. Given the record of this Government, I believe that it would be very foolhardy to put a Group 4 organisation in control of Belfast harbour. Again I say that Northern Ireland is totally unlike any other part of the United Kingdom,and that is certainly true of the port of Belfast.
The Minister says that trust ports are not accountable. There are a great number of quangos in the United Kingdom at the moment. They are unaccountable, in the view of many people. Far too many quangos, with their lack of accountability, have been created by this Government. So why is there the implication that because the trust port of Belfast has been unaccountable it has been doing something wrong? Has any charge ever been made against the harbour commissioners and those who are in control of the port facilities of Belfast? Has any charge been made that they have been doing something to the detriment of the city of Belfast and thereby to the detriment of Northern Ireland? If such a
304
charge can be made, it may mean that other people feel some justification in examining the Government's proposals.
I know the area very well. On the east side of Belfast harbour there is a lot of land, particularly in the Belfast shipyards and around Belfast city airport, which could be exploited by private enterprise if it were ever to get its hands on it. All too sadly we have seen fly-by-night private companies coming into Northern Ireland, obtaining government grants, making a profit and then leaving. We have only to think of DeLorean, or Birmingham Sound in Deny, or Zeenozipp in Newry. Private companies do not and will not come into the city of Belfast or Northern Ireland with the intention of helping people in that area. Private companies come with the idea of making a profit for themselves. I would have serious reservations about letting a private company come into Northern Ireland to bring about open exploitation of the land on the eastern side of Belfast Lough.
I can only repeat my question: why have the Government embarked on this change? The port is being efficiently run. It is paying tax to the Government. There have been no great scandals. People have not been caught with their hands in the till. No money has been filched from the harbour authorities. It is not as though thèy have not enough to do. This Government have a lot of things to do and could have been doing something much more important than embarking on this enterprise.
I tell the noble Baroness that this proposal has succeeded in bringing together the most diverse elements in Northern Ireland. Belfast city council, the trade union movement, politicians of all descriptions, people who have been involved with the harbour, the harbour commissioners themselves and the executives who run the business end of the harbour have all voiced opposition to this proposal by the Government.
As we have so sadly seen over many years, Northern Ireland has many problems. I urge the Government to think again before going ahead with the order. It will cause serious trouble and a serious breakdown in relations between the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland and the people of the United Kingdom.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I find myself at one with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in what he said most ably. He made the case without any matter of doubt. But this is so important to all of us in Northern Ireland that several parts of the argument must be gone over again.
This is not a hypothetical order. It is written in general terms but it can only apply to the port of Belfast. The port of Belfast has a specific place in the Province. Fifty-four different organisations submitted papers in response to the consultation process. The views expressed by those interested parties were disregarded. Why on earth do the Government wish to proceed with the order if in due course they do not intend to see that the harbour is privatised? One can only assume that it is the Government's intention to privatise the port in due course and that is what is causing such widespread and general alarm.

305
We ask: what is the case for privatising Belfast port? Will it bring substantial benefit to the port, to the users and to the economy of Northern Ireland? If not, is the Treasury simply interested in the cash that privatisation will bring? Everyone engaged in trade or industry in Northern Ireland knows that we work at a disadvantage to those on this side of the water. The costs of raw materials are higher to us in Northern Ireland and it costs more to export our goods. That is something the bosses, the managers and every other person knows. It is vital that our transport costs are kept to a minimum. That is what the Belfast Harbour Commissioners have been trying to do for 200 years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, formal management started in 1785. Under the Harbour, Docks and Piers Clauses Act of 1847 the commissioners were elected by the business rate payers of the city and their powers and duties are clearly set out. I can think of nothing more democratic than having them elected by the business users of the city. Many families whose companies traded or manufactured in the Belfast area have been connected with the port. My own great-grandfather was one, as Lord Mayor of Belfast in 1866. My uncle was a commissioner and I served as a commissioner in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Throughout the history of the Belfast port the majority of commissioners have been prominent business people who have headed up private businesses in and around Belfast. It has been their objective to ensure that the port is efficient with low charges and facilities to match the needs of industry in the area. The relevant Act requires the commissioners to deal fairly with all users—an important point—whereas it is not unknown for a privately-owned port to favour its owners. If Belfast port is privatised and the owner appears to be inefficient or to neglect the interests of one type of user, little can be done. If the present commissioners should appear to so act, they will be replaced.
Naturally, the management style of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners has changed over the years, but probably never more quickly than in (he past 10 years when the commissioners have felt it necessary to reduce costs wherever possible and to ensure that the port is competitive. To measure the efficiency of a large general port like Belfast is difficult and must include consideration of the stevedoring arrangements. Stevedoring in UK ports has been inefficient in the past and Belfast port, although better than others, had inefficiencies as well. However, after lengthy negotiations including input from the harbour commissioners, stevedoring was reorganised. The old stevedoring organisations were disbanded in 1993 and we now have three competitive companies employing port operatives. Restrictive practices have gone. And they really have gone. I visited the port last week and was told that a port operative can be driving a train one moment but if he is not needed there he will be sticking notices on containers or some other menial job. In 1985, 277 men were employed in stevedoring duties. In 1994, 84 port operatives are employed leading to a very substantial reduction in the cost of loading and unloading cargoes. Those numbers represent a reduction
306
of 70 per cent. In 1984 the total employed by Belfast harbour commissioners was 324; in 1994 the total is 158 including the police service—less than half the number 10 years ago. That means 158 employees are responsible for management, administration and attention to the wide variety of equipment for which they are responsible over many hundreds of acres. Support services have been contracted out to private companies wherever practicable. In 1993 84 dock workers and 158 harbour employees handled 11 million tonnes of cargo. It would be interesting to know how those figures compare with other large UK ports.
That rapid change has not been easy. The commissioners are supported by their dedicated management team and the change has been carried out in consultation with the trade unions and other relevant parties. Tribute must be paid to all concerned that the; changes have taken place without disruption or withdrawal of labour. That is because everybody concerned understands that if transport costs can be: reduced the chances of jobs elsewhere in Northern Ireland are improved.
I want to turn for a moment to the capital investment which has taken place, because that is important. In the late 1960s it was realised that the old port, with its restrictive space and long sheds, could not be made convenient, suitable or economic for Ro-Ro and lift-on lift-off traffic. The only way to rearrange things to make it economic was to reclaim several hundred acres of land to form new quays and hard standing to the north of the present port in what was then open water. Each year the profits from harbour operations after tax are put into the new facilities. Last year the new berths were commissioned—25 years after the decision to reclaim the land. The process is on-going and over £100 million has been invested in the past 10 years.
Trust ports generally are eligible for support by the European Regional Development Fund to a maximum of 75 per cent. but private companies are limited to a maximum of 50 per cent. I understand that that is fact and nothing could be done about it if Belfast port were to be privatised. There is also the possibility that if Belfast port should be privatised some of the EC funding already given would be clawed back, thus either reducing the proceeds to the Treasury or crippling the port.
Belfast is the only port in Northern Ireland with 34 feet of water and able to handle all cargoes including bulk cargoes, petroleum products, coal, grain, chemicals and general cargo. It is not in competition with ports in Great Britain; it is in competition with the deep-water ports of Dublin and Cork, primarily Dublin. At present 55 per cent. of the total sea-borne tonnage handled in Northern Ireland passes through the port of Belfast and a substantial proportion of the sea-borne trade generated in the greater Dublin area passes through the port of Belfast because it is the cheaper way to move the traffic.
Dublin port has had serious labour problems in recent years which resulted in the almost complete closure of Dublin some two years ago, but Dublin is moving forward again under new arrangements and is determined to become efficient and recover trade presently handled by Belfast. Dublin will make full use

307
of the 75 per cent. funding of fixed assets to which it is eligible and could get 85 per cent. under new Cohesion Fund arrangements.
Port charges which shippers have to pay reflect the fact that fixed costs represent at least 75 per cent. of the total charge, the small balance being variable costs. Dublin is eligible for grants of up to 75 per cent. and probably 80 per cent. A privatised Belfast port would only be eligible for 50 per cent., meaning that the nett cost of fixed assets in Belfast would be double that for Dublin. A privatised Belfast even with zero variable costs would be unable to compete with Dublin on port charges. In other words, if the port were privatised and the management and everything to do with it and the financing were zero, Belfast would still be at a disadvantage compared with Dublin. To us in Northern Ireland that is a very serious matter.
It is interesting that the Government in the Republic of Ireland have taken note of the efficient operations of Belfast port and decided that their ports should be restructured with trust or semi-trust status in order to make them eligible for maximum European funding support. They are changing the structures in order to make them eligible. The conclusion must be that Belfast port, if privatised, could not in time compete with Dublin port which would receive almost double the assistance with new facilities. Belfast charges would have to rise and Dublin charges would reduce. The cost to the industry would be more because the costs of Belfast would have risen.
There is also the property side, which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned. Belfast harbour commissioners own more than 2,000 acres, which is leased to large companies such as Harland and Wolff, Shorts, Bombardier and many other companies large and small. Twelve thousand people are employed on the estate. New acreage is being reclaimed and presently 350 acres are available for development. The harbour commissioners intend this land to be let as far as possible for port-related activities and planning is carried out in conjunction with the Industrial Development Board in order to make the best use of a very scarce resource.
It is bound to be tempting for a new private owner to sell off land for maximum cash generation and without regard to the long-term development in the interests of industry generally. Careful long-term development of this land in consultation with the city and government is a pre-requisite. Could a private owner be relied on to do that? If there is no obvious advantage to port users in privatising the port, why take the risk on the property development side of putting in private hands what is presently being responsibly developed as an asset to the Province?
The order includes provisions for the way in which the proceeds of a sale would be dealt with, which strike us in Northern Ireland as a little unusual. The Government have said that no one owns the port. Surely that is a little dismissive. What 200 years ago was marshland in the estuary of the River Lagan has been progressively developed for the benefit of port users and the economy—first of all for the ratepayers in Belfast
308
but in recent years for the Province as a whole. The harbour belongs to the Province. In our view in Northern Ireland, the Treasury has no right to it.
Belfast port has never received any government assistance for capital assets. It pays corporation tax and all other taxes as would a private company. However, the Treasury is nothing if not cunning and has devised a way of pulling in the proceeds of the sale without suggesting ownership. The order requires the port authority to pay the Government a 50 per cent. levy on the proceeds of the sale. The other 50 per cent. would remain with the authority and therefore the purchasers will get it back again. As the purchasers will get 50 per cent. back into their own pockets, this means that they can afford to bid twice what they think the port is worth, which means in effect that the Treasury will get 100 per cent. of the value after costs. I refrain from commenting on the morality of such an arrangement as no reason has yet been advanced by government to show the benefit of privatisation to the port of Belfast or the community. Is the sole reason that the Government are craving to get their hands on £50 million or £75 million?
Last year various interests were consulted by government as is required before putting forward the order. Fifty-four replies were received and I have copies of three of the replies submitted. CBI Northern Ireland opposed privatisation as being harmful. The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry set out in great detail the reasons why the Government's proposal for privatisation should be dropped. The submission of the port of Belfast trade union side is well set out and was well argued by the able people leading the trade unions in Northern Ireland. I can do no better than quote from the conclusion of the trade union submission:
"TUS believes that no good case exists for the privatisation of the Port of Belfast. The position of Northern Ireland Trust Ports, in particular Belfast, is substantially different from ports in Great Britain, especially with the competition from ports in the Republic of Ireland and that privatisation would therefore do untold damage to the whole of the Northern Ireland economy. It is extremely reprehensible of Government to enforce privatisation and benefit from the sale of Trust Ports when Government neither owns the ports nor supports them.
"The Government, by its actions, will attempt to force through the legislation against the will of the workforce and the united voice of all the main political parties in Northern Ireland. TUS therefore calls on the Government to respect the democratic wishes of all involved and to abandon this unwelcome and unnecessary legislation".
I have quoted that because I do not think it could be better spelt out and because it indicates the unanimity on the matter in Northern Ireland.
Apart from generalisations which the Government have made about the reasons for privatisation—the exposure to market forces, increased efficiency and so on—no specific reason has been given to justify privatisation. If the Government think that the working of Belfast port can be improved they should tell the people of Northern Ireland and they should certainly communicate their views to the harbour commissioners.
It should be clear to your Lordships that the passing of this order will inevitably lead to a period of considerable uncertainty over the next two years, which will not be good for the port and its continuing development. To offset that as far as possible, I ask the

