Sitting of 14 June 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT
  Madam Speaker acquainted the House that she had issued during the Adjournment a warrant for a new Writ for the borough constituency of Monklands, East in the room of the right hon. John Smith, QC, deceased.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Student Loans
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what analysis his Department has made of the effects of the introduction of the student loan scheme on the uptake of student places in institutions of higher education.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Student loans were introduced in September 1990 to support the Government's plans for the expansion of higher education. In the current academic year, a record proportion of young people have found places in higher education. The current student support arrangements, including the availability of student loans, have made this possible.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend recall that when he and I were at university—not together, Madam Speaker—we both used to take loans from banks and they were certainly not on such agreeable terms as those currently available? Does he also recall that just six or nine months ago Labour Members were saying that the student loan scheme would mean that students would not apply for higher education? Is that not another example of the Opposition's scare tactics?
    Mr. Boswell: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Student loans offer excellent value for money; they are merely tied to the rate of inflation and do not have to be repaid unless people are earning something like £14,000 a year. There is no evidence whatever of any decline in participation in higher education as we now have the highest number of students on record.
    Mr. Wigley: Whatever the backgrounds of the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), and whether or not they could afford loans and came from a culture willing to take up such loans, is the Minister aware that thousands of people come from homes where there is unemployment or fear of unemployment or
    500
    where people are just afraid of taking up a loan? Whatever his experience, mine is that people are not going to universities when they could, because they cannot afford to do so.
    Mr. Boswell: It is interesting to note that last autumn's student income and expenditure survey showed that for the first time the participation of people from comparatively less advantaged social groups exceeded 50 per cent. of the total in higher education. That gives the lie to any suggestion that our policies are exclusive or stop students choosing to study.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Minister confirm the statement of the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England that funding for teaching will be reduced by 14 per cent. over the next three years if present trends continue? How can students taking out increasingly expensive loans expect high-quality higher education in those circumstances?
    Mr. Boswell: The quality procedures that the Government have put in place, alongside those that the higher education institutions have introduced, guarantee the highest possible standards of education in our universities and colleges. The Government have increased real spending on higher education by approximately 20 per cent. over the past five years, they have increased real spending by 2.6 per cent. in the current year, and they have provided for an increased capital programme of 20 per cent. extra in the next three years. That shows that we mean business in relation to delivering higher education.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the system of student support in this country is the most generous anywhere in the world? Will he also note that the Labour party has still to say what it would do to replace student loans?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is certainly the most generous system in Europe and many of our students' counterparts in Germany, for example, would give their eye teeth for the support that our students enjoy. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our participation or in the delivery of higher education.

    Departmental Publicity
    Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what sum of money has been spent on publicising the policies and activities of his Department over (a) the last five years and (b) the five-year period prior to that.
    Mr. Boswell: In the past five years, the Government have spent £31.6 million on providing information to parents, teachers, school governors and others. From 1984–85 to 1989–90, £4.8 million was spent.
    This spending on publicity is currently running at around 0.15 per cent. of the Department's own spending on education.
    Mr. Enright: The Minister has said that he is proud of the increased spending on education, but is he proud of the fact that for every £1 spent on publicity when the Government took office £90 is now being spent? Would he not be better advised to spend on real research the millions

    501
    of pounds that are now put aside instead of trying to justify his petty party-political prejudices by expensive and glossy magazines?
    Mr. Boswell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better after getting that off his chest. Any expenditure by Government Departments on publicity is governed by a strict code of practice. We believe that it is an important part of the information revolution to give real information to parents, as we did in our parents charters this morning. Yes, it is a significant amount of money, but it is interesting to note that it is only half of that which we are still giving in grant to, for example, the inner London councils following the end of the Inner London education authority. It is a trivial amount in comparison with the total spending on education.
    Madam Speaker: May we have briefer answers, please?
    Mr. Pawsey: I hope that my hon. Friend will disregard the ill-considered comments of the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). If the Government's reforms were not publicised, would not the Opposition be the first to criticise us for seeking to introduce them by stealth?
    Mr. Boswell: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes and yes. It is for parents to decide, on the strength of the information that we provide, whether or not our reforms are well conceived.
    Mr. Don Foster: In spending all this money on advertising, does the Minister look for value for money? Does he agree that it was not value for money to spend £200,000 of taxpayers' money advertising grant-maintained status when, following the advertisements—this information is based on figures supplied by his own Department—only one hundredth of 1 per cent. of the people who saw them responded by requesting further information and the number of schools that balloted yes for grant-maintained status declined by 20 per cent. following those advertisements?
    Mr. Boswell: There are a number of excellent grant-maintained schools functioning in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world; perhaps that had something to do with the disappointment that he experienced at the weekend. The total expenditure is 26p per pupil on our advisory and publicity campaign in relation to grant-maintained status. That, along with other initiatives, is money very well spent.
    Mr. Dunn: Is it possible for some public money to be set aside to create a mechanism whereby the Opposition spokesman on education could be allowed, forced or intimidated into revealing their policies, given that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) does not reply to letters on aspects of her party's policy?
    Mr. Boswell: That is an interesting suggestion and one which I am prepared to discuss with my right hon. Friend, but to judge by the responses to date there would be a very heavy bill indeed for remedial education on that side of the House.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister take this opportunity to answer the original question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and confirm that Government figures show that the Department for Education is now spending £90 on publicity for every
    502
    £1 that was spent previously? Has any other aspect of Government spending increased by 9,000 per cent. since 1979? Is it not a sad reflection on the two years during which the Secretary of State has been in his present position that his main achievement has been to waste a record amount of taxpayers' money on self-publicity?
    Mr. Boswell: On the contrary—my right hon. Friend has spent taxpayers' money wisely to advise parents and citizens at large of the merits of the Government's policy. It would perhaps be to the point if the Opposition parties were to provide an indication of their policies. Good policies require good information to be given to parents so that parents can benefit from what is being achieved.

    Standard Spending Assessment, Hereford and Worcester
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the level of the education component of the standard spending assessment for Hereford and Worcester county council.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire): The increase in the Hereford and Worcester education standard spending assessment is higher than average. Allowing for changes of function, this year's education SSA is 3.2 per cent. higher than last year's.
    Mr. Luff: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that generous settlement, which is well above the rate of inflation, could have been used by the Lib-Lab pact at county hall to do two things that they shamefully failed to do? First, it could have funded the teachers' pay award, preventing the need for widespread redundancies in schools in my constituency; secondly, it could have been used to carry on paying discretionary awards, preventing much heartbreak and hardship among young people in my constituency.
    Mr. Squire: The House has heard my hon. Friend's wise words. He will know that it is a responsibility of all education authorities to determine their own priorities, but it is self-evident that his particular county council has had an increase in its standard spending assessment which is higher than the amount needed to fund the teachers' pay award. Therefore, it must account to his constituents for the way in which it has chosen to disperse the assessment, which on the face of it sounds rather eccentric.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister join me in congratulating Hereford and Worcester council on its manifestly good adult education because, like 70 per cent. of the United Kingdom, its people returned a Labour Member of the European Parliament in the past week?
    Mr. Squire: If I may bring the debate back to education issues, the question that I was asked originally, and which I am happy to repeat, is how education authorities of local councils generally determine their priorities. The party of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) once talked about socialism being the language of priorities, but in the case highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) the priorities seem rather strange.

    Pre-school Education
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to increase the number of three and four-year-olds in pre-school education; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Robin Squire: My hon. Friend has made it clear that we are looking at possible ways to extend the opportunities for children under five, as resources allow and within our policy of promoting choice, diversity, quality and cost-effectiveness. We shall announce our conclusions when we are ready to do so.
    Mr. Barnes: More than 20 years ago, when Lady Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education, she introduced a measure which became known as the kiddies charter and there was supposed to be an extension of nursery provision. The Government, which was partly her Government over the past 15 years, have failed abysmally to introduce measures to extend nursery provision. Is that not giving inertia a bad name?
    Mr. Squire: I resent and resist the hon. Gentleman's comments. There has been significant progress in provision for the under-fives, including nursery education, over the past 15 years. The hon. Gentleman has to be very clear. In the language of today, he and his party must indicate where they intend to find money for a more rapid expansion of nursery education than we are likely to produce under the proposals that we are currently considering.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the outgoing Ealing Conservative council increased the number of nursery places in Ealing by 400, at a cost of an extra £1 million in the past four years, to 3,870? Is he also aware that the Labour party promised a nursery place for all children under five in Ealing if it won the local election, which it did? Now it is refusing to do that, although it saw the books before it made the promise, to the fury of the parents of Willow Tree primary school and many others. It does not keep its promises.
    Mr. Squire: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has confirmed two important points: first, the very good record of a number of Conservative councils in that particular area; secondly, directly echoing the points that I made to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), whether or not the Labour party promises to do things before it gets into power, when it gets into power it suddenly seems to have an attack of amnesia.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister accept that we shall never have equality of opportunity for our children until we have universal nursery education? Why cannot Ministers give any lead in providing nursery education? Why is it that parents who live in a Labour council area have three times the chance of a nursery place for their children that they have if they live in a Conservative council area? Is not the lack of progress and the lack of commitment on the part of Government another reason why parents should have no confidence in the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Squire: One of the many differences between the Labour party and the Government is that we are keen to see services expand as and when resources are available. Secondly, we shall be guided by choice and diversity; we
    504
    do not believe that one unique form of state-funded provision is in all possible circumstances the right answer either for the children or for their parents.

    Special Educational Needs
    Dr. Liam Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what effect grant-maintained status has had on the provision of special needs education spending.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): With grant-maintained status, schools have greater flexibility to provide for all pupils, including those with special educational needs, having regard " as all schools must " to the new special educational needs code of practice.
    Dr. Fox: Will my hon. Friend perhaps take time to point that out to the Luddite and pernicious National Union of Teachers which is trying to spread fear among parents of special needs children? Will my hon. Friend point that out because the parents of those children have been frightened by the propaganda put out by the NUT to try to persuade them to vote against opting out?
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The sad truth is that the NUT is hopelessly out of step with virtually everyone these days, not least the other teaching unions. The task before us of trying to persuade the NUT and its membership of the value of what we are doing, not least in respect of special educational needs, is monumental but we shall not shrink from it. I am confident that grant-maintained schools are in a very strong position to join other schools in making increasingly good provision for special educational needs based on our widely welcomed code of practice. I have great confidence that that will be the case from this September forward.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister completely failed to answer his hon. Friend's question. Will he admit that there have been cases, such as that of Highams Park school in Waltham Forest which, on becoming grant maintained a few years ago, refused to carry on educating children who were blind or partially sighted? Another local authority school took over that responsibility without demanding extra funding. Is it not true that, time and again, there are cases of exclusions from GM schools of children with learning difficulties and behavioural problems which then have to be handled by maintained schools? The Government have said many fine things in the code of practice, but they are failing to provide the money to do the job properly.
    Mr. Forth: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has, in asking that question, departed from his usual very high standards of integrity. The fact is that none of what the hon. Gentleman says has any relationship to the truth. If he has allegations of the kind that he has made in a general sense today—not least the specific one, which is wrong—I want to hear about them. I am convinced that grant-maintained schools maintain the highest standards of provision for all their pupils, including those with special educational needs. If there are any cases of exclusion from any school on the basis of special educational needs, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me have them as we shall want to look into them and take whatever action my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can take.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received from county councils on grant-maintained schools.
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): From time to time, I receive representations from individual county councils and the Association of County Councils; they vary.
    Mr. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the questionnaire that Derbyshire county council sent to GM schools, accompanied by a letter saying that the council was concerned about the performance of those schools now that they are free of council control? Bearing in mind that the county council's deputy leader has been gaoled for fraud and that the chief education officer has just left to sell contracted-out services to grant-maintained schools—both policies that he opposed when he was a Labour councillor—would not the county council be better advised to direct its searching inquiries inwards towards the council itself?
    Mr. Patten: I am not responsible in law for what goes on inside Derbyshire county council—I wish I were. I had not heard that the ex-chief education officer of Derbyshire county council had joined the grant-maintained sector; I hope that that is the beginning of a trend. I believe that the leaflet and questionnaire that were circulated, which sought to intimidate the governors of GM schools—men and women who give up their time freely in the evenings—by asking what political parties they belong to, constitute a form of political intimidation which is becoming all too common in Labour areas such as Derbyshire and, for that matter, in Liberal-controlled areas such as Kent.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the parents of children who go to grant-maintained schools and—the great majority in Derbyshire—to local education authority schools are not worried about the issues put forward by the Minister, as was exemplified by the results last Thursday when in the three Derbyshire constituencies Labour voters numbered more than twice the number of Tory voters? The right hon. Gentleman should advise his hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) to watch his back because he is going next.
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend needs no advice from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, with his background as a grammar school boy and someone who studied at Oxford, might be in a position to give some good advice to Derbyshire county council.
    Lady Olga Maitland rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order now. High spirits are one thing, but we are going a bit too far this afternoon.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that parents at more than 1,000 schools in England and Wales have voted overwhelmingly in favour of grant-maintained status? Does he agree that, contrary to the Labour party, they are exercising their right of choice?
    Mr. Patten: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. After all, all our universities are grant maintained, all our further education colleges are grant maintained, and all our sixth-form colleges are grant maintained. I look forward to the day when all our schools are grant maintained, too.
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools, in the last six months for which figures are available, have held ballots for grant-maintained status; what percentage have opted out; and what were the equivalent figures for the same period last year.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on recent applications by schools for grant-maintained status.
    Mr. Robin Squire: In the six months up to and including May, 176 schools held ballots on grant-maintained status and parents at 104 of those voted in favour of self-government. The equivalent figures for the corresponding period last year were 385 and 302 respectively.
    In addition to the current total of 928 self-governing schools, 115 more have already been approved for grant-maintained status or have applications in the pipeline.
    Mr. Jamieson: Will the Minister note that, due to the rejection by parents of the Government's failed opting-out policies, the target set by the Secretary of State for Education of two thirds of secondary schools being opted out by the end of this Parliament will not be reached until the year 2072? Will he also congratulate the parents at Roskear primary school in Camborne, Cornwall, whose ballot result was announced yesterday? On a very high turnout, 84 per cent. of them voted no.
    Mr. Squire: Despite his education background, the hon. Gentleman is labouring under a few misunderstandings. There is no target for opting out schools. The hon. Gentleman tends to overlook the fact that, on average, three quarters of ballots result in a yes vote. More important, with self-governing schools we are seeing an increase in morale, a greater sense of achievement, greater value for money and, above all, more popularity with parents, as will be seen in September when in the main those schools are again over-full.
    Mr. Arnold: Has my hon. Friend noticed the decision taken by 60 per cent. of the parents for St. Joseph's school Northfleet to become grant maintained, despite the wicked and misleading campaign of the Lib-Lab-controlled Kent county council which diverted £100,000 of education money to that wicked campaign? Is it not the case that when parents and schools are ready to take 100 per cent. of the decisions and spend 100 per cent. of the education money on their schools, they will do so?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He speaks with knowledge of what self-government means in schools as there are eight such schools in his constituency; his constituents are fortunate in that respect. It is undoubtedly the case that some local education authorities and Opposition Members are still trying to cling to political power via the control of schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State now has powers under the Education Act 1993 and he will not hesitate to use them if any seriously misleading information is circulated.
    Mr. O'Hara: Given the Secretary of State's remarks about the grant-maintained status of universities, colleges and further education colleges, all of which were given that

    507
    status by legislation, is the Minister suggesting that he looks forward to legislation to force all secondary schools to become grant maintained?
    Mr. Squire: That was a good try, but, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the impetus for grant-maintained status remains the parental ballot. We believe that it is right to trust parents, whether it leads to a no vote, as the hon. Gentleman said it could, or, indeed—as we may touch on shortly—a yes vote elsewhere. It is up to the parents to decide. My Government and my party have no difficulty with that concept. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman and his party have such difficulty trusting parents.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the parents, governors, teachers and head teacher of St. John Houghton school in Ilkeston in my constituency who have just balloted successfully to become grant maintained., despite heavy opposition from Derbyshire county council? Will he undertake to ensure that their proposals, which have been submitted to his Department, are scrutinised as quickly as possible and accepted before the end of the current school term so that the school has the whole summer to prepare for the implementation date at the beginning of September?
    Madam Speaker: Order. Questions are much too long. Both questions and answers must be much more brisk.
    Mr. Squire: I certainly undertake to expedite the proposals on merit when they come in and determine whether the school can join other schools in my hon. Friend's constituency and, indeed, across the country which are finding the benefit of self-government.

    Funding, Rotherham
    Mr. Denis MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will visit Rotherham to discuss funding of educational provision.
    Mr. Forth: Department for Education officials visited Rotherham local education authority last Friday, 10 June, and discussed a range of education issues, including funding. They have briefed me on those discussions.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that at the start of the next school term there will be 1,260 more children at school in Rotherham, but some 112 fewer teachers because of the cuts imposed by his Government? Can he convey to the Secretary of State for Education the great distress of the parents and teachers of Rotherham at the decline in the three Rs in that borough and suggest to the Secretary of State that the new three Rs are reshuffle, resignation—his own—and right now?
    Mr. Forth: On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may regret the words that he has uttered because they are obviously an attack on the teachers and schools in his constituency. Every year, we get a ritualistic scare story from Labour Members about cuts in education and in the number of teachers. It has never been true in the past and it is not true this year, either. In a well-run local education authority and in schools which are well run as a result of taking responsible decisions with regard to their budgets, I am confident, and the evidence is, that the standard of teaching can and should increase; if not, people should be accountable through their councillors and governors for what is happening.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: In the event of further education colleges in Rotherham and, indeed, nationwide settling the dispute between college lecturers and college employers on the same basis as in Manchester college of arts and technology, will it be the Government's policy to insist on the holdback of moneys to further education, or will they accept that as a legitimate settlement?
    Mr. Forth: I slightly admire the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity, but I do not think that he is entitled to draw the sort of general conclusion from the specific that he is seeking to do. He knows well the new arrangements that have been put in place. If he thought about it, he would understand the sort of benefits that will be available in the further education sector from the new arrangements. As for asking the sort of question that he has, I suggest that he consider retabling the question to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, who will give him a direct answer.

    Student Grants
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the value of the student grant in 1979 at current prices; and what is its value in 1994.
    Mr. Boswell: The total public resources available to students through the standard rate of grant and full-year student loan for the current academic year is £3,065, of which grant is £2,265. The value of the comparable rate of grant with no loan available for students domiciled in England and Wales in the academic year 1979-80 was £1,287; its value at 1993–94 prices is £3,089.
    Mr. McFall: Does not the Minister recognise that the student grant has been cut by one third since 1979 and, with students being worse off by £29.50 a week compared with people in similar circumstances on income support, they are now the poorest of the poor? Is not that a ridiculous situation, both for the Government and for the future of this country?
    Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman asserts that students are the "poorest of the poor". It is remarkable that they are in our universities and colleges in record numbers. While no one has ever suggested that students are highly remunerated, they are well able to live and to study on the resources which are made available to them by public funds, and the figures substantiate that.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: How many students were in further and higher education in 1979 compared with 1994 and what has been the extra investment in education for young people in this country?
    Mr. Boswell: In 1979, approximately one in eight of our young people went to university. The proportion is now just below one in three. That is a huge expansion of which we are very proud.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Why do the Government prefer to give £10 million to encourage students from the Republic of Ireland to attend universities in the United Kingdom, rather than increase grants for United Kingdom students?
    Mr. Boswell: The right hon. Gentleman is aware of our obligations under the European Union and the Court's

    509
    judgment requires us not to discriminate against students from other European Union countries who are studying in our country.
    Mr. Forman: Is not it clear that the package of support that is available to students in this country is perfectly adequate and is not deterring increased participation? Is not the priority now to ensure that the standards of higher education are rigorously maintained?
    Mr. Boswell: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend has said from his experience, both in relation to the student support package and the essential importance of ensuring continuing quality in higher education.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to enable schools which have opted out of local authority control to opt back in; and if he will make a statement on the application of the principle of parental choice.
    Mr. Robin Squire: We have no plans for such legislation—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I know that hon. Members are all happy to see each other again, but the House must come to order.
    Mr. Squire: The whole House unreservedly welcomes its latest four-legged addition. Perhaps it would help if I recommenced.
    We have no plans for such legislation and we have yet to hear of a self-governing school which wishes to return to local authority control. Parental choice is central to our education reforms and the option of GM status is a very important part of that.
    Mr. Wareing: As not all parents have been as wise as those of the children of Croxteth community comprehensive school in my constituency in opposing opting out, and if the Government are really sincere about parental choice, would not it be correct for the Government to allow those parents who become—as inevitably they will—dissatisfied with opting out to ballot to opt back in to local authority control? Is not the Government's policy driven by ideology and not by academic and parental choice?
    Mr. Squire: As I made clear earlier, we have no sign of any school which has experienced self-government wishing to switch back. On a management basis, it would not be an ideal way of organising education to have schools criss-crossing back between different forms of control.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing the ballot at Croxteth. I know that he would wish me to mention that in Liverpool yesterday King David primary school voted yes to going grant-maintained.
    Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question that he just answered was particularly odd? He knows, as do the governors and parents of grant-maintained schools, that no school in its right mind which has taken that crucial decision would ever consider opting back in to local education authority control, with all the problems of bureaucracy and restriction that would follow such a decision.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend utters wise words. He recognises that the turnout at GM ballots is considerably higher than the turnout even at local elections.

    Teacher Training
    Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he expects the publication of the results of the pilot scheme on school-based teacher training.
    Mr. Patten: I understand that Ofsted intends to publish a report on the first year of the school-centred initial training scheme in spring 1995. I and my ministerial colleagues have been most impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of the schools involved and the popularity of the scheme with students.
    Ms Morris: Is not the pilot project a sham? By the time the results are published, legislation promoting school-centred teacher training will already be on the statute book. Would not a sensible Government have waited for the results of the pilot project before railroading legislation through Parliament?
    Mr. Patten: That is entirely wrong and an insult to the schools, many of them state maintained and not grant maintained, which are collaborating cheerfully and vigorously with this important new scheme for training teachers where they are best trained. To my mind, that is at the chalkface—in the classroom. It is at the suggestion of Ofsted that its report should be published next year, in the spring of 1995, so that the first year's experience and the first term's experience of full-time teaching by those excellent students can be examined.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that schools should have a major role in devising and running teacher training? Does he also agree that we need the very best trained teachers to meet the demands of the future?
    Mr. Patten: I agree entirely. My hon. Friend sets great store by the Teacher Training Agency once, should Parliament decide, it is set up, under the chairmanship-designate of an extremely distinguished schoolteacher, the high master of Manchester grammar school. Upon appointment, he has suffered the most vicious personal attack from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and I think that she will come to rue that attack.
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has on the number of schools and the number of students participating in teacher education partnership schemes.
    Mr. Robin Squire: All courses of initial teacher training for secondary teachers provided by higher education institutions must be run in partnership with schools from this September, and all courses for primary teachers from September 1996. Some 60,000 students are currently on courses of initial teacher training; information on the number of schools involved is not centrally collected.
    Mr. Pickthall: Is the Minister aware of the large number of problems being valiantly tackled by the current partnerships arising from the increasingly school-centred nature of teacher education? Does he agree that until those problems are resolved and the whole system has been assessed, it is sheer folly to pass the current Education Bill,

    511
    which will extend that mode of education? Is not he convinced, as the Opposition are, that the policy being pursued in that Bill represents hope arising out of prejudice rather than policy based on available data which the Government are ignoring?
    Mr. Squire: I reject the hon. Member's allegations. As he well knows from our mutual membership of the Standing Committee considering the Education Bill, the proportion of courses, both currently and in the immediate future, which will be school centred represent a small percentage of total teacher training. I agree with the hon. Member in one respect, because I pay tribute to the importance of the partnerships between higher education and schools that exist and will continue to exist.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is enormous demand from parents for better trained teachers so that all teachers come up to the highest standards of the many thousands of good teachers already in schools? One of the saddest things to note has been the independent analysis which shows that up to one third of newly qualified teachers are not competent. That is why I suggest that there is a demand from parents for better trained teachers. Our policy will produce that.
    Mr. Squire: The Government share my hon. Friend's concern about raising the standards of teaching. That is why we have established the Teacher Training Agency as a dedicated body, which will bring together all the strands of teacher training which were previously the responsibility of four different bodies.

    Sixth Forms
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of secondary schools have a sixth form; and what steps he is taking to encourage the greater use of sixth forms.
    Mr. Patten: About three in five secondary schools have a sixth form. Wherever possible, we want young people to be able to choose whether to continue their education in a school sixth form or a college, consistent with our policy of encouraging diversity and choice. I published guidelines on 16 February setting out the criteria against which I will judge proposals for new sixth forms.
    Mr. Moss: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]—that parental choice would be greatly improved if we accorded sixth form status to all the grant-maintained schools that have applied for it?
    Mr. Patten: As my hon. Friend can judge from the warm welcome that it received, that was an extremely popular question. Sixth forms are popular with schools. For some schools, to have no sixth form is like being a body with no head. We are also keen to give diversity and choice to all 16 and 17-year-olds, which is why we are increasing provision for grant-maintained schools to have sixth forms, with a 25 per cent. increase in the number of sixth form college places in the next three years.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. McAllion: The family of Andrew de Vries, the British citizen gunned down in Texas earlier this year, has been campaigning for a federal investigation into the misconduct of the homicide inquiry by the local authorities in Houston. So far, it has uncovered many inconsistencies and blatant lies in the flawed official version of events. Will the Prime Minister now overrule the Foreign Office which, until now, has steadfastly refused any Government support for the family's campaign? Does he accept that if he, too, chooses to ignore the massive injustice inflicted on that British citizen travelling under the protection of a British passport, many people will conclude that those who travel under that passport in future will do so at their own risk, as they will receive no protection whatever from the British Government when they face the direst emergencies in a foreign land?
    The Prime Minister: That was a very tragic death in unusual circumstances and I should like to add my sympathy to Mr. de Vries's parents and friends. It was an appalling incident and I know that the hon. Gentleman has given a great deal of help and comfort to the family. The trial was conducted according to Texan law and procedures and the grand jury decided not to proceed with an indictment. I believe that the best way forward at present is for Mr. de Vries's parents to put their points to their US legal representatives and be guided by the advice that they receive from them. I will certainly ensure that the hon. Gentleman and, of course, Mr. and Mrs. de Vries, are kept fully informed of any information that may come to the Government. We shall offer any advice that we can, but I do not think that it is for us to campaign. Advising is a different matter.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning tomorrow's strike by railway signalmen, which will bring misery and inconvenience to millions of people trying to get to work or go on their holidays? Does he agree that those running for the Labour party leadership should condemn that selfish action with equal vigour?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the strike is unnecessary and very much regret that it is taking place. I hope that, even at this late stage, it will be possible for the two sides to negotiate on the package that is there to be discussed. If the strike is to go ahead, I assure my hon. Friend that action has been taken by the relevant Department to ensure that a substantial amount of parking space will be available in London to enable as many people as possible to continue with their normal work.
    Mrs. Beckett: Can the Prime Minister confirm that it is still his intention to increase VAT on gas and electricity from 8 per cent. to 17.5 per cent?
    The Prime Minister: It is very interesting that the right hon. Lady does not want to discuss the question of a strike. [Interruption.] I think that the whole country will have noticed that that is the case and will probably understand precisely why. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any changes in taxation plans, he will announce them in the usual way at the usual time.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is not it the case that next year, with VAT up—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is not it the case that next year, with VAT up and tax allowances—including mortgage interest relief—cut, people will be paying more VAT, more national insurance and more income tax and, as a result, a typical British family who are paying £500 more tax this year will be paying £800 more tax next year?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Lady is so concerned about tax, perhaps she would like to make clear, as she indicated that she would a day or so ago, what her own tax proposals are. Does she want to raise higher taxes —[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and listen not only to questions, but to answers.
    The Prime Minister: Does the right hon. Lady want to raise taxes for those people earning more than £60,000, like the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), or for those people earning more than £50,000, like the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), or for those people earning more than £40,000, like the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? Those are matters that the right hon. Lady ought to make clear to the House, if she is interested in taxation. She cannot hide from the results of her policies and her promises.
    Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly tell the Prime Minister that we will vote against any such increase in VAT, but is not it still more evidence of the Government's sheer dishonesty that they are speaking about tax cuts at a time when the only things in the pipeline are tax increases for every British family? Does not the Conservative party realise that it is that sheer deception and dishonesty which have led directly to the biggest defeat suffered by the Conservative party in any national election?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady knows very well that day after day she and her hon. Friends make promises, with no indication of how those promises will be paid for. The shadow Chancellor then denies that there are promises. The right hon. Lady never indicates what the impact of her own promises and her own policies are. As the Government, we have to make decisions and carry them through; she makes promises and runs away from them.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend give his personal attention to the threatened prosecution of a number of Falklands war veterans? Is not it wrong that a civilian court should hear a case, not to do with something that happened in a prisoner-of-war camp or a safe area, but arising from allegations about what happened in the heat of battle? We expect a great deal of our young soldiers and may have to ask it again of them one day. May I ask my
    514
    right hon. Friend to give instructions to the Director of Public Prosecutions that that case should be speedily discontinued, in the public interest?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    The Prime Minister: I understand the strong feelings set out by my hon. Friend and the strong feelings of many people, but I do not think that it is an advisable principle for the Government to seek to instruct the DPP in that fashion. I do not think that that principle would be regarded as proper, whatever the circumstances.
    Mr. Ashdown rose—
    Mr. Skinner: Yesterday's man. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I know that Members are pleased to see each other, but this is going over the top. I want to hear Mr. Ashdown.
    Mr. Ashdown: I am glad that the Prime Minister agrees that these 15 minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time need to be reformed to make them more intelligible to us and make them more like what the British people say they would like to see, but will he now tell us what specific proposals he has for the House to consider?
    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to the House before, I believe that there is a widespread feeling that these 15 minutes could be more productively used, but I am conscious that on this occasion the Prime Minister of the day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will come directly to the point as to my personal view. Let me make another point first. I believe that it is right for the Prime Minister of the day to be here to respond to whatever questions may be put to him by Members. If the right hon. Gentleman asks for my personal view on the subject, I believe that it would be more appropriate if contemporary questions were tabled the night before, so that the Prime Minister of the day can deal with relevant matters.
    I am prepared to answer whatever questions, in whatever fashion, may be put to me. However, I believe that there is a view among people in the country that we should be discussing more relevant matters than is sometimes the case during some of the exchanges that take place during Prime Minister's questions.
    Mr. Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the survey by Manpower, which shows that job prospects are now at their best for the past four years? Is not the reason for that in large measure that we have not allowed the European Community to dictate our labour market policies? Is not it quite shameful that Labour Members of both this Parliament and the European Parliament are committed to destroying the very policies that have brought about that success?
    The Prime Minister: Thankfully, unemployment has been falling for the past 15 months—by some 300,000 —and I believe that that trend will continue, unlike in other countries in Europe. The significant difference between us and them is that we do not have the additional costs on employment that prevent so many people on the continent from finding jobs. Some 20 million people across Europe are unemployed; only in this country has there been a significant drop in the unemployment level.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Robert Ainsworth. He is not here. Therefore, I call Mr. James Hill.
    Mr. James Hill: This is an unusual event, but I am fortunate to be called. Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the extensive canvassing over the past two weeks, the issues raised were not education or the national health service, but the ways in which we could protect the public through our police and defence forces? Should not the Treasury team make that a priority and put more money into the police and defence forces as and when it becomes available?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friends at the Treasury will have heard my hon. Friend's plea. There is no doubt about the concern about crime that is felt throughout the country. We are seeking to deal with that concern through legislation and other means and we shall continue to do so. The matter cannot readily be solved at the stroke of a legislative pen. However, it does require legislation and that is being provided, together with other areas of assistance to improve the fight against crime.
    Mr. Keith Hill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hill: If the Prime Minister can recall life before Labour's triumph last Sunday, does he remember telling television viewers last Wednesday that we were through the recession and that he was glad that the rich had become richer? Can he explain why, in my south London constituency, unemployment is higher than it was 12 months ago? What comfort can he offer my unemployed constituents who have become poorer?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be in any doubt about the fact that the recession is over and we are back in mature growth. They would also have noticed the falls in inflation,
    516
    in interest rates and in unemployment throughout the country. I very much hope that that fall in unemployment will soon extend to Streatham, an area which I know extremely well. The hon. Gentleman, who also knows it well, will be aware that the policies of inner London councils in recent years have forced many employers out of inner London. That is one significant reason why, for many years, unemployment in areas such as Streatham has been higher than it otherwise would be. If the hon. Gentleman is proud of Lambeth council, I would be very surprised.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite large job losses in the Ministry of Defence, unemployment in my constituency fell 10 per cent. in the last quarter? Is not that a tribute to my constituents' positive action on job creation and to their refusal to take strike action? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the enemy of full employment is the strike, and that pious words on "Panorama" about full employment come ill from people who refused to cross picket lines just a few days previously?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Actions speak louder than words and, thus far, we have seen that Opposition Members will not cross a picket line although they are prepared to talk about unemployment. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman, as ever, say that the Opposition are on the side of the strikers, whatever the circumstances may be. I hope that the whole country noted that. The reality is that strikes are outmoded and unnecessary and they penalise innocent bystanders. I regret that the Opposition were prepared to do that last week and are prepared to do so in respect of tomorrow's strike as well.

NEW MEMBERS
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath or made the Affirmation required by law:

Margaret Eve Hodge, for Barking.

Gerard Sutcliffe Esq., for Bradford, South.

Judith Ann Church, for Dagenham.

David William George Chidgey Esq., for Eastleigh.

Stephen Creswell Timms Esq., for Newham, North-East.

Points of Order
3.37 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you advise me whether the procedure in Prime Minister's Question Time has changed, because I have always understood it to be the case that when hon. Members ask the Prime Minister questions, the Prime Minister answers those questions? If you look at Hansard, you will see that he now spends most of the time asking questions. Should not we either get extra time for that or refer the issue to the Procedure Committee, because it is becoming quite outrageous?
Madam Speaker: That is the first bogus point of order for today. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the Speaker is not responsible for answers given by Ministers. If the hon. Gentleman has a point to take up, he must do so directly with the Prime Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the second point of order will not lead to a rush of points of order, many of which are bogus.
Ms Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I ask that you make it your business to look at how we can raise matters of real importance during Prime Minister's Question Time? I particularly draw your attention to the fact that the wreck of the MV Derbyshire has now been found under the South China sea and there is a call to reopen the public inquiry. Would not it be proper that, through Prime Minister's Question Time, we could at least question the Prime Minister on whether he is prepared to reopen the inquiry or, if not, to make use of the ships that are now in that area to get to the bottom of it?
Madam Speaker: Order. It is a total abuse to raise new material at this time by means of a point of order. The hon. Lady, I am sure, is well aware that there are Adjournment debates, for which she can enter her name in the ballot, and I might look kindly on her and allow her an Adjournment debate on that matter in future.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1994 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]
  Question agreed to.

Regulation of Cosmetic Surgery
3.39 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish registration procedures for cosmetic surgeons in order to set minimum standards of training and practice; and for related purposes.
How many of us have wished at some stage in our lives to change the shape of our noses, our waistlines or some other feature? As we grow older, we may long to get rid of the bags under our eyes and the spare tyres round our middles.
In Britain, 60,000 people a year now opt for cosmetic surgery to do just that, and they are spending millions of pounds. Clinics in the private sector offer a multitude of different procedures to improve most parts of the human body. In our current society, which places such a heavy emphasis on youth and good looks, such clinics often claim to offer the quick, easy, painless and permanent route to a perfect physique and a wrinkle-free face.
Although plastic surgery in the national health service is generally very safe, the NHS—as we well know—is bursting at the seams, and there are long and growing waiting lists. Consequently, those who are in medical need of plastic surgery—such as burns victims, cancer patients or those with limb deformities—tend to be treated first, while those desiring cosmetic surgery are turned away. Some unscrupulous cowboys have identified and exploited the demand that the NHS is unable to meet; as a result, people are being permanently scarred and even losing their lives—so far, without the Government's batting an eyelid.
The fact is that anyone can set up shop as a cosmetic surgeon, with no qualifications at all. Indeed, unless such people specifically claim to be doctors or surgeons, they will not even be committing any offence. As soon as the so-called surgeon obtains the prospective patient's consent, he can legally operate without any expertise whatever. Horrifying though it may sound, even members of the Government could perform liposculpture in a private clinic; as long as they did not lie—which, of course, they never do!—it would be perfectly legal.
Most of the mistakes made by these butchers are rectified by plastic surgeons practising in the NHS. To repair botched surgery can take several operations and cost up to £10,000—a cost which, of course, is borne by the NHS. There can also be a long wait for surgery, especially as the disfigurements involved, although horrific, are not life-threatening.
Many such clinics gain a good deal of business from advertising in national newspapers and women's magazines. They use misleading images and claims, offering "the looks you always desired" or "to change your whole outlook on life". The Advertising Standards Authority has written to me providing a number of existing guidelines for cosmetic surgeons. They state that no advertiser should take improper advantage of any characteristic or circumstance that may make consumers vulnerable—for example, by exploiting their credulity, or their lack of experience or knowledge, in any manner detrimental to their interests. No categorical statements should be made, such as "walk-in, walk-out procedure" or "always a minor procedure", especially in the case of liposculpture. That is because any form of invasive surgery may involve complications.

519
Those guidelines, nevertheless, have been systemically broken by many disreputable operators. In order to create the illusion of credibility, clinics claim that their surgical staff are Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons. That may very well be true, but the particular surgeon could be a pathologist with no expertise or experience in cosmetic surgery. To draw an extreme comparison, let us imagine a Boeing 747 being piloted by someone who trained on crop-spraying planes.
The president of Royal College of Surgeons, Professor Norman Browse, wrote to me stating:
"it is the College's view that no person should perform surgical procedures unless they are properly trained."
Even our animals have better protection. At the moment, doctors cannot operate on an animal unless they qualified as a vet, yet, as things stand, a vet could perform cosmetic surgery on a member of the public. Such unprofessional conduct may well result in the vet being struck off, but in practice this would not stop him or her continuing to practise cosmetic surgery in the private sector.
The medical profession has always been controlled and regulated by strict ethics. However, with the huge sums of money now involved in private cosmetic surgery, the voluntary codes of practice have been breached by some outfits to make quick, easy money. Those cowboys perform surgery in the most appalling conditions at great risk to the patient. A woman who got in touch with me was given liposculpture in a ground floor office in Harley street. She said:
"I think the operating table was a dental chair. They asked me to turn over onto my stomach, or my side, but the chair was the wrong shape and it was very difficult. I was asleep most of the time, so I think that the anaesthetic must have been a general.
At some stage during the operation (I was told that it was towards the end) I woke up. I was in tremendous pain and began screaming. They were still taking fat from my legs. The doctor told me afterwards that he had to continue with me awake, or my legs would have been uneven. It hurt me badly. My legs were uneven."
The procedure is advertised in women's magazines as "minor and gentle". It turned out that the cosmetic surgeon was a general practitioner. He had performed a surgical operation without any surgical training and had administered a general anaesthetic without an anaesthetist.
At present, clinics that offer only "day-care" surgery can exploit a loophole in the law which means that they do not need any facilities to cope with the emergencies and complications which can arise with some of the procedures involved in cosmetic surgery. That type of "office surgery" is highly dangerous and needs to be stamped out.
520
The level of official complaints is relatively low, but that is due to the complex psychological attitudes involved. The General Medical Council believes that
"patients seeking cosmetic surgery may frequently be psychologically vulnerable and may not have the necessary knowledge to make an informed decision."
If an operation worsens a disfigurement that was causing great distress, or creates a new one, the victim will obviously be increasingly embarrassed and filing a complaint is probably the last thing on his or her mind. One such victim told me that when her surgery went wrong,
"It shattered my whole life"
and left her "feeling suicidal".
Victims who complain have to follow a complex and potentially confusing set of procedures. To prosecute for negligence they must sue the doctor involved; this is costly and drawn out, requiring patients to draw attention yet again to their disfigurement.
The clinics advertise free glossy brochures to advise potential customers but the brochures are designed to encourage people to have as much done as they can afford. The aim is to sell body parts by mail order. Surgeons at such clinics often work on commission, so the more operations they perform, the more money they pocket.
The problem has been swept under the carpet for far too long. It is a complex subject, but too many people are suffering acutely at the hands of cowboys who have been given a free rein to abuse the British public's trust in the voluntary system of medical ethics. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), has said that it is not a matter for the Department of Health, but the responsibility clearly lies with the Department. Action must be taken as soon as possible to stop any more innocent people being subjected to this butchery at the hands of some greedy and unscrupulous people.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Stephen Byers, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Ms Angela Eagle.

Regulation of Cosmetic Surgery
  REGULATION OF COSMETIC SURGERY
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd accordingly presented a Bill to establish registration procedures for cosmetic surgeons in order to set minimum standards of training and practice; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]

  GATT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Wood.]
  [Relevant documents: The White Paper on the Uruguay round of multi-lateral trade negotiations 1986–94 [Cm. 2579], Miscellaneous (Nos. 13 and 15 to 30, 1994), Agreements, done at Marrakesh on 15th April 1994, establishing the World Trade Organisation [Cm. 2556 to 2559, 2561, 2562, 2564 to 2569 and 2571 to 2575] and Miscellaneous (No. 14, 1994), Final Act, done at Marrakesh on 15th April 1994, embodying the results of the Uruguay round of multi-lateral trade negotiations with ministerial decisions and declarations and understanding on commitments in financial services [Cm. 2570].]
  3.50 pm
  The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The conclusion of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations on 15 December 1993 brought to an end seven years, two months and 25 days of complex and often fraught negotiations. I shall concentrate on what the negotiations achieved—a further crucial contribution to higher world growth, more open world markets and a more stable climate for international trade—but I begin by putting this achievement in its historical context.
  The Uruguay round was the eighth round in the 47–year history of GATT, the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Like all previous rounds, one of its principal aims was to reduce tariffs—the most obvious and, when GATT was founded, the most serious barrier to trade. Indeed, the earliest rounds, such as the Torquay round in 1951, were concerned with nothing else.
  However, as GATT developed, it became clear that reducing tariffs, although vitally important, was not by itself enough to further the process of trade liberalisation. Starting with the Kennedy round in the mid-1960s, and continuing with the Tokyo round in the 1970s, GATT also began to grapple with extending and amplifying the trade rules to take greater account of the use of other barriers to trade such as anti-dumping measures. The Uruguay round greatly extended that process, bringing new spheres such as services and intellectual property within the trade rules for the first time. It was the largest and most complex series of trade negotiations ever held.
  Although the Uruguay round has greatly increased the scope and complexity of the trade rules, it is worth remembering that the heart of the rules are the same principles of non-discrimination that have been central to the growth of world trade since 1947—above all, the most-favoured nation, or MFN, principle and the principle of national treatment. I remind the House what the principles involve.
  The MFN rule requires that all GATT members treat all other GATT members at least as well as they treat their most-favoured trading partner. The national treatment rule prevents countries from protecting their domestic industries by applying internal taxes or regulations differently from imported goods and goods produced at home. Impressive benefits have flowed from the application of these principles in the rules of GATT and from the steady reductions in tariffs through successive rounds of negotiations.
  In 1947, tariffs on goods imported by industrialised countries averaged no less than 40 per cent. By the start of the Uruguay round, the figure had fallen to 5 per cent. In volume terms, world merchandise trade has multiplied 12–fold since GATT was established in 1947. The value of that trade rose from about £14 billion in 1947 to nearly
  522
  £2,000 billion by 1991. Countries all around the world have recognised the benefits of GATT membership. The United Kingdom was one of only 23 founding contracting parties to GATT in 1947. Now, there are 123 GATT members, and other countries are in the process of applying for membership—notable among those is China. That indicates how widely the benefits of open trade based on multilateral rules are understood.
  The GATT deal that we are discussing today will boost world economic growth. The reduction of both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade will increase opportunities for exporters. Exporters of services will benefit by the inclusion in GATT of intellectual property rights and trading services for the first time. All of us will benefit as consumers from improved choice, lower prices and greater efficiency. The Uruguay round will enable us to look forward to a world with freer trade, more jobs for British workers and higher growth for the UK and, indeed, for the rest of the world.
  A 1993 World bank and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study cautiously estimated that the successful conclusion of the round would boost world annual output by more than $270 billion after 10 years. On the other hand, if the forces of protectionism had triumphed and the lengthy negotiations had ended in failure, we would have faced the grim prospect of trade wars, price rises, lower living standards and prolonged recession. That would have been a tragedy, not only for the United Kingdom, but for the OECD countries and for the whole world.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal of the credit for the success should go to Sir Leon Brittan?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend and, later in my speech, I shall refer to some of those to whom we are most indebted for achieving the agreement.
  It is worth remembering that trade liberalisation is not a zero-sum game, but a process which leaves everyone better off. By choosing the route of liberalisation, the world's trade negotiators clearly rejected the temptation to resort to protectionism. At a time of stagnation in the world economy, that was a courageous choice for which they deserve congratulations. The benefit will not, of course, all be felt overnight. The results of the round have still to be ratified. At the OECD ministerial council on 7 and 8 June, I and all the other Ministers from the developed world reaffirmed our commitment to implementation of the round by 1 January next year—the target agreed at the Marrakesh conference, which concluded the round in April. While some of the changes that the round will bring will come into force immediately, others, including most of the new tariff reductions, will be phased in over a period of years.
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I understand that the Minister may wish to comment on some of the more specific agreements later. However, as he has talked about the phasing in of some of the agreements, will he touch on some of the changes in the agricultural sector, especially whether the current GATT agreement is compatible with the common agricultural policy reforms already agreed and whether he believes, as do the farming unions, that further reforms may be necessary as the GATT agreement comes on stream, perhaps in five or six years' time?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that I shall be turning to the specific proposals and, as it is a rather complex and wide-ranging subject, perhaps he will forgive me if I deal with his question when I talk specifically about agriculture.
  It is now easy, safe in the knowledge that agreement has been reached, to assume that that agreement was inevitable and to believe that there was never any risk of failure. I suggest that that would be a mistake. From the very beginning, the Government had to fight hard to ensure that negotiations were maintained and that agreement was secured.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad to have the agreement of my hon. Friend on that.
  In 1986, Britain was among those who argued for the launch of the Uruguay round, and the round started during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Community. We also pressed successfully for the negotiations to be wider than in any previous rounds, including, of course, trade in services, intellectual property rights, investment, agriculture and textiles, all issues of particular importance to Britain. We ensured that the European Commission, the EC's trade negotiator, had the support that it needed to conclude a liberalising deal and was not shackled by restrictive or unrealistic negotiating mandates.
  In 1992, when there was the prospect of an EC-US trade war, the Government used our presidency to get both sides around the negotiating table and reach agreement on the oilseeds dispute, which was the cause of the threatened trade war, and on agricultural support and trade policies generally. That deal, which came to be known as the Blair House agreement, formed the basis of the eventual agreement on agriculture within the round—one of the major sticking points of the negotiations.
  Of the countries participating in the round, around two thirds were developing or least developed countries, including some of the poorest of the world's trading nations. On a number of occasions during the round, developing countries took a lead in urging progress on the developed world. That is not surprising, given that those countries would perhaps have suffered worst had protectionism and trade wars occurred.
  As I have said, the road to agreement was long and arduous. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who worked to ensure that a successful conclusion was reached. We owe a debt to the negotiators, both Ministers and officials, and to the GATT secretariat. The personal contribution of several individuals stands out.
  I acknowledge the work of the two most recent directors of GATT. They are Arthur Dunkel, who was responsible for the Dunkel text, and Peter Sutherland, who brought the round to a conclusion. That was greatly assisted by his energy, determination and good humour. Great credit is also due to a number of other people. The European Community's negotiator Sir Leon Brittan, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) has already referred, worked tirelessly for the Community's interests without ever losing sight of the wider picture. The United States negotiator, Micky Kantor, played a crucial part in the negotiations.
  524
  Finally, we should not underestimate the contribution made consistently by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a number of occasions of crucial importance to the success of the round.
  Mr. Max Madden: I am sure that the House will echo the Minister's comments about the endeavours to complete the GATT round. However, the Minister will undoubtedly be aware of the genuine misgivings of those concerned with overseas aid and development who believe that the overall impact of the GATT round will intensify difficulties that flow from the policies of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. What initiatives will the British Prime Minister and the European Union take to try to redress those difficulties? On a domestic note, what success has the Minister had in persuading the Americans to allow much larger access to British wool textiles to the United States?
  Mr. Sainsbury: As I said earlier, I will refer to specific matters such as textiles. It would clearly be remiss of me not to consider textiles and I will deal with that point.
  It is a misunderstanding to assume that the round will somehow be other than beneficial to developing countries. That is revealed by the fact that on a number of occasions, particularly after the Commonwealth meeting in Limassol, those countries have taken the lead in urging on the developing countries the fact that we should reach an agreement.
  Copies of the agreements that I signed at Marrakesh have been placed in the Library. Hon. Members who have seen them will know that they are complex and, combined, run to many hundreds of pages. When they were placed on the table at Marrakesh for the contracting parties to sign, we assumed that everyone had their copy on the table, only to discover to our horror that only one complete copy of the agreement lay on the table.
  Those reluctant to embark upon such weighty bed time reading may be reminded that on 19 May we published a White Paper entitled "The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations 1986–94". That is a nice, compact White Paper and I recommend it to the House. It provides an extensive guide to the Uruguay round agreements.
  Mr. Stuart Bell indicated assent.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) obviously agrees with that.
  I should like now to draw the attention of the House to certain key features of the agreements which are likely to be of primary importance to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, may I say that I believe that he has been modest about the British Government's contribution? Here is an example of Britain working at the heart of Europe and at the heart of the international community and working to ensure that a GATT agreement would be delivered. When we work in that way, it shows how this Government can be effective and are effective and it gives the lie to many of the charges that have been tossed around in the recently concluded European elections.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am happy to agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. In the negotiations, Britain more than punched its weight. We were always in the lead, on the side of obtaining a successful agreement, and an

  525
  agreement which generally liberalised world trade and brought in the new areas. Our influence within the European Union to that effect was very substantial.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Recognising that liberalisation under GATT inevitably means greater penetration of our markets, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a very simple question? Does he think that western advanced economies can compete in terms of wage levels with countries such as China, India and south-east Asia? Does he think that we can compete with those-economies on the basis of wage levels?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I was going to answer the hon. Gentleman's question by saying yes, until he started adding wage levels. I put to him the simple point that competition is a much more complex issue than something relating just to wage levels. I commend to the hon. Gentleman "Helping Business to Win". If he reads the White Paper on competitiveness, he may see how British business can compete.
  I now refer to some of the key features of the agreement. First, there is the proposed World Trade Organisation which will be created as a result of the agreement. Since 1947, the GATT has been applied only provisionally, pending the establishment of an international trade body that never came into being, so after 45 years the GATT must be one of the world's longest lasting provisional agreements, but that is about to change. The agreement that I signed at Marrakesh provides for the foundation of a World Trade Organisation, or WTO. The creation of that organisation will put the GATT on a permanent institutional footing for the first time. The WTO will also provide an institutional structure for the operation of the other trade agreements and understandings concluded as part of the round.
  Secondly, I draw the attention of the House to the new dispute settlement system, the operation of which will be one of the WTO's key functions. That system will provide an integrated mechanism for resolving disputes between GATT members about their rights and obligations. It is one of the most significant achievements of the round and one which the United Kingdom played a key role in formulating. With more members than ever before—123—and more complex rules, it is more than ever vital that there should be an effective procedure for settling disputes. Although GATT already has a dispute settlement procedure, that procedure has some important weaknesses. The new dispute settlement process, to be conducted under the aegis of the WTO, will do away with many of those weaknesses and it will offer new and significant benefits to industry.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The trade dispute procedure is an important part of the package. Will it speed up the resolution of trade disputes? Much dumping can happen so quickly that it is only historically noticed. May we have an assurance that there is within the new procedures a speedy way of tackling some of those very difficult trade matters?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's recognition that a speedier dispute settlement system is a very important element. I am a little reluctant to go too much into how it will speed up the process or I will slow
  526
  up my speech, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that at the heart of the new disputes system is a mechanism to make sure that it works quicker, rather than as slowly as it has done in the past.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I must not give way too often or no one else will have a chance to speak.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the system be likely to cover the very vexed problem of Spanish tomatoes, which are wrecking the horticulture industry in my part of the world and elsewhere?
  Mr. Sainsbury: I shall ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to deal with the detail of Spanish tomatoes, whether sun dried or others.
  I can assure the House that any disputes that fall within the GATT system will be open to be resolved through an improved and faster dispute system. The system will be governed by a set of clearly defined time limits relating to the establishment of panels, the adoption of their reports and any remedial action that may result.
  The new system will also see an end to perhaps the worst fault of the old system—the ability of the losing party in a dispute to block the adoption of the report of a dispute settlement panel which found against them. It was as though the accused could always sit on the jury hearing his case. Under the new system, a GATT contracting party will no longer be able to block an adverse GATT panel report. Instead, if it disputes the soundness of the panel's findings, it can have recourse to an appeal body—the appeal body is also governed by strict time limits—whose findings must be accepted. Once a GATT member is found to be in breach of its obligations, action must be taken to redress the situation.
  I turn from the improvements in procedures and the institutional framework and look at the changes of substance that the round will bring. For Britain, one of the key innovations is the extension of the multilateral trade rules to cover services for the first time. That is vital to us because services already account for 23 per cent. of Britain's trade. Indeed, in 1992, our exports of commercial services exceeded £32 billion, making the United Kingdom the fourth largest invisible exporter—perhaps I should rephrase that and say exporter of invisibles—accounting for 9.6 per cent. of total world invisible exports.
  Britain is well placed to gain from the changes. The new general agreement on trade in services—GATS—will introduce central GATT principles to services trade for the first time: notably MFN, which I referred to earlier, national treatment and transparency of regulation. That will provide a more stable and solid framework for services trade than has previously been available.
  In addition to the new rules for services, countries have made significant commitments to guarantee access to their markets for foreign firms in a wide range of service sectors. That is only the start of the process. In most cases, countries are offering no more than a guarantee of existing levels of access in certain sectors at this stage. But even that will offer service exporters important security that they will not face new restrictions in those sectors.
  However, there will also be some genuine measures of liberalisation. For example, a number of countries will be

  527
  liberalising their markets for value-added telecommunications, and negotiations are continuing in basic telecommunications, financial services and maritime transport services to improve the levels of commitment that countries were prepared to make in December.
  The crucial achievement is the provision of a multilateral framework within which services trade can grow and flourish. All services sectors are covered by the GATS. The GATS enshrines for services the principle of progressive liberalisation which has paid such dividends for trade in goods. WTO members will be committed to negotiating further liberalisation five years after the agreement comes into force. In the meantime, work will also progress to refine the rules in such areas as the effect of subsidies on services trade.
  Another crucial feature of the GATT deal for the United Kingdom is the agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights—TRIPS. The whole of the GATT round was bedevilled by acronyms. The worst of the acronyms that was developed was FOGS—the functioning of the GATT systems. There were moments when those of us who were involved felt that we had gone too much into the fog.
  Mr. George Howarth: It is the same today.
  Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not find the clarity of my presentation sufficient for him, but perhaps he will listen attentively.
  British industry must innovate if it is to be competitive. It is vital that new technology and ideas are protected. British companies need to be sure that they will reap the proper benefits of their innovation. That is why intellectual property protection is so important. Unfortunately, at present many countries do not offer the same levels of intellectual property protection as we do and as are to be found in Europe. Indeed, it is fair to say that some do not offer any effective intellectual property protection at all.
  As a result, British industry loses many millions of pounds of revenue each year because of abuses of intellectual property rights. For example, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has estimated that £352 million of potential revenue was lost to piracy in Asian markets alone in 1992. This is why the TRIPS agreement is such an important feature of the new GATT deal.
  I know that a number of hon. Members will be particularly interested in the textiles aspects of the agreement. This will extend GATT rules to bring trade in textiles and clothing fully within the multilateral system. The multifibre arrangement—the MFA—which currently imposes restrictions on the textiles and clothing exports of 27 countries is to be phased out in four stages over 10 years. That should lead in due course to significantly lower prices for consumers.
  However, the Government recognise that the phasing out of the MFA will present the UK textile and clothing industries with difficult challenges. The 10-year phase-out period should allow time to prepare. Moreover, our textile exporters will benefit from lower tariffs in other countries.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Sainsbury: Before I give way, I shall remind my hon. Friend of how succesful our textile and clothing industries are at exporting. In the past five years, they have doubled their exports to the value of £5 billion.
  Mrs. Peacock: My right hon. Friend will know of my great interest in textiles and in free and fair trade, and I hope that he will say a word or two about the importance of market access.
  While the industry recognises the great work that my right hon. Friend did on its behalf, it is not quite as happy with the access to some of the markets, particularly India and Pakistan which have tariffs of about 100 per cent. The industry is also unhappy about the reduction in our woollen goods to the USA by some 10 per cent. The reduction will take place over 10 years, and is really only 1 per cent. a year. That is not terribly helpful.
  Mr. Sainsbury: The whole House knows that my hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for the textile industry and I entirely share her views on the disappointing nature of some of the market access offers.
  It was certainly disappointing that the US could not agree greater reductions in some of its peak tariffs—to which my hon. Friend referred—although the cuts for wool cloth are significant gains for our industry. We hope that the continuing negotiations with countries benefiting from the phase-out of the MFA, such as India and Pakistan—to which my hon. Friend referred also—will result in genuine tariff concessions which will recognise their improved access to our markets.
  I turn now to the agricultural aspects of the round. Agriculture, too, will, for the first time, be brought fully within multilateral trade rules. The overall aim of the new agreement on agriculture is to promote more market-oriented agricultural policies, with less reliance on the uncontrolled use of subsidies and on protection against imports.
  The Government are well aware that the recent reform of the common agricultural policy has already meant a lot of change for the farming industry. The reform was a significant step towards bringing the CAP into a close relationship with world markets and reducing European farmers' dependence on intervention. It has undoubtedly helped pave the way for the GATT agreement.
  The European Commission considers that the Community should be able to meet most of its new GATT commitments on the basis of already agreed CAP reforms. The Government's own economic analysis broadly supports this conclusion. However, that does not mean that the process of CAP reform will stop. The need for further reform in certain areas of the CAP—for example, beef—remains, but that would have been so with or without a GATT agreement.
  Similarly, further action will clearly be needed in some of those sectors where reform has yet to start. Sugar is one example, and fruit and vegetables are others. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will continue to press the case for further reform.
  Other trade agreements covered by the WTO agreement will also provide important benefits for British industry. The agreement on subsidies will impose faster procedures, define and categorise subsidies according to their trade-distorting effects and, for the first time, ensure

  529
  disciplines on developing country subsidies, particularly in sectors where those countries are competitive, such as leather products from India.
  The anti-dumping agreement will strengthen and clarify rules governing the imposition of anti-dumping measures and impose time limits on their application. The safeguards agreement will impose important new disciplines and greater transparency on the use of safeguard measures. Action will still be possible against sudden surges of imports that threaten serious injury to domestic producers. The agreement will, however, lead to the phasing out of so-called ġrey area measures, such as voluntary export restraints, which have increasingly been used to restrict imports over recent years.
  All those agreements, together with changes to more technical rules in areas such as customs valuation, technical barriers to trade and import licensing, will strengthen the multilateral framework of rules, which is vital to the growth and security of world trade.
  Reductions in tariff barriers to trade have already been referred to in several interventions. As I said earlier, the lowering of tariff barriers has been a central element of every round of GATT negotiations since the war. The Uruguay round has been no exception. The complete removal of United States, Japanese and Canadian tariffs in a number of major sectors represents one of the most important achievements of the round. Our exports of pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, agricultural and construction equipment, Scotch whisky, beer, steel, toys, furniture and paper will in future benefit from zero tariffs in those three key markets in exports which totalled more than £2.4 billion in 1992.
  Those reductions, and cuts in other markets, will offer a major boost to British exports, including, for example, exports of Scotch whisky, which already total over £2.1 billion a year. Important cuts have also been achieved in a number of peak tariffs. To take one example, the United States rates of 20 per cent. on synthetic dyes will fall to 6.5 per cent.
  It is not only exporters who will benefit. Many British businesses depend on imports of materials and components. Reductions averaging 37 per cent. on a trade-weighted basis in the EC's own tariffs will bring real benefits to those businesses.
  Mr. Gary Waller: I am listening to my right hon. Friend with great interest. Does he accept that many in the textile industry feel that their sector has been traded off against others and that it has been the loser? Reference has already been made to the United States, where the tariffs will come down by only 1 per cent. a year and remain at a relatively unacceptable level.
  Following Marrakesh, negotiations with India and Pakistan remain unresolved. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that everything possible will be done to ensure that the considerable purchasing power of the sub-continent will not be denied to our textile industry and the many people that it still employs?
  Mr. Sainsbury: The textile industry was certainly not singled out to be treated badly. I believe that the outcome of the Uruguay round was balanced and covered all the aspects of the relevant sectors. I agree with my hon. Friend that rather disappointing market access offers were made
  530
  relating to textiles. I assure him that it will remain our objective to open the substantial markets to which he referred to better access for our high-quality textile exports.
  An important feature of market access commitments given by developing countries has been the "binding" of tariffs—in other words, an undertaking not to increase tariffs in future. Many countries with very limited tariff bindings prior to the round, such as Argentina, Colombia and Romania, have now agreed to bind their tariffs on all industrial imports. That may sound rather technical, but is essential. Binding tariffs means that a country cannot decide to raise tariffs dramatically and suddenly in response to the success of a British export promotion campaign.
  The creation of the WTO, which will put the GATT on a permanent institutional basis for the first time, is only a beginning. There is still unfinished business to complete. Perhaps inevitably, given the number of nations involved and issues under discussion, the Uruguay round negotiations failed to achieve all their objectives. Some market access offers, for example India and Pakistan's offers on textiles, were disappointing. Too many tariff peaks remain, but we are working to improve them.
  Moreover, it proved impossible to reach agreement on a satisfactory package of liberalisation commitments on telecommunications, shipping and financial services before the conclusion of negotiations. So GATT members agreed that negotiations in those areas should continue after the end of the round. We attach great importance to achieving real liberalisation in those negotiations.
  Work to reduce trade barriers further is also continuing in a number of other important sectors such as civil aircraft and steel. The Government are working hard to achieve a level playing field—no speech on GATT would be complete without a reference to a level playing field—for the UK's civil aircraft industry. We are seeking strict but fair disciplines on all Government subsidies in that field. It is important that those should cover both direct support with which we are familiar, such as launch aid, and indirect support such as that which comes to the US aerospace industry from NASA and the Department of Defence. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is familiar with that matter.
  Although not strictly part of the GATT, negotiations on a multilateral steel arrangement have also resumed in Geneva. We hope to reach agreement by the end of 1994. More immediately, we must concentrate our attention on the current GATT deal. Although the Uruguay round was officially ended by the signature ceremony, the agreements still require ratification and agreement before they can come into force.
  The Uruguay round is a challenge and an opportunity for British industry. Information on new opportunities that will be available is already public. Industry should start preparing to take advantage of those opportunities now. In 1992, our exports of pharmaceuticals to the US, Canada and Japan totalled £518 million and paid some £34 million in duty. Those exports will be free of duty once the WTO comes into force.
  Our exports of chemicals to those markets were worth £1.7 billion in 1992. Harmonisation of tariffs will bring about an annual saving in that sector of more than £50 million. Our exports of medical equipment to the US, Japan and Canada were £386 million in 1992 and have been subject to duties of up to 9.9 per cent. Those tariffs