309
noble Baroness the Minister if she will give an undertaking that the Government will not permit or cause the port of Belfast to be privatised unless substantial benefits will derive therefrom for the port and for the economy of Northern Ireland. If there are considered to be substantial benefits, will the Government undertake to consult the Belfast harbour commissioners and other interested parties?
Finally, I must mention a most unsatisfactory aspect of the order. For technical reasons it is subject to negative resolution whereas the Ports Act 1991 was subject to affirmative resolution. For such an important matter as this, which affects the whole economy of Northern Ireland, to be implemented without debate is in my view quite outrageous. Can the Minister give an undertaking that in the event of the Government wishing to privatise Belfast port because of substantial advantages they will ensure that it is debated in this House and in another place? I hope I have made it clear that this order is not welcome.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, the stated purpose of the two orders is primarily to provide an enabling measure designed to offer a more efficient mechanism than currently exists for the ports to privatise themselves. My noble friends Lord Fitt and Lord Cooke rightly asked why. My few remarks will be directed towards trying to extract an explanation.
Whatever the industrial, economic and social reasons or the political or ideological purposes in Britain, there is certainly no such compelling manifestation of the need for the legislation in Northern Ireland. That point has been emphasised by my noble friends Lord Fitt and Lord Cooke. Indeed, there is widespread and pronounced opposition in Northern Ireland, particularly in Belfast, to any such change as provided for by these two draft orders.
I shall begin with a point on which I should also like to conclude. I shall argue a few points to justify why I am putting them forward. Suitable democratic parliamentary provision should be made to ensure that the proposed legislation meets the needs of employment and prosperity in the Province. If in two years' and two months' time—I believe that that is the correct period of time within a month or two, depending on when the order is adopted by this House and the Privy Council— the Government propose to use compulsory powers to privatise, whatever undertaking may be given, the Belfast Harbour commissioners should be presented with an affirmative order following debate in both Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is time for progress before that decision is made.
The two draft orders are complex and difficult, and that pertains to orders in general concerning Northern Ireland. The two draft orders are particularly difficult. They are tabled under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 and the Ports Act 1991. The two orders raise many vital issues not only as regards the suitability of the parliamentary procedure but also about the industrial, economic, social
310
and employment prosperity of the Belfast port and of Northern Ireland. Those factors have been presented in argument by previous speakers.
I invite the Minister to consider the following points and I also ask for clarification of Article 1. What date will the Department of the Environment, acting on behalf of the Government, be in a position to approach the Belfast Harbour Commission, if it does not come forward in the meantime with a scheme for privatisation? Am I correct in putting a date on that of two years plus two months after this order has received approval by the Privy Council?
Article 4(2) (a) and (b) refers to
"all property, rights and liabilities … all functions conferred or imposed on the [authority]"
In the intervening period, it will have to have pledged to put forward a scheme to meet all those situations if there is privatisation. That will involve a considerable amount of consultation with a number of bodies. It will involve not only the harbour commissioners, who would have to consider the scheme that is presented; there would also have to be consultation with the Belfast City Council, which is an associated body, the port users and those who rent property on the estate. Various employees would have to be consulted. Therefore, in the intervening two years before the Government impose any particular legislation or guidelines for a scheme, the harbour commissioners will be involved in consultations with the Department of the Environment, the Northern Ireland Office and the Government in order to clarify the various issues.
A welter—if that is the proper term to use—of issues are involved which have not been argued either in another place or in this House tonight. They are left unstated. There are tremendous gaps in the general understanding of those who are interested in the harbour itself and what it means to the city of Belfast and to Northern Ireland. Other noble Lords have mentioned a few of these concerns. There are the police, the dredgers, those involved in pilotage schemes, co-ordination with other bodies and who rent facilities. There are the controls imposed on the harbour by statutory rules and orders over the years and the question of how they are to be adjusted. Therefore, not only is property involved and financing and assets; but other functions have impinged on the harbour since it was originally established.
Perhaps I may also refer to the very close connection with the new Laganside development which is a tremendous project. It is making a tremendous improvement in Northern Ireland. There is an inter-relationship there. I have here information concerning the Clarendon Dock. The headquarters of the Laganside Corporation is on the dockside. I have a picture of the two chief executives side by side. That indicates clearly what is said in the Laganside Annual Report; namely, that there is a close and ongoing inter-relationship. It is not publicly known what particular deals have been made and what the relationships mean.
We look forward, with the Belfast Harbour Commission, to converting the interest into a living reality. That means that there is an ongoing situation

311
which must certainly be examined by the general public. It cannot be confined merely to the Belfast harbour commissioners.
The Minister has rightly said that five ports (I believe that there were 12 originally) have been privatised since the 1991 order came into existence. I wish to quote as briefly as I can from a 20-page document. It is entitled Committee of Public Accounts Thirty-first Report [Session 1993–94] Department of Transport: The First Sales of Trust Ports). I shall not go into a lot of detail, but a number of very relevant points emerge which require answer. The report states:
"In 1992 five port authorities, Tees and Hartlepool, Clyde, Forth, Medway and the Port of London, used powers under the Ports Act 1991 (the Ports Act) voluntarily to sell their ports".
That was a voluntary arrangement. We have not yet reached a compulsory arrangement. We have not yet had any experience of a compulsory arrangement. The Government hope that if there is privatisation, it should be undertaken by the Belfast harbour commissioners.
The Committee of Public Accounts goes on to say that the sales have proceeded under certain guidelines. The report states:
"We accept that these were only guides based on the judgement of advisers, but we are concerned that prices fell below the lower benchmarks in two cases and that the upper benchmark was achieved in only one of the five sales".
The report continues:
"We are particularly concerned that, having been sold for £29.7 million, little more than three quarters of the lower benchmark, Medway was re-sold some 18 months later for £103 million. In this onward sale the management of the company and their backers made profits which considerably exceeded the taxpayer's receipt of some £13 million on privatisation".
Here we have a voluntary privatisation going ahead and there is a rake-off of about £80 million. The report further states:
"We note the bases on which Chatham Docks were valued and that if, contrary to the Department's expectations at the time of the sale, the land proves to be suitable for development and is developed, the clawback provisions will apply".
As I understand it that is because of an underestimate of what the sale would realise.
Paragraph 27 of the conclusions of the report states:
"We are particularly concerned that, having been sold for £29.7 million, little more than three quarters of the lower benchmark, Medway was re-sold some 18 months later for £103 million".
The report is repeating itself.
"In this onward sale the management of the company and their backers made profits which considerably exceeded the taxpayer's receipt of some £13 million on privatisation. We note the Department's view that the key factor was the reduction of the workforce following privatisation, while turnover was maintained. In all these circumstances we are surprised at the Department's view that they had not done badly for the taxpayer in this sale".
The report goes on to deal with the handling of employees' interests and states:
"Given the Department's objective that a substantial part of the equity share capital should be sold to managers or other employees of the port concerned, we asked why employee participation in these sales ranged from five per cent. at Tees and Hartlepool to at least 60 per cent. in the case of Clyde.
The Department told us that the objectives was concerned with encouraging management buy-outs".
312
That is a very good case to make.
The report continues:
"The Clyde, Medway and Tilbury sales were of this type, and therefore by definition more than 50 per cent. of the equity could be expected to go to employees. Tees and Hartlepool by contrast went to an outside bidder who conceded five per cent. of the equity to the employees. In the Department's view this was to ensure that the employees not only had salaries from their employment but also a stake in the port. The Forth Ports sale was a flotation in which slightly different considerations applied; employees acquired 11.2 per cent. of the equity".
I give your Lordships only a smattering of the argument to make the point.
The report continues:
"We asked the Department whether it was correct that those people who had lost their jobs had also been required to sell back their shares, on which they had made only a small profit, and whether it was this that had enhanced the company's profitability before the second sale. The Department told us that the reduction in the workforce would have made a significant difference to profitability.
In relation to the surrender value of £2.50 per share against their worth of £35 and the advice which the individuals concerned, who had lost their jobs, had received on this, the Department told us that this was a matter for those individuals".
Employees' shares had been undervalued and although those employees had expected to be in profit, in fact, they are worse off than if they had taken redundancy.
If my memory is correct, the Minister has been at the Northern Ireland Office for about nine months. It is known that she is held in high regard because of her constructive approach to the issues that are put before her. She has met, and been a willing listener to, those with genuine arguments and representations to make. Therefore, I am sure that the noble Baroness will take on board what has been said this evening. I believe that it has been said in the best interests of the Government's future relationship with, and the prosperity of, the people of Northern Ireland.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that my name does not appear on the list of those noble Lords wishing to speak. I could not find the list, but I have now discovered it.
Liverpool, in which I have an interest, and Northern Ireland are closely linked in more ways than one. The port of Liverpool was once a trust port. It is now a PLC. I expressed my anxiety at the time, but that is how the port finished up.
I have a fundamental objection to any infrastructure that has been created by the community (either through the local authority or in other ways) being passed into private hands. That fundamental objection is not only ideological; it stems from the fact that such a proposal cannot possibly meet the requirements of a modern community. I shall give your Lordships an example in only two minutes because I have promised noble Lords that I shall take only two minutes. Liverpool has become a profitable port. The fact that the number of employees has dropped from about 30,000 to 2,000 has nothing to do with it. The port has money. The local paper on Merseyside hailed as a great tribute the fact that the port of Liverpool can now talk about acquiring Medway Ports.

313
However, there is another side to this that needs careful consideration. If it is found, given the general drift to the South-East, to Brussels, Luxembourg and Paris, that it would be more economical from the point of view of a private company to develop the port of Medway rather than the port of Liverpool, I am quite certain that the interests of the private company would be met. And Liverpool will be sacrificed in the name of profit.
I conclude on a serious note. Many questions have been asked about this, but the fundamental question is: at this stage of the developments in Northern Ireland and when some people consider that there is a possibility of peace, why should the Government deliberately upset, and contradict the wishes of, the majority of the population in Northern Ireland? There is no doubt that the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland see this proposal as anti-them. That is the situation, so I ask the Minister to think carefully.
It is bad enough looking around the House because one then realises that although we axe discussing this very important measure, the Government Benches are empty. Indeed, it is bad enough that the rest of the Benches are empty, but because of this order and because of the way in which the Government have handled it the message will go out from this House that the Government do not really care about Northern Ireland.
The port of Belfast was created by the community of Belfast and Northern Ireland in the same way as the port of Liverpool was created by the people of Liverpool. Therefore, I plead with the Government: hands off. Until they have more sense, it would be better for the Government to spend more time seeking to solve the problems of Northern Ireland rather than introducing measures of this kind. The problems still need to be solved. The Minister may well look askance at my suggestion; but the problems there still need to be solved. One of the ways of not solving those problems is to send out a message to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government do not care about them and that they intend to carry out their ideological wish.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am glad that we have had the chance to hear that powerful intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. I begin by thanking the Minister for her usual persuasive and clear presentation. I am bound to say that she must feel a bit lonely this evening as we hear the sheer amount of information and feeling in the speeches of the three noble Lords who have spoken from their great experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland. I am quite certain that those noble Lords reflect the feeling of everybody in Northern Ireland on this issue; not just the Confederation of British Industry; not just the unions; not just the people who work in the port; and not just the present commissioners. Those noble Lords reflected the feeling of everybody in Northern Ireland about their port. The Minister might want to address that in her reply.
314
Rather than making out any general case for or against privatisation, I should like to address particular arguments of a practical nature against this privatisation. As the Minister pointed out, the order makes provisions for the ports to privatise themselves if they have an annual turnover of more than £5 million. In practice, that means that only the port of Belfast is affected. Belfast port is a very successful business. It has a very impressive growth rate. I think that the noble Baroness will agree that it has increased its turnover by more than 40 per cent. in the past five years. There have been notable increases in productivity which the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, outlined. The port accounts for no less than 55 per cent. of Northern Ireland's trade.
The most worrying thing about the order is that it will hang like the Sword of Damocles over the port because the order contains reserve powers whereby, if the harbour commissioners fail to apply for privatisation, the Government will have the power of coercion, at their own discretion, to compel the privatisation of the port of Belfast. I heard the Minister say that this is just enabling legislation; but what is the point of introducing it unless it is the Government's intention to proceed with that privatisation? Why would they want all that hassle? Why would they want all that difficulty? Why would they want to fly in the teeth of local opinion unless it was their intention to proceed onwards to privatisation?
I am glad that the Minister's moral support has now returned. I remember the Government recently being extremely forceful about refusing to sign up for a single European currency until we saw a definitive proposal. How could anyone possibly sign up for a single European currency in principle unless they saw definitive proposals? Is not that an exact analogy with what we are being asked to do tonight? We are being asked to sign up for possible future privatisation, and the Government have not yet even promised that there will be a debate if they decide to come forward with an order on privatisation. All they have said is that they will consider carefully a debate at that point.
I came here this evening knowing that I was opposed to the privatisation and knowing that there was a great deal of opposition to it in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister will be affected by the fact that not one Member on her side of the House has seen fit—there are some noble Lords with great experience of Northern Ireland—to come here and support the order. I believe that that is no coincidence. I merely ask her to consider that it will make it difficult for those of us who have reservations about the order to be acquiescent in it unless the Government can give a categorical assurance that it will come back to Parliament. I cannot see why she would not want that. The people of Northern Ireland would be greatly reassured if the proposal—when the Government have a definitive proposal —came back to Parliament. I hope that the Minister will address herself specifically to that point and try to avoid, if she can, vague and evasive phrases. It is something that the House would like to hear from her this evening.
Perhaps I may make one other important point of which I have given the Minister notice. It is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, about the eligibility of funding from the European development fund. It will