  531
  will be phased out completely over the next five years. In 15 major markets, tariffs will be reduced to an average 3.7 per cent. It is clear from those examples alone why the director general of the CBI referred to the conclusion of the round as
  "a momentous and welcome event".
  Reductions in trade barriers will increase opportunities for exporters of both services and goods. Innovators and service exporters will benefit from inclusion in the GATT of intellectual property rights and trade in services for the first time. Consumers will benefit from increased choice and lower prices. It is no wonder that, within the UK, both consumer groups and industry have welcomed the outcome of the round.
  However, British companies must remember that the increased competition from overseas, which will benefit consumers, will increase competition for British industry. It is a challenge as well as an opportunity. My Department will do all that it can to assist, and our export promotion and sponsor divisions will pull out the stops to help ensure that all exporters are made fully aware of the new opportunities open to them. However, my Department cannot do it all. Its role is "Helping Business to Win", which is the title of the recently published White Paper on competitiveness. I recommend it to hon. Members.
  The increased competition that the round will bring is an opportunity and a challenge. Trade liberalisation is a continuous process. No trade agreement can settle every trade dispute or open every market. But the completion of the Uruguay round represents an enormous achievement in which the world has chosen trade liberalisation rather than protectionism. The conclusions of the round provide a secure basis for future expansion of world trade and the growth and prosperity that go with it.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: The House will be grateful to the Minister of State for making an important but nevertheless dull subject more interesting for the House. He has certainly had a response from hon. Members in the House by way of many interventions.
  The Minister of State was right to draw our attention to the extensive scope of the GATT agreement and its variety of annexes and schedules. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not with us today, could safely put his hand on his heart and say, "I have not read this document," and we would all forgive him for doing so. The Minister also referred to the White Paper that the Government have prepared, which is a succinct and well put together report which I think that we can all follow.
  The House will have to excuse me if I am not able to mention all the subjects that were included in the debate. My former hon. Friend, the previous Member for Bradford, South, Bob Cryer, took a big interest in textiles issues and I was glad to see his successor sworn in today. I know that the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) will make a contribution about textiles. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), too, is in the Chamber and takes an interest in that subject. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) may also catch your eye on that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Audio-visual; agriculture and property rights, all of which the Minister mentioned, are important subjects, but it is not possible to cover them all in a single debate. I shall
  532
  therefore modestly restrict my comments to a whole scheme of ideas that the Opposition have, which would constitute a trade policy.
  Many Members who have followed these debates with care are in the House today. I remember preparing for a speech by my former leader John Smith on the subject and going into great detail about GATT. The Minister went through a series of rounds, including the Kennedy round. John Smith was able to remind me gently that he had been Secretary of State for Trade in 1978 during the Tokyo round. We all have a part to play in the process but, as the Minister said, it has been going on for many years and we are now witnessing the culmination of a lengthy procedure.
  I was pleased that the Minister of State was in Marrakesh and signed the agreement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I hope that he managed to see the Atlas mountains from the Mamounia hotel and I am sure that he enjoyed the short experience of being out of the country at that time. The Uruguay round, as the Minister said, goes back more than seven years. It has taken a hike around the conference tables of the world from Punta del Este to Morocco—not a voyage as exciting as that from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, but a fruitful voyage for all that.
  The Minister ended his speech where I would like to begin: the Uruguay round has achieved what it set out to achieve—a further liberalisation of world trade. There will be tariff reductions on a wide range of industrial goods, services and intellectual property within the frame and we have a new World Trade Organisation—according to the Minister, 40 years in coming—which will come into effect once the United States Congress has agreed the entire Uruguay package.
  Here I make a little warning sound about the ratification of the treaty in the United States. Opposition to the treaty is not so great as opposition to the North American Free Trade Area agreement. We witnessed a great deal of pork barrel politics in the United States Congress to obtain many concessions from the administration in order for the latter document to be signed, but we do not feel that a similar thing will happen on the Uruguay round. Nevertheless, proceedings in Congress can be lengthy and if Congress does not ratify the treaty by the end of its parliamentary session the World Trade Organisation will come into effect, not on 1 January 1995, but on 1 July 1995. That is important and significant, and it is helpful that the President of the United States has committed himself and, one hopes, Congress, to completing all its passages this year.
  One of the advantages of the new agreement is the speed with which trade disputes should now be settled between nation states which are signatories to the Uruguay accords. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) mentioned that briefly, as did the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who also mentioned it in relation to the rapidity with which disputes can be settled. One of the defects of the old GATT was that trade disputes simply went on and on and on. The procedures were cumbersome and it took as many as five years to achieve any result. That should no longer be the case. A dispute should be quickly and effectively dealt with and should take no longer than 18 months to resolve. I hope that those nations that wish to take unilateral action against one trading nation, for reasons that are nothing to

  533
  do with trade, will note that in signing up to the World Trade Organisation they are signing up to a set of rules that should make such unilateral action no longer possible.
  The Government are right, in that sense, not to vaunt the economic benefits of the Uruguay accord as they are nebulous and frankly unquantifiable. The Minister rightly referred cautiously to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which spoke of a boost to annual world income of $270 billion. As the right hon. Gentleman said, that can happen only when the Uruguay accord is brought fully into effect, which will take some 10 years. While we welcome the breakthrough in the Uruguay round of the GATT talks, it will be 10 years before the full fruits of the accord are seen. The gains are likely to be incremental and beneficial.
  The Opposition have taken the view that it is better to have a successful conclusion to the Uruguay accord than no conclusion at all. It is better to have an international framework than no framework. However, whether the 125 participating countries really give the World Trade Organisation their full support, and whether there will be the consequential positive economic gain to which the OECD alluded, only time will tell. I throw to the Minister the biblical quotation:
  "By their fruits ye shall know them."
  We shall measure the World Trade Organisation and the new agreements by the actual fruits that come as the years pass.
  Mr. George Howarth: And the tomatoes.
  Mr. Bell: Yes, and the tomatoes. Although always reluctant to answer sedentary interventions, at least on this occasion we can say that they are not square tomatoes. We were happy to note that in Austria the square tomato party did not swing the votes in the referendum on accession to the European Union.
  In their White Paper, the Government rightly draw attention to their role in keeping the Uruguay negotiations on the rails when they were threatened with severe disruption and trade wars between the United States and the EU. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) referred to the modesty with which the Minister put forward his proposals and the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) actually went out of her way to praise Sir Leon Brittan. It was left to the Minister to praise the Prime Minister. It is interesting to see where the praise lies. We all know that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan; there are certainly no orphans today.
  If the Government did indeed play a part in ensuring that the accords were signed, their role was less than noble when it came to the actual content of the accords. While the Minister was able to tell the House that 23 per cent. of our exports come from services and to refer to a figure of £23,000 million per year, and while he was able to say that we are the fourth exporter of invisible exports—it was difficult for him to get around that phrase, but we understood what he meant—nevertheless there is a feeling, which is reflected in the Government's document on competitiveness, that we have not done so well in financial services exports as we might have done. We were not able to impose a fully-fledged agreement on financial services on the European Commission and in the negotiations with
  534
  the USA and the other participating countries. While the Minister was right to vaunt the great benefits that came from the so-called GATTS, the feeling is that we did not do well enough in financial services.
  We must hope that the Government will follow up on their own commitment, as expressed in their competitiveness document "Helping Business to Win", and will vigorously pursue the issues of financial services—banking, insurance and securities—telecommunications, maritime services, aerospace and steel. I am glad to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who I am sure will make his own points about aerospace. The conclusion was not so successful as it might have been, had there been more important input in terms of world share of financial services.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I share the hon. Gentleman's frustration at the failure to liberalise financial services, but does he agree that the biggest problem was not failure by the British Government but the intransigence of the US Government and the need to put that aside to achieve overall agreement, with the intention of continuing to consider financial services?
  Mr. Bell: Yes. The Minister indicated that there were many occasions during the negotiations when we were close to a trade war, so there was much to-ing and fro-ing. There was a feeling that US interests in financial services did not extend beyond American Express and improving its position in respect of financial services. Nevertheless, the new agreements offer the possibility of pursuing that aspect. The Government's competitiveness document indicated that they will do so. We shall keep them to that and monitor progress.
  The Minister pointed out that there were about 24 signatories at the beginning and that the number is now up to 125. There is the prospect of China joining GATT through most favoured nation status. Saudi Arabia is joining the agreement, and it is possible that Russia and Taiwan will do so. We take the view that trade is a tool of co-operation and not of coercion. The more countries in membership of GATT are prepared to live by the rules, the more we shall be happy and trade will improve.
  The third world aspects of GATT preoccupied many. My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) are in their places and if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they may refer to that topic. The basic premise was always that a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round would increase world trade, be better for consumers by offering wider global choice, perk up economies currently suffering from recession, and bring improvement over and above the so-called Trinidad terms to assist third world countries to alleviate their massive debts to western banks and Governments. We hope to see a lift for the third world with higher agricultural prices and better access to world markets.
  The conclusion of the Uruguay round brought a host of measures designed to protect less developed countries. We welcome the protection granted in terms of longer transition periods, due process rights provided under the new understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes, special needs clauses to promote transfers of technical aid, and acceptance of the necessity for flexibility in imposing obligations under the Uruguay

  535
  round which less developed countries might have trouble observing. We remain concerned about the ability of the poorest countries to protect their food producers against cheap imports and dumping. We are anxious that developing countries should be given the freedom to protect infant service industries and other key sectors of their economies, which will require surveillance and supervision.
  Another disappointing failure which goes to the heart of the Uruguay round is one to which the Minister, not surprisingly, made no reference. I refer to the absence from GATT of any platform of social rights. There is no reference to that in the Government's recent competitiveness document either. Trade should be fair and balanced, and should address the aspirations of workers and consumers alike. There is a theoretical case for free trade, in that it is meant to provide the most efficient producers with access to world markets. It allows lower prices and forces domestic producers to be more efficient. Consumers and the most efficient companies benefit. Therefore, there is public interest in choice through free trade.
  We are the world's fifth largest trading nation, but I must disappoint those hon. Members who are not Francophiles, although I do not include the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor). The French, as the world's fourth largest exporters, are ahead of us. It must be in our national interest to pursue a policy of fair and balanced trade, where that trade is fair and balanced in other countries. The Uruguay round makes no provision for workers' rights: the only reference is that they should be part of a working programme for the new World Trade Organisation.
  We look for allies in our cause. We are not alone in seeking to improve environmental and labour standards in relation to trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will wind up on the environmental aspects of the Uruguay round, but the European Commission recommended an overall evaluation of trade benefits for 60 developing countries, with new incentives for improving environmental and labour standards, when the generalised system of preferences is reviewed. We are entitled to draw the attention of the House to GATT's failure to address workers' rights, which has meant an imbalance in world trade. There was a missed opportunity to incorporate such rights in the Uruguay round.
  We welcome the extension to the principle that industrial products should not be the only subject of GATT but that it should embrace also intellectual property rights and agriculture. We are disappointed that workers' rights are not covered. We shall continue our efforts to ensure that they are not forgotten, with canvassing and campaigning in the European Union, World Trade Organisation, European Commission and European Parliament.
  It is worth remembering that the European Parliament will ratify the GATT' agreement, which is something that this House will not be doing. I understand that this is our last debate on the subject, but there is room for us to make headway elsewhere, with improvements to basic human rights on employment in relation to fair and balanced trade. That could be achieved at no detriment to the developing world and without enhancing protectionism. If there is to be fair and balanced trade, there should be a proper platform for workers' rights and for the environment.
  We envisage world trade based on GATT, and a World Trade Organisation based on a strong environmental and
  536
  workers' rights platform which leans strongly towards the third world. The long section on trade in the competitiveness document to which the Minister referred deals with the mechanics of investment and world trade, but contains no overarching strategy: there is movement, but no action.
  We always welcome the peripatetics of the Minister for Trade, who is not with us today. We understand that he has just returned from another trade mission to Saudi Arabia. We admire his zeal, zest and commitment to his task. If there is a Government reshuffle, we hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep his job. As we are not malign in any sense, we hope that all the members of the Government's trade and industry team will keep their jobs. When we are on the Government Benches, we shall expect the same consideration and generosity.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: My hon. Friend takes solidarity too far.
  Mr. Bell: It may not exist to that extent, but as Napoleon said—he was not necessarily a free trader—it is but a single step from the sublime to the ridiculous. Many Government Ministers may shortly discover that to be the case.
  The competitiveness document indicated that the Government will monitor GATT's progress in relation to a host of issues to which the Minister referred and its progress within the European Union on financial services, telecommunications, maritime services, aerospace and steel. We do not believe that the Government have a strategy to reverse our decline in world trade. The competitiveness document revealed that our country's share of world trade has declined over the years and now only holds steady. The French—our European partners —have seen their share of world trade increase.
  We are pleased that the British Export Credits Guarantee Department has resumed its export credit insurance cover for Brazil and that in the past two years it has resumed cover for 14 additional countries where business has been renewed. Nevertheless, the Labour party is not satisfied, and never will be, that the dead hand of the Treasury does not lie across the Department of Trade and Industry. The Labour party is not satisfied, and never will be, that our exporters enjoy the same support and advantages as, for example, the French or the Germans. The Labour party is not satisfied, and never will be, that our exporters can match foreign competition on the level playing field to which the Minister referred in terms of price, technology, product and package. "What is the package?" is so often the cry in the City of London.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Is he aware of the fact that a project worth more than £100 million, which might have come to this country, went instead to Italy because the export credit guarantee premium was 13 per cent. in the UK compared with 8 per cent. in Italy—a difference of more than £6 million on the contract, which was mostly profit? That is why we are losing out.
  Mr. Bell: Obviously all Governments, including ours, put the best face on every aspect of their trading relations. We have heard many a time how the Government have increased export credit guarantees in terms of number, and how the average premium has been reduced. We are also aware that the Treasury goes behind the back of the

  537
  Department of Trade and Industry and sets premiums which are far too high and thus do not make the firm that is seeking to export competitive. We are trying to weed out the problem which exists between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. That is why I say that the package offered to exporters is not so good as that offered to exporters in Italy, or certainly those in France and Germany.
  When we look at the package available for exporters in relation to the GATT agreement, again we are found wanting and it is inadequate. We know that the Department of Trade and Industry is aware of that. The Ministers know it, but they know that they cannot lift the dead hand of the Treasury from across our export trade. What we shall have to ensure, what we shall have to prepare for, and what we shall see happen is that the day will come when a Government are in office who will ensure that it does.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Any negotiation involving 123 nations will always be complex and difficult to bring to a successful conclusion, and the Uruguay round is no better an example of that. That is why, at various times, none of the participants could be certain that the negotiations would reach a satisfactory conclusion, because the length of the negotiations meant that political circumstances and events—dare I say elections?—would intervene, which caused the positions of the participants to shift with the electoral evening tide or the morning glow of the arrival of a new Government. That is why, at certain stages, the negotiations became extremely polemical. That, perhaps, was to be expected, but it made it extremely difficult for the parties concerned.
  I mentioned earlier the role that the British Government were able to play in trying to heal and soothe some of the gulfs that opened up in regard to those polemics. For example, one must pay tribute to my former right hon. and learned Friend, the commissioner in Brussels, Sir Leon Brittan, for the work that was done to bring about the Blair House agreement. It seems like a long time ago as we move on from the final conclusion of the Uruguay round, but had not that work been effectively concluded, we would never have got on to the second stage, which was to try to ensure that the French came into line with the rest of the Community so that the European bloc was able finally to reach an agreed negotiating position.
  It is a fact of life that any negotiation of that size, involving as it did 123 nation states, will be a series of mini-negotiations before the final one. I have had the privilege and experience of working in international secretariats, so I know a little bit not just about the 11th hour of negotiation, which always seems to be an inevitability, but about the umpteenth hour of the umpteenth night, when, finally, one is able to reach the desired objective. Would that it was possible to do that in some other way, because one often has a sickening feeling when coming to the negotiations. We know before we start that it will not be before the umpteenth hour of the umpteenth night that we will be in a position to reach the desired objective. When the history of the negotiations comes to be written, Britain's part will increasingly be seen as having been of the highest significance.
  538
  I take the point made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), the Opposition spokesman, that we could not achieve everything that we wished in terms of financial services. I do not think that we ever expected that it would be possible through the Uruguay round to achieve success in every single field. At the end of the day, one has to decide the areas where one will give ground to allow the negotiations to be completed, and those where one will fight to get the most satisfactory conclusion that one can. But, of course, the great advantage of the Uruguay round and its predecessors is that the final signing of the agreement is not the end, by any means, of the process. That is where the World Trade Organisation will play a major part.
  For those of us who believe in free trade, and I believe that most of us do, the world stands to gain not from tariff barriers or protectionism, but from the ability to increase markets. That is as relevant to the developed world as it is to the developing world. It is through the success of the international mechanisms which have grown up since the second world war that considerable achievements have been made. If it had not been for the honing of those negotiating mechanisms, the prize, which the Uruguay round and the GATT agreement delivered, would not even have been closely within our grasp. It was not just a desirable prize; it was an essential one.
  We all talk about growth in trade, and growth in world trade. Those of us who discuss those issues believe that continued growth is essential. We believe in developing new markets. We believe in developing new trade opportunities. I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Front' Bench who go around the world fighting for markets and opportunities, and new ones are developing all the time. With the return of South Africa into the international community, I know how hard they have worked in terms of trying to open up the opportunity that the arrival of a new Government in South Africa is bringing to the world trade process.
  It is a pity that it is sometimes necessary to resort to threats in the negotiations, but I do not believe that any of what was ultimately achieved in the Uruguay round was achieved as a result of such threats. Far from helping the process, threats merely slow it down and breed uncertainty —uncertainty that feeds into the market place in our constituencies, the businesses that we are trying to encourage and the employment opportunities that we all spend so much time discussing here.
  In my rural constituency, where issues relating to agriculture and agricultural machinery are considered extremely important, there was great relief when the Uruguay round was completed—although in some respects that relief has now turned to uncertainty. No sooner were the negotiations over than the so-called beneficiaries were asking, "What does this mean for me?" With such a protracted timetable, farmers and business men cannot always find ready answers to their questions—not because Government Departments are sitting on those answers, but because further negotiation will inevitably be necessary to produce them.
  I observed that uncertainty the week before last, when I visited the very successful Royal Bath and West show in my constituency. The conclusion and implications of the GATT were at the forefront of farmers' minds. Britain, after all, will benefit from a freer market in agriculture, but that freer market is still slow in arriving.

  539
  There is no doubt that the agricultural community welcomes the more market-oriented approach to agriculture and the impact that it will have on many agriculture-related businesses; but they, like any other business, must plan for future opportunities, growth and marketing. They cannot make their plans until they know what the consequential decisions will be. At a time when the value of the pound has fallen and opportunities have increased—especially in the dairy sector—farmers are frustrated by the fact that, although they can see the opportunities that exist, many of those opportunities still lie beyond their immediate grasp.
  The same is true of small and medium-sized businesses. They are all aware of the trading opportunities that exist in the outside world and feel frustrated when they come up against the barriers that are still preventing them from expanding their trade further. Let me add, however, that it is easy for businesses to think that they cannot make progress when often they can.
  A printing company in my constituency—Butler and Tanner—recently decided to take on the German market head on. Others in the industry had said that it was not worth trying and that the company would have little success in winning orders; but it nevertheless took its marketing abilities across to Germany and won the order involved. When I asked what had been the most difficult obstacle to overcome, the managing director said that it had been the shock felt by a German company seeing a British company actually coming over to win an order. When I asked how the company had coped with the language barrier, he said, "We were lucky; one of our important marketers is a fluent German speaker. Without that linguistic ability, we could not have made the breakthrough."
  I believe that such opportunities are available to British business—not just in Europe but in the United States and, indeed, throughout the third world. I am thinking particularly of the far east. Sadly, many business men are frightened by the prospect of going there and trying to win orders for their companies; but the chance of success is undoubtedly there if they are prepared to make the leap and visit Japan or south-east Asia.
  Some of the barriers are breaking down. Those who have turned to the Department of Trade and Industry for help in that regard have been extremely surprised and pleased at the amount of service available to them, but it is not simply a question of saying to the DTI, "I should like to do business in a particular part of the world: please tell me how to do it." Businesses must know the markets for which they are heading, make their plans and then say to the DTI, "This is what we propose to do. What support and help can you give our marketing exercise?" As I am sure my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will agree, businesses that have taken such action have been highly successful in breaking down barriers—artificial barriers, rather than the kind that were discussed in the GATT negotiations.
  The future is just as important as the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. We cannot be complacent simply because of the considerable achievements in the removal of tariff barriers to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry referred. Five per cent. is 5 per cent. too much. We must keep up the pressure, encourage our partners and work together at the heart of Europe, while also using our influence. The
  540
  negotiations were a classic example of Britain's ability to work at the heart of Europe, bringing Europe together but then acting as a bridge between it and the United States.
  Other parties to the negotiations may have regretted the fact that, to the outside world, the heart of the negotiations seemed to lie on one side of the conundrum. Everyone took it for granted that, once the argument that had raged between the Americans and the Europeans was successfully concluded, the other countries would fall into line. It was assumed that the remaining issues were not complex or difficult; in fact, they were extremely complex and extremely difficult. The negotiations lasted for many hours, and different negotiations took place in parallel. Perhaps because the issues involved were not so close to home as other matters covered in our financial newspapers, they did not receive as much coverage as the other side of the equation.
  We have to work on and encourage the World Trade Organisation not to fall into a plethora of bureaucracy, but to develop an action programme to take forward those important issues. It is easy to sit back and say, "We have created the World Trade Organisation; let us relax now." Those at the front line of marketing, business and agriculture want the process to continue so that the opportunities that clearly exist can be secured and their competitiveness and businesses will grow. That will have an impact on employment, which we discuss a great deal in this place.
  Unemployment falls because jobs are created; it has been said time and again and it is a fact of life. Successfully building up and managing our trade opportunities leads to an increase in employment prospects, as we have already seen over the past few months.
  Reorganisation is still taking place in British industry. Jobs are still being lost, but at the same time jobs are being won which are bringing down the overall level of unemployment. That is happening only because of the market opportunities that are being created at home and overseas. The opportunities that are created overseas bring further job opportunities to other industries that do not naturally or necessarily export overseas, but will benefit from those companies which do.
  Over the next decade, we can look forward to a period of great opportunity for Britain in terms of its trading potential. We can do that with even greater confidence because of the work that went into securing the success of this very complex and complicated negotiation.
  In the short time available, my right hon. Friend the Minister was able only to touch on the heart of the subject matter which is contained in the voluminous documentation with which some of us are familiar. Without the many hours of hard work that not just British officials but officials from all over the world put in to secure the success of that complex negotiation, we would not perhaps be looking forward to the next 10 years with the same optimism.
  After a prolonged period of recession, there is a temptation among commentators to think that it will never end, yet I visit businesses and hear stories of improved order books, fresh opportunities and successful balance sheets. I could easily name a variety of companies that I have visited in my constituency in the past few weeks. I have already talked of a major printing company and Cuprinol is another company in my constituency. I could go on and on. I have noticed changes from a year ago.

  541
  When I walk into a business—whether it is a large or a small one—the first question I always ask is, "How is the order book looking?" The prognosis 12 months ago was extremely pessimistic. That pessimism has gone. The position is not uniform; there is more pessimism in construction than in other sectors, but confidence is growing and gradually making its way across the economic front.
  I know that at times it is difficult for the Opposition to recognise that because it goes to the heart of much of what they say in terms of their criticism of the Government and the Government's attitude to the economy and trade. That is quite understandable, but as the climate improves and the volume of trade grows, as we see Britain as having one of the most successful records of growth in trade in the European Community, and as we get the figures month after month, the general public begins to recognise them and the aura of confidence starts to return.
  As we move on from the GATT negotiation into the next decade, in the next two or three years we shall be taking a different view of the British economy from the rather jaundiced attitude that some people take at the present time. If one is prepared to go out and ask the questions, the seeds are there. They are growing day by day. It is no accident that unemployment is starting to fall, the volume of trade is growing and export opportunities are improving. The signs are there and the recovery is under way.
  It always takes the public longer to recognise recovery. It is often six months to a year behind, just as the end of the boom was not noticed, except by connoisseurs, for a year if not two years after it had actually run out of steam.
  I say to businesses in my constituency which tell me about the growth in their order books that now is the time to plan for the future growth of their trade. Now is the time to be thinking about making investment decisions; now is the time to be contacting the bank manager to try to persuade him of the strength and relevance of the business. If companies are involved in exports, now is the time to be going out and looking for market opportunities, which certainly exist and which the successful GATT negotiation has created.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Before I call the next hon. Member, may I remind hon. Members that this is a debating Chamber and not a Chamber in which the general post is delivered and dealt with.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I am sad that the House is so empty for this important debate. The Uruguay round and the creation of the World Trade Organisation will touch and affect everybody in the world, from my constituents in Rotherham to the poorest peasants of the Amazon and India.
  Although Napoleon said that England was a nation of shopkeepers, there was really no excuse for sending a grocer to sign the Uruguay round in Marrakesh; every other leading country in the world sent its top Trade Minister. I regret that the President of the Board of Trade, who would be Prime Minister, has not graced us with his presence this afternoon.
  I read the GATT treaty in full. I put a diskette into my computer and started to print it out. It was 100, 200, 300,
  542
  400 pages—more than 500 pages of densely printed text, a treaty that bears some close study. Socrates said— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: When the hon. Gentleman refers to those hundreds of pages of detailed text, in the light of what he said about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will he bear in mind the fact that not only did my right hon. Friend master all that detail, but he pushed very much of it through?
  Mr. MacShane: I referred not to the Prime Minister but to the President of the Board of Trade, who would be Prime Minister. If the hon. Gentleman would listen, he might know what I was talking about and might understand what he will be talking about later on. Socrates said that any politician who did not know the price of wheat was not worthy to hold any kind of office. That 2,000-year-old adage is true today. We need to know exactly how world trade works in all its intimacy.
  The Uruguay round and the new World Trade Organisation will go far beyond trade in finished goods and will cover trade in services and, most important of all, trade in ideas. I believe that "intellectual property rights" is the rather pompous term for what we would call an idea. We are now talking about the buying and selling of ideas, the putting of a price on an idea or a patent that can be injected through biogenetics into agricultural produce and medicines, which will mean that an extra royalty can be demanded from the poorest in the world. That will significantly alter the way that we regard world trade. Patents are power and biogenetics will substantially alter the way in which we trade ideas with each other.
  I am not sure whether I speak for all Opposition Members, but I strongly favour free trade. It is, however, ironic that in the previous half century free trade expanded most quickly when full employment lay at the heart of policy on both sides of the Atlantic. The Minister for Industry said that trade was not a zero sum gain. I wish that he were right, but, alas, in the past decade, many people have become substantially worse off because of deregulation and the application of full neo-liberal free trade ideas.
  In Mexico, the purchasing power of a worker is about 50 per cent. of what it was 12 years ago before the Mexican Government implemented free trade ideas which culminated in the North American Free Trade Agreement. I did not especially want to cite the case of Rotherham, but the majority of my constituents are worse off now in terms of their purchasing power than they were 15 years ago because of the application of neo-liberal free trade ideas.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the consequences of the application of free trade ideas in Mexico has been a massive uprising by the very poorest people in the south? Indeed, the rallying point for most of those who took part in the rebellion earlier this year was opposition to GATT because of the implications for their standard of life, their jobs and their ability to pursue sustainable agriculture.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who is quite right. The many strikes taking place in southern China, which are very little reported in the press, are being organised by victims of the application of uncontrolled free trade policies. They have risen up and demanded their share.

  543
  The worst protectionism exists when worker; do not earn enough to buy what they make or to protect their families, homes and communities from hunger, poverty and misery. That was very much the message of the European elections. In France, the extreme far right Philippe de Villiers' list powered to third place on a solely protectionist programme. In Italy, Mr. Berlusconi and the fascist MSI party also ran on a protectionist, corporatist programme. A worried Europe is voting against free trade and for protectionists such as Jimmy Goldsmith and Mr. Berlusconi.
  One cannot divorce trade from the social context in which it takes place. That was recognised in the 19th century by-the Tory party. A poem from the 1850s reads:

  "We raise the wheat—they give us the corn

  We sift the meal—they give us the husk

  We peel the meat—they give us the skin

  And that's the way they take us in".