315
be reduced from 75 per cent. to 50 per cent when the ports transfer to the private sector. There must be some commercial reason, hidden from the average person, that would make a government deliberately turn their back on a subsidy of that order. We are talking about large sums of money. The estimate is of course that the port currently receives about £12 million in aid. What will that be reduced by? Will it be £2 million to £3 million? Will not that create an automatic competitive advantage for Dublin? Dublin does not just receive the 75 per cent. level of support. Because it obtains money from the cohesion fund, it receives 85 per cent. support.
If the Government's privatisation proposals go ahead the port of Belfast will receive 50 per cent. support while Dublin will receive 85 per cent. support. That is an enormous commercial differential. What will make it possible for the port to be successful? In that respect, I have a question for the Minister. Could there be clawback by the European Commission of funds that have hitherto been given to the port by way of subsidy? As the Minister will be aware, Mr. Bruce Millan, the European Commissioner for regional funding, says that it is possible that there could be clawback. That could be incredibly serious. I should like to know categorically from the Minister whether she admits that there is a possibility of clawback. She may say that it is unlikely. But is there a possibility that money could be clawed back? That would make it even more foolhardy to proceed with the potential privatisation.
I have two final points. They are points which should be of great concern to the House. There is the issue of accountability, which has been raised by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, related an extremely interesting history. We recognise that the Belfast harbour commissioners are publicly accountable at present. They draw upon various elements of the community in Northern Ireland. Will there be any provisions to ensure that if the port is privatised the new owners will have a similar breadth of background and that they are similarly rooted in the community? Or will they, as with so many other similar ventures, turn out to be narrowly commercial or just friends of the Government? Will they have the same obligations to dredge the harbour; to guarantee the pension rights of the employees and former employees; to health and safety provisions; and to the local community as a whole?
Then there is the question asked by a previous speaker, about which the Minister knows I was concerned in the instance of the privatisation of the airport. I refer to the question of a private police force. We are going to privatise the security force. Is it sensible in Northern Ireland, with all its great problems, to create these private security forces carrying arms all over the place? Group 4? What is the future of Northern Ireland? Does it not depend crucially in these delicate times on the total integration of security rather than a patchwork of private security forces?
I am afraid that what I have had to say has not been very encouraging for the Minister. My last question may be even less encouraging. However, I do not for the life
316
of me understand how the Government can sell something they do not own. I should be grateful if the Minister will tell us how that feat is possible.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for guiding us through this important order. For reasons which have been well rehearsed by all speakers, and admirably summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, we cannot welcome the order. It is clear that the order is aimed at the port of Belfast. That point has been made by every speaker. Its essential purpose is to make it possible for the department to enforce privatisation of the port if its commissioners fail to apply for a privatisation scheme within two years after the enactment of the order, subject only to negative resolution. I must say that I was surprised when the Minister referred to the negative resolution as being a safeguard. We are opposed to compulsion, and we are opposed to the negative resolution procedure.
The order applies the Ports Act 1991 to Belfast. However, in 1991 the Government based their legislation on two separate grounds. The first was that it was the Government's policy to open up the ports industry to market forces. The Minister relied upon that ground this evening, but it is only one ground. The second ground was the claim in 1991 that a number of the larger ports had made clear their enthusiasm for privatisation and that two of them had gone so far as to introduce Private Bills. The Minister has been unable to rely upon that ground in support of the order today.
We have heard some powerful speeches this evening. I would rate them among the most powerful I have heard on any Northern Ireland order in the House. There is no desire in Belfast or Northern Ireland for the privatisation of the port. There is no popular support for the order. The port commissioners, unlike two of the English ports in 1991, have never toyed with the idea of promoting a Private Bill, and they are opposed to the order. So is the Belfast city council; so are the trade unions; so are all the political parties in Northern Ireland; and, if it matters to this Government, so are the elected Members of Northern Ireland in another House.
Accordingly, the second limb of the case for the Ports Act 1991 cannot be made out in 1994 to support the order. I should have thought that when more than a year ago it became crystal clear to the department that there was powerful opposition to this order and that there was no consent for it the idea of privatisation would have been buried there and then.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, gave us the history of the port of Belfast, which for more than 200 years has been built up on the delta of the Lagan. He described his family connections with the port and spoke of it with great affection. Indeed, the people of Northern Ireland speak of the port with great affection. It has no shareholders. The profit goes to reserves or to finance new capital investment, about which we have heard tonight, or to reduce charges.
Moreover, the port commissioners are and have always been representative of the many organisations which have a direct interest in the efficient and smooth

317
working of the port. Not withstanding what Ministers say, in a lay sense the board is accountable to those organisations. It does not matter what lawyers say; in a lay • sense the commissioners of the board are accountable to the people who use the port. That point was well made by my noble friends Lord Fitt and Lord Blease and by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke.
Of course, the commissioners cannot be faulted in any way. We have had not one word from the Minister blaming the commissioners for this or that. The commissioners have ensured that the port is modern and efficient. They have managed the assets honourably and effectively. In the result, the port has a fine record of service to the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland. It has earned for itself a unique place in the estimation of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is no enthusiasm for the order and that there is opposition to it. If the Government had any regard for the principle of subsidiarity they would pay careful attention to what is being said in Northern Ireland. The Minister has not referred to that tonight.
The order is directed at Belfast harbour. However, as has been made clear, it could adversely affect the whole economy of Northern Ireland, not merely Belfast and its immediate neighbourhood. That is why it is such an important order for Northern Ireland, and that is why it should not be the subject of an Order in Council.
From this side of the House, that is our first issue of principle with the Government. With the greatest respect to the Minister—we hold her in high regard—I have not heard from her or from any of her Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues a single argument, apart from doctrine, to justify the order. Indeed, I found the speeches of the Minister's colleagues and their letters— we have been corresponding with Ministers— extraordinarily unconvincing on the subject.
We have heard tonight that the view of those who responded to the order is that the privatisation will create problems where there are none. Moreover, during the next two years there will be uncertainty about the port's future where there ought not to be uncertainty. We believe that there is a grave risk that the privatisation of the port of Belfast could be a backward step.
I summarise the points that have been made by all speakers tonight in saying that there are at least three main grounds for our anxiety. The first is that a privatised port would not be eligible for European Union funding at the current rate of 75 per cent. That could lead to increased charges by port users and eventually affect the whole industry of Northern Ireland. In addition, there is the question of the clawback, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
Secondly, the privatised port, receiving substantially lower grants from Brussels, might not be able to continue to compete successfully against the deep water ports of the Republic, in particular Dublin. Thirdly, the substantial and valuable portfolio of properties in and around the port, which may be surplus to the requirements of the board and which are in the ownership of the commissioners, will be sold off. Current lessees of small business premises in and around the port may find it difficult if not impossible to renew
318
their leases on acceptable and affordable terms. In the past, the Minister has had special responsibility for small businesses. I draw to her attention the anxieties and fears of small businessmen in and around the harbour. The long-term interest of the lessees in and around the harbour should not be sacrificed to short-term advantage.
I turn to the second ground of opposition to the order. It is that the department is empowered to privatise the port after the expiration of two years by a subordinate order, subject only to negative resolution procedure. The subordinate order will not therefore be debated in Parliament. There will be no opportunity to question the Minister about the criteria that have been applied or to challenge the grounds upon which the decision has been taken. In other words, when we come to the subordinate order, privatisation will be a fait accompli. Is that fair to the people of Northern Ireland? Is it fair to proceed by way of legislation which is a fait accompli? The point has been made that a port in Great Britain may be enforced to privatise under the 1991 Act only under an affirmative resolution. We must ask the Government to justify the change of procedure for Northern Ireland. We must press the Minister for a satisfactory explanation.
I have always understood from the Northern Ireland Office, and not from my understanding of the law, that the Government will resort to the negative resolution procedure under the 1974 Act only where the proposed Northern Ireland legislation corresponds to primary legislation for Great Britain. All right, the Government can satisfy that condition, but I understand that they must also satisfy another condition; namely, that it is desirable for Northern Ireland legislation to be made speedily. That is the advice I have received in the past from the Northern Ireland Office:
I feel justified in quoting from a letter which the Minister's immediate predecessor sent to me on 20th May 1993. He stated:
"The negative resolution procedure for Northern Ireland Orders in Council is only used where Northern Ireland requires legislation corresponding to the purposes of a Great Britain Bill (or part thereof) and it is desirable for the legislation to be made speedily".
That was said in May last year. But such reasoning cannot possibly apply in respect of this order. First, Northern Ireland does not require the legislation. Of course, there is no urgency attending the matter. The history of the order to date demonstrates that its provisions are not required to be speedily applied. That being so, the Government should not be relying on the negative resolution procedure.
Perhaps I may rehearse the facts. The draft order was published in February of last year. That is 18 months after the passing of the 1991 Act. It was subsequently held back for 15 months and it was not until last month that the Government decided to issue the order. Of course I do not complain, but the delay is evidence that there is no need for the order to be speedily applied. Therefore, it should receive the affirmative resolution of each House.
In those circumstances and if the Northern Ireland Office advice which I received in May of last year is correct, it seems to me that the use of the negative procedure in this case is an abuse of that procedure. I

319
believe that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, is being generous to the Government when he asks for an undertaking that if the Government decide to privatise the harbour board, it will be the subject of a debate in both Houses of Parliament. We must press the Minister for an assurance that such a debate will be forthcoming, unless the Northern Ireland Office has changed its mind and has decided that it is no longer necessary for the order to be introduced speedily. We are sorely tempted to vote against the order but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us those assurances.
There are at least two questions on which we on these Benches require information from the Government, additional to the questions that have been asked by other noble Lords. First, in the event of the enforced privatisation, will the European Union be entitled to recover the grants or any part of them paid to the commissioners? That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. If it is entitled to a clawback, who will be responsible for the repayment? Will it be the successor company or companies or the Northern Ireland Office and, therefore, a charge on the whole budget of Northern Ireland? Perhaps the Minister will respond to that question.
I should very much like to know what will happen to the capital reserves of the Belfast harbour pension fund and, indeed, the existing and future rights of the beneficiaries under the fund.
The Minister said that there will be consultation before the Government decide to exercise the power to privatise the ports. I hope that the Government have a genuinely open mind on the merits of the enforced privatisation of the port of Belfast. I say that because if they have a genuine open mind, we are satisfied that the port can demonstrate to any objective observer that it should not be forced in the direction of privatisation.
I have taken up more than my fair share of time but this order is important for Northern Ireland. We regret that it has been introduced by the use of the Order in Council procedure and not by primary legislation. Many questions have been asked. We have listened to powerful and sobering speeches. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the assurances for which we have asked.
8.35 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I really must congratulate noble Lords. From their great knowledge and experience of Northern Ireland, noble Lords have listed the majority of matters which would have to be taken into account if privatisation were considered. I assure your Lordships that all those matters will be considered fully. That is the point at which they should be discussed and taken forward. I doubt whether your Lordships missed one of those points.
I hope that the House will accept that we must agree to differ on the philosophy in relation to privatisation. I had the advantage of working for a company pre-privatisation and I watched it blossom in the private sector. Any Rover owner can see for himself the benefit of that. British Airways stands on its own two feet as a
320
success in the market place while France still tries to find ways in which to increase the subsidy to keep Air France flying. Our views on privatisation are based on firm evidence of success.
Having said that, I return to the statement which I made in my opening speech: this is not a privatisation order. It allows the matter to be considered in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, knows Northern Ireland and its history better than I will ever do. But even from my limited recent experience, I know that Northern Ireland is not Kent or Finchley. Indeed, I know that in many areas it is better than Kent or Finchley. But it has a right to the options available to similar structures in Great Britain.
This evening your Lordships were asking to close the door on the commission if it wished to bring forward an opportunity to privatise. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that Belfast port is crucial to the economy of Northern Ireland, but it may be that there were occasions when it needed access to share capital or partners. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that we cannot put a fence round Northern Ireland and say that people cannot come in. With regard to helping companies coming into the Province, I hope that Bombardier is an example of bringing support to the people of Belfast.
I believe that you have to make profits to pay wages. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, pointed out that you have to make profits to reinvest. While I understand the depth of the feelings of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other noble Lords who have spoken on this matter, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, should question the commitment to the Province of any Northern Ireland Minister. We are all there from choice and we ask to stay.
This is an order which opens doors. Privatisation is an option to be considered subsequently. I believe that it is of interest to those of us here this evening that it was announced today that the airport at Aldegrove is to go to the management-employee group. That is a great opportunity for the people involved. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and others were right to praise the achievements of the port. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said that I had not criticised it; I have no reason to do so. As I said, it may wish to move in a different direction.
But I worry about the statement that there has been no government support for the port. I wonder where noble Lords think that the EU funds come from, other than from other member states. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, referred to a Sword of Damocles and I gained the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, felt that it would descend two months and two years after the order's adoption by the Privy Council. He has the dates absolutely right. That is not the case, as I stressed in my opening speech. Were it a Sword of Damocles, it has been available in Great Britain for over a year. It is the opening of doors. Laganside is of course a child of the Department of the Environment, and a very successful birth that has been.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that we should look at Northern Ireland separately and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, quoted Great Britain's experience in the area. I

321
believe that one of the advantages that we have is that we can learn from the experience in Great Britain should it be necessary to do so.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, who intervened in the debate, that of course there are great links between Liverpool and Belfast. However, if Liverpool were not competitive in productivity, it would not be an issue of southern ports; it would be an issue of ports such as Rotterdam and other ports on the continent of Europe to which we would lose business. That is not what we want to do. I was also unhappy to hear the noble Lord say that we should give more time to considering the efforts towards peace. I do not really believe that anyone can doubt this Government's commitment to finding a peaceful solution in Northern Ireland.
I shall try to answer the points raised by noble Lords because, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, it is important that Northern Ireland should be given full consideration. The consultation period to which the noble Lord referred ended in April 1993 and 54 submissions were received—17 made no substantive comment, but others expressed reservations about the privatisation of Belfast port, some of which have been quoted. I must stress that such matters will be considered should privatisation come onto the agenda.
The question was also raised about the harbour police force. Again, that is a group of people doing a good job. That group would not change; indeed, the same people would be involved. They would continue to be overseen and trained, with refresher training, by the RUC. However, the RUC would have the opportunity to take over if there were problems. Because of the major security issues in the port, the RUC is closely involved. The economic importance of the harbour estate requires the presence of armed police.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and other speakers that, in the event of Belfast port moving to the private sector—and I must say that, at present, that falls into the hypothetical category—the new owners would be required to assume all statutory obligations then applying to the Belfast harbour commissioners. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords on that point.
The issue which gave concern to most speakers was the question of the ERDF grants. I can confirm that, should any trust port move to the private sector, the maximum grant rate available to it would be 50 per cent. as opposed to the maximum of 75 per cent. in the public sector. No allocations from the ERDF have yet been made for the period commencing 1994, so figures could not be calculated. However, perhaps I may suggest that a business built on efficient provision of customers' needs will always be stronger than one reliant on decisions from Brussels which, to make an understatement, can be variable. I should also point out to the House that, yes, there is the possibility of a clawback, but no repayment or clawback, as it is usually known, of grant has yet been sought by the EC as a result of a privatisation of a trust port. Obviously, it is not possible to anticipate whether that position might
322
alter in the future, but I should stress that any clawback would be levied from the Government's shares of the receipt of privatisation.
Dublin and other ports in the Republic are indeed eligible for higher grant rates than Belfast would be after privatisation. That would be a major concern to be taken into account when discussing privatisation. However, I would give enormous credit to Belfast. As the noble Lord, Lord Holme, pointed out, it has an extra edge at present and yet port charges at Dublin are some three-times those at Belfast. Trade through Belfast is now 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. higher than Dublin and the gap is increasing. We must recognise that it is people and management that make a difference as well as money. I also understand—and this may be of interest to noble Lords—that Dublin port is unlikely to receive assistance from the cohesion fund which offers up to 85 per cent. for projects which do not provide income. It is likely to be restricted to the 75 per cent. available under the ERDF.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked how small firms would be protected against increased charges. As the noble Lord rightly said, I have a deep affection for the small firms; indeed, I believe that they are the future of any economy. However, the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 safeguards against excessive charges. That legislation will remain unaltered. There is nothing in the order to change it. Moreover, the scope for appeals will remain intact.
Some doubt was expressed about the morality of the issues that we are debating; for example, the morality of privatising the port. In effect, the trust ports have no legal owners. The lack of any identifiable owner means that there is no vendor to receive the proceeds of the sale if such a port is privatised. Therefore, in the absence of a levy, any purchaser would receive back the entire proceeds of the sale along with the port itself. It really would be difficult to justify a windfall gain of such a scale going to the buyer, especially as we would aim for a level playing field between newly privatised trust ports and ports such as Larne which are already in the private sector.
When reflecting public interests, the Government should be able to participate in the benefits that flow from such privatisation. The levy provision meets that public interest requirement in a fair and acceptable way. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, who was nervous about asset stripping that the Ports Act provides—and it will continue to apply in Northern Ireland—that any disposal of land within 10 years of privatisation would be subject to clawback.
There was great concern about the question of the legislative process for the order. The order that we are considering tonight is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, pointed out, it has been brought forward as an affirmative resolution. However, the order provides for subordinate orders to be made at Westminster by the negative resolution procedure. I believe that that is where confusion arose in the minds of some noble Lords. I should point out that there is no precedent for subjecting a subordinate order of this type made by a Northern Ireland department to the affirmative rather

323
than the negative resolution procedure at Westminster. To do so would mean that, if a locally elected assembly was reinstated, then such powers would remain with Westminster. I believe that I can say without hesitation that that would not be the wish of noble Lords opposite.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, two or three minutes ago the Minister charged those of us on this side of the House with putting forward hypothetical considerations. Is not the instance she has just given of a reversion to the powers of a Northern Ireland Assembly, which I believe many of us devoutly hope for, exactly the type of hypothesis that she herself was describing? What we are concerned with here is whether Parliament itself will get the opportunity to debate the matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will come to that issue, because that it is the one that concerns us and I am sure will determine our attitude to this order.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I quote what many of my noble colleagues have said. I was about to come to that. What I said was not hypothetical. The law is such that if a subordinate negative order is changed, the powers will stay at Westminster. But even a subordinate negative order can be prayed against in both Houses. Should such a prayer receive sufficient support in the Houses—your Lordships will understand that this is a matter for the House authorities —it is extremely likely that there will be a debate on the provisions. I have noticed that Northern Ireland Members do not fail to ensure that Northern Ireland matters get as full a discussion as possible. That is a view I support very much. Any agreements regarding pension funds that exist immediately prior to any privatisation will continue to have effect. If there is any other point that I have not considered, I shall carefully read the written report and make sure that answers are given to noble Lords.
In closing, I thank noble Lords who gave me notice of the questions that they wished to raise. I stress to your Lordships that I do not ask the House to sign up to privatisation, but simply to ensure that Northern Ireland has available to it the same open doors as are available in Great Britain. I feel that is important, and I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ports (Northern Ireland Consequential Provisions) Order 1994
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th January be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a second time; Committee negatived; Bill read a third time, and passed.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
8.58 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 58.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 201D:
Page 53, line 33, leave out ("either unconditionally or").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 201D, for the convenience of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 201E. These appear to be minor amendments but are of some importance. Amendment No. 201D seeks to remove from Clause 58 (5) (c) the words "either unconditionally or". We object to the idea that an order under the clause can be unconditional. It is perfectly clear that the order may be made to provide that a function may be exercised by contracting out, but whether that should be done unconditionally is a matter which the Committee will no doubt wish to consider.
Clearly, the Committee will agree to the expression:
"fulfilment of such conditions as may be so specified",
but "unconditionally" does not seem to me to be appropriate in the circumstances.
Amendment No. 201E ensures that the conditions of such an order "shall" be specified rather than "may" be specified.
The Committee may feel that the amendments are not of great consequence, but they strike at the heart of what contracting out is about. Contracting out concerns functions which are the legal responsibility of persons as specified in the Bill, and the exercise of those functions is to be contracted out. Therefore, in our view it is of great importance that the conditions under which those contracting out procedures may take place—I am sorry if I intervene in conversations on the Government Front Bench.
Lord Strathclyde: We were not talking.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The noble Lords have been talking for the past 10 minutes. Come on! It is an important matter and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, despite his new role, on which I congratulate him, will pay attention to the Bill in front of us.
It is important that such an order should include conditions specified by the Minister who makes the order. Therefore, it is not a trivial amendment and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will pay attention and give a responsible reply to my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall speak to the same amendments as the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The amendments would require an order to state the conditions under which a function may be contracted out.

325
It may be helpful if I explain the general thinking behind Clause 58(5). Clauses 58 and 59 are general provisions drafted to cater for a wide variety of functions where obstacles to the use of contractors in carrying out statutory functions occur. It will, therefore, depend entirely on the nature of the function whether it is desirable to restrict the coverage of an order and whether it is desirable to make it subject to the fulfilment of conditions.
There is no general presumption that we would expect to restrict the scope of an order by specifying the cases or areas to which it applied or by setting conditions. Equally, there is no presumption in favour of an unconditional order, and in some circumstances there could be a case for restrictions on the decisions which contractors could take. For example, if the disbursement of money were involved the responsible Minister might wish to set an upper limit on the disbursements which a contractor could decide. That would mean that decisions on smaller grants could be taken by contractors while decisions on larger amounts could be reserved to departmental civil servants. That could be done under Clause 58(5), but we might not wish to impose any such restriction. However, there are circumstances in which we would not wish to restrict an order in either or both of those ways.
That is the background to the clause, and that is why I believe that the situation envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, does not arise. I agree with the noble Lord that it is not a trivial point. However, it is one that has been carefully thought out by the Government and I hope that on the basis of my explanation the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: What does the noble Lord mean by "unconditionally"? Does it mean that a Minister can make an order contracting out the exercise of some function without any conditions whatsoever? Is that what the Committee is being asked to approve?
Lord Strathclyde: The point is that there may be limes when conditions are required on a contract and other times when they are not. The desire behind this particular subsection is to retain a measure of flexibility. I have tried to demonstrate how that flexibility may be used. I do not think that there is anything untoward. If we were to accept the presumption of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, we would thus remove that flexibility, and that might not be to the benefit of the contractee or contractor.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I really do not believe that the Minister has addressed the problem. Conditions are conditions. Any contract which is unconditional, which is the word used in the Bill, and has no conditions attached to it at all allows a Minister enormous power to contract out the exercise of any function he likes without any restraint on the contractor. I really do not believe that that is what the Government intend. I very much hope that the Minister will say that that is not what the Government intend.
Lord Strathclyde: My reading of the clause is somewhat different from that of the noble Lord, Lord
326
Williams. We are not talking about whether or not the contract will be unconditional but whether the order will be unconditional. That is the important aspect.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My reading of the clause is very simple. It is that:
"An order under this section may provide that a function to which this section applies may be exercised, and an authorisation given by virtue … either unconditionally".
In other words, the order may say that there are no conditions on the contract at all, or otherwise. That is my reading of the clause and that of my colleagues.
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may explain. The order may set conditions. The example I used was where the order limited the contract to certain amounts of money being disbursed by contractors. It is the order which may include conditions or may be unconditional. There is no prospect of there being a contract without conditions. I should have thought that a contract without conditions would be almost meaningless. That is not the intention under this part of the clause. I hope that that clarifies the position.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The explanation has confused the situation even more. The order can say "unconditional". The contract may be conditional. I agree with the noble Lord that contracts are in respect of two people: one decides to do one thing; the other in consideration of the contract decides to do another. Nevertheless, the order can be unconditional. I find that very difficult to accept.
9.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 201D) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 57.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Eatwell, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

[Teller.]

Russell, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B. [Teller. ]

Sefton of Garston,L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

White, B.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mulley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Nicol, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cranborne, V.

Annaly, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Arran, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Astor, V.

Downshire, M.

Balfour, E.

Dundonald, E.

Belstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Biddulph, L.

Harlech, L.

Blatch, B.

Harvington, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Henley, L.

Carnock, L.

Hooper, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Howe, E.

Courtown, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kenyon, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kimball, L.

327

Lauderdale, E.

Seccombe, B.

Leigh, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Lindsay, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Long, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lyell, L.

St. Davids, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Stewartby,L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Strathclyde,L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

[Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Trumpington, B.

Northesk, E.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Wise, L.

Rodney, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.16 p.m.
[Amendment No. 201E not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 201F:
Page 53, line 36, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
("(a) shall be for such a period that meets the requirements of the Minister or officer-holder and which is consistent with the risks that the appointed contractor is authorised by the Minister or office-holder to include in his contractual undertaking.").
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, is not able to be in his place. I beg to move Amendment No. 201F, the words as on the Marshalled List.
This is an important amendment tabled by a Conservative Back-Bencher. It relates to a defence matter. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will be able to respond to defence matters, as he responds to everything on behalf of the Government.
The difficulty that the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, has spotted is that contracts which at the moment do not exceed 10 years might be—and perhaps should be—in certain circumstances fewer than 10 years, so that, in the words of the amendment, the contract should be for such a period, not only that meets the requirements of the Minister—that is clear—but is,
"consistent with the risks that the appointed contractor is authorised by the Minister… to include in his… undertaking".
In other words, there may be long-term contracts, because defence contracts are long-term, and there may be short-term contracts. So "not exceeding 10 years" could in the case of defence contracts be stretched either way. That is an important point because if, for instance, you let a contract to build a new Trident submarine, that is not a 10-year contract. If, on the other hand, you let a contract to manufacture ammunition, that is probably a short-term contract. So the 10-year period is not necessarily a desirable feature in terms of defence contracts. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, told me was the point of his amendment, and that is my reason for moving it.
Lord Strathclyde: My only slight concern about the amendment is that I am not sure what it has to do with defence. Can the noble Lord, Lord Williams, explain that?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Yes. The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, as the Minister will know, is chairman of the inter-parliamentary defence committee, and has great knowledge of defence matters. He told me this afternoon—it may have been a privileged discussion, but perhaps I may reveal what he said—that he tabled the
328
amendment purely on the defence issue. The amendment may not say that, but that is why he tabled it. Therefore I am speaking to the brief that the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, gave me this afternoon when he put forward his reasons for tabling the amendment. If the Minister understands now what I say, perhaps he will reply to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside.
Lord Strathclyde: I certainly shall be replying not to my noble friend's arguments but to the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I now understand that we are dealing with an amendment that does not say what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, intends it to say—that it has something to do with defence. Let us for one moment sweep aside the fact that the word "defence" does not appear anywhere in the amendment.
Ten years is the period chosen in the Bill as drafted to ensure that delegations of functions are reviewed regularly. In each case it will be for the Minister concerned to decide on the length of the relevant authorisation in accordance with the terms of the contract, subject to the overall limit of 10 years. I regard that as a reasonable maximum period for contracts to provide statutory functions which will be service contracts rather than contracts for the purchase of goods. I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would agree with that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to ask, if a contract is to be let for a new Trident submarine, whether that can be under 10 years.
Lord Strathclyde: I was not prepared for this great defence argument. There was no clue in the amendment that it would deal with defence. The amendment seeks to remove the 10-year maximum period and put the matter to the discretion of the Minister. That is fair enough. I do not mind. The discretion of Ministers is normally a perfectly good thing. But my eye is drawn to the next amendment in which the 10-year period is limited to four years. That is the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. I should be interested to hear the arguments when we discuss that amendment.
The noble Lord asked a specific question about defence contracts and building Trident submarines. As I said earlier, defence functions are unlikely to come within the scope of the contracting out provisions as they are simply not statutory functions. Defence contracts may require special investment considerations and the contract length can be set appropriately in each case. That is true, for example, of contracts for large capital equipment and military research and development projects. None of the recommendations of the defence cost study would require use of the order-making power to implement.
I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lord Ironside. I hope that I have explained first why we believe that the 10-year period is the required length and why defence contracts will normally be excluded from the statutory powers. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to move the next amendment.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to obtain more clarification. As my noble friend said, the first part of Amendment No. 201F, which states:

329
"meets the requirements of the Minister or office holder",
is very straightforward. It is the second part which, in my judgment, is more fundamental; namely, meeting the risks of the appointed contractor. The Minister said that 10 years would cover that. But he will have noticed that later, implicit in subsections (6) (b) and (6) (c)—with which the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, are concerned —are two specific risks. They are one-way risks.
In due course I shall be very interested to hear the arguments on subsection (6) (b), which states that the authorisation may be revoked at any time; and those on subsection (6) (c), which states that the Minister shall not be prevented from exercising the functions which the authorisation requires. So the point about risks for the appointed contractor is at least worthy of reflection.
I certainly do not want to get involved in a discussion on defence—I bear with the Minister in saying that—but I am interested in the whole question of risk. It seems to me that one could do with a rather stronger argument about the risks involved. In particular, the subsequent clauses seem to me to suggest that the contractor will be subject to quite serious risks. I know that the Minister will say that the imposition of ministerial whim or anything like that will never arise; but the fact is that the Bill seems to allow that. We will come on to that in due course so that we can look at it in detail. Basically, I should have thought that the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, is worth reflecting on rather more than we have done so far.
Lord Strathclyde: The amendment being spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, introduces the concept of "whim" far more than anything lower down that we may discuss later on. There may have been a stage when we were drafting the Bill when we may not have had the 10-year period. But on balance we took the view that it was right for there to be a limit. It could have been seven or 15 years, but 10 years is about right in our experience for the kinds of contracts that would be let under the order-making powers.
I hope that I have dealt with the defence aspect to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and that we can now move on.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Do I take it from the Minister's reply that all defence contracts are outside the ambit of the Bill?
Lord Strathclyde: That is the wrong question. It is not a question of whether all defence contracts are outside the ambit; it is whether or not they are statutory. If they are statutory they fall under the ambit of the Bill and if they are not, then they do not. My advice is that there are very few statutory functions under the Ministry of Defence, for the reasons I explained earlier.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister says that there are few statutory functions under the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister explain what those statutory functions are that fall under the ambit of the Bill? We need to know the answer to that. It is not a minor matter.
Lord Strathclyde: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, this is continuing a debate that we had earlier this afternoon when the noble Lord, quite rightly,
330
wished to probe the Government on excluding defence risks in their entirety. I dealt with that matter to the satisfaction of the noble Lord such that he withdrew his amendment.
We do not have a definitive list—I certainly do not have one to hand—of the possible statutory functions. I explained earlier and shall explain again that the majority of contracts or functions which are carried out by the Ministry of Defence are performed under the prerogative powers of defence council and the defence council does not have statutory functions which would be affected under the Bill. The answer to the question is that there are very few.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Can the noble Lord do me this favour and provide, before the Report stage of the Bill, those functions of the Ministry of Defence which come within the ambit of the Bill? If he can do that, write to me and place a copy in the Library, I shall be perfectly happy and will move on to my next amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: I shall certainly write if I can find any.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister must write to me to say whether or not there are functions. I expect a letter from the noble Lord—whichever noble Lord on the Front Bench is responsible at that point in time— specifying which functions of the Ministry of Defence come within the ambit of the Bill. If I can obtain that assurance from the Minister, which he has given me, then I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I am advised that we have not been able to identify any defence-related statutory functions which would fall within the ambit of the Bill. Trident purchase and Trident building are not statutory functions. I shall make sure that we check again. On the basis of that assurance I hope that we do not need to have needless correspondence.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I shall be grateful if the Minister will check again, write to me and place a copy in the Library explaining exactly what he said—that there are no functions within the MoD. If he can do that I shall be satisfied. If he cannot, then no doubt he will identify certain functions. But he must not try to delude the Committee into thinking that he does not know or have the faintest idea. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 201G:
Page 53, line 36, leave out ("10") and insert ("4").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Clause 62 stand part. Having established, or nearly established, or partially established, or perhaps established, that there are no defence arrangements within the ambit of the Bill, it seems to us that a 10 year provision is perhaps a little long. If we are not discussing ordering Trident, what are we discussing? I should like the Minister to justify why he wants the years in the Bill to be four, 10, 12, 15 or

331
whatever. It is no use throwing darts at a dart board and saying that 10 is a reasonable number. Twenty is a reasonable number; four is a reasonable number; two is a reasonable number. On what basis and on what evidence has the 10-year provision been included in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: I am very disappointed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I was expecting a stout defence of the figure four, but we got none. I can only assume that he cannot think of a good reason why the figure should be four years.
We considered very carefully a range of figures. Our aim is to ensure that delegations to contractors are reviewed regularly while not imposing too short a time limit on authorisations. That is why we came up with a figure of 10 years. It is about right as a long stop, though naturally we would expect contracts and authorisations normally to be for a shorter period.
I cannot help but refer back to the previous amendment moved so ably by the noble Lord where he was asking for a complete relaxation of the 10-year rule. Now he thinks it should be shortened. Increasingly I believe that 10 years is the correct figure. That is what we have settled on and I hope that the noble Lord will approve of that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: On all the contracting out arrangements that have been made since contracting out started, what is the average term of the contract?
Lord Strathclyde: I do not have that figure without notice but I shall make a point of finding out whether the figure is available and I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: I am still very intrigued by the Minister's position. I understand that it is difficult to come up with a definite number. On the other hand, the noble Lord has been offered the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, which says that we all recognise that it is difficult to come up with a number. I am not criticising the noble Lord. I find it difficult to come up with a number. Lots of numbers seem reasonable. Why does the noble Lord not say that a better way of doing this is to fine tune the contract to the needs of the case? It might be, as the noble Lord says, generally less than 10, but it might be mostly as little as four. Equally, it might be more.
We have all had experience of these matters. I can think of people sitting in the noble Lord's department scratching their heads and numbers being bandied around. But sometimes the sensible thing to do is not to put a number in what may become an Act of Parliament but to write it in such a way that one has room for manoeuvre. We are probing for some clarification. I do not criticise the Minister for not coming up with 10 definitely. What I am puzzled about is the logic of coming up with a number. And I think that that is what the amendment is about.
Lord Strathclyde: That is not what the amendment does. The amendment says quite firmly that we should not have 10 years and that we should have four years. I believe that four years is too short. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, shakes his head. That is what the amendment says. If I am to be asked to deal with other amendments, I shall certainly be happy to deal with them. The
332
amendment says four. I think four is too short. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, agrees with that view. These are maximum figures. Ten years is a maximum. I do not think it is reasonable that we should expect contracts to be unreviewed for more than 10 years. I think that is a reasonable figure and it is on that basis that I stand by it.
Lord Williams of Elvel: But we do not know whether my noble friend agrees with 10 years, four years or six years. This is a probing amendment. I want to know why the Government have decided on 10 years. If the noble Lord is prepared to say that he will write to me giving the average term of contracts that have been let under all contracting-out provisions, then I shall be satisfied before the next stage of the Bill if 10 years is shown to be a reasonable figure under the circumstances. If it turns out, for instance, that the average term of contracts is two years or three years, then I might move this amendment again. I rely on the noble Lord or his successor to write to me with the appropriate information so that we can decide what we do at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 201H and 201J not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Functions of local authorities]:
[Amendments Nos. 201K, 201L and 202 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 54, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) Where a Minister makes an order under subsection (2) above, the authority concerned may, notwithstanding any regulations made under provisions as to anti-competitiveness, make compliance with requirements as to the employment of local labour an express term of any contract relating to the subject of the order between the authority and the authorised person.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would allow local authorities to insert a local labour condition into a contract under VCT arrangements without running foul of any criticism that that was anti-competitive. Such an amendment may be judged anti-competitive in the narrowest sense that it limits the freedom of contractors to employ whom they wish. We do not believe that it is anti-competitive in the sense that the same rules would apply to all competing contractors—in other words, there would be a level playing field.
What is the push behind this amendment? In recent years the Government have spent over £4 billion on inner city initiatives. Members of the Committee will recall some of them. There were the urban programmes of the late 1960s launched after the "rivers of blood" speech and the Watts riots. There was the initiative referring to working in the 57 poorest authorities. There was the founding of nurseries, language centres and the like and building communities bottom up. That was followed in 1980 by the UDCs and in 1981 by enterprise zones which switched from rebuilding communities to property regeneration and from there to estate action. In 1985 there were city action teams and in 1986 there were task forces. In 1991 there was Heseltine's city challenge. There is now English partnership with the single regeneration budget.
Each new initiative which, roughly speaking, coincides with the advent of each new Secretary of State for the Environment, has been funded by top-slicing the previous programme, thus simultaneously satisfying the Treasury's urge for cuts and the Minister's urge for publicity. The Government have therefore spent quite a lot of money and generated a great deal of publicity, but have such urban initiatives worked?
In the past couple of years we have had two major studies by central government. In November 1992 there was the study by the DTI of the task force initiative and in the past month there has appeared a 450-page report by the DoE on surveying urban programmes, as well as continued monitoring by the Audit Commission.
Certain inescapable conclusions follow which I hope this amendment addresses. The economic conditions of unemployment, and so on, are worsening and they are worsening in these priority areas perhaps less severely than would have been the case without these programmes. Therefore, these programmes have slowed down decline, but they have not stopped it and certainly not reversed it. Why? It is because most of that very large sum of several billion pounds has been spent not by local communities but taken outside them by contractors.
Contractors and developers have parachuted in from outside. In London Docklands, for example, 80 per cent. of the jobs went to outside labour—that is, to commuters. Where new jobs have been created in the inner cities, it is often at the expense of jobs elsewhere in the local economy. The task force report identified the fact that for every three jobs created in the task force, two were stripped out from adjoining areas. In other words, "trickle down" has not worked in urban programmes in this area, just as it has not worked in any other part of life. Only a modest proportion of those several million pounds has been retained by the local communities.
That has been worsened because in the mid-1980s the Government's switch of resource moved away from revenue programmes, which fund people, to capital programmes, which build things. As a consequence, despite the array of initiatives, it is still the case that in the inner cities half of those under 25 are unemployed. The proportion is worse for the ethnic minorities and the disabled.
I should like to quote from the Department of the Environment's latest report. It comprises 450 pages and was published three weeks ago. Page 54 of that report, which assesses the impact of urban policy, states:
"The impact of public resource has been diffuse and has been of little direct help to those living in the worst areas".
That is a pretty damning indictment. The report continues:
"Linkages between developmental programmes and distributional programmes"—
that is, the poverty programmes—
"appear not to have been very effective. The perceptions of most inner city residents confirm this. The widespread view is that infrastructural schemes may have had an impact on areas, especially those with commercial potential such as waterfront areas, but the residents themselves see little direct or indirect economic benefit from most of them".
I repeat that that was from the DoE's own 450-page report of three weeks ago. In my view, that report has damned £4 billion of urban programme money on the ground that very little of it has been retained by the local communities.
In my mind there is absolutely no doubt that social security expenditure is unemployment driven. Inner city problems are unemployment driven—
Lord Henley: Rubbish!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Oh yes. Inner city problems are unemployment driven. I shall be happy to swap sources and research with the noble Lord on this point at any time. Youth crime and the problems facing lone parents are unemployment driven. Homelessness is unemployment driven. Therefore, it is of crucial importance when urban programmes fail to generate local jobs for local people. If such programmes fail to generate local jobs, that means that local people cannot move off benefit, and the programmes are thus failing to give them a stake in their local community. The programmes are failing to increase local incomes which, alone, will sustain local jobs and local enterprises. They are important because they will be permanent and will not dry up when central government money again moves on and out.
That is why it is essential that urban programmes should be about people, not property; about employment, not infrastructure. They should respect the fact that the local authority should be a major player, ensuring that needy areas are not asset-stripped simply to fund the even more needy areas. Developers come and go; local authorities endure. That is why we believe that it was so stupid of the Government—I repeat that it was stupid—to outlaw clauses requiring that, where desirable and appropriate, there should be local labour specifications in the contracts —that is, contract compliance. That is not always necessary—certainly in the more prosperous areas—and it is not always even desirable, but where it is (particularly in the inner city areas which are in receipt of urban programmes) the local authorities should have the power to insert such specifications into contracts otherwise that commercial activity by a private contractor may benefit the contractor, but not the community in which he is operating.
The amendment is a way of ensuring that we complement government investment in the urban programmes. The amendment would stop private contractors asset-raiding those government programmes to export those resources outside the areas on which they were meant to be targeted. The Minister may rightly say that local labour is not always adequately trained. In that case, the contractors, the local authorities, the TECs, the education authorities and the like should encourage that training. There is nothing new about this. The Government themselves use such provisions in Northern Ireland and in some urban programmes, such as housing action trusts. While requiring them in Northern Ireland, and permitting them in HATS, the Government then proceed to denounce