  That was an American slave song from the mid-19th century. Of course, at that time, slavery was considered to be an acceptable part of the trading relationships between modern nations.
  Today's slaves are the 10 million in the prison camps of China. Above all, they are the children who, under free trade, are increasingly being forced to work. I am sure that many hon. Members have sons and daughters, perhaps even grandchildren. How would they feel if one of their children were among the 50,000 aged between three and a half and 15 who work in the match and firework industries of Tamil Nadu in India? How would they feel if their child were among the 25 per cent. of workers in the glass industry in Uttar Pradesh who are children and who have to carry molten glass on which adults then work? That is the world of free trade that the Uruguay round, GATT treaty and WTO need to consider if we are not to experience a disintegration into the type of protectionism exemplified by the votes that took place across Europe on Sunday.
  The Minister for Industry referred to the Havana charter which was to set up an international trade organisation —an ITO—in 1947. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must quote directly from the key clause which stated that
  "all countries have a common interest in the achievement and maintenance of fair labour standards related to productivity, and thus in the improvement of wages and working conditions as productivity may permit. The Members recognise that unfair labour conditions, particularly in production for export, create difficulties in international trade and accordingly each Member shall take whatever action may be appropriate and feasible to eliminate such conditions".
  That clause in the Havana draft treaty was sufficient for the United States Congress to refuse to ratify it so that in 1947 we had only a provisional treaty, not a proper one. I fear that Congress may not ratify the Uruguay round, despite President Clinton's efforts to sell it, because the treaty now setting up the WTO does not take sufficiently into account social and environmental considerations.
  Even as we debate, the general conference of the International Labour Organisation is taking place in Geneva. I was there at the end of last week and nearly all the speakers—Heads of State and Employment and Labour Ministers—referred to the need for a social clause in the GATT treaty. Some were for it and some were against, but I welcome the call of the President of the Swiss confederation—that great free trading nation—who wanted a link between the ILO and the WTO. I believe that the House should also welcome such a call.
  544
  I also welcome the call of the Secretary of Labour of the United States, Mr. Robert Reich, who insisted at a meeting that I attended last Friday morning that the full respect of trade union rights was a basic condition for access to the world trade system. The same call was heard from the new Labour Ministers of South Africa and Russia, but, alas, our Secretary of State for Employment was notorious by his absence. When great world issues are debated, Britain is not present. It is not punching above its weight or below the belt—it is not punching at all.
  As I represent a steel constituency, I am especially concerned about subsidies. I agree that the subsidies paid to many steel producers around the world create an unfair market in which the technically advanced and highly proficient and co-operative workplaces of our steel industry are finding it difficult to compete.
  More important than the question of subsidies are the questions of demand and of manufacturing industry, but, perhaps, that is for another debate. If we are to fight our corner on subsidies—a point raised by Conservative Members—we need to be at the heart of Europe, arguing in every corridor and at every table for our position. We have to be in tune with our partners in Europe instead of opting out from nearly every policy that they put forward.
  We also need to be in tune with our trading partners across the Atlantic, instead of, as at Marrakesh, when Micky Kantor the United States Trade Representative spoke out powerfully for social clauses in the World Trade Organisation, our representative, with all the third-world dictatorships, argued against those ideas.
  Much mention has been made of Sir Leon Brittan and Peter Sutherland. Mr. Sutherland, as many hon. Members will know, is leaving GATT and, from the Opposition side of the House, I should be happy to nominate Sir Leon to succeed him. Certainly, if the Government keep on running Sir Leon as President of the European Commission, he stands no chance. In his most recent book and speeches, he has started to acknowledge the importance of a social Europe and of linking trade to social accountability and responsibility. It may be simply an election address, but I take him as a serious man. He puts pen to paper and publishes pieces and we take him at his word. We also need to pay tribute to President Mitterrand, to Prime Minister Balladur and to US Trade Representative Kantor for their insistence throughout the winter and into the spring that the linkage of trade and workers' rights is important in the new world trade system which we are creating.
  I believe that the House would like to see a link between the World Trade Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. I hope that it happens soon, as my hon. Friends sit on the Government Benches arguing for that link and instructing our diplomats and civil servants to argue for it. We need a social clause based on ILO conventions Nos. 87 and 98 and the elimination of child labour as a fundamental pre-condition for access to the world's trading system.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) referred to the need for business to plan. I agree completely with him, but, as business has to plan, so we need an active Government who plan. The hon. Gentleman did distinguished work for the Commonwealth Secretariat and we need such international organisations to link up and to plan. He called for an action programme and I agree with him. We need an action programme for social and environmental rights, which are built into the new world trading system that is being set up. Yes, I am for a world

  545
  of free trade and trade that is fair. The way in which to make it fair is to ensure that trade adds not only to the wealth of nations, of multinationals and of banks, but to the wealth of all individuals and the communities in which they live, wherever they be in the world.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Ian Taylor: I am delighted to be able to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who entered the House not long ago and who has a certain deprecating tone in his speeches, which, in time, I am sure that he will justify.
  The debate is timely because the results of the GATT negotiations are lying in front of the House and it gives us an opportunity to consider carefully their implications and the prospects for the future of world trade. Several hon. Members have rightly paid tribute to the people who were most notably involved in ensuring that a deal was struck at Marrakesh—Arthur Dunkel initially, followed by Peter Sutherland. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset and Frome—
  Mr. Mark Robinson: Somerton.
  Mr. Taylor: Somerton and Frome; I almost got it right. My hon. Friend pointed out that we tended to focus on the European-American negotiations, but when all the rest of the countries—about 111, or perhaps more—tried to come together to agree, it was a complicated procedure. So, credit is undoubtedly due in that respect, as the GATT organisation performed miracles. I add my own tribute to Sir Leon Brittan for his mastery of detail. One of the attributes of a Commissioner who is handling trade disputes is a brain that can get round some rather complicated and somewhat arid details. He undoubtedly did that, with great gusto, and was more than a match for his opposite numbers, such as Carla Hills and others from the United States. Sir Leon's work galvanised the arrangements and was warmly supported by the British Government.
  Nevertheless, the point that I stress is that the European Community was negotiating as one. It is a classic example of the Community as a single unit being in the British interest. Certainly, in trade negotiations, the Community has the right and the responsibility to negotiate on behalf of the contracting parties to the GATT series of talks. I do not believe that we would have got anywhere near a deal if all 12 individual member countries of the EU had negotiated separately. Indeed, it is almost certain that we would never have reached a starting point for negotiations. Also, we would never have got as good a deal in the face-to-face negotiations with the Americans if we had not been negotiating as a trading bloc of 340 million people with one spokesman. Let us put the European elections behind us and concentrate on what benefits a positive approach by Britain to our role in the European Union can give to the people of Britain, because there is no doubt that that unified, single negotiating position on behalf of all the individual contracting nations was a good example of the reason why I believe that Britain's membership of the European Union is absolutely critical to furthering the interests of the British people.
  Free trade is an essential part of the progress of the economic well-being of the people of this country. We are
  546
  a trading nation, and there is no getting round that. Since 1947, the world has seen a reduction in tariffs from about 50 per cent. across the board to about 5 per cent. on average and almost an 800 per cent. increase in the volume of trade. In the period between 1947 and the end of the Tokyo round, volumes of world trade in manufactures had increased by more than 800 per cent. and world output by 300 per cent. There is no doubt that the post–1940s boost to the western economies has been based on the principle of removing trade barriers and of promoting the growth of the interchange of goods and services. In those circumstances, we are now in a situation where, although there were considerable impediments, which was the reason for the Uruguay round, we have long since put behind us any doubts about the benefits of opening up borders to trade and the removal of non-tariff barriers.
  Some of the current figures are remarkable. Merchandise trade represents 33 per cent. of world gross domestic product and, if trading services are included, the corresponding figure is about 40 per cent., compared with 26 per cent. in 1963. Even more significant are the changes in the composition of trade. Trading in manufactured products today accounts for more than 70 per cent. of merchandise trade, compared with 50 per cent. 30 years ago. The growing percentage of that trade is in intermediate manufactured products. For the major industrial economies, intermediate manufactured products make up as much as 50 to 70 per cent. of their imports and, for some major economies, anything up to 50 per cent. of exports and 30 per cent. of imports take place within multinational companies.
  The opening up of financial markets is even more remarkable. In the past decade foreign investment has grown three times faster than trade and four times faster than world gross domestic product. Those figures can be found in a speech made by Sir Leon Brittan at a conference in Portugal at the end of last November, when I had the honour of sharing a platform with him, just before the final agreements. Sir Leon said:
  "The world financial market has taken the place of national markets, easing world liquidity but reducing each individual country's macro-economic independence."
  That is an important point to underline.
  Although I do not make any pointed references, it is ironic that those who are most in favour of opening borders to free trade sometimes also regret the passing of national sovereignty which accompanies the opening of those borders. If one believes in free trade, one has a consequential problem in also believing in the importance of preserving national sovereignty at all costs. The world economy now has a big influence on trade and financial markets in respect of what a national Government can do.
  The foreign exchange markets have tripled in terms of turnover since 1986 to reach $900 billion a day. The yearly turnover of cross-border equity transactions corresponds to 7 per cent. of world gross domestic product. Those figures provide an idea of the magnitude of what is being achieved and show the importance, for a country like ours which believes in opening borders and welcoming the prospect of free trade, of the limitations that the Government face in respect of domestic arrangements taken in isolation. We will not be able to attempt to introduce domestic policies that do not pay attention to international competition. I hope to return to that point later.
  There is also now no doubt that the results of the GATT round will have a significant benefit in terms of the growth

  547
  of world trade. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World bank have estimated global annual economic welfare gains of $200 billion to $275 billion as a result of the successful outcome of the Uruguay round. However, the gains are likely to be even greater over a longer period. One estimate suggests that the total annual gain could be $2,000 billion in 10 years' time, the equivalent of more than 0.5 per cent. added to world annual growth rates in the next decade. That is a very significant benefit and a target that we can set ourselves which would benefit enormously people in Britain and elsewhere.
  I am aware of the arguments that the agreements may be less beneficial to developing countries in certain specific respects. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who hopes to speak later, is more knowledgeable than I am about the developing world and I will leave him to concentrate on those issues. However, I do not accept that the developing world will not benefit from the expansion of world trade and the removal of barriers to its goods and services. If we analyse what has happened over the past 30 or 40 years, I do not believe that one can sustain the argument that developing countries are penalised if they follow sensible economic policies.
  Reference has been made to problems that are on the horizon. Once a treaty has been proudly proclaimed and tabled, we assume that its ratification is almost inevitable. We had an example last year where that was perhaps a rather mistaken view. However, in this case, having fought very hard to get the treaty through, we assume that its ratification is taken for granted.
  I was in America not long ago and I believe that that view is exaggerated. The American Senate and Congress appear to have exhausted their free-trade instincts by passing the North American Free Trade Area agreement. In the event, that was slightly easier than had been forecast. Ross Perot made a bit of a fool of himself in opposition to NAFTA. However, the anti-free trade instincts on Capitol hill were clear.
  There is another problem with GATT on which it would be wise for the House to focus for a moment. America is obviously the most critical of all the countries that are required to ratify the agreement. Because of American rules, it is necessary to replace dollar for dollar the loss in revenues from tariff reductions. It is estimated that, in the first year, between $10 billion and $14 billion will have to be found from other tax-raising measures in order to equalise the budget. Although I am no expert, I believe that it is possible that reductions in expenditure could compensate for that. However, I am not entirely certain about that. The debate on Capitol hill is about what revenue can be raised in compensation.
  Over five years, the cost to the US in revenue lost through tariff reductions could be as much as $40 billion. When we make the bland assumption that it is going to be all right on the night, we should remember what American politicians are now wrestling with. They are trying to decide how to make up for the tariff reductions. When I listened to Carla Hills and others, I wondered whether American politicians forgot to tell their people that there were implications in the battle against Europe and the threats of trade wars. I do not believe that those politicians told the mid-west farmers that there might be changes in the way in which their subsidies were treated or with regard to price supports.
  548
  To use an agricultural analogy, the chickens are coming home to roost. American politicians are now having to admit that the free trade push to break down barriers to their goods in Europe and elsewhere has a domestic cost which may not be evenly spread.
  My next point about ratification has already been referred to, but I do not apologise for raising it again. The only Parliament to have a clear responsibility in terms of ratification is the European Parliament. At the moment, it is difficult to tell what the character of the European Parliament will be. We now know the members because the elections have been completed, but the Parliament's character is still uncertain.
  I hope that the free-trading instinct, which has characterised discussion in this House, will exist in the new European Parliament. As this is the first debate since the European elections, may I say that I hope that the loss of so many excellent Conservative Members to that Parliament will not be a blow to free-trading instincts in the European Parliament when it reconvenes in a few weeks' time.
  The rules set out in GATT are very important. The documents are so voluminous that it is impossible to go into them in detail. However, I shall summarise them under four headings.
  First, the anti-dumping rules are extremely welcome. The second heading relates to subsidies provisions. In the speech to which I have already referred, Sir Leon Brittan drew to my attention—this point may be useful for the House—the difference in subsidies, or the definition or use of subsidies, in Europe and the United States. He said:
  "The EC systems of government tend to favour more direct forms of subsidy, such as price support, programme support, regional or social aids. In the United States, however, subsidies are more indirect, perhaps in the form of income support, research and development assistance through the NASA budgets, or pensions cover for Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. Resolving this issue lies at the core of many of the most difficult EC/US trade disputes."
  That point is worth noting. Trying to determine what is actually a subsidy when one person's subsidy is not the same as another's is a very intricate problem. Again, I pay credit to Leon Brittan for cutting through those difficulties.
  The third heading is trade-related investment measures and non-tariff barriers. There is no doubt that there are various ways of skewing investment so that it affects trade, and they have been itemised and exposed in the GATT negotiations.
  The final heading is connected with safeguards and transparency of dealings. Those rules which have characterised the GATT talks are extremely important and I am sure that we will follow progress under each of the headings.
  There are matters outstanding, and I share the frustration that financial services were not fully part of the original deal. I certainly do not blame the British Government. Of course, we would be anxious, given the excellence of our financial services industry, to make sure that that was part of the deal. I know that we are now pushing for conclusions, but the Americans did not like opening up their market to other pressures and certainly in the financial sector they are still fairly restrictionist.
  There is also a hidden problem of which I am sure my right hon. Friend is well aware—it applies particularly in respect of the Americans, although they are not the only people, of course, who use it—and that is tit-for-tat agreements, which are almost bilateral arrangements, with

  549
  the Americans attempting to use their own power to obtain corresponding benefits from other countries. Of course, there is their trade Act and their Super 301 provisions. I am not an expert on either, but I certainly know that the Americans can use them very much for their own national benefit, regardless of their talk about free trade. We must be very careful to watch what they are doing.
  The cultural aspect is another subject that will be of continued interest. I do not think that it is just a matter for the French. I have certain sneaking sympathies with the French position. Having lived in France for three years, I know how fond the French are of their language. We should be careful not to allow the swamping of a culture. Therefore, French worries about the impact on the French language and culture by a complete opening up are ones that I do not discount entirely, but the problem is that the French are somewhat erratic in the way in which they push their arguments. Certainly, when they were saying that we must protect the French film industry, French people were flocking to see "Jurassic Park".
  Mr. Corbyn: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the French film industry and the dangers to it. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are also dangers to other people's film and publishing industries, particularly the film industries in Burkina Faso, in Africa generally and in India? In the Indian case, they are well developed and under threat from the power of Hollywood unless protection is offered to them.
  Mr. Taylor: Remarkably, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. What we then mean by protection is something that I would like notice about before I answer, because it is very easy to hide behind a threat to culture and then put up all sorts of barriers. The desire in the modern technological visual age not to swamp local cultures is one that I share, because in the long term it will do great harm to nations, whether they be France, India or anywhere else. But we must not use that as a simple excuse then to put up all sorts of barriers. It is a very complicated aspect of detailed negotiation.
  There is a certain point on which the House would be wise to concentrate when discussing GATT, because I sense widespread enthusiasm in the Chamber for free trade. Sir Jimmy Goldsmith, a man whom I used to know and used to admire—I think that making too much money goes to one's head—possibly alone has put forward rather pertinent points which should cause us to think carefully about our enthusiasm for free trade—not to change our views but to attempt to refine our arguments. In an article in The Times of 5 March, which I recommend people to read, he talked about the threats from opening up trade and the dangers to competition in places such as western Europe from the new markets that are opening up in the rest of the world, with the 4 billion people who have entered the world economy with liberalisation or progressive liberalisation. He cites
  "China, Indochina, India, Bangladesh and the nations which used to be part of the Soviet Union, those of Latin America, and so on."
  The 4 billion people who are increasingly becoming interested in being customers and whose literacy is rising—in some cases, far too slowly—nevertheless receive wages that are as much as 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. less than those in Europe. Sir Jimmy Goldsmith's argument is
  550
  that free trade between regions is not desirable. I can understand what he means. If we in this country say yes, we believe in free trade and that we will therefore have to adjust our domestic conditions to be able to compete with the newly emerging capitalist economies of the far east, clearly we will have some problems if wage discrepancies are so great.
  That argument also features in discussions within Europe on the social protocol. I have some slightly unpredictable views on that matter, but the reality is that western Europe as a whole simply will not be capable of competing on wages alone. There is no prospect of doing that. All studies of comparative advantage indicate that what we have to develop in Europe—America will find the same—is value-added and the ability to have high technical skills in the work force.
  Attempting to pay cheap labour or low wages in Europe as a point of principle in order to compete in international markets is no solution. There is simply no prospect of doing that. We do not even have to look as far as the far east. I believe that I am right in saying that if we compare current wages in the Czech Republic with those even in east Germany—the eastern Lander—we will find that wages in the Czech Republic are about a sixth of those in the neighbouring Lander. In Poland the figure is one tenth. Even in the broader family of European nations we see almost an inability to compete on equal terms. The answer is clearly not restrictionism. There can be no sense in restricting trade, certainly not from the countries in central Europe which we wish to be stabilised and brought into the wider Europe. In the longer term, there is no point in trying to cut ourselves off from the threat from the far east. Before Opposition Members happily leap to their feet and say, "Aha, a Tory who supports minimum wages," and all the rest of that panoply—
  Mr. Corbyn: Do you?
  Mr. Taylor: I do not support a minimum wage, for the very simple reason that in France, a country which I much admire, there is, sadly, a disproportionately high level of youth unemployment because of difficulty of access to the market. There are arguments, which we sometimes do not treat seriously enough, about a minimum wage, which effectively means companies subsidising the work force at a level which, in terms of their productivity, is not sensible, and then looking to the Government to subsidise them because they are doing so as a social gesture. In other countries that do not have a minimum wage, people are more readily drawn into new jobs and job creation is a bigger part of economic development.
  Those are perfectly reasonable arguments. I know what my instincts are, having already said that I am not attempting to force wages down to levels which rival the ability to produce from the far east or even from central Europe.
  Mr. MacShane: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the country that has created the most jobs in proportion to its population in the past 25 years—the United States of America—has very strong minimum wage legislation?
  Mr. Taylor: I am aware of that, although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that it varies from state to state in the United States. As he is obviously knowledgeable about these things, I am sure that he would also accept that there is a parallel problem in the United

  551
  States: there is a much larger pool of people who do not get any access to the jobs market, and that tends to be a much more permanent pool. There are social consequences of minimum wage legislation. We can argue the case—it is an argument that we need to have—but it is not a panacea and there are consequential difficulties.
  Nor am I saying that Europe should not pay attention to its competitive position. Many European countries are out of line with other developed countries such as the United States. Non-wage costs are extraordinarily high and Germany is now beginning to feel the pressure of that. In Germany in 1992, the hourly cost per employee in manufacturing was DM42, compared with DM30 to DM35 in Japan and the Benelux countries, DM28 in France, DM25 in the United States and DM23 in the United Kingdom. Non-wage costs, which add 84 per cent. to every deutschmark paid in wages, are the main source of the differential between West Germany and other countries. When we talk about West Germany, we are specifically referring to the West German lander in the united Germany.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman mentioned Germany. Is he aware that the OECD has revised upwards its forecast for growth in Germany in 1994 from 0.6 per cent. to 1.8 per cent? That means that Germany will create an extra $24 billion of wealth this year in the very country that the hon. Gentleman says has high wages, high social costs, strong unions, strong works councils and so on. Germany is on the way back—it is leading the way for a social Europe with wage costs that are taken into account when manufacturers export goods.
  Mr. Taylor: I am delighted to recognise exactly the statistics that the hon. Gentleman has quoted from the OECD report. Of course, that is one of the reasons why Chancellor Kohl got the benefit of the doubt in the recent elections. The German people recognised that the German economy was growing. We should be glad about that because there is little doubt that full economic progress in this country depends on economic growth in the rest of the European Union.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Rotherham that that is not an unmixed blessing from the German point of view. The German record is extraordinary in terms of producing growth. I shall make two points: first, because it works in Germany, its system does not have to be exported elsewhere in the European Union. Indeed, there is a danger in so doing because other economies may not be capable of adapting to it.
  Secondly, one only has to look at recent moves by German industry to realise that all is not entirely well with regard to the social costs in Germany. Both BMW and Mercedes have built enormous plants in the United Slates, employing about 1,500 workers each, because the cost of employing American workers is lower than the cost of employing German workers. That is why companies have moved their workers to where the market is.
  Another aspect is that we are seeing considerable continuing investment in other European Union countries by German companies. That is natural but it is related to costs. There is no question about that. More than 150,000 workers are directly employed by German manufacturing companies in this country alone. German costs are not an unmixed blessing and the German equivalent of the CBI has recognised that.
  552
  We need to be careful about costs because of the globalisation of world trade in terms of sales, sourcing, marketing products and technology. In each of those circumstances, it is possible to have a head office in one country and most production units elsewhere in the world without necessarily knowing where the product has been developed, unless one looks at the small print on it. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no point in railing against it or accusing multinational companies, because that is the way in which business is now done, and many developing countries are benefiting from it.
  Certain large European countries no longer employ as many people in Europe as they previously employed. Unilever has reduced its European work force by one third over the past few years, despite having grown internationally. That is a real problem that we must watch. We must safeguard our competitive position and our understanding of comparative advantage. We must take on board the slogan, "Get smarter or get poorer".
  As part of the discussion on free trade arising out of the GATT talks, we need to look closely at our philosophy of how to keep our economies growing. Unemployment will not fall simply as a result of normal economic growth. The last time that we had clear growth throughout the European Community was in 1986–90. About 9 million new jobs were created, but unemployment fell by only 3 million. As technology changes and as more people enter the labour force, we will constantly have a problem with unemployment in our western economies.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not it particularly noticeable that that was the case at the time because there was growth in the number of people entering the employment markets in those countries? Today, the situation is somewhat different, and the importance—certainly in this country —of not having the social chapter is relevant.
  Mr. Taylor: I accept what my hon. Friend says. We need to encourage as many people to enter labour opportunities as possible, not price them out of jobs. That is important. Certainly, I believe in the benefits of having a job, rather than being on social welfare.
  For western economies, the problem remains that, even if we increase our rates of growth, unemployment will not fall sufficiently. That worries me because there is a risk that our desire for free trade could affect people in different ways. Protectionism comes through fear and politicians can play on that fear if they are unscrupulous. There is no doubt therefore that if we do not get our domestic economies or the European economy right, we could open up reactions to the good work that was done in the Uruguay round.
  I should like to touch on other issues, but I know that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I shall therefore conclude by saying that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs must take on board the fact that within the GATT round there is scope for encouraging British exports. One is not urging on him, and he would not wish to have urged on him, anything that is unfair or outside the rules, but it is important to do the very best for British manufacturers.
  Recently, I had a constituency case with British Aerospace Sema. Against fierce competition from Germany, that group won an order from the Korean navy for a command and control fire system for its frigates. The important point is that the Korean navy did not have to buy

  553
  British—there is no doubt that it was a keen buyer in the current circumstances. BAe recognised that it received tremendous help from the Ministry of Defence for the credibility of the system—no financial assistance was offered. The Ministry of Defence was trying to explain to the Korean navy the advantages of working with BAe Sema. That is the sort of assistance which can come from right across the board, and the DTI should be in the forefront of that.
  Increasingly, the Foreign Office has trade experts in embassies around the world, and that is an area in which we can try to do our best for British industry and for financial services within the rules of GATT. I am sure that a popular application of that effort will work wonders for British industry, which still has a lot to offer based on high value-added, high-skilled and, ultimately, highly paid British workers.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I welcome this debate, as I asked the Government a few weeks ago to make time available for such a debate. I am glad that they have done so. I am also glad that, in a small way, I was able to assist in ensuring that the Minister was able to get to Marrakesh, given that there were certain local difficulties in the House at the time. It was my view that it was important that the British Government were there to append their signature to the treaty.
  I am not surprised, but I am a little disappointed, that the debate is being held at a time when we have just come back from a two-week recess, and there is not an enormous amount of interest. One must consider that this country is a trading nation which will die if it fails to trade successfully in the new environment.
  I honestly believe that we as a nation do not address collectively how we can perform better. It is not a matter of trying to make party-political points about the relative merits and demerits of the Government's policy, although we can discuss them by all means. But we must recognise, especially in the environment which will be upon us once the GATT process gets under way, that we must be much more vigorous in our approach to securing an increasing share of world trade for Britain. If we do not take that vigorous approach, there is a real danger that others who are more vigorous will produce a situation where our share declines.
  I understand that many of the speeches that we have heard so far have been somewhat congratulatory about the fact that we have got here. There has been a recognition that it has been very difficult, and that the British Government, the Governments of many other countries, the European Union and the American Government played a part. All those have had to come together, and there have been many delays and obstacles on the way. All that must be acknowledged, but all we have achieved is a new environment. Simply congratulating ourselves on achieving that and not facing up to what it means is not enough. We clearly must move forward, and it worries me.
  I feel like saying that if British industry is not excited and scared at the prospect, it damn well ought to be. It should be scared in a negative sense, but perhaps fear will fuel the recognition that there needs to be a real application of thought in a very competitive environment. The Prime
  554
  Minister has said at the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions when the issue has been discussed—a little glibly, I think—that it is estimated that the GATT agreement could, once it is in full flow, lead to additional world trade of over $250 billion a year. It is said almost as if that trade will fall out of the sky. It will not, and it is there potentially for 125 nations to fight for. We must ensure that the United Kingdom is equipped to fight effectively to ensure that we get that share.
  There are number of weaknesses that we must address. I make no apology for introducing one or two anecdotal contributions because they are often particularly relevant and practical. I shall give one example. Two weeks ago, I visited a company in the south of England which was extremely successful. It was what we would call a medium-sized enterprise, employing more than 500 people and with a turnover of £18 million. It was exporting 72 per cent. of its turnover to 68 countries. That is impressive, and the company was involved in technology associated with telecommunications.
  I asked what was the secret of the company's success and I went through a catalogue of issues. The first thing I asked about was finance. The managing director said that it was not a problem, and that his only complaint about the rate of interest was that it was too low, as the company had cash in the bank. It was financed internally, and was owned by private shareholders. I make that point and immediately one is struck by the fact that it is not a typical company. It is an unusual, but successful, company.
  I then asked about training. The managing director said that he had served his apprenticeship, and that he believed in apprenticeships. The company still recruited and trained apprentices. It believed in the value of skills. He said, "I am an engineer. I am proud of it, and I could go down on the shop floor and work alongside my workers and sort out problems with them. I do not think that I am typical of British management." I do not think that he is typical either.
  That brought home to me the fact that there are cultural and structural problems within the British economy which somehow do not always enable us to compete as effectively. I only give that as an example. I am not saying that all companies should be like that. We could not create that, and we must build on what we have.
  The managing director said that his firm could take a long-term view, and the next question I asked was how the firm approached export marketing. He said that export marketing, which made up two thirds of the firm's business, required long-term planning and investment in the market. He said, "We have a guy in Vietnam right now. We have no business there, and it will cost us tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds over the next three or four years before we get any return on that investment. But we recognise that that is what we must do if we are to build up markets." Too often—I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House have experienced this—when one talks particularly to small and medium-sized companies, they say that they cannot afford that kind of investment.
  Worse than that, as far as I am concerned, are companies that get into the export market only because it is tough going at home. They decide that they had better find a market somewhere, and they go abroad. They may start to pick up a little business—particularly if they have had the benefit of a 15 to 20 per cent. devaluation—but when the market picks up at home, the tendency is to drop

  555
  their new overseas customers and come straight back to the home market. When that happens, a company damages its long-term performance.
  I am not suggesting that that is typical of all British companies, but I fear that it happens too often. If one compares small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom with those in Germany and Japan—and, to a lesser extent, France and the United States—one sees that there is a recognition in those countries that one must develop markets and must take medium-term views. They believe that companies must make investments in developing the market, in developing the product and in innovation to ensure added value. One needs access to finance to support those developments on a competitive basis. That is where the private shareholding in the company to which I referred was interesting.
  We have had this discussion quite often, and I think that two things must be addressed. I do not wish to propose a mechanism for giving small and medium-sized companies access to funding on a subsidised basis. Most small and medium-sized companies are looking for access to funding comparable with what is available to larger companies, and where they are not required to put up so much personal security. If they do not have to put up personal security —which substantially lowers the risk to the financier—they are charged premiums on their interest rates, or whatever their financial package is, because they are small or medium-sized companies. They are a greater risk, even though the risk has been reduced by the very guarantees that have been sought. Time and again, I meet companies that complain about that.
  Within that context, we must also address an issue that the Chancellor referred to in his Budget speech concerning the relationship in cash terms between large companies and small companies. That is very relevant to the matter of trade overseas. A constituent who came to see me last Saturday is a small business man. He said that, as a direct result of his inability to get prompt payment from his main customers, he had had to lay off two of his five workers. Late payment destroys jobs—simple as that. That man had to lay people off, not because he did not have the business, but because he could not get the cash to pay their wages. His cash flow problems also meant that he had to forgo potential business because he was unable to service contracts. He cited household names that typically kept him waiting between 90 and 120 days for payment. That is unacceptable. We cannot expect our small and mechumsized businesses to develop medium and long-term strategies when their major customers treat them that way. They should also be given help regarding market and product development.
  When I intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), I referred to export credit guarantees and the apparent discrepancy between what is available to foreign companies and our own. I raised that problem with the President of the Board of Trade when he appeared before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, but he dismissed it in a cavalier fashion by saying that the problem is only cited by business men who are moaning about markets that they are not fit enough to win. I do not think that such an attitude goes down terribly well with business men, nor is it particularly helpful.
  In the past few months, I have visited a number of companies and I have asked their representatives whether they think that there is anything that the Government could
  556
  or should do for them. It is an open invitation for those business men to offer the Minister's reply, "I don't want to know about Government. I don't need them. I am a free marketeer." Many of them say that they do not want much intervention from the Government, but they also say that the current export credit guarantees provision does not compare with that offered to their competitors.
  I do not want to be churlish about the extension of those guarantees, which was welcome, but business men still tell me that our Government, unlike the Governments of their competitors, are not prepared to offer cover in more risky markets. It is a matter of judgment, but such hesitancy could be a major error. I appreciate the possible dangers of trading with the republics of the former Soviet Union. They may be high-risk markets, but investing in them should not be governed by sentiment. Should those countries achieve an economic upturn in the long term, those that take the risk in the early stages of their development will reap great benefits. Those republics will remember those countries that were not prepared to take that risk.
  I was told of a major construction project where the Italian Government were prepared to make export credit guarantees available on the basis of an 8 per cent. premium. The British Government said that their premium was 13 per cent., non-negotiable, even though it was made clear that if they were able to provide comparable cover to that offered by the Italians, 80 per cent. of the contracts would be placed with United Kingdom companies. That project was worth £100 million, but the net result was that the contracts were awarded to Italy. It is difficult to give all the relevant details, but it is a matter of great concern that such a large project was lost to this country, apparently on the basis of ECG cover. I hope that the Government will recognise that such cover should be governed by a proper strategy so that there is a clear understanding of what we are trying to achieve.
  I pay tribute to the President of the Board of Trade to the extent that he specifically employed experts from industry to develop market profiles and to offer informed business advice. That helpful and valuable policy has been generally successful; I have had good reports about it and I am more than happy to give credit where it is due.
  I am also happy to note that, increasingly, I hear good reports about the efforts made by our consular officers and embassies. We no longer have an empire or the political influence and clout that we once had, so, in many parts of the world, such offices no longer have any primary purpose apart from sustaining our trade performance. Businesses now need advice and local knowledge about foreign markets to prevent them from making fatal mistakes that may prejudice market development.
  Brand-name world leaders from Britain can take on and beat anyone in the world, but many small and medium-sized companies need guidance, because the cost of competing on their own is proportionally much higher than the costs incurred by those world leaders. I accept that those companies must have the will to compete and should put up their own money, but the quality of the help that they receive from the Government is critical.
  The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) referred to competitiveness in relation to wage costs. Last year, I visited southern Germany. I noted the business men's sharp appreciation of the problems facing their economy and the importance of social costs and its relationship with the economy. What concentrates the minds of those

  557
  business men sitting in Munich is the fact that they are just 100 miles from the Czech Republic. The wages in the Czech Republic are just 10 per cent. of the wages in Bavaria. The social costs issue is marginal to the fundamental disparity between the basic wages.
  The attitude of those German business men was simple. They had decided that they would locate their expansion plants in the Czech Republic because they knew the country, spoke the language and it was just over the border from Germany. They felt that that was the way to protect their companies.
  That strategy was understandable, but those business men also appreciated that it was just part of the policy designed to secure the long-term future of the Germany economy. They appreciated that by relocating they would help to raise the standard of living in the Czech Republic to the point where the gap would be narrowed and the ability of Czechs to buy German goods would increase. That is what free trade is all about—it has a positive benefit if it raises purchasing power. The necessary adjustments can, however, be painful.
  The Germans also recognise, however, that they must continue to innovate and stay ahead of the market technically. They appreciate that they must always produce enough with which to compete because they know that they must be the world leaders, not countries such as the Czech Republic. That is why German business men value engineers and maintain their spending on research and development.
  The recent report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the competitiveness of our manufacturing industry drew attention to the fact that throughout the recession British companies continued to maintain dividend levels even though profits were down. The report noted that, on average, dividends rose from about 20 per cent. of profits to about 65 per cent. That obviously undermines our ability to make the necessary investment to create a strong platform for recovery once the recession ends for certain and world trade starts to move again, partly because of the end of the recession and also because of the benefits from GATT. The contradiction inherent in those dividend payments weakens our ability to take full advantage of the markets available to us.
  The arguments about the social chapter and social costs may be a legitimate part of the debate, but they are in danger of being used as a political canard to obscure the fact that we must be competitive right across the board. Those who advance those arguments know that in most cases social costs are not the definitive problem. Within the European Union, Portugal has the lowest wages. Portugal also has the highest unit labour costs. Germany, which has the highest wages, has the lowest unit wages costs. That matter is not difficult to follow.
  Britain is in the middle. A tennis analogy was put to me today. Someone who had just gained a qualification as a tennis coach told me that the basic instruction was, "Step to the net or stay back on the baseline. Don't get caught in the T." That is where Britain is in danger of being caught.
  Mr. Derek Conway: Typical Liberal.
  Mr. Bruce: I hear the sedentary remark that I am a typical Liberal. It is the Government's position that is betwixt and between.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I am concerned about the hon. Gentleman's comment on unit costs relating to Portugal. The Portuguese pride themselves on their relatively low level of unemployment because their employment and unit costs are low. Where does the hon. Gentleman gets his figures?
  Mr. Bruce: As I recall, they are European Commission figures for the manufacturing industry. Germany, with its high social and wages costs, has the lowest unit costs. That is the most important part of the equation. If taken across the whole of its economy, the fact that Portugal has low wages may benefit its economy. But that is not the case in manufacturing, partly because it has neither the investment nor the modern plant in its indigenous industry to enable it to perform competitively. That is the nub of the point that I am trying to make.
  What really matters to the United Kingdom is our ability to maintain investment and innovation so that we are competitive, and to make things on a lower unit cost basis but of a comparable quality to our major competitors. France and Germany are the countries which we should try to match. We are simply not succeeding in doing that at present.
  I was astonished at the Prime Minister's intervention in the European debate about a multi-speed Europe. Although I understand the argument for it, particularly with regard to enlargement, his comment gave many people the idea that the United Kingdom might choose to opt out of the division that includes France, Germany and the Benelux countries. If that is the Government's ambition, I neither share nor accept it. If we cannot compete on equal terms with France, Germany and the Benelux countries, we must get our act together and ensure that we can do so alongside them. We are not at that point and it is foolish of the Government to pretend that we are.
  There is a genuine need, which cuts across party politics and also exists outside the House, to recognise that we are not performing well enough as a trading nation to meet the aspirations of the British people. Our chronic balance of payments deficit is unacceptably high and all the indications are that it will worsen as the economy improves. If we do not invest and innovate, and plough money into research and development, we risk being unable to compete not only with high-investment economies such as France, Germany and America but with low-wage economies such as the Pacific tigers and emerging countries elsewhere. We shall then really be in the middle, which will lead to serious problems.
  If we start to lose ground, we may be unable to fulfil the hopes and expectations of our people. We shall be unable to reduce unemployment or give people quality jobs with wages that enable them to aspire to the quality of life that they want. The Government may be tempted into political polarisation to ensure that—I shall put it bluntly—the cake is redistributed to sweeten their supporters, thus increasing the social divide. Many Conservative Members would feel uncomfortable about that, although some of us think that it has already happened. If it goes much further in that direction, serious social tensions may be opened up.
  In his opening remarks, the Minister said—predictably and, perhaps, slightly rhetorically—that the result of the