335
them as anti-competitive and illegal in other equally important, equally targeted programmes, thus undermining the effectiveness of their own policy spend.
The amendment would allow local authorities to insert such a clause into voluntary contracts, without being vulnerable to judicial review on the ground that it is anti-competitive. I hope that if the Government mean to target their money on urban programmes effectively, they will allow a provision which, above all, will permit local communities to retain the benefit of those programmes. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness made a quite lovely speech. I have to say that I thought it was totally and utterly irrelevant, and I reject virtually everything that she said. Her speech was totally lacking in reality. What she failed to point out was that unemployment is coming down in virtually every region and part of the country. Interestingly, we have not had a Question from the noble Baroness's noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington on this subject for some nine months. It is interesting that unemployment has now been coming down for something like 15 months. That might go some way towards explaining why the noble Baroness's noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington has not been asking such Questions.
Let us look at the amendment. It would allow local authorities to include clauses to secure the employment of local labour in any contracts for work which they let which are subject to an order under Clause 59. As the noble Baroness will know, it is a long-standing international and national policy, translated into law in several cases, that such clauses may be discriminatory. Employers, not clients, are best placed to decide who has the necessary skills to carry out work for which they wish to contract.
The amendments would contravene provisions of the Treaty of Rome and, where EC public procurement directives apply, about which the noble Baroness no doubt knows, to the relevant contracts, those directives prohibit public purchasers from taking any action which restricts the free movement of workers, the freedom to provide services, or discrimination on the ground of nationality across the European Community.
Government policy is that public procurement should concentrate on value for money, and should not be used to achieve other aims. In addition, Part II of the Local Government Act 1988 prohibits local authorities from including non-commercial matters in their public supply or works contracts; and Section 17(5) (a) of that Act specifically defines as non-commercial the composition of a contractor's workforce. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: I am intrigued by the Minister's response. I did not realise that he wanted to have a debate on the current state of the macroeconomy. If he
336
does, I am not prepared and, speaking entirely from memory, this is the slowest recovery from a depression that I think we have had—
Lord Henley: Will the noble Lord—
Lord Peston: I have not finished yet.
Lord Henley: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Peston: I thought that the Minister might like to hear the whole list of things—
Lord Henley: Will the noble Lord accept that what is rather interesting about this recovery is that unemployment in this country started coming down far earlier than any of the pundits, including eminent economists such as the noble Lord, suggested? It has come down far earlier and far quicker than even the noble Lord himself might have suggested.
Lord Peston: I do not know about other eminent economists. As I think the Minister was reminded just a year ago, I was one of the first economists in your Lordships' House to point out what was happening to unemployment. It is falling, by any past experience, rather slowly. The recovery from the depression is slow. Again, I am speaking entirely from memory, because I did not think that we were going to have this debate, but so far as I know the rise in employment is minuscule, and I think the rise—
Lord Henley: Will the noble Lord—
Lord Peston: Why does not the Minister let me finish all the points?
Lord Henley: Will the noble Lord give way, because I think that this is important? As he knows, we have two counts for unemployment and two counts for employment. Let us take the Labour Force Survey which is the ILO agreed one. That has shown that unemployment has come down by about 180,000 over the past year, and that employment has gone up by about 155,000. I cannot remember the precise figures. Under one of the counts, we have seen an increase in employment as well as a decrease in unemployment.
Lord Peston: We might as well go through this step by step. I believe that the Minister will agree that on the other count we have not. I am speaking entirely from memory, which I know is silly and I ought to have rushed out and obtained economic trends before proceeding, but I did not know that the Minister was interested in the matter at this time. I believe that the rise in what are called "full-time jobs for employees" is zero. I am speaking entirely from memory; but the Minister may remember that.
If that is the background, the Minister should be a little less confident about what we are discussing. It is background to the amendment and the only reason that I have responded is that the Minister wanted to make those comments. Two matters are interesting, and this is where one wishes to probe where the Government stand. The first is the Treaty of Rome. The Minister appeared to be saying that because we signed that treaty, we cannot in the case of contracted-out functions

337
discriminate in favour of the local labour force. It was not clear whether he was saying that because of the Treaty of Rome a local authority could not discriminate in favour of its own area. I believe that that is not right. Therefore, the Treaty of Rome would limit us to what one might call "employment discrimination" in the case of a contracted-out function.
I do not speak with total confidence; but if that were true, it would be a strong case against contracting out. It would suggest that we ought not to contract out because we can do what it is legitimate for elected local people to do —that is to say, "In carrying out our function, we ought to give more than zero weight to the people who are in our locality and who vote for us".
The Minister said that the Government are committed to value for money, whatever that means. However, he did not include in "value for money" as a pure benefit the employment of people in the locality who would otherwise be unemployed. The question of value for money is itself a debatable matter and that is why the amendment has been tabled.
It may well be that the Government say they do not care about that. They may say that all they are concerned about is value for money defined in a narrow commercial sense. Local people may say that in their area there is considerable unemployment and they would like to gear their functions towards helping those people. However, within the traditions of the Minister's party—and I go back certainly 60 years to his former noble friend Lord Stockton, whose concern with these issues was enormous—
Lord Henley: Which one?
Lord Peston: The one, if I may say so without any disrespect to our current noble friend. The concern with local employment matters and with the erosion of local unemployment was a matter to which his party was at least as sensitive as ours.
There has been a certain amount of ill temper in these exchanges, in which I have not involved myself, but the slightly cavalier dismissal of these considerations is less than attractive. I was hoping that the Minister would say something a little more encouraging to my noble friend rather than taking the line that he has been handing out. I have intervened because I am rather anxious. I stand second to no one in my desire for efficiency in the provision of services. But within my definition of efficiency, concern for the employment of people who would otherwise be thrown on the scrapheap is a plus factor in the account.
Lord Henley: It is slightly unfair of the noble Lord to suggest that we are not concerned about unemployment. He should recognise, as I stressed earlier, that unemployment is coming down sooner than the pundits suggested that it would, and it is coming down as a result of government policies. I refer in particular to the great changes made by my noble friend Lady Thatcher; that is, the various reforms made to the labour market in the early 1980s. The noble Lord ought
338
to be grateful for that and it is about time that we heard from the party opposite a few words of thanks for those changes—
Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Lord interrupted me. We may as well carry on because this is much more interesting than some of the other issues that we have had. He will be aware—and I am sure that his officials have advised him—that the issue is extremely problematic. I stand second to none as regards certain aspects of the behaviour of his former right honourable friend, now his noble friend Lady Thatcher. She did have an impact. But the suggestion that labour market deregulation, which is what I believe the noble Lord has in mind, has been conducive to the reduction in unemployment is not supported by economic evidence. At the very least, it is controversial. If the noble Lord looks at the famous OECD report which has only just appeared, it seems to think that it is fairly problematic.
Of course, this is my subject and I should much rather discuss that than some of the other matters that we have discussed today. However, we should not continue with a general economic debate, much as I know that the noble Lord and I would enjoy that. I certainly do not wish to be disrespectful to his noble friend, and perhaps we can discuss that in more detail on another occasion.
Lord Henley: Obviously, I am under pressure from my advisers who suggest that we should move on to other amendments.
Perhaps I may conclude by mentioning one other OECD report which stressed that we had the best job creation record of all the OECD countries in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Other than that, I totally and utterly reject, refute and disagree with every point which the noble Lord made.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may venture to deprecate the use of this amendment to have a general debate on unemployment, treaty obligations, Thatcherism and general economic policy Much as we enjoy the wide views of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, this is an unsuitable occasion for such a debate. I very much hope that it does not mean that we shall have a general debate on the next amendment on the employment of women and after that, a general debate on the employment of disabled persons. That is an unsuitable way in which to deal with the Bill.
We already have five pages of extra amendments tabled between the fourth and fifth Committee days. That is why we are so far behind time now. I speak feelingly because the last two amendments on the Marshalled List are in my name. Nevertheless, discounting that, it seems to me that we are ranging too wide.
I should say in relation to the amendment that I hope that the Minister will not accept it because it seems to me to pander somewhat to local prejudice against workers from outside, all the more because that prejudice is likely to be focused on immigrant groups of workers coming in.
Lord Peston: I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I was trying to

339
say, "Please sir, it wasn't me, sir". I did not introduce any of those topics. In his reply the Minister referred to the economy, the Treaty of Rome and various other matters. I intervened only because he raised those topics and I felt that it was my duty, as the person in charge of the Bill on this side of the Committee, to reply to him.
I agree entirely that it is inappropriate to raise those matters. I hope that I have not goaded the Minister into making yet another intervention.
Lord Henley: I agree totally with the noble Lord. He made one valid point. He referred to the Treaty of Rome. That point is, strictly speaking, relevant to what I said. Everything else was perhaps not totally relevant; but then 99 per cent. of the noble Baroness's speech was also totally irrelevant.
10 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In that case, perhaps I may try to respond to the four points which the Minister sought to make, of which I suppose about 2½ of them were relevant to the amendment.
First, the Minister spoke at some length about general levels of employment and unemployment. That is not what was being argued. We are not talking about the general level of unemployment in this country compared with anywhere else, and therefore the efficacy of government policies. Clearly in this country we are dividing into work-rich and work-poor households. Increasingly, those who are marginal in their attachment to the labour market are concentrated in inner cities. That is a fact. If the Minister has not read the research from the Department of the Environment, then I recommend that he do so. If he does, he will find ample evidence to that effect.
Secondly, the Minister made the point that the DoE report on the assessment of urban policy is somehow all fantasy language. The point we were trying to make was that the noble Lord, as the Minister, was emphasising that what we should be concerned about was value for money "and not other ends". Those "other ends" have attracted £4 billion-worth of spending from other government departments. I repeat, £4 billion. Those are the "other ends" about which the Minister was so cavalier.
The amendment was seeking to highlight that the good intentions—and I believe that they are good—of other areas of government policy in urban renewal are being subverted by other aspects of government policy; that is, not allowing local labour contracts to ensure that jobs go to local people so that the benefits of such programmes are retained in the local community. The Minister may regard that as fantasy, in which case I feel sorry for the narrowness of his vocabulary and his vision. However, the point is that such policies are subverting other useful policies in trying to revivify the inner core of our cities. As the latest research has shown, while the peripheral areas, as DoE research calls them, have gained, the inner-core situation has worsened and continues to decline.
340
The Minister said that it was for contractors—he was speaking very quickly at that point, so perhaps he did not really mean what he was saying—to decide the necessary skills required of their labour. That is exactly the point. If you leave it to contractors, they will pursue their own legitimate but narrow interest of adding to their profits.
It is clear from all the history of inner-city areas that you cannot leave it to the market to regenerate such areas. If you could, £4 billion-worth of government programmes—both Labour and Tory—would not have been necessary. If that is valid for those mega-programmes of urban intervention, it is certainly true that you cannot leave it to contractors to decide which labour they will employ. If you want to use public money to fund urban regeneration, it must be retained in the local community. It cannot be left to contractors' decisions.
I turn now to the Minister's final point. I accept that there is an area of genuine difficulty here which we need to probe, and I hope that we shall return to the matter on Report. The Minister spoke of the implications of such an amendment for the Treaty of Rome as regards European programmes. Is the Minister saying that any programme in this country or in any member state of the EC that targets on poverty and, in doing so, seeks to target on urban development and so enhance local job creation is illegitimate and illegal? If that is so, I have to tell the Minister that it was only three weeks ago or thereabouts that we had a debate in this Chamber on the poverty programme in Europe; indeed, I obtained the report from the Printed Paper Office. The report mentioned several dozen initiatives funded by the EC and targeted on poverty of which many were local labour job creation schemes—in fact, the very schemes that the Minister told us 10 minutes ago were illegal under the EC. He cannot have it both ways.
As I said, I accept that there is an area of difficulty here. I do not know what the answer is, but it cannot be black and white. If it was, everything that the Minister said makes the initiatives in the report funded by the EC illegal. I have to put it to the Minister that any country —whether it be Italy, concerned about its southern region, Greece or Spain—has areas of extreme deprivation, unemployment, and seeks to target those areas in terms of local job creation. I believe that the Minister is saying that all such programmes are illegal; if not, then the contract compliance that we are seeking to pursue here, which would ensure that urban programme benefits were retained by the local community, must fall within that remit, must be legal, must be beneficial and must enhance the very £4 billion-worth of programmes which his Government have invested in those areas.
We have put forward a probing amendment at this stage, but I hope very much that the Minister and his staff will take some of the arguments away to ascertain whether we can explore them further. There is a real

341
point at issue here. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss it in a cavalier fashion just because it is late at night.
Lord Henley: I respond as briefly as I can by saying that it will depend very much on the facts of each particular case.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: With the leave of the House, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 202B:
Page 54, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) Where a Minister makes an order under subsection (2) above, the authority concerned may, notwithstanding any regulations made under provisions as to anti-competitiveness, make compliance with requirements as to the employment of women an express term of any contract relating to the subject of the order between the authority and the authorised person.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 202B is the second in a series of amendments that seeks to allow into voluntary competitive tendering what in the past has been called contract compliance. Whereas the previous amendment tries to retain the right to insist on local labour as a way of retaining the benefits of urban programmes, this amendment concentrates on the employment of women.
During the 1980s many local authorities improved access and opportunities to disadvantaged groups, especially women and ethnic minorities. Compulsory competitive tendering has had an especially severe effect on their employment prospects and conditions since women, the disabled and ethnic minorities are heavily concentrated in local authority manual services. Local authorities are major employers of women. I remind your Lordships that at the moment local government employs full-time about 600,000 men and 600,000 women. However, it also employs part-time 94,000 men and 820,000 women; in other words, it employs very many more women than men and they are disproportionately part-time. Part-time women workers, especially when their work has gone out to private contractors by CCT, have experienced reduced pay and conditions, loss of earnings and loss of employment rights, since many are now on contracts of less than 16 hours. They have lost rights to statutory sick pay, maternity benefit and pensions, though one hopes that recent EOC victories that extend pro rata rates to part-time staff may mitigate some of this.
It is also the case that on average women earn only 78 per cent. of male rates. TUPE has been quoted in earlier amendments, but it is of little help to women. As women are very often unskilled and have a high turnover in employment they are unlikely to be retained in employment and subsequently to continue their work. Without contract compliance, women in local authority contracts are likely to be corralled into segregated labour markets where they experience conditions of low pay, part-time work and often exploitative hours.
Contract compliance ensured that employers properly shared the social obligations on all of us in regard to the labour market. It is not anti-competitive provided all
342
employers are faced with the same conditions, are up front and all play by the same rules. It has been applied in the United States and it has worked. Between 1974 and 1980 in government contracts where contract compliance operated women formed 15 per cent. of the labour force. In non-govemment contracts where there is no such contract compliance women represent only 2 per cent. for similar services.
Government itself asks employers to observe contract compliance for high-flying women. It is called Opportunity 2000. We ask that for women in low paid part-time work the same respect for their rights and opportunities should apply. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I will try to respond briefly and not incite the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to make another intervention. I will not repeat what I said about European law. What has been said in relation to previous amendments still stands.
I make a couple of observations to assist the noble Baroness. First, I believe that the employment rates for women in this country are the second highest in the European Union; in other words, we have a far greater percentage of women in the workforce than most European countries.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Will the Minister accept that we have a far greater proportion of women in the labour force and also one of the lowest proportions of women in full-time employment in the labour force? We have a much higher proportion of women in part-time work, where conditions of exploitative pay, poor hours and lack of rights exist.
Lord Henley: Rubbish, nonsense, and all that! Obviously we have a large number of women in part-time employment. What the noble Baroness forgets is that some 84 per cent.—or is it 75 per cent?—or something of that order, of those in part-time employment are in part-time employment because they want part-time employment and do not want full-time employment.
No, I shall not take another intervention from the noble Baroness. Let me continue, because we are not having an economic debate.
I accept the figure quoted by the noble Baroness that the average earnings for women are some 78 per cent. of average male earnings. However, the noble Baroness should also have pointed out to the Committee—and it would have been useful had she done so—that that figure has been steadily narrowing. I am sure that the noble Baroness will welcome the most recent figures which brought it up to 78 per cent. from whatever it was before. In other words, the gap between the two is narrowing and no doubt in due course we shall see no gap there at all.
The amendment itself seeks to allow local authorities to specify in contracts made to carry out work subject to orders under Clause 59(2) that their contractors should employ women. Section 77 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 renders void any term in a contract which is

343
unlawful by virtue of that Act. A term which requires women to be employed irrespective of whether they are the best candidates is positive discrimination which is made unlawful by Section 6 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Therefore, the amendment, if accepted, would be unlawful on those grounds.
Apart from those legalistic grounds, I think that even the noble Baroness will accept that most women do not want special treatment of that sort. They want level treatment which allows them to compete with men on equal terms. That is exactly what the Equal Opportunities Commission is working towards. It is unlikely that the commission would feel that it could offer support to the noble Baroness on such an amendment. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Oh dear! The Minister's speech suggested that he had learnt nothing and forgotten nothing since the 1970s before the EOC existed.
I have two points. First, the Minister made a point about women's choice of part-time work. It is true that many women do indeed choose, prefer and want part-time work. That is not in dispute. It is equally the case that the percentage of women in work who are in part-time employment in this country is much higher than in the rest of the world. For example, something like 25 per cent. of lone parents in work are in full-time work in Britain while the figure is double in the United States.
Lord Vinson: If the women who are currently in part-time work are to go into some other jobs, and recognising that in the labour market there are both part-time and full-time jobs, presumably if women are to do those jobs, men will have to do the part-time jobs. Is that what the noble Baroness wants?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. Perhaps I may return to it in a moment. I was trying to take up with the Minister the point that I entirely accept that for many women part-time work is a choice because they can integrate their work around their family life.
Lord Henley: There are no part-time jobs in most other European countries.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The trend in women's work over the past decade has been the separation between jobs which are genuinely full time and others which are peripheral jobs. For example, in the retail trade there are zero hours contracts in which staff are available or required to work 10, 12, 15 or 18 hours at the employer's discretion in the name of flexible working conditions. However, that may be at any hours which the employer may wish, thus making it impossible for women to brigade that part-time job with any other.
All the evidence on what has been happening to women in the labour market shows that women's part-time work has provided an opportunity for
344
employers to gain flexibility by casualising the labour force. I believe that that is undoubtedly true. The position has been worsened by the loss of the wages councils.
The second point that I want to take up with the Minister—and this is where the vocabulary of the 1970s came in—relates to positive discrimination. Nowhere in the amendment is there mention of positive discrimination. I do not believe in positive discrimination. I do believe in affirmative action, which is what the EOC has promoted and has been the experience in the United States and so on. One tries to ensure that one removes the obstacles to women, ethnic minorities and disabled people to enable them to compete properly and adequately in the labour market. One removes the obstacles which stop them competing on a level playing field. That is what we seek.
I am very unhappy about the Minister's response. I thought that it was fairly unhelpful. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
10.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 202B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 58.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Eatwell, L.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

[Teller.]

Russell, E

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Monkswell, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

[Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kenyon, L.

Annaly, L.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor, V.

Leigh, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsay, E

Biddulph, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord

Clark of Kempston, L.

Chancellor.]

Colnbrook, L.

Mersey, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cranborne, V.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodney, L.

Downshire, M.

Seccombe, B.

Dundonald, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Goschen, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harlech, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E

Henley, L.

[Teller.]

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Vinson, L.

Howe, E.

Wise, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.23 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 202C:
Page 54, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) Where a Minister makes an order under subsection (2) above, the authority concerned may, notwithstanding any regulations made under provisions as to anti-competitiveness, make compliance with requirements as to the employment of disabled people an express term of any contract relating to the subject of the order between the authority and the authorised person.").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 202C standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams and myself. This is the third in a sequence of amendments which seek to insert into local authority contracts, voluntary competitive tendering, what we have long known as contract compliance.
All these amendments—the first on local labour; the second, on which we have just voted, on women; and this one on disability—seek to make sure that economic development in local communities most benefits the disadvantaged and those who are least attached to the labour market. The fit, the healthy, the white and the skilled will usually find employment. These amendments seek to make sure that those who are only marginally attached to the labour market—they may be long-term unemployed; they may be discriminated against; they may be disabled—also have access.
I do not think that any in this Chamber doubt that the Government wish to ensure fair and proper access to employment for disabled people. Indeed, I do not always, or even usually, or even occasionally, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, but he was involved in his previous capacity in the Department of Employment in reviewing access to work and aid from the Department of Employment to employers to make that possible. Possible changes which would put a burden on employers and would have encouraged them not to help disabled people were reviewed by the Minister together with his right honourable friend, David Hunt. It is welcome that the Government were willing to do that. That commitment to access to employment by the disabled was reinforced by the Statement made last Friday.
Yet the experience of disabled people in reality is that they are twice as likely to be unemployed as able-bodied people; they are six times less likely to be called to interviews for jobs as are able-bodied people; most disabled people lose their jobs because their employer will not adapt the working conditions in which they find themselves, even though for perhaps a quarter of them the disability will have been incurred during work itself; and having lost their jobs and often going on to what used to be invalidity benefit, they cannot subsequently re-enter the labour market because of the stereotyped view held by employers and their reluctance to make even modest adaptations to the workplace. Employers are also suspicious that the disabled take more time off
346
for sickness and that that will cost employers dear because they will have to foot the bill for statutory sick pay.
We know, and the Government accept, that such a stereotype is not true. The employer's stereotype is inaccurate. We know that most disabled people in work have less time off for sickness than able-bodied people. We know that most disabled people in work have fewer industrial injuries and accidents at work. We know that many disabled people offer higher quality of work; and we know that the cost on employers to make it possible for disabled people to work by adapting premises and the like is in fact very modest. In the United States in 95 per cent. of all firms it costs less than 5,000 dollars to adapt the workplace to make it accessible to disabled people.
In that context we support the Minister in trying to encourage employers to offer equal opportunities for disabled people. The Government have attempted to encourage employers to honour obligations to disabled people by supporting the quota system of 3 per cent. Again, we accept with the Government—there is not very much between us here—that very many disabled people are reluctant to register. Therefore, most of us accept that the quota system does not work very well, especially as the traditional jobs of the quota system are disappearing—the car park attendant is disappearing with pay and display; the lift attendant is disappearing due to cuts; and the petrol pump attendant, which is another job that is very often reserved for disabled people, is disappearing with self-service. Even the best local authorities seldom meet the 3 per cent. quota.
Earlier this evening I checked the figures in the Employment Gazette for April 1993. No county council, as of April 1993, met even a 2 per cent. quota for disabled people; only 53 metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts out of 360 met the 2 per cent. figure. Only 14 out of nearly 400 had more than 3 per cent. of disabled people in their labour force. Therefore, the traditional way of encouraging disabled people back into the labour force and keeping them attached to the labour force by operating the quota system has failed to deliver what I am sure the Government want—and what we certainly do.
We need alternatives. The Government accept that we need alternatives to encourage disabled people back into the labour market and employers to accept them.
The Government have recently rejected a civil rights Bill. They are putting out for consultation a paper requiring employers not to discriminate. Let me quote from Annex C of that paper, headed "Compliance Cost Assessment":
"We have assumed for the purposes of this CCA—
this is the Government's intention—
"that legislation would be introduced to prevent unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people".
We would welcome that.
The consultation paper goes on to say,
"Employers would need to do what is reasonably practicable to avoid discriminating against disabled people who work for them or who apply to work for them".
We support that also. It continues—a point we may wish to query—
"Firms in all sectors will be covered but those with fewer than 20 employees would be exempt".
We may want to press the Minister at a subsequent point on that figure. But we accept that for small companies, with a handful of staff, it would be unreasonable to expect them to make expensive adjustments. The paper goes on,
"There will be a right to make a complaint to an industrial tribunal with similar remedies to those for racial discrimination".
That is a strong, helpful and positive set of proposals. It falls far short of the civil rights Bill we should like to see; but, nonetheless, it is a serious attempt by government to make employers recognise that they may not discriminate unfairly and unreasonably against disabled people. Only where the cost will be excessive in adapting the workplace, or where the disabled person's skills are such that they do not render them employable in that specific job, would such discrimination be reasonable.
The Government accepted that approach. What I do not understand is why they have therefore been so hostile to an alternative, parallel and complementary route offered by local authorities over the past decade; that is, to include a clause in contract compliance again encouraging affirmative action for disabled people as part of a condition of a contract going out to a private contractor. No private contractor will take on disabled people if he sees them as the stereotype that the Government and the Opposition Benches are trying to challenge. Employers wrongly believe that disabled people are burdensome and do not wish to employ them unless they are required to do so.
Over the past decade local authorities, through contract compliance, have been trying to ensure that employers are required not to discriminate against disabled people; to take in a reasonable number of disabled people and to address the problems of access that they face. That is exactly what the Government are doing in this legislation. Yet when local authorities do it and it is called contract compliance, the Government have forbidden it as being anti-competitive. When the Government do it in the Bill it is regarded as helping the disabled.
What I am asking the Minister to guide the Committee on is this. In the light of the Government's commitment to encouraging disabled people back into the labour market—a commitment we all share throughout the Chamber—does that mean that the Government have changed their mind about permitting local authorities to include a clause to support the disabled as part of contract compliance, and will allow them to impose on contractors the same obligations as the Government are seeking to impose on employers in terms of their own White Paper?
It is a probing amendment but it would be helpful if the Minister could give us his response to those questions. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her little plug for the work that certainly I have put into
348
the access to work scheme. She may also add my predecessor in the Department of Employment, my noble friend Lord Ullswater, who is very much the one who developed it and brought it all together.
I wish to make two brief points to correct certain misapprehensions that the noble Baroness may raise. I accept that most employers are unable to meet the quota—that is rather sad—because of the fact that so many disabled people are not prepared to register. I want to stress that the Department of Employment—of which I am rather proud—manages to meet the quota, along with one or two other government departments.
I want to correct one other error of fact in the remarks of the noble Baroness. Under the 1944 Act or orders produced under that Act there were two reserved occupations. One was lift operators, but they were only lift operators for specific kinds of lifts; and the others were car park attendants, and that was only in special individual circumstances. I am not aware that petrol pump attendants were ever in that category.
As with the earlier amendments to which we both spoke and on which we voted, this amendment suffers from the same basic flaw of conflict with both European and domestic law, and it is not necessary for me to repeat those points. As I think the noble Baroness is prepared to concede, the Government, through a range of measures, already encourage employers to consider the skills and abilities of disabled people. Up and down the country I have been trying to get over the message that employers should be looking at people's abilities and not at their disabilities. Each person's disability needs to be considered in relation to that person and in relation to the job he or she is applying for. So a condition in a contract requiring contractors to employ disabled people could possibly be counterproductive.
I was grateful that the noble Baroness mentioned our Green Paper, or whatever one refers to it as, on government measures to tackle discrimination against disabled people which, as the noble Baroness is aware, was published last Friday. In fact, I think that she responded to the Statement made by my noble friend Lord Astor when he repeated the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People. That document seeks views—I must stress that it is very much a consultation document—on proposals to prevent discrimination in the labour market. The document includes the Government's preferred option of repealing the quota scheme for the reasons we give—that the quota scheme is not seen by a large number of people in the disabled world as necessarily the right way forward, and is seen as not necessarily appropriate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It has served its time.
Lord Henley: As the noble Baroness puts it, it has served its time. That may be as good a way of expressing it as any and I would be prepared to accept the noble Baroness's words.
As we went on to say in the consultation document, we are seeking—I have to stress the word "seeking"— a way of replacing it with a statutory right not to be unjustifiably —I stress the word "unjustifiably"— discriminated against in employment. I appreciate the