  559
  GATT round is an opportunity. Of course, it is an opportunity and we must succeed. Those who got us to this point, despite the difficulties of doing so, are to be congratulated. But we must not say, "This is a wonderful opportunity; we are a trading nation, so everything will fall out of the sky and we shall be prosperous." An awful lot of countries, from the richest to the poorest, will be fighting for the business, and unless we have a clear and incisive idea of how to maximise our potential and make a commitment to achieving our share of that growing trade, we risk falling further and further behind. We do not have that strategy at present.
  This is not an attempt to make a party-political point. It is a genuine plea to the Government to aim, along with all sectors of industry, for an objective of a balance of payments surplus, an improvement in our technical competence, a reduction in unit labour costs because we back investment, and a recognition that training, technology, investment, research and development are the keys to success.
  6.35 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome this debate. I was sorry, however, to hear the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) talking down Britain, which we have heard over and again from the Opposition. Bashing Britain does us no good and will certainly not relieve the problems that he tried to describe. He described a situation which we know is untrue and suggested that all the indications were that things would get worse. That is not correct. Unemployment has come down, fewer companies are going to the wall and productivity is up. What kind of world does the hon. Gentleman live in? He certainly does not live in this world. Thank goodness that I now have a chance to put the record straight.
  As a great trading nation with experience built up over hundreds of years, it is appropriate that Britain should have played such an instrumental role in securing the signing of the Uruguay round in Marrakesh. We all recall the hearty sigh of relief that came over the airwaves when, after eight war-weary years of interminable stop-start negotiations, an agreement was made involving 125 countries. I pay tribute to Sir Leon Brittan who, in his role as British Commissioner on behalf of the EC, negotiated long and hard through many nights with the United States to break a deadlock which threatened the successful outcome of the trade talks. In effect, he averted a trade war.
  From my knowledge of Sir Leon, I cannot think of a better person to have fought that battle. He is well known for being tenacious with a strong intellectual ability and we owe him a great debt. His work came on the back of the Government's earlier efforts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) said, our Prime Minister has always said that he is committed to working at the heart of Europe. In doing so, he used the opportunity of Britain's presidency of the Community to get both the EC and the US back to the negotiating table to reach an agreement on agriculture. That hardly sounds like someone who is fading away and almost ready for a tombstone that says RIP.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: You said it.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Far from it. The Prime Minister gets on with it. He rolls up his sleeves. Time and again, whether the negotiation is on trade, Europe or the Irish
  560
  difficulties, he is a master when it comes to getting people round a table and making an agreement. He has a sense of detail and an ability to control that brief, from which we have enormously benefited.
  After that effort in 1992, Britain last year was instrumental in encouraging the Clinton Administration to extend congressional authority to permit the GATT round to be concluded. The Prime Minister then pressed for agreement on tariffs at last year's Tokyo summit. He received a deserved tribute from the Japanese ambassador to this country, who said recently:
  "Great Britain is a trail-blazer for free trade in Europe".
  That is a classic example of where Britain really stands in the world, and to knock Britain in the shabby way that the Opposition do is cheap. I think that we should applaud that: one cannot buy such a tribute. The ambassador was not trying to score political points—he was simply speaking the truth.
  I shall speak for a moment about the undoubted benefits that will come out of the new round. As an island nation, comfortable with trading, we can only build on GATT. We are already the world's fifth largest exporter, exporting one quarter of all that we produce. Indeed, the Board of Trade's paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Britain to Win" said that the removal of barriers and opening of doors can only help us:
  "UK business cannot keep pace with international competitors without easy access to overseas markets. It also needs … competitively priced inputs to its production processes. As business becomes more complex and globalised, the remaining barriers to trade and investment"
  can be
  "disruptive and damaging. Eliminating barriers benefits UK business and consumers in terms of choice and price for goods and services competitively supplied in open markets."
  In the fullness of time, as has already been said several times today, an extra 400,000 jobs could be generated in Britain alone as the successful conclusion to the Uruguay round and as trade opens ever wider.
  I can think of several businesses in my Sutton constituency which will immediately benefit, including a company called Pobjoy Mint, which produces coins and sells them worldwide. Far from withering away, as the hon. Member for Gordon tried to suggest, that company increased its exports by £3 million last year and hopes that as a result of the round a fairer arrangement will develop. At present, in the UK it has to pay 17 per cent. VAT on its gold coins, but in Germany there is not such a heavy burden—indeed, nothing is payable.
  Another company in my constituency, a small and enterprising company called DesignPlan, which makes public lighting fixtures, is breaking new ground overseas and will undoubtedly benefit. It is showing all the dynamism and energy that the hon. Member for Gordon seems to deny.
  Mr. Bruce: First, the hon. Lady is putting words into my mouth that I did not use. Secondly, Britain at the moment has an annual balance of payments deficit running at £12 billion, which is the greatest of any in the European Union. Our biggest trading partner in the union is Spain, which has the second worst deficit. Does she not feel that we should address that issue at the very least?
  Lady Olga Maitland: We have a capital inflow to pay for that deficit.
  Mr. Corbyn: No, we have not.
  Lady Olga Maitland: May I carry on? Another company in my constituency, Tomy Toys, whose European headquarters is in Sutton, tells me:
  "Ratification of GATT brings significant beneficial effects in the short, medium and long term. Failure to ratify restricts supply and choice to the consumer and increases prices."
  In future, if all goes smoothly, Christmas and birthday children's toys will decrease in price. That can only be good news for parents, aunts, uncles and godparents. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome that confidence has certainly started returning in my constituency and any Conservative Member is able to give endless examples. It is a pity that the Opposition seem to find it so difficult to recognise that.
  With my interest in Northern Ireland, I know that there are companies there who will benefit. Britain is especially strong in the pharmaceutical sector and I mention Norbrook Laboratories in County Down, which this year won the Queen's award for industry for exports. By successfully selling animal vaccines world wide, that company is able to provide more employment in Ulster and in turn, with its profits, can afford to take an active role in cross-community activities. GATT will provide ever more opportunities, so in the end everyone in the Province will benefit.
  In global terms, world income will be boosted by £180 billion once the round has come into effect and I trust that future generations, and Parliaments here, will remember that it was our Prime Minister who pitted his energy and commitment to that end.
  A word of caution, however. For the opening of trade and competitiveness to be effective, everyone must understand the need for, and value of, free trade. It is no good any country, political party or individual saying, "Yes, I support it" and then undermining its spirit. The Opposition seem to want to have it both ways. They support GATT but when the chips are down the Labour party backed the Euro-Socialist manifesto, which argued that the principle of free trade must not be used to undermine social standards in Europe. Indeed, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) complained that there was no mention of workers' rights in GATT. The hon. Member for Gordon also, by implication, backs the social chapter.That is contradictory, especially if those people persist in arguing for the implementation of the social chapter to a point where it will be a gross burden on businesses and undermine competitiveness. It will mean that businesses will not be able to produce goods at a price at which they can be sold world wide.
  Socialists throughout Europe are beginning to wake up to free trade, but it takes time. Especially for the eastern bloc countries who, for 70 years, operated on burdensome centralised economies, learning new free trade habits takes time. However, there is no excuse for the Opposition here giving anything less than whole-hearted support to the agreement, bearing in mind the natural instincts and successful record of business in Britain.
  Another word of caution. Although I welcome the establishment of the World Trade Organisation on 1 January 1995, I can only hope that all the 125 players will make the ratification process go through smoothly before implementation takes place. An agony of indecision and delay will be harmful. As Peter Sutherland, the Director General of GATT, said in his statement in May:
  "It is essential that those who are the major trading partners of virtually every country in the world must lead the ratification."
  562
  I understand that, according to press reports, only about 30 of about 120 countries which agreed the settlement have ratified the pact. In a recent interview in the Financial Times, Mr. Sutherland went on to express the view that
  "the birth of the WTO should not be held hostage to domestic political in-fighting—nor to transient trade squabbles, which tend to be of mind-withering inconsequence when measured against the crucial importance of the new multi-lateral trading system".
  In relation to that, we might spare a thought for events taking place in Washington, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) discussed, but I take comfort from the knowledge that President Clinton has given his support, as do the vast majority of Congress. I hope that, in the end, they will outweigh the doubters who might try to destroy the process.
  In short, everyone must understand and obey the rules. We do not want countries across the world to revert to what I can only call "business as usual", perpetuating their preoccupation—justified or not—with bilateral trade balances. The ideals and the targets are in place, covering a range of areas such as dismantling remaining barriers, opening new markets, trade promotion, dumping and so on. However, I spot a weakness—what sanctions will the WTO have should things go wrong? It was appropriate that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough should ask how long we should wait and how we would enforce any sanctions. What sort of penalties could be imposed on a country which had been repeatedly obstructive and continually in breach of the agreements?
  To what degree have we given that problem serious thought, or are we trying to shelve it by saying, "We won't fall into old habits, such as allowing five years to pass before a dispute is sorted out; we will try to speed up the process to 18 months." That is not enough. We need to know what sanctions and pressures can be put on countries failing to comply with the agreements. I hope that the trade dispute procedures will be thoroughly analysed and I trust that detailed attention will be paid to this soon. I foresee some serious problems if that does not happen.
  I want to make a brief plea about the situation in China, which is a country with enormous potential. It has one fifth of the world's population, but it is locked away from the rest of the world. I hope that we shall be able to pave the way for it eventually to join the GATT process. I accept that China's economy, which has been so centralised, has a long way to go to catch up with what I call the developing nations. However, there is progress to be made and there should be some close analysis of what can be done. I am aware that China is not the easiest country with which to negotiate as it has different laws on a single issue, depending on the part of the country: the free enterprise zones have one set of rules, but there is another set elsewhere, making life difficult for the business man trying to find his way through it all.
  One question that has caused tremendous debate throughout the world is the extent to which we should allow our concern about human rights to play a part in the degree to which we trade with China. We were all horrified by the events of Tiananmen square and it was natural to want to step back and say, "Close the door, shut out China and impose sanctions; we must lock China away from the rest of the world." However, that is not the way to go about things. We should use every possible method to make clear our feelings about human rights, but the danger in locking a country out of the mainstream of the world is that that

  563
  country will never learn the standards that we want it to accept. More than that, it is by developing trade links that cultures can achieve the parity that we would all accept.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Lady accept that some of the worst abuses of human rights occur in the slave labour factories in the economic development zones, where children and young people are paid disgracefully and disgustingly low wages so that the products that they make can be exported to western Europe and the USA? Does she further accept that her argument of non-interference is exactly the argument that the Conservative party and Government used in South Africa during the era of apartheid? Are there not many other examples of that?
  Lady Olga Maitland: It is a matter not of non-interference or turning one's back on tragedy, but of applying appropriate pressure at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that only by supporting the African National Congress in exile could we have helped to solve the problems in South Africa? The answer must be no. What really changed events in South Africa was the fact that our Government worked with the South African Government and reassured them that by abandoning apartheid they would not be abandoning their hearts, souls and cultural heritage. We helped them through the process and I have no doubt that our role was crucial.
  GATT will have a beneficial effect on the less developed countries. During the past year I briefly visited Sri Lanka and Malawi and I have no doubt that those developing countries, which are food exporters, will benefit from the agricultural agreements which provide greater market access and reduce subsidies. It is another example of the genuine, world-wide benefit that will be gained.
  I want briefly to touch on the importance of export promotion. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his team—he cannot operate alone—for their enormous energy, vision and commitment. I can give a personal example of that. I accompanied a firm from my constituency at a meeting with one of the ministerial team—the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham)—and we had a fine show of support. We discussed the export credits guarantee issue and there was a satisfactory outcome. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has shown tremendous energy in motivating and supporting companies, big and small.
  I take issue with the hon. Member for Gordon, who tried to suggest that small or medium-sized companies are ignored. That has not been my experience. Indeed, I know of very satisfied customers in my part of the world. Nevertheless, I want to encourage the Department of Trade and Industry to continue its assistance to companies trading overseas. It has increased the budget and I hope that it will be increased again. I have no doubt that the Department will reap a reward far greater than the money that it has invested. When overseas, I have noted the enormous energy that our rivals—whether the French, the Germans or the Americans—have put into competition. I am proud that we can hold up our heads, but I would like Britain to have a sharper cutting edge.
  This has been an enormously important debate and I feel privileged to have taken part in it. The small businesses in my constituency can look out into a world of
  564
  enormous opportunity. I can truly say that they thank this Government and our Prime Minister, who is enormously dedicated to tough negotiations to get the best possible result for our companies.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) will forgive me if I do not follow her distinctive train of thought. I disagreed with much that she said, but I listened with care to the remarks of the Minister for Industry. He paid tribute, as he had to do, to those who negotiated the agreement and he emphasised that, besides rights, nations also have obligations in that important matter.
  I pricked up my ears when the Minister mentioned a level playing field, because I want that for the traders and manufacturers of Britain who sell and make our nation's goods. I agreed with the Minister's remarks about free trade, but recalled the remarks of workers in Deeside, who believe that free trade should not provide an easy route for foreign competitors into markets in our country. Our constituents' jobs are at stake, and we shall always look to Ministers to make sure, when bringing home a good GATT, that our work forces do not suffer in any way.
  Britain's balance of trade is of relative value in any discussion of GATT. That colossal deficit is a sobering feature of our economic national life. I do not believe that Governments have adequately addressed the massive deficit that still occurs month after month.
  I will try to put this debate in context, as the Minister did in his usual courteous style, by referring to Britain's loss of manufacturing. I hope that the details announced today will not mean a further loss of that capacity in the years immediately ahead. We have seen the virtual wiping out of our machine tool industry, loss of our capacity to make titanium granules, cuts in our steel-making capability, massive loss of jobs and capability in the aerospace and textile industries, virtual quartering of our cement manufacturing, virtual elimination of our coal and shipbuilding industries, and less and less computer manufacturing capability.
  All that happened in recent times. Britain's loss of manufacturing capacity since 1980 has been stupendous, and our nation has yet to realise the awesome nature of losses in that sphere of our national life. I remain critical of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe, and of the then Secretary of State for Industry, Sir Keith Joseph. Both are now members of another place and are in many ways honoured in British public life. When they were Cabinet Ministers and dominant in their party's councils, they let Britain down. For several years after their appointment by Margaret Thatcher, they allowed too much of Britain's manufacturing capability to go to the wall. I remain deeply concerned about Britain's manufacturing capacity into the next century.
  Our future will rest on two basic industries that survive, albeit in a greatly slimmed-down form. I refer to the steel and aerospace industries. The steel-making workers have been co-operative almost to a fault. They are brilliant at being productive and delivering high-quality goods. The British steel industry is now lean, competitive, successful and fit. It is an industry of which every right hon. and hon. Member can be proud—but at a massive cost in closures and redundancies.

  565
  The past three years have seen plant closures also in Britain's aerospace industry, with tens of thousands of job losses. There are still major question marks over the future of that industry. The Government are guilty of undervaluing those seed corn industries. Without them, Britain will have a poor future as an industrial nation in the next century. If the Government will fight for and encourage, promote and invest in those industries, they can enjoy great success. The quality of their work forces, management and products is second to none.
  I was perplexed to read in the business news section of The Times today that the bellwether of British industry, ICI, proposes to invest £250 million not in Britain but in Pakistan, and is considering several major investments in various regions of China. Recently, we saw the sale of Rover to BMW and the sale by British Aerospace of its corporate jets division to Raytheon Inc. Accordingly, there remain questions about the policies extant in the boardrooms of British industry and the nature of the Government's leadership and encouragement.
  I want to raise several questions about the Airbus project in particular, which I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will answer when he winds up the debate. There may not have been a GATT agreement had not the civil aerospace industry been removed from negotiations at the last moment to facilitate a declaration. I understand that there are question marks over specific aspects of European Airbus sales to north America. Where does GATT stand in that respect?
  President Clinton, without any shadow of doubt, stands up and battles for and encourages the Boeing work force. He regularly visits Seattle where the jumbo jet is made and the new 777 is being constructed, and tells the Boeing work force that he is on their side and will not let them down. I would like the same bold statements to be made by Ministers to the British Airbus work force and to the Airbus company in Europe.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: As to the Boeing 777, large Airbus project and the new generation of supersonic passenger aircraft, would not it be far better for President Clinton to encourage more airlines to order such aircraft? Only British Airways has shown a definite interest in such projects, and it is worth bearing in mind the fact that British Airways was privatised—against which the hon. Gentleman voted.
  Mr. Jones: I regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman. With his garbled intervention, he does not realise that British Airways refused to buy, in any worth while number, the Airbus. Workers in my constituency tell me that they wish British Airways to put in the same orders and show the same commitment as Air France and Lufthansa. I ask the Minister to consider how he might persuade British Airways to fly the flag, as it were, and purchase the Airbus, which many of the world's airlines are prepared to do, and they testify to its success.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I will not give way further to the hon. Gentleman.
  566
  I believe that the British Government and, indeed, the Governments of Europe, must be very firm with the United States and the future sales of Airbus. Many thousands of jobs in Britain depend on such backing.
  In the context of the debate on GATT, and bearing in mind the difficulties that we have under GATT in terms of Airbus and the United States market, I refer to the future large aircraft project. I am told that some 7,000 British Aerospace jobs will depend directly on Her Majesty's Government, principally the Ministry of Defence, ordering the FLA. I have raised the matter with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Defence. I have always found Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry courteous and responsive to my queries about the FLA. I believe that they have informed advice from their section within the civil service and within the Department. Whenever I have visited the Department, I, and the work force leaders whom I take to see civil servants and Ministers, have been well received, not least by the right hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), the Minister for Industry, who opened the debate.
  I emphasise that the FLA project is of massive importance to British manufacturing industry. It will have massive implications for trade, exports, skills and training, and I very much hope that the Government will look to the interests of Britain and not of a company based overseas. I must tell the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that I have received some 107 letters from my constituents at the BAe Airbus factory at Broughton. Every one expresses deep concern at what would happen to our great aerospace industry if there were no substantial orders for the FLA by the Ministry of Defence. My constituents tell me that they want a level playing field. It is a coincidence that, as I make my speech on behalf of the FLA and my constituents, the current issue of The House Magazine contains a two-page briefing about the FLA. In case the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has not seen it, it says:
  "Today, the Government is faced with a decision that could affect all our tomorrows."
  It continues:
  "The UK has the chance to be part of building Europe's own purpose-built transport aircraft, the FLA (short for Future Large Aircraft).
  Designed to replace America's venerable Hercules, only FLA can carry the key equipment today's military so desperately need … Unfortunately, there is a very real danger that the wrong choice may again be made. It's time to quit stalling. We urge the Government to give FLA the green light and so ensure future generations actually have a future. After all, a decision that carries this much weight shouldn't be taken lightly."
  I draw that to the attention of Ministers and hope that they will respond later.
  I have received many letters on the matter from the 2,000–plus workers at BAe Airbus at Broughton. I now quote from a letter from one of my constituents from Connah's Quay, Deeside, who says:
  "it now seems certain that the Government's short sightedness will allow the opportunity of being a founder member of the F.L.A. project to pass us by, once again putting the whole of the U.K. Aerospace Industry in doubt with regards its future."
  That may or may not be the case, but my correspondent continues:
  "If our major partners in the Airbus project are allowed to dominate the F.L.A. project without input from the U.K., then there must surely come a time when they"—
  in Europe—
  "will feel that the Airbus project can also be continued without U.K. involvement."
  "What then? Thousands more jobless with the resultant loss of revenue from Tax and N.I. contributions."

  567
  That may or may not be the case, but it shows that, in the context of a serious debate on GATT, and bearing in mind the difficulties over Airbus, Ministers have a real case to answer about the project. I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will leave the Ministry of Defence in no doubt as to what should happen in the placing of orders for the FLA programme.
  I must tell the Minister that, on the Order Paper of 18 May 1994, there is an early-day motion entitled, "European Future Large Aircraft Programme." It says:
  'That this House notes that a commitment from Her Majesty's Government to the European Future Large Aircraft programme would secure and create employment throughout the United Kingdom and would provide high technology work for British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and Shorts as well as significant prospects for over 60 equipment supply companies".
  I rest my case as of now.
  In conclusion, I emphasise that trade is Britain's lifeblood. It is as simple and as important as that. But I think that Britain has lost too much of its industrial base in the past 15 years. It appears to me that Her Majesty's Government have no strategy for the next century for our remaining industries. I believe that, compared with France, Japan, the United States or. Germany, we in Britain give the impression of being amateur in our defence and promotion of our industries and trade. Either we export, or, as a nation, we die. As a trading nation, we must export. We must, therefore, invest in and encourage our industries. I know that, now, the British market is heavily penetrated by our industrial rivals. I have already mentioned some of them. I pose the question to Ministers, just how good is the GATT for Britain's future? Will it reverse the obvious decline in our industrial capacity in the immediate years ahead? Those are the vital questions. The sad fact is that the Government's White I'aper on competitiveness, which was brought to the House last month, appeared, to many of us on the Opposition Benches, to be lacking, to be toothless. It seemed to lack true financial commitment to British industry. It appeared to many of us that the Prime Minister and his Treasury allies had decided to outmanoeuvre the President of the Board of Trade and prevent him from coming to the House with his White Paper for a truly powerful strategy for our manufacturing industries to the end of the century and beyond.
  I think that hon. Members are entitled to express at least some scepticism—if not cynicism—about the claims that have been made for GATT today, notwithstanding the elegant speech made by the Minister for Industry. I want the Minister to be successful; Britain needs him to be successful; but he is serving a Cabinet that fails to devise a strategy and leaves the fate of our great manufacturing industries to the vagaries of market forces. On that basis, I find Government policy wholly lacking.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) seems to have a vested interest in droning the last rites for British manufacturing industry. Let me remind him that the United Kingdom exports more manufactured goods per head than either the United States or Japan—although no one would believe that from what he said.
  I welcome the Marrakesh Final Act agreement on GATT. It has been a long time coming. The Uruguay round was launched eight years ago in 1986, after the Punta del Este ministerial conference; it has taken from then until now to achieve the final agreement. Nevertheless, it is a
  568
  great achievement in view of the large number of countries that had to be brought into line, each with its considerable vested interests.
  We should bear in mind that free and fair trade is especially important to the United Kingdom, which is the world's fifth largest exporter, exporting a quarter of all that we produce. It is estimated that, over time, an extra 400,000 jobs could be generated in the UK as a result of the successful conclusion of the round. That is particularly valuable in constituencies such as mine, which certainly need more jobs.
  The Uruguay round will help British industry by bringing down barriers to exports of manufactured goods and services. It will give manufacturers greater protection against piracy of their copyrights, patents and designs, and strengthen the world trading system against unfair practices by individual countries. It is worth remembering that the UK is the world's fifth largest exporter of goods and commercial services and that our markets are already among the most open. This country therefore stands to be one of the biggest gainers from cuts in worldwide tariffs, quotas and other restrictions.
  The achievement, ratification and putting into effect of the GAIT agreement have been essential not only to Britain but to the developing world. It is all very well to ask the countries of the developing world to scrap their "import substitution" policies and open their markets; for that they need foreign currency, which they cannot earn unless they can sell into our markets. If we have trade barriers and tariffs set against them, they do not have a chance, but if they can earn foreign exchange by exporting they will earn not only money but self-respect. That is much better than the begging-bowl mentality so beloved of Opposition Members and that is why the measures on agriculture are so important.
  Agriculture is being brought within the rules of multilateral trade for the first time through the GATT agreement. Over a period, that will create the conditions for a fairer and more market-orientated agricultural trading system. The agreement provides a strong basis for further liberalisation in the future. I welcome the conversion of all restrictions on imports of agricultural products to tariffs, which will make the whole matter very much more transparent and easier to deal with. Let us hope that the significance of the Poitiers customs house is a thing of the past.
  We should also welcome the other provisions, such as the 36 per cent. reduction in tariffs over six years with a minimum cut of 15 per cent. in every tariff; the guarantee that at least 3 per cent. of domestic markets for agricultural products will be open to imports, rising to 5 per cent. by 1999; and controls on subsidies, with domestic support reduced by 20 per cent. from the 1986 to the 1988 level, expenditure on export subsidies reduced by 36 per cent. and the volume of subsidised exports cut by 21 per cent. from their average levels between 1986 and 1990. The agreement will provide a basis for freer trade, and in time will extend choice and lower prices for consumers while reducing the burden of agricultural subsidies paid by taxpayers around the world—not least in this country.
  The biggest danger to international world trade has been —and, to a considerable extent, remains—the growth of trading blocs, which are themselves subject to pressures for introversion and the creation of a fortress mentality hiding behind tariff and other barriers. That has been a real danger in the European Community, especially under the

  569
  inspiration of the French; it has also been a problem in the United States, which is now extending its bloc through the North American Free Trade Agreement, to which a number of Latin American countries wish to adhere. I would much rather see a free trading world with co-operating trade areas —a reformed European Community, a NAFTA and a Mercosur in Latin America.
  I want to focus on Latin America, a region that has been transformed politically and economically over the past few years. Every Latin American country except Cuba is a democracy, and all those countries have enthusiastically embraced free trade. They have cut tariffs unilaterally. The House should concentrate on facts such as these. In 1985, when the process of liberalisation began, the average tariff level in Latin America was 56 per cent.; in 1992—the most recent date for which figures are available—it was 16 per cent. That change was carried out unilaterally, and showed Latin America's dedication to free trade. The response of the rest of the world is long overdue.
  The Latin Americans were dismayed by French policy in the European Community, not least because exports from France, with its vast metropolitan agricultural areas and its Caribbean overseas departments, compete directly with many of Latin America's agricultural exports. France's approach has been supported by Spain with its Canary Islands dependencies and Portugal with Madeira.
  The Latin American countries have increasingly come to realise that the interests of Britain and the new Latin America have much in common. We are, after all, the fifth largest exporting nation and we export more per head than the United States or Japan. The Latin American countries depend on free trade for the success of their new economic policies. As I have said, we have much in common and I believe that Britain is very much the champion within the European Community of the Latin American countries.
  The House should give credit to those who have worked so hard for the successful conclusion of the GATT round. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry mentioned the successive endeavours of Arthur Dunkel and Peter Sutherland, who have worked hard; I would add the name of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has fought consistently to keep the negotiations going. Following the negotiations over the Maastricht treaty, he has again shown himself to be a master of negotiation, pushing the British interest. Let me also add the name of the right hon. Sir Leon Brittan, who did so much to secure agreement between the European Community and the United States.
  The United Kingdom played an important role in securing agreement in the Uruguay round. It was summed up best by the Japanese ambassador in London, who said last year:
  "Great Britain is a trail blazer for free trade in Europe."
  Lastly, I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) that we should not take it for granted that GATT will be ratified by the European Community and the United States. We do not know what view the new European Parliament elected last week will take. We have lost many free trade United Kingdom members like my own erstwhile Member of the European Parliament, Ben Patterson. I hope that his successors and those of others will make sure that the hard pressure for free trade, in the European Community and in the world generally, will be kept up.
  570
  I hope that today's debate will signify the assent of the House to the ratification by Britain of GATT. The GATT deal also has to be ratified by the United States Congress. The loss of tariff revenue to the United States Government may produce odd pressures on Capitol hill. We must wish President Clinton godspeed in his current negotiations. The transformation in the world with the collapse of the socialist bloc and the development in countries in Latin America and Africa of free trade and free market economies gives us very much to hope for.
  The recent GATT deal will provide a wide base for the development of that freedom, both politically and in the economy. It is incumbent on the House to campaign steadily in the debate and onwards for free trade throughout the world and to press on to achieve the ratification of GATT and the successful establishment of the World Trade Organisation so that there can be free trade and prosperity throughout the world.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and apologise for the fact that I have almost lost my voice. I am particularly grateful to have this opportunity to speak because I suspect that I may be one of the few hon. Members who will rise to speak against the GATT treaty. I wish to do so by setting out a different view of the world in which we live.
  I start from the perspective set out by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s, when he looked at the world and said that the things that ought to be encouraged to move freely around the globe were ideas, hospitality, knowledge, travel and learning. In relation to trade, he considered that there were overwhelming arguments for a world perspective based on planned trade, where a premium was placed on producing locally and regionally in sustainable and acceptable forms. Yet, in contrast to that, we are now presented with a GATT treaty which sets out a different world view based on a different set of values. I shall sketch some of those differences.
  GATT is based on some fairly important assumptions which are closer to ideology than to evidence. The assumptions are, first, that if we free trade, there will be a general increase in global prosperity and, secondly, that we will all somehow benefit from that growth in prosperity.
  When I went back to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study in which the original figures in relation to the growth in prosperity were produced, I was struck by two things—the modesty of the figures and the vagueness of their sources. The study suggested that, over a 10–year period, there would be a growth in world output of approximately $19.5 billion per year. In the context of global gross domestic product that is not an awe-inspiring sum, but when I tried to look into the matter further, I realised that the evidence on which the claims were based was extremely sketchy.
  Perhaps the most forthright of the people who owned up to that was Professor Jagdish Bhagwati, economic adviser to the Director General of GATT, who said in relation to those estimates or guesstimates of the growth in world trade:
  "Nobody really knows. I mean that's basically ballooning up estimates … I think the $200 million figure you keep hearing all the time, that relates to the extent of incremental trade, which, according to some models, we expect to get. But I have been in this game long enough to know that, you know, if—it's almost astrological to try and forecast specific numbers.".

  571
  If that is what the economic adviser to the Director General of GATT had to say, it seems to me that the evidence about which we are getting so excited is terribly thin.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) pointed out that there would be 400,000 job gains for the United Kingdom. I would simply caution him to look at the claims made by President Bush in the early stages of the GATT negotiations—to the effect that the American economy would gain by $125 billion in the first year of the treaty alone.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I would settle for 100,000 jobs, because they would be incremental to the growth that we are already seeking in the British economy.
  Mr. Simpson: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would have to settle for far fewer than that. As I was pointing out, last year the Economic Strategy Institute in the United States did a different calculation and suggested that the American economy could lose between $36 billion and $63 billion a year as a result of the signing of the GATT treaty. I would caution hon. Members to look carefully at the basis of any serious calculations that have gone into the underpinning of the consequences of the GATT treaty.
  GATT has been sold to us on the basis of a mislieading and weak study and of inadequate economic analysis. There are serious collisions built into the principles around which world trade is to be constructed. GATT models itself on three pillars of a free trade model; it is based on the principles of non-discrimination, reciprocity and transparency of trade.
  By contrast, I think that the House ought to be starting from the following set of questions. Does the agreement create jobs in Britain? Will it improve equity both at home and internationally? Will it create stability in our domestic and in the global environment and will it protect that global environment? Is it, in effect, an agenda for sustainable economics? In answer to those questions, my sad conclusion is that there is very little basis for saying that there would be job growth in the United Kingdom as a result of the signing of the GATT treaty.
  I am clear, however, that there are other quite specific consequences of the signing of the treaty. It would clearly fit in with the Government's interest in what they glibly refer to as jobless growth. It can almost certainly be guaranteed to deliver a huge increase in the profits that are accruing to transnational companies.
  GATT is a treaty for the powerful and the anti-democratic. An examination of the nature of world trade today clearly reveals where the huge interests that have supported the signing of the GATT treaty are. Last year, Oxfam carried out a study which concluded:
  "In reality, trade flows are dominated by powerful corporations located overwhelmingly in Western Europe, North America and Japan. In 1985, the combined sales of the world's largest transnational companies exceeded $3 trillion, equivalent to one third of the world's Gross Domestic Product".
  However, it is not only a third of the world's GDP that the transnationals control. The studies by Oxfam and other organisations have shown that the major transnational companies control 70 per cent. of world trade. Almost all the primary commodities that are marketed are controlled by only six multi-commodity traders. In the agri-chemical industry, the 20 largest transnational companies control 94 per cent. of the market. In the telecommunications industry, the nine largest transnational companies control 89 per cent. The freedoms that the transnational companies
  572
  will receive under the treaty will be enormous. The treaty will extend and entrench their power to control prices, pursue the lowest wages, seek the fewest responsibilities and disregard the environmental damage that often goes with the power that they have accrued.
  Where in Britain will the job impact be felt? I cite an example from my constituency. I am privileged to have the Raleigh cycle company based in Nottingham. It is a very efficient company which I have visited many times with the management and the trade unions. The company has pointed out that it cannot compete with the Chinese bicycles being dumped in the United Kingdom. Its representatives have been invited to go to trade fairs in south-east Asia, and the Chinese say blatantly that it does not matter at what price Raleigh seeks to sell its product in China because they are concerned only about who controls the markets. Even where nations are not saying that, the same message is being sent to countries and continents by transnational corporations.
  We are already witnessing a serious transfer of production as a result of the liberalisation of world trade. In America, there is ample evidence of a transfer of manufacturing industries from the industrial belt of mid-America to the free trade zones of Mexico. People are amazed that the goods produced in Mexico, which an attempt is being made to sell in the industrial belt of America, are not being bought by workers who lack the wages to pay for goods that they are no longer employed to produce. To highlight that point, I refer to a report issued last year by Professor Thurow of the Massachussetts Institute of Technology. He explained his attraction to free market but went on to say:
  "Free markets … tend to produce levels of inequality that are politically incompatible with democratic government. Witness the rising inequality and homelessness in the United States, and note the need for large social welfare income-transfer payments systems in every major industrial country."
  They are the consequences of the liberalisation of trade. They certainly go hand in hand with the accrual of increased profits to the multinational companies, but they do not generate jobs in one's domestic economy or create conditions of stability or equity in an international sense.
  In the developing world, there are also enormous pressures that dislocate domestic economies. For example, there is pressure to opt for primary production. Over the past 20 years, the net effect has been that developing countries have increased their production of primary products. World commodity prices have since collapsed and the income from the sale of the goods has failed to cover the cost of the debts that they have acquired through borrowing to increase this production. Instead of becoming richer and freer, those developing nations have merely increased the debt burden around their necks, and a phenomenally high rate of profit has been delivered to transnational companies.
  For the industrial world, there is a serious drain not only of manufacturing capacity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said, but of a new era of emerging technologies, jobs and services which—a fact that we have not yet understood—are going to the third world as part of the liberalised free trade regime.
  It is now the custom of some accountancy firms in this country and in the United States to take on firms' .accounts and ship them to Barbados to be processed by faceless women for less than $1 an hour. Does anyone know an accountant in this country who will work for less than $1

  573
  an hour? If so, many hon. Members and others would bite his hand to find out the name of that accountant. No matter how efficient we become, we cannot compete at that rate of pay.
  The same is happening in the data-processing industry. In the Philippines, qualified data processors are working for United Kingdom and American companies for £100 a month, with medical care and a ration of rice thrown in. Nor can we compete with the computer programming being done in the third world, either directly or indirectly, for United Kingdom companies such as National Westminster Bank, British Telecom, Procter and Gamble, and Abbey National plc. Such work is being done in Calcutta, Madras and New Delhi by highly qualified computer programmers for £1 an hour. Could any hon. Member find me a computer programmer in Britain, or anywhere else in the industrialised world, who could live on £1 an hour? That movement of services will continue and will always mean greater profits for transnational companies. The trend is not to spread equity but to concentrate profitability.
  At this point, I wish also to mention democracy and stability. Paragraph 4 of article XVI of the "Understanding on Rules and Procedures" states:
  "Each Member shall ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements."
  In other words, nations' constitutions will have to be rewritten to conform to the GATT treaty. Whatever a nation's electoral mandate, if its laws and constitutions are at odds with the treaty, they will have to be changed.
  I refer the House to a riot that took place in the Karnataka area of India, which was in opposition to the threats to the Indian Patents Act 1970. Under Indian law, it is illegal to patent any life form, but the new agreements relating to the trade in biotechnology patents enshrine the rights acquired by large multinational pharmaceutical companies to patent genetic products, allowing the inherited genetic diversity of the planet to be turned into a form of private property.
  A number of other national and international practices will become similarly "GATT illegal". In Canada, the export of unprocessed salmon and herring has been ruled illegal. It was seen as an unreasonable restriction on trade. Equally likely to be defined as GATT illegal is any attempt by a nation to control the export of its own natural resources. In relation to the Muntingh proposal, the European Parliament set out terms in which it was attempting to control the import of unsustainably logged timber. Its proposals are to introduce by 1995 positive incentives which will reward the production of sustainably logged timber and by 2000 disincentives to obstruct the importation of unsustainably logged timber. All those processes will be GATT illegal.
  The Montreal protocol, which is designed to reduce chlorofluorocarbons emissions, has set out ways in which we are incrementally moving towards the banning of trade in products and by-products which generate CFCs, so that there is now a ban on the import of controlled substances from non-signatory countries to the Montreal protocol and a ban on the export of controlled substances to non-signatory countries. Both those bans will be GATT illegal.
  574
  Any challenge will be ruled on by the GATT disputes panel—the disputes settlement board. Is that to be a source of protection for national economies, conservation economics and international environment initiatives? The answer is sadly no. To see why, we need only consider what has happened in the dispute that took place over tuna-dolphin catching—first between the United States and Mexico, Venezuela and Vanunu and, subsequently, between the United States and Europe and those three countries. The United States attempted to ban what was referred to as the encirclement method of catching tuna, a reckless method which needlessly, cruelly and irresponsibly took the lives of huge numbers of dolphins. There was an attempt to say that it was not acceptable for tuna to be caught in that way. The matter went to the disputes panel and, in 1991, the panel ruled that such a ban constituted an unreasonable restriction on trade. It is likely that such methods will be supported when the matter goes before the new panel. GATT is likely to blow an almighty hole in any global attempts to set down a serious commitment to challenge environmental exploitation and environmental degradation.
  By failing to build an environmental dimension into this round of GATT, we run the risk of destroying most of the major initiatives that have been taken up in the process of dragging the world into facing up to the environmental damage that we have been causing. The World Trade Organisation will have powers to compel countries to adhere to free trade rules whether they destroy the environment or not, whether they exploit child labour or not. A body has been created which, in effect, comprises the new ayatollahs of free trade fundamentalism. It will have the power to dictate national policies and to deny people the choice of putting a planned future before a free-for-all present. GATT prevents countries from taking trade measures to protect the environment and natural resources beyond their national boundaries. GATT disallows import restrictions based on production processes, including the use of such things as milk-enhancing hormones, which can have a devastatingly destructive effect not only on the cattle to which they are fed but on the human beings who consequently consume them indirectly. GATT will accelerate the collision between free trade and a global environment.
  In fact, what we need is a treaty for sustainable growth and sustainable development. Four principles should underpin that treaty. We need policies under which the developing world can feed itself, house itself and build up its own infrastructures. We need a new form of environmental protectionism, which would pay for the development and gifting of environmental technologies. We need a treaty that would raise the standards of production to those of the best, rather than reduce them to the price of those who would exploit the most. We need a treaty which recognises that the next century will place a premium on reducing global transportation, which accounts for one eighth of the ozone-depleting gases currently being emitted. The treaty needs to eradicate toxic dumping, the majority of which now takes place as a transit process from the industrial north to the developing south and east. We need a treaty which delivers stable jobs and sensible wages. Sadly, none of those needs is met in the GATT treaty.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who made an excellent speech. I especially agreed with the latter part of it and the conclusions that he drew. There seems to be an understanding that GATT is something that we should all welcome and that anyone who opposes it is somehow a heretic or an anti-Christ and therefore should not be allowed to enter the debate.
  May I point out that it is yet another treaty that has been signed by the British Government of which there has been no parliamentary scrutiny whatever? No vote was taken on that treaty, there are no means of amending it and a huge proportion of power has been handed over to the World Trade Organisation in the name of promoting the idea of a free market economy all round the world, with all the devastation that that will cause, for jobs in this country and for living standards in the poorest parts of the world. The weakness of the British parliamentary system is that there are no means whatever of stopping that being done. The treaty was signed, as every treaty is signed, within the powers of the royal prerogative and we are left with it. We call ourselves the mother of Parliaments and a model of democracy to everybody else around the world. We should stop lecturing the rest of the world and start trying to learn some lessons from them.
  I do not join in any general welcome of the treaty. I have the deepest misgivings about the treaty and, indeed., about the GATT process. It has been presented—the Prime Minister did so in this Chamber—as though, somehow, everyone is a winner in GATT. It is rather like a game of bingo in which everybody comes out a winner. The only problem is that, in most gambling that I have ever understood, the bookmaker makes the money, not those putting money on the competition. If everyone is a winner, how come some are bigger winners than others? It appears from what the Prime Minister said that the biggest winners will be western Europe and the United States of America. Proportionately, the people who will come out worst are those living in the poorest countries of the world.
  The hand of the United States looms large in the GATT treaty and in the GATT negotiations. President Clinton said:
  "We are on the verge of a historic victory in our efforts to open foreign markets to American products."
  With typical United States arrogance, they assume that the American continent belongs to them. I do not know why they cannot say "United States products" and why the term "American products" is always used which, to my mind, includes those of Canada, Mexico, the whole of Latin America and the Caribbean.
  However, around the world, considerable opposition to the GATT treaty is being mounted. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South mentioned the problems of a number of people in India. There have been huge demonstrations in many parts of India by Indian farmers who are opposed to the treaty because they can see the consequences for themselves—the consequences of poor countries having to import foods that they already grow, the consequences of their not being able to get their industrial products into western markets to the degree that they would want and the problems that they will have of
  576
  high levels of import penetration from multinational corporations. Those demonstrations were enormous, but were barely reported in this country.
  The demonstration in southern Mexico, known as the Zapatista rising, was a direct consequence not only of GAIT, but of the structure adjustment programme forced on Mexico by the World bank and the International Monetary Fund as their means of coping—that is the only way in which to describe it—with the problem of the Mexican debt. Those poor people understood what was on the agenda and what the consequences would be.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and other hon. Members mentioned what is currently happening in China. China has the fastest growing economy in the world. However, many people in China work in the worst possible conditions in the world and on the lowest possible wages. A plethora of industrial strikes are taking place in the economic zones and all over southern China at the present time. They are barely reported in the west.
  The muted criticism of China's human rights record by the British and United States Governments and everyone else is axiomatic in that they are saying that trade comes first and their concern for human rights comes second. The Conservative Government could tell us plenty about that as they sold arms to South Africa during the worst years of apartheid oppression and they happily sold arms to Chile during General Pinochet's time. There are dozens more examples of such actions.
  If we are serious about human rights abuses, we are serious about human rights abuses full stop, irrespective of the country concerned, or the economic or political system within which they operate. The failure to criticise China shows that we are interested more in the possibility of British companies making money out of investments in China than in doing something serious about the problem.
  The treaty includes a major section on trade barriers and the lowering of import rates. Here we are seeing growing interference in the ability of the poorest countries in the poorest parts of the world to produce the goods they need for a system of self-sustaining agriculture.
  After the long years to gain independence from this country, Zimbabwe embarked on a process of self-sufficiency in agriculture. The powers that be in Washington visited Zimbabwe and demanded to know why it had so much maize in stock. With great prudence, the Zimbabwean Government said that they wanted maize in stock as a hedge against the likelihood of drought, which occurs frequently in many parts of southern Africa. The Zimbabweans were told to get rid of that maize. When drought came along, Zimbabwe had to buy maize on the open market, some of which came from the United States. It is a policy of utter folly and madness to destroy the indigenous agricultural systems of so many poor countries.
  Given the pressure of structural adjustment programmes on poor countries, instead of giving them support and assistance to develop self-sufficiency in agriculture, one expert after another steps off a plane from London, Washington or Frankfurt and says that the solution is to grow coffee. So many countries began to grow coffee that the world price of coffee fell. Many countries now face economic disaster and many people in the west are suffering from hypertension because of all the cheap coffee that they are drinking. That policy is not sensible.
  The latest suggestion is to grow cut flowers. The number of countries that are now investing in growing cut

  577
  flowers is unbelievable. I did not know that there was such a market for cut flowers. The number of planes flying around the world, depleting the ozone layer, using up oil and causing noise and other problems, in order to bring cut flowers from Colombia, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, India and God knows where is extraordinary.
  Mr. Derek Enright: And from Kenya.
  Mr. Corbyn: And of course from Kenya. I would not wish to leave Kenya out. Those planes are carrying cut flowers to the markets in Paris, London, Washington, New York and Tokyo. That policy is simply not sensible and there are plenty of similar examples.
  I recall some years ago visiting a very poor area of Honduras in central America. Most of the people lived in what can only be described as shacks. They lived outside the cash economy and practised subsistence living. They grew a bit of maize, kept a few chickens and more or less got by somehow. If they had a good crop, they sold some of it to buy cooking utensils and the like. If they had a bad crop, they starved.
  Beside those shacks where those very poor people lived there were huge fences and security guards protecting the fattest beef cattle in the world. Those cattle were being fattened up to be beef exports to pay for that country's debt and to bring in foreign exchange. What came first: the starvation of those children or the export of the beef? The export of the beef came first, never mind the starving children.
  Country after country is being asked to produce export products to meet a debt which is not of their own making. Those export products are not benefiting the people who are suffering worst in the poorest countries of the world. I fear that the GATT process does nothing to improve the lot of the poorest people. In fact, it is likely to make it worse.
  The real beneficiaries of the GATT process are the very small number—possibly no more than 500—multinational corporations which, between them, control 30 per cent. of global products and 70 per cent. of global trade. A very small number of people in a very small number of faceless offices around the world are the real winners in the GATT treaty. They are not accountable to national Parliaments or national Governments. They are not accountable to shareholders. They operate in their own way and wield enormous influence over the GATT negotiations and over the United Nations.
  Far from controlling the activities of those companies, far from being an organisation which will control the power of multinational corporations—indeed, the UN has closed its multinational corporations office—the World Trade Organisation will be telling poor countries, "How dare you impose import tariffs on these goods? How dare you try to develop a protectionist economy which can provide self-sufficiency for your own people?" Those countries will be punished by the WTO. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam apparently wanted to know what that punishment will be. The power to punish was handed over to the WTO without so much as a vote in the British Parliament.
  I want now to consider the cuts in domestic subsidies arising from the GATT deal. As a result of those cuts, a third-world country—as we choose to call them—cannot subsidise its own agriculture. Instead, it must open its
  578
  doors to imports from the west. However, it is apparently perfectly okay for north American and British farmers to receive enormous subsidies for farming, often in an environmentally unsustainable way. We seem to be preventing subsidies from being meted out to help poor farmers in poor countries while we are allowing subsidies to go to very rich producers in the northern countries. Something seems to be fundamentally wrong there.
  The International Herald Tribune summed up GATT in all its glory. It stated:
  "Analysts said the multinational companies, which account for about two-thirds of the world's cross-frontier trade, would be the obvious winners from the deal … As part of the accord, foreign companies are to be granted the same national treatment as domestic concerns, making it easier for multinationals to relocate jobs in low-wage countries".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South mentioned several examples of multinational corporations increasingly relocating jobs in the cheapest labour areas. Daimler-Benz moved jobs from Germany to Alabama in the United States. The Ford Motor Company regularly plays ducks and drakes with its workers around the world. All the big pharmaceutical and electronics companies do exactly the same. Japanese electronics companies used to have their goods made up in Japan. They now have them made up in Taiwan or South Korea. They are now moving into Bangladesh and India and wherever they can obtain the cheapest wage rates.
  It is a policy of utter folly and great danger to set competition on a pedestal all on its own without regard to social and environmental consequences or the real costs to the environment of the huge increase in transport to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South referred.
  I want now to consider not the very poorest countries, but what we choose to call middle-income countries which must allow for an increase in the importation of agricultural products into their economies. Indonesia, whose Government I admire not a jot, has been told that it must allow up to 1.5 million tonnes of rice to be imported to Indonesia every year. Indonesia does not have a problem producing rice for its internal consumption. However, it has been told that it must allow those imports irrespective of the fact that 34 per cent. of its export earnings already go towards trying to pay a debt incurred from previous inequalities.
  The GATT deal will cause serious damage in the form of environmental problems and problems for sustainable agriculture around the world. GATT seeks to say that the only thing that matters in the world is the principle of competition. When Conservative Members talk grandly about the need to introduce a competitive economy in Britain, as their counterparts do in France, Germany and every country in the world, that is a recipe for lower wages and living standards and higher levels of unemployment and for cuts in health services and the welfare state—all in the name of the free market economy.
  I believe that that is the wrong direction in which to go. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South set out a series of ideas which would be a step forward and he was absolutely right. First, why is there nothing in GATT about workers' protection and rights? Why is there nothing about the minimalist right to join a trade union and to organise together to negotiate for decent wages and working conditions? The treaty says absolutely nothing about that. It would apparently be a gross interference with trade.

  579
  Nothing is said about human rights—for example, the way in which the Government of Indonesia have bombed the people of East Timor. Nothing is said about human rights abuses in China, or about the occupation of Tibet, and nothing is said about many other abuses that happen in many parts of the world. All those matters could be and indeed must be addressed. That must be what the inspiration and formation of the United Nations was all about—to try to address those very basic problems.
  We now come to environmental sustainability. We live in a world of galloping consumption, mounting waste and mounting damage to the planet. I receive a fortnightly paper which is sent to me from Penang in Malaysia called the Utusan Konsumer, published by the Consumers Association of Penang. It is a very interesting paper for all that, because it often says the unpalatable truths from a relatively poor country to the rich of the north. It points out, for example, that
  "Western industry produces vast amounts of toxic waste … which is dumped in the Third World.
  Since 1986, over 3 million tons of toxic waste have been shipped from Western Europe and North America to other countries.
  About 125,000 tons of toxic waste are sent to the Third World from Europe each year."
  That is the way of getting around environmental restrictions in the west and dumping them on the third world.
  On brutal farming techniques, the publication points out:
  "Every decade, 7 per cent. of the world's soil is lost through large-scale farming techniques",
  such as those used in the United States, where
  "an area twice the size of California has been rendered unproductive."
  Those are the very same farming methods as are being imposed on poor countries. The newspaper goes on to show the figures, which are well known, about the enormous waste of oil and other energy sources by the over-consumption of western economies.
  Those crucial issues have to be faced up to. Rio gave us an opportunity and at least pointed in that direction. Much of the work of Rio, which is limited in itself, has been undone by the GATT treaty. We need to look forward to a future in a world in which we redress the problem of imbalances between the rich and poor and between the north and south, and stop worshipping the god of competition and the god of exploitation of other people and start looking to a sustainable future for the planet. GATT goes in exactly the wrong direction; it does not help us at all. I wish that we had an opportunity to vote on it, because I for one would emphatically vote against it.
  8.11 pm
  Mr. Derek Enright: I apologise for being unable to be here since the beginning of the debate. I have been attending the Standing Committee on the Education Bill, undertaking Opposition Members' constant drudgery of attempting to make the Government see sense. I regret to have to inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we did not quite do that this afternoon, but hope springs eternal in the breast, and I constantly pray for the sins and the sinners of the Government.
  I should like to make a very brief intervention on some specific points. The principle of GATT is, of course, entirely right and correct. We are trying to get fair and decent trade around the world. But it is equally right and
  580
  correct that, as my hon. Friends have said, we should look at the social effects of much of what we are doing. In particular, one thinks of the way in which China, which has already been mentioned, is able to flood not only developing countries but this country with very cheap products without regard for normal decent human relationships.
  Her Majesty's Government have prided themselves on saying, "We will assist the developing world only in so far as it puts democratic measures into their Governments and ensures proper reform." That should apply absolutely everywhere, not just to the small countries of Africa but to large countries. It is no use simply condemning China. We have to show that our condemnation of China, for example, means something.
  Another point that I should like to be considered much more closely is world commodity agreements. It simply is not fair to ask very poor countries, which are producing goods for export at subsistence level, to put up with current fluctuations in world markets—something which can have nothing whatsoever to do with the efficiency of what is being done in a country but which can have much to do with current speculation on the world commodity markets. That can destroy a country, and that means destroying not only the country but individuals, families and small rural settlements. That has happened in Africa in particular.
  The continent of Africa is the greatest suffering continent at the moment. Some of the problem is man made. The people who are resisting legitimate government in Angola and Mozambique, for example, are responsible for great misery. Angola and Mozambique will certainly have enormous commercial potential once they get over that problem. However, for much of Africa, the difficulty is not man made, it is natural. People have to eke out life at subsistence level by relying on exports and, in particular, on the favours that are given to them by the European Community.
  The Lomé treaty—I hope that the Minister will say something about it—is particularly geared to doing favourite things to favourite people—in other words, to looking after the continent of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. In so far as GATT takes away from that, and it most certainly does, GATT is performing a wickedness which Her Majesty's Government must consider.
  I have spoken before about the problem of bananas. As the Minister knows, bananas are covered by the protocol in the Lome treaty, but the deal that has been done under the GATT treaty has thrown away all the advantages that banana-producing countries in the Caribbean had. That is no joke to populations who depend for their livelihood on the production of bananas and on getting their bananas to their traditional markets.
  We made a commitment under Lomé that we would give special preference for African, Caribbean and Pacific bananas and, as the European Union, we must honour that preference, in spite of what is being said by certain parts of the GATT machinery at the moment. Indeed, a GATT panel recently challenged—not in an official way, admittedly—the preferences that are given under the generalised system of preferences to developing countries by the European Union.
  Her Majesty's Government must give an absolute commitment that they will stand up to that threat and make sure that those developing countries continue to receive favoured nation status. The Prime Minister regularly says that he has great influence on Chancellor Kohl. He must

  581
  use all that influence on Chancellor Kohl in respect of bananas because Chancellor Kohl is taking the European Union to the court so that the Germans will be able to flood the country with even cheaper bananas which are produced by very cheap labour indeed. The virtue of the protocol in the Lome agreement is that it ensures that a decent wage can be paid to people who grow bananas.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that dollar bananas, which are the ones that the Germans are keen to flood the European market with, are produced by environmentally damaging methods in large plantations in central America and parts of South America, whereas the smaller Caribbean bananas that we are used to in this country are much more environmentally sustainable and are usually produced by small farmers? The economies of a large number of Caribbean islands will be totally devastated if the European Court decision goes in favour of what Chancellor Kohl wants.
  Mr. Enright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the point that I was making. I would add that it is odd that Germany should take such action on bananas and, at the same time, pursue a path of demanding special recognition and protection for its agricultural products. That is two faced in moral terms and must be resisted. I am not normally in the habit of doling out praise to the Government, but they have been reasonable in arguing with the German Government on the matter so far. Tonight, we should ensure that that tenacity of purpose continues.
  Totally untrammelled trade agreements such as GATT can be an absolute disaster for poverty-stricken areas. It is, therefore, not simply a question of looking at the United Kingdom with regard to other rich countries but of looking at the United Kingdom with regard to other rich countries and poor countries. The whole picture must be examined but not in a one-sided way.
  I shall conclude by talking about what I consider would have been a good example if it had been followed—the much-maligned multi-fibre arrangement. The idea of the multi-fibre agreements and arrangement was that there would be an orderly transfer of technology. That was perfectly all right. Certainly, the people who get poor wages in the clothing industry in my constituency would be happy for it to move somewhere else where goods could be produced effectively and cheaply and they could start to improve their standard of living.
  At the same time, it was agreed that jobs in the clothing industry would be replaced by high technology. It is most unfortunate that the Government took over in 1979; not a penny was put into developing high technology as all the textile jobs in West Yorkshire disappeared. That is not what happened in West Germany because the Germans saw that an orderly transfer was needed. They wiped out their clothing industry, but replaced it with high technology. That is why West Germany, even now with all the problems of East Germany, is infinitely more successful than the United Kingdom in terms of wealth creation, manufacturing and full employment. The Government should take a leaf out of that book, look at what is happening in West Germany and frame their policy on GATT accordingly. It is no use praising free trade when all it does is enslave a large number of people.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: The area that I represent is the centre for heavy industry in this country. It is one of the few such areas left, thanks to the Government's policies. Apart from having heavy industry and some high-tech industries, it is also an area of rich agricultural land. It is one of the United Kingdom's centres—and, indeed, one of Europe's centres—for intensive livestock.
  Like the rest of this country, the area that I represent has a lot to gain from an orderly organisation of world trade and the encouragement of exports. Even though in principle we need the GATT agreement because of what it can offer, it has some severe disadvantages as it stands in terms of its impact on a whole range of issues, as has been outlined by my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Indeed, there are some issues that have not been satisfactorily resolved which the European Union should carefully consider before the agreement is endorsed. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North, I regret that the House has not had the opportunity to debate the detail of the GATT agreement or, indeed, to vote on it. Some of these issues could have been raised and discussed.
  In terms of some of my concerns, I shall deal with agriculture and one aspect of it. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate; I was at a meeting of the all-party animal welfare committee. That committee, together with animal welfare groups in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in Europe, is concerned about the implications of GATT in terms of stopping the constant improvement of standards that we have seen in agriculture, animal husbandry, food quality and veterinary products, and stopping new developments such as genetic engineering and novel foods. The agreement has implications in terms of the right of individual countries to control what they import and how it is used.
  I am amazed that Tory Members start huffing and puffing and getting all excited about the European Union and the alleged loss of sovereignty and powers; yet, by praising the GATT agreement, they are taking away even more powers from the United Kingdom than the European Union because at least the European Union has some measure of accountability through directly elected Members of the European Parliament—whom we have just elected.
  I shall give some examples of my concerns. In food agriculture and food production generally, agriculture faces some major changes as a result of the GATT. There must be some changes, because we cannot sustain the common agricultural policy with its subsidies and its impact on developing the third world in terms of dumping surpluses at subsidised prices and distorting the markets.
  One issue is the use of artificial hormones in boosting food production. At present, the hormone known as BST —bovine somatotropin—is banned in the United Kingdom; the European Union has decided to extend that ban for a further year. There is some doubt about whether such bans can be applied under the GATT. Indeed, GATT will be used as an excuse by companies and individuals to try to get products on to the market. What sense is there in taking away restrictions on the use of artificial hormones such as BST, which increase milk production, in this country when we have a huge surplus of milk in the European Union? That surplus must be controlled by the