349
anxieties of the noble Baroness; but I hope for that reason that she will be prepared to withdraw her amendment at this stage.
Lord Peston: I notice that paragraph 2.10 of the Green Paper, as the noble Lord called it, although it is more a Pink and Blue Paper, uses the expression,
"to be underpinned by a statutory right for disabled people not to be unjustifiably discriminated against in employment".
Those are the words the noble Lord used so I assumed he was quoting from the document.
Will the noble Lord clarify in particular the Treaty of Rome aspect of this matter? It is rather intriguing. None of us doubts that the employment of disabled people must be more expensive.
Lord Henley: No!
Lord Peston: Yes, because one has to have vehicle access and things of that kind. There must be costs involved in employing disabled people as is the case in your Lordships' House. There are costs when we have ramps and things of that kind. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should not do it, but the notion that no costs are involved is quite mistaken.
If we accept my view—the noble Lord shook his head so I look forward to hearing him on that—that, other things being equal, there are costs involved in employing disabled people, and if the Treaty of Rome says what I thought the noble Lord said its meaning is, the only way disabled people can be employed is either by being more productive and able people to offset the cost or by paying them less. I find it very difficult to believe that the Treaty of Rome could possibly mean that. I simply do not believe it. In other words, if employing disabled people involves some costs and therefore the compliance requirements, as my noble friend pointed out, involve those costs, I find it hard to believe that that is incompatible with the Treaty of Rome. It makes no sense to me that whoever wrote that treaty would wish to argue that way. I shall sit down immediately so the noble Lord can clarify that part of where we stand.
Lord Henley: I feel very sorry for the noble Baroness sitting next to the noble Lord. She must be cringing with embarrassment at his remarks. The very message that we in the Government, and I think the noble Baroness herself, have been trying to get over is that very often there are no added costs to employing disabled people. You must take a positive attitude and look at their abilities and not their disabilities. Very often there are not added costs, but on occasions there are. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for stressing the matter. That is why we introduced the scheme Access to Work to provide help on those occasions when there are added costs.
It is true that there will be other occasions when disabled people in work have to be supported in one way or another. The noble Lord will be aware of such companies as Remploy. Occasionally there can be problems in relation to unjustifiable subsidies going to a particular employer. Obviously, we shall take all these factors into account to make sure that we are not in breach of the Treaty of Rome. The noble Lord should
350
be very worried about the attitudes he is expressing. I do not believe that his noble friend Lady Hollis would necessarily smile on them.
Lord Peston: The noble Lord has made me quite terrified. I promised myself that I was not going to wear my nasty mantle this evening. I am not going to reply in the same tone as the noble Lord. If there are no costs in employing disabled people there would be no problem in employing them and there would be no issue here. The reason we single out this matter is because there is a problem.
Lord Henley: But—
Lord Peston: This time let me finish. The noble Lord will then have another chance to argue. He may argue that there is built into our society and economy a kind of antipathy towards disabled people. That is the nature of the problem which I do not believe dominates the issue at all. There are a large number of disabled people: for whom there is no problem, which is what the noble Lord is saying. There are some for whom there are costs. That must be the case. If the noble Lord does not believe me, he should go downstairs and see the ramps we have built. They were not built for nothing but because it was the right thing to do, which is also true of many other things.
I am asking the noble Lord about a purely technical matter. It we were to insist that employer incur those costs, would we be infringing the Treaty of Rome? The noble Lord seemed to be saying that we would. That is all I wish to know. I have no difficulty where disabled people are not a problem. But there would not be this massive government document if there was not a problem with the employment of disabled people. I do not believe that it is just because employers are prejudiced.
Perhaps I may give the noble Lord some advice since he has been giving me some. He should not go around saying that it is all a question of nasty employers who are viciously anti-disabled and that the Government are going to expose them. I do not believe that for one moment. If we are exchanging advice let the noble Lord consider what I have said.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord's attitude has quite simply come out of the Ark. He is basically saying that the disabled are a problem and that employers do not want to help. There are some who take that attitude. We are trying to get over the message that they should not be doing that. But if we are to hear speeches of the kind which we have just heard, it will take a long time to do that. For most disabled people there are no added costs in employing them. People have their own abilities and there are no added costs. Not all disabled people are in wheelchairs. However, for those where added costs do arise, we have a scheme introduced on 6th June this year. Access to Work in no way breaches our obligations under the Treaty of Rome and nothing which we are suggesting under the consultation document will do so.

351
The noble Lord is barking up the wrong tree. I am trying to persuade him to adjust his attitude in a manner which might possibly please the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
Lord Peston: I really do not want to prolong this matter. If there are no added costs at all with the employment of disabled people, the noble Lord says that there is no problem. If there is no problem for many disabled people, why is there a problem? The noble Lord must believe one of two things: either people are prejudiced, which I do not believe, or there is a problem. If that is so, it would not be against the Treaty of Rome to try to solve it. I do not have to be accused of living in the Ark if I raise matters of this kind.
I am totally on the side of disabled people. I simply do not want to be told by the noble Lord that the Treaty of Rome prevents my doing something about it. That is what we are trying to get at.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The debate has gone somewhat differently from what I had expected and some odd role reversal has been going on. While clearly there is a problem with employers' attitudes and with costs, as far as I can recall over the past month or so some of us on these Benches have been trying to tangle with the Government on their figure of £17 billion, which is the entirely fake figure that the Government—
Lord Henley: No!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It certainly was! I am very happy to spend half an hour explaining to the Minister line by line why that figure was a fake. I can assure him that it was. It was not only double counting; it was treble counting on the one hand and forgetting all the cost benefits on the other. Nonetheless, I am sure that the Minister will recall that that figure of £17 billion was the reason that the Government were using for not going ahead with the Berry-Ashley Bill and instead substituting a series of targeted one-off proposals. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot now tell my noble friend that there is no cost when three or four weeks ago he suggested—
Lord Henley: I have to intervene because this is jolly important. At no point have I said that it does not cost to employ disabled people. I have said for a large number of disabled people —this has been accepted by all people, even politically correct people such as the noble Baroness, but obviously not by politically incorrect people such as the noble Lord, Lord Peston— for most disabled people, there are no added costs of employment. The noble Baroness is politically correct and she would agree with me on that. Politically incorrect people—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But the Government gave a figure for costs—
Lord Henley: Obviously, there are those costs, yes, but for most disabled people there are no added costs of employment. That is all that we are talking about. The compliance cost assessment, to which the noble
352
Baroness referred, of £17 billion did not relate to the costs from my department, the Department of Employment. As the noble Baroness knows perfectly well, the extra costs from my department in that £17 billion were actually rather a small figure.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister is quite right to dissociate himself and his department from the figure of £17 billion—
Lord Henley: No. The noble Baroness must give way now. I have not dissociated myself from that £17 billion. I fully agree with that figure—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: What I have said is that the portion made up by the Department of Employment was a relatively small amount. I shall sit down now before the noble Baroness misinterprets what I have said yet again.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has said that he fully supports the figure of £17 billion. Does he still do so on reflection and after the debate in the House in which we found that the Department of the Environment had, first, counted not only its own figures but also those of every other department so that it counted them twice; secondly, when it had put in no figures at all for work that had already been done to buildings; and, thirdly, when the Department of Transport's figures, which were £10 billion, assumed that all vehicles had to be replaced within five years whereas the Berry-Ashley Bill allowed up to 25 years for compliance? Does the Minister still hold to that figure of £17 billion?
Lord Henley: Yes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Then I suggest that the Minister takes a basic course in statistics before he has to defend the Armed Forces otherwise the front line forces might find themselves extremely vulnerable.
Perhaps I may try to respond to the three particular points that the Minister made. On the first point, we come back to a point raised previously, which is the relationship of contract compliance clauses to European legislation. There is a real problem here because the Minister has told us that each of these amendments is inconsistent with the Treaty of Rome, yet at the same time the Treaty of Rome is permitting its member states to go for a series of programmes. This comes from Poverty Programme 3:
"The European Community is expecting to go ahead on a fourth programme which will be concerned with the problems of social exclusion, including deprived minorities".
In all seriousness, I should like help on this from the Minister's aides over the next few months. It cannot be the case that the Treaty of Rome so overrides the domestic legislation of Britain and other member states that no home government can target pockets of deprivation, whether they be unemployment, ethnic minorities or the disabled. That cannot be right. We shall need some help on this. It is obviously appropriate for individual member states to try to address problems of deprivation, unemployment and disadvantage in their

353
own member states. Surely nothing that the EC says can override that. I should be grateful for the Minister's response to that point, if he heard it.
The second point that the Minister made was that such a contract-compliance clause would be counter-productive for contractors. The Minister asserted that. But assertion is not argument, and argument is not evidence. Will the Minister say why it is counter-productive? I accept that contractors may not like it, but so long as all contractors play by the same rules, it is clearly not anti-competitive. So why would it be counter-productive? The Minister merely asserted that but gave no evidence to support the assertion. The House is owed evidence to support such a statement. We are trying to ensure that contractors observe and do not subvert their social responsibilities.
Thirdly, I wish to return to the main point of the amendment which the Minister did not do me the courtesy of seeking to answer. That may be because the brief was written in advance of knowing what the argument was going to be. That is understandable, but we think higher of the Minister than that. We expect him to be able to think on his feet. The Government say in paragraph 2.10 of the document which has already been quoted by my noble friend:
"There is now widespread support for the voluntary system to be underpinned by a statutory right for disabled people not to be unjustifiably discriminated against in employment".
In other words, in that document, for the first time—we welcome the sinners who have converted—the Government accept that in employment the voluntary principle of persuasion and education is not enough. It has to be underpinned by a statutory system. That is right, and we welcome it. I am delighted that the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, as we have been told all evening, also accepts that.
If the Government accept that principle for themselves, why will they not allow local authorities to accept it for themselves? Why is it right and proper to underpin the voluntary principle with statutory legislation in central government activity and not to allow local authorities to do the same when it comes to their contracts? Will the Minister please address that point for me? I should like to know the answer.
Lord Henley: I do not believe that I can take the noble Baroness any further. I have made clear that we have produced our consultation document. We shall no doubt take note of everything the noble Baroness said, at length, this evening. It will be taken on board in our consideration of that consultation document over the next three months. The Government will then no doubt respond to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Government's response may coincide with our addressing these issues again on Report. I know that there has been a certain amount of knockabout, but this is an area in which the Minister has some considerable expertise, having been in the DSS and being now in the Department of Employment. What startles, surprises and saddens me is that he has not employed that expertise in seeking to
354
address the real issues that we have tried to raise tonight. I promise the Committee that we shall return to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 203 and 203A not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 203B:
Page 54, leave out line 16.
The noble Lord said: Under the Bill, the Minister is entitled to consult local authorities in England and Wales, or, in the case of an authority in Scotland, such associations of local authorities as he considers appropriate. This is a simple amendment. I believe that a Minister shall not make an order under this clause unless he has consulted those bodies. It should not simply be for him to decide who, or when it would be appropriate. It is a very simple amendment, but I believe that it would improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: As the noble Lord puts it, it is the most simple of all amendments. I believe that it is the most extraordinary amendment. It would remove the ability of Ministers to make an intelligent decision—and Ministers do make intelligent decisions—about the bodies to be consulted in respect of proposed orders. As it is currently framed, the clause would require the Minister to consult such representatives or associations of local government as he or she, I should stress, considers appropriate. It reflects the well-established, sensible and practical formula for determining consultation.
The effect of the amendment would be to require Ministers to consult all representatives of local government—self-proclaimed or otherwise—without any regard to the need for or relevance of that consultation. The fictional "Association of Local Government Strawberry Growers", for example, would have to be consulted about a proposed order in respect of revenue collection. I am sure that that is certainly not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has also made it consistently clear that he regards the quality of relations between central and local government as most important. To this end, he is committed to consultation with local government about the use of the proposed order-making power. The discretion that he would have with regard to identifying those bodies with which he would consult is not intended to provide a means to avoid the full and proper exercise of the commitment to consultation but simply to ensure that the scope of consultation is appropriate to the particular circumstances.
I hope that with that reassurance, the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister has been kind enough to give me a response. He said that Ministers were intelligent. That is a matter for Members of the Committee to decide—
Lord Henley: Some of us.
Lord Williams of Elvel: "Some of us", whoever it is. I do not believe that Ministers have a monopoly on

355
intelligence. I believe that my amendment is suitable and I hope that the Minister will consider it at the next stage of the Bill. Unless there is full consultation—not decided by intelligent, sub-intelligent or non-intelligent Ministers—these orders will carry no legitimacy. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Clause 59 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel: I was under the impression that there had been an agreement that we would not consider Amendment No. 205A and I was expecting a Member of the Government Front Bench to adjourn.
Lord Strathclyde: I am sorry that there has been some confusion. If there is an agreement to stop at this hour I am more than happy that we should do so. I am happy that we should continue consideration of the amendments in Committee tomorrow afternoon and deal
356
with the remaining amendments speedily. If that is the agreement reached with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who is looking after this Bill, I am happy to do that.
Lord Peston: I am slightly confused because the noble Lord used the word "if. I had understood that this was agreeable to both sides of the Committee and therefore we do not need to debate the "if. What the noble Lord said, ignoring the "if, is entirely acceptable to Members on this side.
Viscount Goschen: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Bill
Returned from the Commons with an amendment to one of the Lords amendments, and with the remaining Lords amendments agreed to; the Commons amendment to the Lords amendment was considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven o'clock.

  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION
  CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS CONVENTION
  CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS CONVENTION
  US CONGRESS: REPORTS
  US CONGRESS: REPORTS
  NAGORNO KARABAKH
  NAGORNO KARABAKH
  AFGHANISTAN
  AFGHANISTAN
  RWANDA
  RWANDA
  COASTGUARD AGENCY
  COASTGUARD AGENCY
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS
  PRISONERS: TRANSFER BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS
  LEGAL AID ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  LEGAL AID ADVISORY COMMITTEE
  FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT: COST OF PURCHASE OF BEHALF OF TENANTS
  FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT: COST OF PURCHASE OF BEHALF OF TENANTS
  CORMORANTS AND GOOSANDERS FISHING LICENCES
  CORMORANTS AND GOOSANDERS FISHING LICENCES
  CORMORANT NUMBERS
  CORMORANT NUMBERS
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIP: BULK PURCHASE
  ORGANOPHOSPHORUS SHEEP DIP: BULK PURCHASE
  COMPENSATION AGENCY
  COMPENSATION AGENCY
  NORTHERN IRELAND AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT DIVISION: AGENCY STATUS
  NORTHERN IRELAND AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT DIVISION: AGENCY STATUS
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCIES: PAVING BILL
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCIES: PAVING BILL
  WILDLIFE SALES CONTROLS REVIEW
  WILDLIFE SALES CONTROLS REVIEW
  AFRICAN ELEPHANT: ENDANGERED SPECIES CONFERENCE
  AFRICAN ELEPHANT: ENDANGERED SPECIES CONFERENCE