  583
  use of quotas, which have disadvantages. BST has implications for animal welfare and is not welcomed by consumer groups or, indeed, farmers in this country who know that artificial productions distort the market.
  Another issue is the use of hormones in, for example, beef. At present, the use of hormones in beef is legal in the United States, but is banned—rightly—in the European Union. The Americans could claim that keeping out their beef exports which have been subject to the use of hormones is illegal under the GATT arrangements and that, therefore, undermines the United Kingdom in taking the correct stand.
  Another issue is animal welfare standards. The Labour party takes these issues seriously. Indeed, we have seen an improvement in animal welfare standards and production and rearing methods over the years. We want: those improvements to continue and we campaign for that through the European Union. Things such as veal crates are banned in this country, but they are still legal in the European Union.
  Various methods of rearing livestock and intensive systems are still legal; the use of battery cages is the best example of that. It will be difficult to bring about changes in intensive systems such as battery cages. If we impose restrictions on our farmers, they can be undermined by the importation of food products—in this case, eggs—from other countries which are not subject to the same restrictions and which can claim to be exempt under GATT. That makes it difficult to bring about improvements in animal welfare standards.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that in most countries—certainly in South America—there is no restriction whatever on the way in which intensive farming can be conducted, on the sizes of cages for battery farmed chickens or on any other sort of intensive animal rearing? Clearly, the evils of the way in which animals are treated would tend to become the norm rather than the exception that they are at present.
  Mr. Morley: I am aware of that, and my hon. Friend makes a good point. I want standards to be raised in this country and in the European Union in terms of world trade. The danger of GATT is that it will lower standards to the lowest common denominator driven by market pressures. I do not believe that that issue has been properly addressed within GATT.
  While there is a place for the free market and for trade, we cannot have unfettered trade which does not take into account the exploitation of the weak by the strong, proper environmental standards, and the exploitation of the world's resources—whether animals or people. Those issues are not dealt with.
  I have mentioned genetics, which is a huge growth area in terms of genetically modified animals and foods. This country has procedures in place to look at the ethics and standards of that. Will they be undermined through GATT? Those areas of science and technology are moving so fast that proper and effective regulation must be put into place.
  Another issue is that of countries that produce food in damaging and unsustainable ways. The question of the yellow fin tuna was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). The method of fishing to which he referred not only destroyed large numbers of marine mammals but did so in a cynical
  584
  way. The fishermen were looking for schools of dolphins to indicate where the tuna were. They then shot their nets around the dolphins, destroying them along with the tuna.
  Methods of drift netting in the Pacific have caused havoc to endangered turtles, various fish species and marine mammals. Quite rightly, the Americans put a boycott on yellow fin tuna. Those issues are of international importance, and each country ought to have the right to take action by boycotting products if they are being produced in damaging ways.
  Another method—which, I am glad to say, is currently banned in some areas—is re-fishing where dynamite has been used, thereby destroying fragile ecosystems on Pacific reefs. Those issues need to be brought under control and action must be taken on that.
  Recently, there was a meeting of the International Whaling Convention, and there is still tension, as hon. Members will know, about certain countries that insist on killing whales, sometimes in defiance of IWC international regulations. There must be action taken—if appropriate —against those countries, and I hope that GATT will not restrict that.
  There is also the issue of tropical hardwoods which, in certain parts of the world, are being felled in totally unsustainable ways, causing enormous ecological damage. We ought to have systems within the European Union of identifying companies whose tropical hardwoods come from sustainable areas and involve local ethnic people, so that those companies can be encouraged and rewarded. Countries and companies that defy international law and destroy tropical forests should be boycotted and controlled. GATT undermines that particular situation.
  I hope that the Minister will consider four points. First, GATT ought to allow individual countries to prohibit the use of animal husbandry systems or veterinary drugs if that country thinks that they are damaging, inappropriate or against the interests of consumers.
  Secondly, each country ought to have the right to prohibit the imports of products that are derived from animals reared in systems that are regarded as unacceptable in terms of welfare, standards and cruelty, or products that have been treated with drugs that have been banned in the European Union.
  Thirdly, products that have been produced in damaging or non-sustainable ways should also be subject to boycotts or restrictions within GATT.
  Fourthly, I endorse—although time does not allow me to touch on this—all the points made about the exploitation of people around the world. GATT does not take into account the use of child labour and slave labour in certain parts of the world and products derived from that.
  GATT should also take into account social issues, the right of people to join trade unions to protect their interests and basic human rights. GATT should not be used as an excuse to level down, to condone and encourage exploitation, and to undermine those countries that are striving for high standards—whether animal production, agriculture, food quality or health and safety of people at work. If we are to get the benefit of GATT—there are potential benefits—those issues must be addressed by the Government, who are responsible for negotiating on behalf of our people.
  8.34 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: I apologise to the House for not being here for the whole debate, although I indicated that I had previous commitments. I did come in for the opening speeches, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate.
  It is fair to make criticisms of GATT, but it is also fair to assume that, if we had not had it, we should have had an infinitely worse situation. As one of those who pressed continuously for GATT and who supported the Government in all that they did in terms of reaching agreement, I feel that it is a worthwhile state of affairs for organising world trade well into the next millennium.
  It is the first agreement of which I am conscious which sets down rules which will take us into the next millennium. I do not say that for the selfish reason that it should be helpful to Britain and our manufacturing industry. I genuinely believe that GATT will be of overall benefit to the world community. I should like to support all that has been said about the activities of the Prime Minister and other Ministers, but especially those of Sir Leon Brittan in terms of his mammoth negotiations with the United States. I hope that the talent and expertise that he brought to bear in the trade negotiations will be recognised within the European Union. When the curricula vitae of the various people likely to become President of the Commission come to be considered, I hope that the unswerving and devoted work that Sir Leon Brittan has done—particularly in taking the European Union through those difficult negotiations—will be recognised.
  I have always felt that we needed a world trade agreement which took us forward, because I have never felt that Britain's interests, or those of the developing word, were compartmentalised. We could not see our future in terms of employment and development simply by trading ever more sophisticated products to one another. There had to be a system whereby the transfer of resources and the ability of the developing world to improve its position was of direct benefit to the western world, and particularly to Britain.
  One has only to look at the way in which Asia has developed in recent times, and at the problems that we have had with Malaysia. When we draw up a balance sheet of what is happening in Malaysia in terms of our exports there, we see that that country's development and the way in which it has become one of the major economies in south-east Asia is very much based on the sort of transfer of technology and assistance that this country has been able to carry out with Commonwealth countries. We see the same in Vietnam and China; during the past three years our trade with China has increased dramatically as that country's own economy has developed. It was important to get an international agreement which fostered and encouraged that development rather than stifled it.
  I was particularly pleased about the agreements on intellectual property. That is a new concept, and the ideas that people have are not made of steel any more. They are not obvious, but they can have dramatic effects; one computer programme can be of immense importance and tremendous value in terms of organisation. I was horrified to hear the figure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry gave in his opening speech about losses by the phonographic industry world wide as a result of piracy. We are all familiar with music—perhaps not the sort of music that one plays every day—which is available throughout
  586
  the developing world at a nominal cost where new tapes have been pirated in a short time. A famous author told me that his book had scarcely hit the stands in Britain before it was copied and on sale in Singapore. Such copying would not give the author any royalties. We must therefore be vigilant about the concept of intellectual property, which also has a particular role in terms of pharmaceuticals—in which Boots, a constituency company of mine, has a particular interest.
  I am delighted to pay tribute to the President of the Board of Trade and his Ministers for gearing themselves up, well ahead of the White Paper, to promote British interests and exports. I suspect that, nowadays, no Minister from any Department ever goes abroad on a mission without a group of business men and other people who can be introduced so that the long-term interests of Britain are promoted. The significance of such visits has been apparent in many countries. I was recently on a visit to Taiwan with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which happened to coincide with a visit from the Minister of State. It was a joyful occasion, because we were able to capitalise on the good will that had been generated. The Minister's role was important because he brought key players with him from Britain to that growing, powerful economy. That visit was important for future trade.
  I have a long-held interest in the developing world and I am chairman of the all-party group on overseas development. It is worth noting the significant effect of the Uruguay round on developing countries, because they participated in force in multilateral trade negotiations for the first time. In the Uruguay round they had clear objectives for their agricultural, textile and clothing exports, and for products which had always anomalously remained excluded from previous GATT settlements. It is clear that some wanted to protect their positions in terms of services, intellectual property and laws affecting foreign investment. The impetus to liberalise their own trade, however, whether undertaken under duress or not, had also increased their interest in strengthening a rules-based international trading system. That represents a sea change. For instance, a decade ago Mexico was not even a member of GATT, but now it is a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. India is no longer introverted and aims to trade competitively. The trust that such nations have put in free trade must not be disappointed or controverted.
  In the traditional GATT subjects, especially tariffs on manufactures and in traditional primary commodity exports, there is little left for any country to gain because barriers have come down so far already. The Uruguay round does not, unfortunately, reduce tariff escalation very much. Changes will come mainly from adjustments in relative preferences, but average effects will be small.
  The Overseas Development Institute calculates that a once-and-for-all gain to developing countries resulting from full implementation of the Uruguay round settlement would be worth about $100 billion in extra exports, and more if account is taken of the dynamic effects of trade and specialisation on income growth. Not all developing countries will necessarily be net beneficiaries. It is extremely important that one should not generalise. Some African countries, particularly those which import food, will be marginally badly affected. I am glad to note that the Minister has already announced measures to take that into account.
  Mr. Enright: I am rather disturbed at use of the word "marginally" as it is clear that the sub-Saharan African countries will suffer greatly under the GATT agreement. The ODI has already said that. Will the hon. Gentleman comment specifically on the worries about the Lomé agreement and the actions currently being taken against that agreement as a result of parts of the GATT agreement? Those actions are a source of great concern to the majority of Africa.
  Mr. Lester: I shall comment on that as I develop my speech. I used the word "marginally" advisedly because the ODI's assessment is that the agreement is nothing like so significant as Christian Aid and others have suggested. For instance, Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries, but it is one of the main beneficiaries of the GATT round as its trade will increase overall by 14 per cent. China, which is not even a member of GATT yet, stands to benefit immensely from trade liberalisation. I cite those examples because they directly affect Britain, especially in terms of our trade with China as it becomes more sophisticated and therefore needs more of our products.
  More generally, studies conducted by the World bank and the OECD expect world income to expand by 1 per cent. annually—between $200 billion and $300 billion—as a result of full implementation of the Uruguay round. They calculate that developing countries' share of that income, as well as exports, will be about a third. That is a significant share.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), strong enforcement and dispute settlement powers are needed. The World Trade Organisation should be established as a viable successor to tie the always temporary GATT. The concern expressed by the hon. Member is borne out in a different way, because developing countries are queuing up to be founder members of WTO. That hardly suggests that they have anything to fear. They know where advantages are to be seized under the new trade regime and most of them realise that in the future there will be relatively little mileage left in the culture of preference selling, however honourable its post-colonial origins once were.
  In connection with the mid-term review of the Lomé convention which is just starting, the ODI has separately calculated for the African, Caribbean and Pacific secretariat what the losers in trade liberalisation will miss and what they should do about it. The ODI recognises that the Uruguay round settlement will lead to a loss overall to the preference-dependent ACP states of just 144 million ecu—a mere 0.7 per cent. of their exports to the European Union market and a much smaller fraction of their total exports. Many of those countries, such as Zimbabwe, will register gains. Food import-dependent states such as Ethiopia and Senegal will lose out more heavily and will have to change their policy. Within GATT we are already taking those losses into account and making provision to help deal with the temporary circumstances.
  Mr. Enright: Senegal has already changed its economic policies three times at the behest of international organisations ranging from the World bank and the International Monetary Fund to the European Union. Now it is being asked to change its policy yet again. That is insupportable.
  Mr. Lester: We cannot have a country such as Senegal wagging the tail, for whatever reason, of the 150 nations
  588
  which are now signatories to GATT. We must make special provision and the Minister of State has already spelt it out. Many of us will be conscious of the difficulties, but overall the Uruguay round represents a major benefit to developing countries. The settlement brings new export opportunities even for Senegal and Ethiopia, not least in the booming Asian market.
  I welcome the debate and I support the GATT round. I recognise that, overall, the settlement will benefit rather than disadvantage developing countries. Where we need to make special provision for a handful of ACP countries, we should do just that, but we should also encourage the quickest possible implementation and operation of the GATT agreement.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: This has been a useful, timely debate, because it is right that the House should consider the implications of the Uruguay round. It is important that we spend some time considering not only the advantages of that agreement but hon. Members' fears and predictions about some difficulties that may arise.
  Most speeches came from Opposition Members and it is important to acknowledge some of the arguments which have been properly and ably made. I had to miss part of the speech by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), but I agreed with much of what I heard. We would not disagree with much of what he said about the implementation of trade. It is important to acknowledge that some common ground exists.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) showed the understanding that he has gained from holding positions on all-party groups. It was important for that voice to be added to the debate, from whichever side of the Chamber it came.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was customarily eloquent and also knowledgeable on the subject. I do not wish to undermine what he said, but I could not compete with his knowledge of the banana industry in the Caribbean. Suffice it to say that I hope that the House will take his point because the issue is clearly important.
  Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) stoutly defended the aerospace and steel industries. Although I am not exactly a neighbour, my constituency is not far from his so I am fully aware of his constituents' concern about those industries. Some of my constituents work in his constituency, so they keep me informed about the position. My hon. Friend made some legitimate points.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), in only his second speech in the House, demonstrated his command and knowledge of the detail of the steel industry, which is important in his constituency, and of the social dimensions arising out of world trade and particularly GATT. His speech leads me to believe that we shall hear much more of him on that and related subjects.
  The thoughtful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) ranged over several global economic, social and environmental issues. Much research had clearly gone into it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) took us on a Cook's tour of the world's problems with GATT. Without endorsing every word that he said,

  589
  may I say that it was clear that he had travelled to some of those spots and that his feelings on the subject were heartfelt. We all share some of his concerns on behalf of the poorer regions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) showed his knowledge and understanding of, and his sympathy for, agricultural communities, wildlife and animal husbandry. It was timely to bring such expertise to the debate and he did so with passion.
  I shall not comment in detail on the speech of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) because I was not sure that I entirely followed it. Indeed, I was not sure whether the hon. Lady followed her own speech. It was sometimes better informed when she was assisted by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who helped her at least once. It is usually best to draw a veil over the specific content of her speeches.
  We are genuinely concerned that environmental considerations should be built into, indeed entrenched in, GATT. GATT's potential economic advantage—I stress the word "potential"—for freer world trade cannot be bought at the cost of further destruction of our global environment. Some weeks ago, I thought that that point was uncontroversial and that most sensible people would agree that the economic thrust of GATT and its effect on the world environment were connected. However, on re-reading the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 16 December, I began to wonder whether that matter was controversial. Following that statement, my late right hon. and learned Friend, John Smith, asked the Prime Minister:
  "On the environment, will the new Multilateral Trade Organisation be given a remit to recognise the importance in the modern world of linking economic development with environmental protection?"
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I shall give way once I have finished the quotes.
  In responding, the Prime Minister said:
  "There is no question that development will be at the expense of the environment and I do not believe that anyone seriously imagines that that will be a problem."—[Official Report, 16 December 1993; Vol. 234, c. 1271–72.]
  Some months later, on 4 June, the Prime Minister was quoted in The Guardian. If Conservative Members are not keen on The Guardian, they can refer to any of the other newspapers that reported it at the time. An article by Paul Brown, the environment correspondent, said:
  "John Major, opening the World Environment Day award ceremony yesterday, praised free trade as the answer to the world's environment problems and was immediately accused of 'dangerous wishful thinking' by one of the winners.
  Mr. Major said the opening of markets around the world in the Gatt Uruguay round was the environmental landmark of 1993. Increasing global prosperity was an essential precondition to sustainable development. 'Trade will be the most powerful means of raising living standards in developing countries and thus open the way for further progress on environmental protection.'
  Many of the award winners at the ceremony to honour the United Nations Global 500 Laureates were dismayed by Mr. Major's remarks.
  Paul Ekins, the only economist among the 39 Laureates honoured yesterday, said the Prime Minister's views had no foundation in fact."
  590
  So there is some controversy and the Prime Minister seems to change his views on the subject, depending on the audience that he happens to be addressing.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us about the relevance of the provisions of the Earth summit agreements signed in Rio de Janiero, which were also negotiated by the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Lester rose—
  Mr. Howarth: It is usually a good idea to answer the question that one has just been asked before taking on another. I shall give way in a few moments.
  I intend to come to the subject of the Earth summit agreements in a moment. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gravesham had the opportunity to make his speech; he made it in his own way and I shall make my speech in my own way. I intend to refer to Rio later and then I shall make some observations on the very argument that he makes. I give way to the hon. Member for Broxtowe.
  Mr. Lester: Surely the hon. Gentleman recognises that poverty in many of the poorest countries in Africa is the main reason why their environment is destroyed. One cannot go to a poor country without seeing the total destruction of its environment. The Prime Minister was right to say that raising standards in those countries, so that the people can begin to earn enough to have a stove, to use electricity, instead of cutting down all the trees for miles around their encampment, is of direct benefit to the environment.
  Mr. Howarth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The key thing, which I intend to discuss in a few moments, is not that we do not want economic development. It is vital and the hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that—as indeed, in one of his statements which contradicted an earlier one, was the Prime Minister. The key argument that we wish to make is that economic development cannot take place—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree —at the expense of the environment. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Gravesham shows a little patience, which is not customary for him, perhaps he will learn something. As my speech develops, I shall answer some of the arguments that he is trying to make from a sedentary position.
  It is important that we consider the environment in terms of GATT because there are three vital possible ways in which we need to look afresh at the way in which we consider the issues. The first is the process of harmonising standards under the auspices of the International Standards Organisation. If the process is allowed—several of my hon. Friends referred to that—it could lead to downward pressures rather than increased environmental protection. It could also lead to technology transfer being restricted rather than developed further as we had hoped, and the consequences would be catastrophic to the environment in the developing world. I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) would agree with that.
  Mr. Mark Robinson indicated assent.
  Mr. Howarth: It is important to provide reassurance—so far absent on the part of the Government—that the GATT treaty cannot and will not be used to challenge international agreements such as the Montreal protocol and

  591
  the Rio conventions. Whatever their failings, none of those agreements—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gravesham is saying, "What rubbish", I think.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: No. I said, "What a red herring."
  Mr. Howarth: It is not a red herring and I shall explain why in a moment.
  Although they are not comprehensive, perfect agreements, they have been welcomed by Opposition Members, for important reasons. However—this is why it is not a red herring—under the GATT arrangements there have already been challenges to the Austrian timber ban on the import of tropical timber and challenges in the tuna —dolphin case, to which several of my hon. Friends referred, as the hon. Member for Gravesham would know if he had bothered to stay in the Chamber for more of the debate. There is already evidence that important environmental considerations are being challenged, and that they are being challenged on the basis of GATT. It is important that those conventions are upheld. I should have been far happier if there had been an article in the agreement listing those important treaties that should be exempt from challenges under the GATT rules. That is a minimum condition that we would need in order to be satisfied that it is environmentally friendly and will not be damaging to the environment.
  Similarly, the treaty sets out the inviolable rights of states to independent action—for example, to protect health. Why could not there have been a similar statement, making it clear that nation states still had the right to protect their environment from processes as well as products? Products are to some extent covered, but often the processes that lead up to the production of those products are not. It would have been more reassuring had there been a statement to that effect.
  Although we equally welcome the establishment of the proposed World Trade Organisation, we feel strongly that it needs to be a proper and democratic organisation. The obvious way of ensuring that would be to construct proper lines of accountability that lead to the United Nations. If one is to have an agreement on a global scale, the United Nations is the most appropriate organisation to deal with it.
  We also believe that the organisation needs to be transparent in its decision making by meeting in public so that people know what it is talking about; by voting in public so that people know who has voted in what way; and by receiving and taking evidence in public so that the arguments as well as the decisions made and the votes cast can be assessed.
  We feel that, for the process that is envisaged to be valid and useful, there needs to be some commitment that it will have an element of permanence, that it will not run out of steam in 12 months' time without any momentum. There is so much to do that it is important to have some permanence and stability about the way in which decisions are taken. There needs to be a proper appeals procedure, constituted in a fair and accessible way, so that those who fall foul of the system know that there is an opportunity to appeal.
  It is also important that the GATT working party on trade and the environment is prevailed upon to report within a year and that the contracting parties agree to follow with an action plan, we hope within two years, so that the momentum built up on the environment can be followed through.
  592
  The most important principal issue, to which several of my hon. Friends referred, is that we seek globally sustainable trade within a fair trading system, rather than the uncontrolled system that several Conservative Members seem to believe is the only way forward. As my hon. Friends have strongly argued, it is now generally understood that economic and social development are indivisible and that acute poverty in the developing world creates a climate that forces individuals and some Governments to collude in environmentally damaging processes and practices.
  Similarly, there is an overwhelming case for taking measures and delivering strategies globally to help to close the north-south gap. Several of my hon. Friends referred to that at length. We need to lift the burden of debt and spread the fruits of global economic activity. To put it bluntly, environmental protection cannot be postponed until the third world has grown rich, but nor can it be achieved by keeping it poor.
  The key issues on sustainable economic development and the environment remain unresolved. Tonight we are, in effect, asked to trust a Government who, by their words and record, believe in untrammelled free trade but not in fair trade—a Government continually forced to fall back on short-term measures when the world is palpably ready for a global strategy for sustainability. We are asked to trust the Government but, like the rest of Britain last Thursday, our answer must be that we cannot. Although the jury may still be out on GATT, it has already delivered its verdict on the Government's stewardship of trade, industrial development and environmental protection, and they have been found guilty. The sooner the sentence is passed, the better.
  9.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I am pleased by the broad welcome from both sides of the House for the GAIT agreement, however much some of it was hedged around by caveats. Many hon. Members, especially on the Conservative Benches, spoke eloquently about the advantages of free trade and welcomed the achievements that the whole world can claim for the GATT agreements.
  However, there were exceptions. I was intrigued by the speeches of the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). From the nature of their speeches, I gather that they will not be part of the campaign team of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). In fact, there was a certain period aroma about them—circa 1848. The sentiments that they expressed are not often heard today in other parts of the world. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South declared himself in favour of planned trade. Not many countries today claim to plan their trade. Indeed, apart from Cuba, which is moving away from planned trade, I can think only of North Korea.
  I am not sure how both hon. Members find a place in a modernised Labour party. Perhaps we will learn more about that in due course. The essence of their case is that trade impoverishes, whereas the lesson of the last couple of thousand years is that trade enriches. Development is everything at which we should aim in third-world countries, rather than seek to reverse it. What sort of position would Germany be in today if the Tollverein had not been created in the middle of the last century and that country was still a motley collection of city states and tiny

  593
  principalities? Would it be the economic power house that it is today? The answer is self-evidently no, yet that is exactly the kind of trading system advocated by the two hon. Gentlemen.
  That view has gained support in some parts of the European Union, as demonstrated by the results of last week's elections. I never thought that those hon. Gentlemen would be soul mates of my good friend Sir James Goldsmith, but it appears that there is a bond of contact between them that would perhaps surprise Sir James. I understand from my reading of newspaper reports of Sir James's campaign that his view is that the west must be protected against cheap labour economies because of the social upheaval that might be caused in the west as a result of the changed trading patterns that would occur in a relatively short period. I understand that there is an argument on a transitional basis, but the GATT agreements will be phased in over a period, and we seek to take account of that.
  Overall, enabling trade will increase opportunities for wealth creation all around the world, including in the European Union. That is something that the Government unambiguously welcome.
  Now that agreement has been reached, we should not be complacent. There is much work still to do. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said earlier, if the United Kingdom does not seize the opportunities offered by the new agreement, others certainly will. British industry must act fast. If it does not, it will lose out—which is why the Department is particularly concerned to assist British industry to win in world markets. That is the essence of everything that we do. It was the essence of our competitiveness White Paper published just before the Whitsun recess.
  The impact that government has on business and on the opportunities to create wealth and jobs should be at the forefront of all our minds. That is not to say that we must make a god of money, but in taking decisions in almost every policy area we should be fully aware of the economic impact, in so far as it is compatible with other policy objectives. We should ensure that it assists our trade rather than restricts or diminishes it.
  In that respect, export promotion—which featured in a number of speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House and particularly in the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce)—is of great importance. The Department has transformed export promotion. This country's 80 top markets are analysed by private sector individuals brought into the Department, who have written market plans and involved industries in the leading economic and trading sectors. As a consequence, the Department is much better informed than before. I hope that, over time, industry will become better informed about the services that the Government can offer and the means by which they can be delivered. That is also important.
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department is an important element. The hon. Member for Gordon acknowledged that its functions have been extended and the terms on which guarantees are granted have been liberalised. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that a lower premium rate is offered by the Italians for a specific project, and he criticised the higher rates charged by ECGD. In fact, it seeks to match its premium rates to the
  594
  risks attached to a given market. That means that, although rates may be higher in certain markets, they may be lower in many others.
  The premium is not the only consideration in determining the quality of cover provided. Benefits to exporters include the value of cover. One important difference between the ECGD system and others, particularly in the European Union, is that the department's cover is provided at 100 per cent. of the loan value and is unconditional. In other countries, such as Germany and France, cover is only at 90 per cent. of value and is conditional. There are significant differences between schemes and no doubt one could argue about them, but it is not a sustainable proposition that the ECGD's scheme is any worse than others—although companies that have been unable to obtain cover for a particular project may complain that it is. But let nobody be in any doubt that we support the expansion of world trade and that we want a bigger share of it for Britain. I hope that that is something that will unite the House. There should be unanimity on that point.
  The debate ranged widely today and I shall try to take up some of the points that were made. They are, however, so numerous that I doubt whether I shall be able to consider all of them in my speech. I shall try to consider some of the main issues.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) raised the question of trade in services and the expansion of the GATT into GATS. The extension of multilateral rules to trade in services is one of the main achievements, in my view, of the Uruguay round. The agreement lays down a series of general disciplines to which more than 100 signatories will be obliged to adhere. The creation of the GATS framework of principles and rules, including provisions requiring measures affecting trade in services to be fully transparent, will be of benefit in providing predictability and consistency, which UK services suppliers regard as vital. That, of course, is just a first step towards a progressive liberalisation of services sectors, and there are some instances of discriminatory measures being removed or relaxed.
  Many countries, in many sectors, have taken on stand-still obligations so that they do not introduce more onerous conditions in the future. That is to be welcomed. I am particularly keen that we should reach an acceptable agreement on financial services, which is a particularly important sector for the United Kingdom. There will be clear benefits from having it covered by multilateral rules. The great majority of countries that participated in the round were prepared to make liberalisation commitments in financial services, but, alas, further work is needed to complete the package. I hope that it will be completed swiftly. In some cases—Canada is a particularly good example—countries undertook to remove or relax existing measures that discriminate against foreign firms, but in most cases countries' liberalisation commitments are based on the stand-still provisions, which I mentioned a moment ago. But, even so, such limited commitments are valuable as they guarantee that current levels of market access for foreign firms will be maintained.
  When the negotiations concluded, there was a real danger that financial services would effectively be excluded from the GATS package. In particular, the United States was not satisfied with the level of commitments that were being given by some trading partners, particularly far eastern countries, and was not prepared to extend US

  595
  concessions to those countries. It was decided, therefore, to continue negotiations in financial services to provide the opportunity for improved commitments to be made.
  Six months after the World Trade Organisation comes into being, all participants will decide finally on the level of their commitments and whether they wish to derogate from the most-favoured-nation principle in any respect, for example, by keeping the ability to make access to their financial services markets conditional on reciprocal access for their companies in other markets. Our Government will work for a satisfactory outcome based on full most-favoured-nation principles, and an outcome in that highly important sector based on bilateral market opening through the use of reciprocity measures could, in my opinion, be very damaging. The prosperity of the City of London depends on its openness and the Government will fight hard to ensure that it is maintained.
  Another feature of the debate has been the emphasis that Opposition Members have placed on the so-called "social clause"—trade, labour and social standards. That is an important question and I am happy to deal with it. The Government are committed to international action in support of human rights, and to stop the exploitation of children, but trade sanctions or restrictions are unlikely to work, and may in fact do much harm to the trading system. So we oppose moves by some, including France arid the United States, to introduce trade rules and labour standards, or a social clause to the World Trade Organisation. Instead, we are promoting proper analytical work in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to sort out the issues and to see where there are problems that need to be addressed. The UK approach enjoys a good deal of support in the European Community and, indeed, the rest of the world.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for discussing the issue and for putting it on record that the British Government have agreed—through the OECD—to participate in the analysis of social rights and obligations in relation to trade.
  Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
  Mr. Corbyn: What does the Minister propose to do when the analysis is complete and it has been demonstrated that child slave labour is being used and disgracefully low hourly rates are being paid in the economic zones of such countries as China?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such an obviously fatuous point. The idea that China's internal domestic policies will be influenced in any way by the trading obligations that others seek to impose on it is utterly preposterous: all the evidence of recent years shows that that is not so.
  What we know from the history of the world is that dictatorial, totalitarian regimes tend to occur in poor countries. The best way in which to avoid dictatorships and repressive regimes is to enrich the peoples of those countries, rather than impoverishing them. We seek to expand the opportunities for world trade, to bring the countries into world markets rather than excluding them and hence—not only by example and precept, but by the change that results from economic enrichment—to alter
  596
  the political systems that the hon. Member for Islington, North has spent so much of his life supporting and promoting.
  Trade restrictions aimed at enforcing labour standards would almost certainly be unacceptable to the majority of developing countries, most of which behave perfectly respectably in terms of labour rules. The problem is simply that they are poor: any such trade restrictions would be a real excuse for protectionist abuses, which would make people in developing countries poorer, increasing misery and removing hope. I cannot imagine a more selfish option. Moreover, whatever sacrifice British industry might make, I think that we can be certain that some other countries would not be quite so scrupulous: the hon. Gentleman would not achieve his objective even then.
  Real humanitarian issues such as slavery are best tackled through the United Nations system, as at present. UK law provides for prison-made goods to be banned from the UK, but that law has never been used because of the difficulty of proving the origin of any particular goods. That is a good example of the practical problems that could be expected to arise during attempts to deal with labour issues within the trading system.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Minister now appears to be keen to remove sanctions. In that case, why on earth are sanctions being pursued against Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Iraq?
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not think that we want to go down highways and byways of that kind. Let me deal with the other issues with which serious participants in the debate wish me to deal—in particular, trade and the environment.
  Hon. Members have claimed that the WTO agreement will harm the environment or undermine important environmental policies and agreements. Again, I do not see how that can happen. The WTO agreement will not prevent countries from taking steps to protect the environment; it will help to stop the use of environmental excuses for protectionist purposes.
  The UK is committed to proper protection of the environment, and to the maintenance and development of an open, rule-based trading system. That is why the UK has strongly supported the establishment of a WTO trade and environment committee to look further at new rules to reconcile the needs of the environment with the trading system. The UK is particularly sensitive to the need to involve developing countries in the process, because those countries often fear that the environment is used as an excuse to restrict their trade and market access. We must ensure that that does not happen. I can tell the hon. Member for Islington, North that nothing in the GATT round will prevent countries from meeting their obligations under the Montreal protocols.
  A number of Opposition Members raised the tuna and dolphin case—in particular, the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Nottingham, South. I am happy to deal with that point, too. There have been two dispute settlement cases in GATT involving tuna and dolphins. In 1991, a dispute settlement panel upheld a Mexican complaint that the US had banned the import of Mexican tuna in violation of US GATT obligations. In that instance, the US action was aimed at protecting dolphins which swim with tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific—a point mentioned specifically by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South.

  597
  The United States rules were discriminatory because United States boats faced easier targets than foreign boats. They were also retrospective in their application. The GATT dispute settlement panel also confirmed that GATT rules do not allow unilateral trade action to be taken in pursuit of environmental goals wholly outside the country taking the action. It confirmed the United Kingdom view that multilateral agreement is the best way to tackle global environmental issues.
  This year, the EC won a case in GATT against the so-called United States secondary embargo. It was a silly idea because the United States banned imports of tuna from countries that did not ban Mexican tuna at the time of the first case, ostensibly to prevent so-called tuna laundering, but really to put extra pressure on Mexico, so the case does not add much to our understanding of the wider environmental issues.
  That shows, however, that efforts to enforce environmental rules by using trade bans are unlikely to work and that engaging the co-operation of others is much better than coercion.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister agree that as we move on to the next round of GATT, it would be appropriate for an environmental responsibility to be built into the World Trade Organisation and that it should be the instrument for enforcing what has been previously agreed? That is not incompatible with what he has just said.
  Mr. Hamilton: It is one possibility that will be considered in the near future. I cannot forecast the outcome of those negotiations. These have been difficult enough and went on for long enough, but I hope that other countries are as concerned as the hon. Gentleman is—and of course we are concerned about the environment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) demonstrated in a number of telling inventions in Opposition speeches and in his own speech.
  The interface between the trading system and the environment is one of the issues which cross countries' borders. It is appropriate that such issues should not be wholly excluded from the debate, so they will be looked at.
  The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe also asked about animal welfare and how that is affected by the Uruguay round. Animal welfare issues are not dealt with explicitly as part of the round, but any trade restrictions on animal welfare grounds will continue to be subject to the broad provisions of GATT. As such, they must not operate with discrimination between GATT members or amount to an arbitrary or unnecessary barrier to trade. In Britain, our standards for animal welfare are a matter of domestic choice. There is no automatic provision within GATT to permit restriction on third-country trade because production takes place under less demanding welfare conditions than nationally, but, if applied, such restrictions should not be any more onerous than the requirements placed on domestic producers.
  As regards third-country imports produced under less stringent welfare conditions and the hon. Gentleman's proposition that they should be restricted, the Community will continue to be able to make bilateral arrangements with exporting countries regarding the source of particular export products. It is not appropriate for one member of GATT to impose arbitrary restrictions on trade with third
  598
  countries. The United Kingdom will continue to work closely with its European partners to ensure due consideration of animal welfare issues.
  Once again, this is an issue with an interface with the trading system. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but we must be ever-vigilant to ensure that such matters are not used as excuses to undermine the freedom of trade because that would be to throw the baby out with the bath water.
  The United Kingdom has very obvious interest in maintaining the maximum freedom of trade around the world because such a high proportion of our national product is derived from international trade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham pointed out, we export more per head in this country than any country in the world, so we have a more vital interest than most countries in maintaining the integrity of the international trading system.
  Mr. Morley: Does what the Minister is saying mean that if the European Union wants to continue to ban the importation of beef which has been fed hormones, as is the American practice, that can still be done under the GATT rules and arrangements?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am not an expert on this matter, as might be obvious. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry assures me that some disciplines do apply, although, in the time available, he is unable to prompt me to repeat them at the Dispatch Box. I shall be happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman in a more permanent form and, I hope, satisfy him as a result.
  Many hon. Members concentrated on the impact of GATT on developing countries. Developing countries know that they stand to gain from freer trade and the stronger trade disciplines that the round will bring. They made up a majority of the countries participating in the negotiations and, on a number of occasions, they took a lead in urging progress on the developed world. That was one of the outcomes of the Limassol conference in November 1993.
  Last November's OECD-World bank study estimated that incomes in non-OECD countries would increase by some £78 billion a year as a result of the round. I accept that these are forecasts and, like the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, we are right to be suspicious of them. Whatever doubts we may have about the authenticity of any specific figure, it can hardly be doubted that there will be an increase in world trade as a result of the treaty and that that increase will be substantial, which will help to raise income levels and create jobs. Developing countries would have suffered more than most from any increased protectionism had the round failed.
  The Government recognise, however, that the gains for developing countries will not be evenly spread. Most studies suggest that agricultural reforms will lead to price increases for most staple food products compared with the level of world prices in the absence of an agreement. That will raise the cost of imports for the developing countries that import foods, a point made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), but which was well rebutted by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester). In so far as the cost of imports for developing countries that are net importers of food creates problems, it should also

  599
  create incentives for local farmers to increase production, so enabling developing countries to reduce their dependence over time on imported food.
  The final act of the round also includes provisions to assist net food importing countries through food aid and the resources of international financial institutions. That enables us at least to meet some of the difficulties faced by some countries. However, I agree that, overall, developing countries will be significant net beneficiaries of the changes to be made.
  Mr. Enright: I said that I was talking not about Africa as a whole but about specific developing countries, especially those of sub-Saharan Africa. I went to some trouble to say that some African countries would benefit were it not for political difficulties that have nothing to do with GATT. We must recognise that a core of the African countries, especially the sub-Saharan countries, will suffer severely from GATT because the slightest quiver on their economic scale has significant reverberations and we must do something about it. I am sorry that the Minister has not yet said anything about bananas, but I hope that he will guarantee that the Government will continue their good behaviour in that respect.
  Mr. Hamilton: I shall deal with bananas in a second so that hon. Members will not be disappointed.
  As I was saying a moment ago, a number of round agreements recognise the special needs of developing countries. Some provide technical assistance to help them to comply and others give developing countries the additional time that they will need in order to implement the agreements. A ministerial decision on measures in favour of the least-developed countries will assist in a number of other areas. They include the regular review of such measures, the flexible and supportive application of trade rules and substantially increased technical assistance. Taken together, it is a substantial package of measures which will help to alleviate and, in many cases, eliminate the transitional difficulties that will be caused. Set in balance against the opportunities that are provided for developing countries by this set of agreements, I believe that the benefit overall is substantial.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North made some wholly erroneous allegations about the impact of GATT on agricultural support in developing countries. GATT commitments to reduce domestic support for agriculture in developing countries will be less than that in the developed world and will be implemented over 10 years rather than six. However, support which forms an integral part of development programmes will be, in any case, exempt from reduction commitments, as will all support for agriculture in the least-developed countries. If such support systems were wholly excluded by GATT, of course, the common agricultural policy, unambiguously on the same principle, would also be excluded. That may find favour as a proposition with some of my colleagues, but it is certainly not one of the outcomes of the GATT negotiations.
  I shall now turn to the issue of bananas, to pacify and mollify the hon. Member for Hemsworth. A Community deal on bananas with four Latin American GATT complainants was agreed as part of the Uruguay round and we welcomed that as offering the potential for a period of stability in the EC banana regime. We will be strongly supporting the Commission to ensure that the deal is
  600
  implemented to maintain the integrity of the regime itself. We have long-standing commitments to our traditional banana suppliers, which we fully intend to honour. With regard to the German case, which the hon. Member for Hemsworth raised, of course, we must wait and see how the European Court of Justice rules, but the preliminary view of the Advocate General last week was to recommend that the court overturns the case. The United Kingdom unambiguously supports the current agreement, which allows a mixed supply of bananas, and that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the Minister for news on bananas, on dolphins and on food, but may I turn his attention for a second to human beings? He did not answer the specific question that I put to him and his hon. Friends on whether the Government welcome the forthright statement by the president of the Swiss Confederation inviting the International Labour Organisation and the World Trade Organisation to co-operate strongly to set up joint bodies to link trade and protection for human beings, as defined by ILO conventions. Does the Minister welcome the statement or not? I would like an answer to that specific question.
  Mr. Hamilton: I do not know if the hon. Gentleman missed the section of my speech in which I dealt with those issues. I have to admit that I had not come across the statement of the president of the Swiss Confederation, but I do not spend as much time in Geneva as he does.
  A number of important constituency points were also raised, not least by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I wholly understand his concerns on issues such as steel and, indeed, aerospace. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) also inveighed heavily against subsidies to the steel industry, but, of course, only in other countries. That seems to be one of the problems with Labour Members. They find it rather difficult to take a universal view of such questions because they have been so inured over the years to supporting those disastrous policies in the United Kingdom. When we try to sweep them away around the world, there is a certain ambivalence about their welcome for the changes. I fully agree with the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside about the huge productivity gains that have been made by British Steel in recent years. It is now one of the best steel-making companies in the world. It certainly causes us some concern when subsidies and other unfair practices in other countries, sometimes in the European Community, undermine the market position of a company which, in the free market, would undoubtedly be a market leader. We strongly oppose some of the unfair regimes, which the hon. Gentleman complained about in his speech, and we shall continue to do so.
  With regard to the Airbus project, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside invited me to put pressure on British Airways to purchase one particular model as opposed to another. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have moved away from that kind of role for the Government in the past 10 or 15 years. I do not know whether Opposition Front Bench Members are committed to reversing those policies, but I cannot believe that a reversion to a regime whereby politicians rather than business men decided on investment projects and the products to be purchased would constitute an advance.

  601
  I hope that British aerospace companies will prosper. We will do all that we can to improve the business environment and the export potential of those products. The full resources of the Department of Trade and Industry's export promotion departments will be made available.
  Future large orders from the Ministry of Defence are not a matter for me. I will draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the MOD to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside. As a north-west Member, I fully understand, as British Aerospace plants are very close to my constituency, how important such projects are to the future of that company.
  I do not share the pessimism of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside that the agreement will fail to achieve its objective of reversing what he called industrial decline. In the increasingly competitive modern world, the only way to succeed is by becoming more competitive, which happens not by being insulated from competition, but by being exposed to it.
  The most successful economies are without exception in countries that have very competitive home markets, particularly in Japan, where domestic competition is fierce. Those are very difficult markets to break into. The success of those industries, which they have been able to export to other countries, is based on fierce internal domestic competition. We must recognise that there is no means of insulating ourselves against that.
  Overall, I believe that the agreement is a contribution towards raising the wealth-creating potential of this country and of the entire world. It has taken 40 years for GATT to reduce tariffs to their present level. It has taken 20 years to deal with non-tariff barriers, 10 years to agree to extend GATT rules to trade in services and seven years two months and 25 days to conclude the Uruguay round negotiations.
  Nevertheless, the wait has been worth while. The conclusion of the Uruguay round represents a substantial further step down the road of trade liberalisation. Peter Sutherland described it as
  "a defining moment in modern history".
  The new agreement has paved the way for the creation of a new world trading system under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation and we give thanks for it.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry spoke earlier of the courage shown by the nations of the world in choosing the route of liberalisation. At a time of stagnation in the world economy, it would have been easy to yield to temptation and to resort to protectionism. That was the great mistake that was made in the 1930s which deepened and lengthened the great depression.
  However, the world has now taken a clear step in the opposite direction, concluding that prosperity is best achieved by means of strong multilateral trade rules and their vigorous enforcement. Courage will also be needed to put the agreements into effect and to build on them. However, in concluding the Uruguay round, the path of growth has been chosen. I commend the agreements to the House.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Patrick O'Byrne
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  9.42 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: As you know, Madam Speaker, I have been trying for some time to arrange this Adjournment debate. I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Patrick O'Byrne, and his experiences originally with the Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers and subsequently with the Securities and Investments Board which has now assumed responsibility for this matter.
  Although I appreciate that in the space of the next half hour my hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to provide any solution to Mr. O'Byrne's problems, I hope that the debate will enable matters of concern to be addressed and focused on by the Government and by the self-regulatory organisations concerned. As Mr. O'Byrne's Member of Parliament, I have made representations on his behalf for nearly two years, but despite every effort I have not been able to obtain simple answers to his questions about the procedures of the AFBD and the SIB. Probably the only route left to him would be a judicial review, which Mr. O'Byrne cannot afford and which indeed could take years. I have therefore requested this debate on his behalf almost as a last resort and I am sure that my constituent appreciates, as I do, the time that my hon. Friend the Minister is giving up to listen to and to reply personally to my constituent's problem.
  Until 1991, Mr. O'Byrne was the owner of a company, Landsdowne Futures and Options Ltd, which was a member of the Association of Futures Brokers and Dealers and which operated from Wigmore street in the west end of London. Due to capital adequacy problems, Mr. O'Byrne tendered his company's resignation to the AFBD on 27 December 1990. The resignation was tendered after much thought and in increasingly difficult economic times. Only two weeks later, at a meeting on 10 January 1991, despite the fact that a tendered resignation was on the table, he was advised by the AFBD that if he injected £65,000 additional money into the company he could continue to operate.
  Having confidence in that advice, on 17 January 1991, in the morning, the necessary additional capital was put into the business. However, not the next day, not the following week, not the following month but on that very afternoon, after the money had been injected into the business, he was informed by the AFBD that the company should cease trading. Mr. O'Byrne feels that the collapse of Landsdowne was not inevitable. As he says in his own words:
  "I had numerous offers to join other companies. After all, with some 450 clients producing instant income, client production in the system and one million US dollars under management, I was an attractive proposition. So you can see that not only did the AFBD take my money, but they prevented me from making choices and from making a living."
  A meeting was called for 1 February 1991 with the AFBD, which approached the issue in what appeared to Mr. O'Byrne and his colleagues as a totally unco-operative fashion—a distinct change from the previous meeting, at which the further injection of capital had been encouraged. With the suspension in force, Mr. O'Byrne naturally asked

  603
  —he had been given advice on previous occasions—under what conditions the company could restart trading, but no answer was forthcoming.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister can imagine, the results of the AFBD's action immediately had catastrophic results for the company. Later that month, at a meeting with the then chief executive of the AFBD, Mr. O'Byrne raised his concerns, including the daily loss of money as the company was not allowed to trade but was still sustaining its overheads. Effectively, the company was in a kind of limbo, unable to trade but unable to lay off staff while the problem was unresolved. At that meeting, the solution proffered by the chief executive was a further injection of £70,000 into the business—something which by that stage was quite outside my constituent's resources. As a result, the whole business became subject to a business conduct tribunal, which was eventually held on 27 March 1991.
  At that hearing, Mr. O'Byrne's lawyer was prevented from cross-examining the. AFBD main witness by the panel, and Mr. O'Byrne feels—with some justification, in my view—that the judgment was produced on one-sided evidence. The tribunal's decision was to expel the company from the AFBD. That in itself seems curious, as my constituent had lost all his money and his business —and now, I may add, his home—when all that he had done was to follow advice given to him by the AFBD in the first place.
  In May 1991, he lodged an appeal with the council of the AFBD and in the course of so doing raised numerous questions. No answers to those questions were ever produced. At a meeting of the council in June, the company was offered a choice of resigning from the AFBD or being expelled, causing Mr. O'Byrne further surprise as he had already tendered the company's resignation some six months earlier and by then the actions of the AFBD in suspending his right to trade had forced the company into insolvency. Since that date, there has been a raft of correspondence between the AFBD, the SIB and various other individuals. But to this day, answers to some of the basic questions have still not been given to my constituent.
  In the two years that I have been dealing with Mr. O'Byrne, we have repeatedly asked for answers and my constituent still feels that the full circumstances have not come to light. Tonight, on his behalf I shall repeat the questions as clearly and concisely as possible in the hope that the organisation and individuals responsible will now feel obliged to answer them.
  After Landsdowne Securities had resigned from the AFBD, why did the AFBD advise Mr. O'Byrne to inject £65,000? When he followed that advice, why did the AFBD move the goalposts so rapidly that following the injection of capital in the morning he was told to cease trading that afternoon? What was the reasoning behind the decision to commence an investigation of the company? Are there minutes of the meeting at which that was discussed? What details are there of the briefing that the council received about Landsdowne and Mr. O'Byrne, and should they not be made available to Mr. O'Byrne?
  In the time allowed tonight I cannot make some of my points in detail but there are further points, such as why the AFBD did not respond to the questions raised in a telephone conversation between Mr. Swahey, Mr. O'Byrne's solicitor, and Mr. Simon of the AFBD on 21 January 1991. Further to that, why did the AFBD refuse to answer the questions submitted at the meeting on 1 February? Why was Mr. O'Byrne's solicitor prevented
  604
  from cross-examining witnesses on fact at the panel hearing? Lastly, when the council considered what action to take against Mr. O'Byrne's company, who was present and what facts were alleged which resulted in the decision to pull the plug? Mr. O'Byrne has never been privy to the information about his company which was passed from the AFBD to the SIB, so how can he know whether it was accurate?
  My hon. Friend the Minister may also wish to know that, relevant to this, during these delicate proceedings Mr. O'Byrne became aware of some wild and outrageous statements which were being made about his personal life, which he refutes absolutely but which were apparently circulating within the AFBD. That has caused him great distress, and to this day no explanation of their source has been firmly established, despite the fact that he feels that they may also have been used in reference to his company's situation.
  Earlier this year, my constituent received a detailed report from Mr. Young of the SIB and I understand that a copy has been given to the Minister. Despite an apparently thorough investigation, there are still question marks especially over the procedures involved. Indeed, in a report prepared by Michael Blair, the general counsel to the SIB, he says at paragraph 22, addressing Mr. O'Byrne's request for more details about the SIB's procedures:
  "There is considerable informality about the handling of this aspect of SIB's duties. SIB has a wide range of responsibilities and in terms of staff mix relatively few junior staff. So there is by contrast to other organisations comparatively little set down in firm staff instructions. In many respects the staff are expected to know the Act or the parts of it relevant to them and to have a good working knowledge of relevant board decisions and previous practice."
  I ask my hon. Friend whether that is a satisfactory state of affairs.
  I accept the principle of self-regulation. As we have seen in other areas such as pensions, however, there can be a blind spot and when someone has genuine concerns, as in the case of Mr. O'Byrne, they may find it impossible to get a definitive response to a question because there is no recourse to any authority, other than a judicial review which comes at great cost and possibly after many years. It is Mr. O'Byrne's view—and it is certainly my impression of the case—that these self-regulating bodies are judge, jury and policemen in their own field. The SIB is not an appellate body, and its procedures are far from transparent. So long as there is not an appellate body on procedures, individuals—such as my constituent—who have been forced into bankruptcy and who believe that that is a direct result of the actions of that self-regulatory body appear to have no recourse whatever available to them.
  I am aware that the ultimate route for appeal against a decision on membership lies with the commissioner appointed by the Governor of the Bank of England. This is a matter not of the membership status of the company, but of the procedures and facts in the case. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case, there is a real need to review the experiences of the workings of self-regulatory bodies to see whether the case that I have raised is exceptional, or whether new bodies ought now to be created.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to consider the apparent blind spot in this case, and tell me if anything further can be done to help Mr. O'Byrne to obtain full answers to his outstanding questions. I hope that my

  605
  hon. Friend will also comment on the possibility of reviewing the operations of the SIB and introducing an appeals system dealing with procedures and facts.
  My constituent feels robbed and cheated, with no hope of discovering the details behind his sorry case. He has had my best efforts, support and understanding, and I now ask the Minister for his. No man should have his company and livelihood removed without access to the discussions and deliberations leading to the company's demise. I thank my hon. Friend for listening to me, and I await his reply.
  9.56 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): The House will be indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) for the impassioned plea which she makes on behalf of her constituent. I congratulate her on the way in which she has pursued this particular case, and so many others. My hon. Friend has acquired a deserved and early reputation as a doughty champion of her constituents' interests. She is one who does not give up. She approaches Ministers and follows through on cases, and I know from my own experience that her constituents are extremely well served in the way in which she advances their interests.
  The case that my hon. Friend has raised tonight is another example of that. It is interesting that she does not just pursue the particular case, but draws on it to make wider comments about the regulatory system. Where she perceives the need for improvement, she demands them rightly in the House of Commons. Therefore, I make no complaint at all about seeking to answer the important issue which she raised generally, and the particular case on behalf of her constituent Mr. O'Byrne. I know that many people will sympathise—as I do—with him. His losses are serious, both personally and financially. I am sorry that he remains unhappy about his dealings with the Financial Services Act 1986 regulatory bodies. I think that it might be helpful if I begin by explaining the Government's role under the Financial Services Act.
  The Act was introduced to provide a high standard of protection for investors. It provides a wide range of powers, most of which have now been transferred to the Securities and Investments Board as the designated agency under the Act. The SIB is responsible for recognising the practitioner-based self-regulating organisations, to which the majority of investment businesses belong. The Government established the framework within which regulators work, but the detailed ways in which the system operates are for the regulators themselves. The Treasury has no statutory role to intervene in individual cases.
  My hon. Friend asked a number of specific questions about Mr. 0' Byrne's case.
  Sir Ralph Howell: Does not the Treasury have a responsibility to ensure that the SIB is carrying out its functions in an effective manner? I also have a constituent with problems in that area, and I feel that ultimately it is the responsibility of the Treasury to see that the body is doing its work properly.
  Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would not wish to dismiss, sidetrack or avoid the responsibility of the Treasury for ensuring that the legislation is implemented properly. We passed an order in the House to
  606
  designate to the SIB the supervision of the self-regulating organisations that, in turn, monitor the day-to-day activities of authorised businesses. That is the nature of the framework set out under the Financial Services Act. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, of course, we have an interest and responsibility in ensuring that the law is observed. If the SIB does not fulfil its statutory responsibilities under the terms of the legislation, we have the right to revoke that designation. I assure my hon. Friend that that responsibility is an important interest of mine, which I take extremely seriously.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
  Mr. Nelson: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor also takes that interest seriously. We monitor and seek to ensure that the legislation is properly observed and implemented by the SIB. In turn, it must be satisfied that the SROs under it observe the criteria which by law they are required to observe. In this case, as in others, that has been properly done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham asked a number of specific questions about Mr. O'Byrne's case, some of which I will address later. Given the statutory position, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the rights and wrongs of Mr. O'Byrne's case or on why the regulators took certain actions. I understand, however, that the SIB answered the questions addressed to it by Mr. O'Byrne in the report by the SIB's general counsel, Michael Blair. My hon. Friend referred to that report and acknowledged that she has received and read a copy of it.
  I fully acknowledge that Mr. O'Byrne's case raises general issues about the disciplinary proceedings of the SROs under the Financial Services Act and about the way in which the SIB handles complaints about those disciplinary proceedings and about its own conduct.
  Under the Financial Services Act, it is a condition of recognition by the SIB that, in the event of a disciplinary case concerning an SRO member, the SRO's rules and practices must be fair and reasonable and include adequate provision for appeals. The SROs are also required to have effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints against the organisation or its members.
  In the case of Mr. O'Byrne's company, Lansdowne Futures and Options Limited, the SRO was the Association of Futures and Brokers Dealers, AFBD. I understand that the disciplinary case against Lansdowne involved capital adequacy problems. The regulations covering the capital adequacy requirements of investment firms are a vital ingredient of a regulatory system, which is designed to protect investors and maintain the financial integrity of the markets.
  Lansdowne's case was considered in March 1991 by a panel appointed by the conduct of business committee of the AFBD. That panel included an independent lay element, a former circuit judge, who was an independent member of AFBD's council. After consideration by the panel, the matter was referred to the AFBD's governing body, the council, which comprised a number of Mr. O'Byrne's fellow practitioners and public interest members.
  As my hon. Friend has said, in the case of the AFBD, the final appeal mechanism against membership decisions

  607
  was to an appeals commissioner appointed by the Governor of the Bank of England. An appeals mechanism was, therefore, not only available under the AFBD's rules and procedures, but is a requirement of the Financial Services Act. I am puzzled that Mr. O'Byrne chose to resign from the AFBD rather than to exercise that option.
  On the SIB's handling of complaints, the Financial Services Act requires the SIB to have effective arrangements for the investigation of complaints arising out of the conduct of an SRO. The SIB is answerable to the Treasury under the Act—a point raised by my hon. Friend —for the adequacy of those arrangements, along with a number of other functions. If the Treasury considers that the SIB's oversight of the regulatory structure is not adequate, it has the power, with the approval of each House of Parliament, to make an order assuming the functions transferred to the SIB.
  If a complaint against a recognised body is substantiated, there are a number of possible outcomes. The SRO might decide to tighten up its procedures, accept that it must reconsider the issue, or offer to make an ex gratia payment to the complainant. Other options open to the SIB include an informal rebuke of the SRO, a public statement about the quality of regulation of the SRO, or a court order requiring the SRO to fulfil its obligations under the Act. The SIB, therefore, has a range of options open to it to ensure that the front-line regulators have disciplinary proceedings that meet the Act's requirements.
  As my hon. Friend observed, when investigating complaints against SROs, the SIB does not act as an appellate body. There is ample provision for appeal against the rights and wrongs of a disciplinary decision within the SRO's procedures. The SIB does not review the merits of a decision reached by an SRO, but it is concerned to ensure that the SRO's disciplinary processes and procedures are fair and equitable.
  I understand that, his firm having resigned from the AFBD, Mr. O'Byrne complained to the SIB about the AFBD's handling of his case on 30 September 1991. As a result, staff in the SIB's then capital markets division and complaints unit made extensive inquiries into the points raised by Mr. O'Byrne. The inquiries included discussions with both AFBD staff and Mr. O'Byrne as well as scrutiny of the papers held by the AFBD. Having considered all that material, the SIB concluded that the AFBD had properly and fairly followed its disciplinary procedures. It found no reason to think that those procedures were unsatisfactory. It is difficult to see what more an appellate body on procedures could have done.
  If a complainant is not satisfied with the SIB's handling of the complaint against an SRO, it remains open to the complainant to make a complaint against the SIB itself. Complaints against the SIB are handled at an appropriate senior level and independently of the members of staff involved in the original complaint. Such complaints receive replies from the SIB's chief executive and, where appropriate, they may even be put to the board. A non-executive board member is involved in auditing the handling of such complaints.
  My hon. Friend asked whether those SIB complaints arrangements were satisfactory and whether we should review the workings of the self-regulatory bodies. Of course we keep those matters constantly under review and I will reflect carefully on what my hon. Friend said. It is a requirement of the Financial Services Act that the SIB has effective arrangements for complaints. My hon. Friend
  608
  may be aware that the chairman of the SIB, Andrew Large, had conducted a review of how the SIB carries out its responsibilities. In May 1993, having taken a thorough and critical look at the operation of the Financial Services Act's regulatory structure, Andrew Large made a number of important recommendations, which the Treasury accepted without reservation.
  Much of Andrew Large's report was devoted to a fresh approach to supervision and enforcement, which should result in a step change in the level of protection offered to investors, and to more rigorous assessment and monitoring of the SROs by the SIB. Those are important issues which both my hon. Friends have raised tonight. I assure them that we try to ensure that, under the current regulatory structure, imperfect as it may sometimes seem, we take seriously the complaints and observations that are made and we try to make the system work effectively.
  Andrew Large is also committed to promoting greater openness about the recognised bodies' activities. One element of that is expected to be the consolidation of the SIB's arrangements for independent review of its handling of complaints of various kinds. The SIB is currently discussing proposals to put in place a complaints commissioner. That person will have responsibility for auditing the SIB's handling of complaints about itself and its handling of complaints that it receives about SROs and other recognised bodies.
  Mrs. Gillan: Does not the very fact that the Large review was so overwhelmingly immediately and readily accepted evidence that there were flaws in the procedures and the way in which the SIB conducted its business previously? Does not that indicate that there is a possibility that my constituent had fallen foul of what is obviously a less transparent procedure than we would all wish there to be in the operation of the SIB?
  Mr. Nelson: I am afraid that I do not accept either of my hon. Friend's contentions, although I understand where she is coming from on that.
  With regard to the first contention, I think that my hon. Friend must remember that the driving force for Andrew Large's review was very much the Maxwell shake-out. Andrew Large was asked to conduct his review as a result of imperfections that the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation considered in a report. The regulatory process is an evolving process and one learns from experience. Under the law, that is an important evolution. There is always room for improvement. I think that what Andrew Large proposes to do and is currently implementing will bring about that step change.
  Yes, it is true, in terms of investor protection, that the Government were not satisfied and Andrew Large was not satisfied with the extent to which the working of the legislation provided such protection in the past. There were too many instances—from home income plans and the Maxwell case to many other situations and, most recently, personal pension opt-outs and transfers—of serious incidents affecting all our constituents and their savings and investments. The challenge must therefore be, and has been, to use the existing structures and powers of the law significantly to improve investor—and depositor on the banking side—protection. That was what Andrew Large was about. However, I do not accept, having considered as

  609
  carefully as I can the case raised by my hon. Friend, that he has fallen foul of shortcomings in the previous operation of the law.
  It seems to me, having examined the process of appeal, the process of consideration and the outcome by Mr. Blair, that the case has been examined thoroughly, not once or twice, but thrice or more by relevant bodies and appellate bodies and they have confirmed each other's judgment. They have done so, not as a group acting in concert, but as separate bodies and with degrees of independence that we should all respect.
  As I was saying, if I may continue with the detail on which I was embarked, the SIB also proposes to assign an individual complaints officer to handle all SRO complaints, to ensure continuity and clarity in the handling of complaints. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming those changes because they are very much what she was asking for at the end of her eloquent address.
  In the case of Mr. O'Byrne's complaint against the SIB, the SIB's general counsel, Michael Blair, investigated the complaint. Mr. Blair is a very senior member of staff, not previously involved in the case. He concluded that, although the SIB's staff could perhaps have explained their findings to Mr. O'Byrne in greater detail, there was nothing more that they could usefully have done to investigate his complaints. The matter was also reviewed by a non-executive member of the SIB's board, who decided that the SIB had properly dealt with Mr. O'Byrne's complaints against the SIB.
  I have outlined the disciplinary, appeals and complaints procedures that are in place under the Financial Services Act. I do not think that there can be any doubt that the Act makes ample provision for ensuring that disciplinary cases against member firms are conducted fairly, and that complaints about the handling of cases are addressed properly. There is provision for appeals against the disciplinary and membership decisions of the self-regulating organisations.
  610
  I am satisfied that the SIB has adequate arrangements for the handling of complaints against SROs. Following a recommendation in the Large review, the SIB is, however, discussing changes to its complaints arrangements. Those changes will bring greater clarity to the SIB's handling of complaints. The SIB is satisfied that the disciplinary processes and practices employed by the AFBD in the Lansdowne case were fair and equitable.
  I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there is a blind spot in the regulatory system or that there is a need for a further appellate body to examine matters of procedure. There comes a point, with all cases, when, however aggrieved a party may be and, indeed, whatever the justice of his particular cause, procedures are used up. The opportunity to go over the same ground again diminishes and the useful purpose of inquiring further and further into the same complaint comes to an end. Ministers and hon. Members in this House—very much the last court of appeal—are reluctant to do that; we always give our constituents the benefit of their case. However, there comes a point, and this is one, where although Mr. O'Byrne continues to feel aggrieved, a number of separate, independent, appellate bodies have considered his case thoroughly and carefully and he has had a fair and thorough hearing. Therefore, much as I sympathise with him, I cannot agree that any further action can or needs to be taken.
  The SIB has done all that it can to deal with Mr. O'Byrne's concerns. Indeed, my hon. Friend has done even more, not just in pursuing his case prior to tonight but in bringing it to the ultimate authority of the high court of Parliament. I hope that my remarks offer my hon. Friend some reassurance that the Financial Services Act procedures were applied properly and fairly in Mr. O'Byrne's case as well as in the many other cases that we must consider.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Ten o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local and Regional Government
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department collects on the functions of government which are undertaken in whole or in part by local or regional authorities in other countries in the European Union.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information that the hon. Member requires is produced by the Steering Committee of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and relates to "Structure and Operation of Local and Regional Democracy" in member states.

  Private Members' Bills
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have(a) requested parliamentary counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.

  Mr. Gummer
  Parliamentary counsel drafts not on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers.

  With the authority of Ministers, amendments were drafted by counsel on instructions from my Department and subsequently passed to private Members in respect of the following private Members' Bills:

  the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill;

  the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Bill;

  the Hedgerows Bill;

  the Energy Conservation Bill.

  Amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on matters of concern to my Department were drafted by parliamentary counsel on instructions from the Department of Social Security with the assistance of officials from my Department and subsequently passed to a private Member.

  Ministers have authorised officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to prepare amendments to the following Bills which were subsequently passed to Peers:

  the Local Government (Overseas Assistance) Bill;

  the New Towns (Amendment) Bill;

  the National Parks Bill.

  Minewater Contamination
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps are being taken to prevent contamination by minewater of the Erewash and Leen rivers and of groundwater in Nottinghamshire following the closure of Annesley Bentinck colliery; and if he will make it his policy that the present regime will be continued for as long as necessary to prevent such contamination.
  332
  Mr. Atkins
  It is for British Coal, in consultation with the National Rivers Authority, to assess any environmental effects of colliery closures and to consider what action may need to be taken to avoid water pollution. In the case of the Annesley Bentinck colliery, I understand that the two parties are currently participating in a joint study to assess the environmental consequencies of ceasing minewater pumping.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each of the last five years the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Water Pollution, Worcester
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects(a) to receive and (b) to publish the report of the drinking water inspectorate into the pollution of water supplies in Worcester on 15 April.

  Mr. Atkins
  The drinking water inspectorate's investigation will be completed as soon as possible. Publication of its report may be delayed if a prosecution of Severn Trent Water Ltd. is pursued.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the protection for tenants in the Mobile Homes Act 1983 against unreasonable landlords; and if be will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The Mobile Homes Act 1983 gives certain rights and protection to all residents whose agreements with their site owner allows them to live in their mobile home as their main residence. These include security of tenure and the right to sell their mobile home on site. Many site owners also give additional rights to residents in excess of the statutory requirements. An industry-backed code of good practice, the residents charter launched in January this year, aims to encourage high standards on mobile home sites.

  The rules governing reasonable behaviour apply to mobile home site owners just as they apply to all citizens. In addition, local authorities have the power to start legal proceedings against site owners who are harassing their residents.

  Housing Renovation Grant
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate his Department has made of the job creation effect of housing renovation grants.

  Sir George Young
  The diverse nature of the work assisted through house renovation grants makes it difficult
  333
  to give precise estimates of the job creation effects. However data in research work undertaken for the Department suggest that up to 17,000 man years work in the construction industry could potentially be attributable to house renovation grant expenditure in 1993–94.

  Consultation Papers (Responses)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 12 April,Official Report, column 132–33, on which matters of widespread interest his Department received more than 9,500 responses; and whether those matters were presented in the form of a Green Paper.

  Mr. Baldry
  The consultation exercise that started in November 1992 relating to the authorisations for radioactive waste discharges at Sellafield drew approximately 80,000 responses; a second round of consultation based on the justification for nuclear fuel processing at the site, launched in August 1993, drew some 42,000 individual letters plus petitions containing about 25,000 signatures. Neither of these matters was presented in a Green Paper. The consultation exercise, launched with the November 1993 publication, "London: Making the Best Better", which was not a Green Paper, drew almost 11,000 responses.

  Sewers
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 532, what regulations his Department has placed on the sewerage undertakers to provide protection for public health against sewer blockages or collapses.

  Mr. Atkins
  Each sewerage undertaker has a statutory duty under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to maintain sewers so that the area for which it is responsible is effectively drained and to make provision for emptying sewers and effectually disposing of the contents. It is for each sewerage undertaker to decide how to comply with the legislation. The duty is enforceable by the Director General of Water Services.

  Environmental Action Fund
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his criteria for deciding whether to give or refuse grants under the environmental action fund.

  Mr. Atkins
  The environmental action fund exists to assist voluntary organisations with work in England which advances the Government's environmental policies as set out in the White Paper "This Common Inheritance". Successful applicants must satisfy financial criteria, undertake work that supports the Department's policy objectives or carry out projects within defined priority areas, and promise value for money. Particular emphasis in 1994–95 was given to supporting organisations with innovative approach and those new to environmental work. Grants are, awarded to those who score highest against these criteria. Funds are not available for projects which could get grant under any other programme.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on 334
  access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department relies on the central guidance on interpretation, which has been placed in the Library of the House. In addition, guidance is being prepared on the charging arrangements operating in my Department, which should be available by the end of June. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Redcar of 19 May,Official Report, column 533–34, how many representations he has received for, and how many against, the need for shadow elections to be held before the unitary authorities coming into existence; and if he will place copies of such representations in the Library.

  Mr. Curry
  My officials wrote to the four districts and the county council in Cleveland on 25 February, informing them that, because of the judicial review case brought by the county council, it would be impossible for us to lay an order providing, inter alia, for elections to be held in May this year. We therefore sought the views of the majority and minority groups on the relevant local authorities on three options:

  (a) elections later in 1994, with a start-up date for the unitary authorities in 1995;

  (b) start-up in April 1995, with elections in May 1995;

  (c) elections in May 1995, with the unitary authorities not being established until April 1996.

  Option (a) was preferred by the Labour and Liberal Democrat groups on Middlesbrough borough council and the Liberal Democrat groups on Langbaurgh-on-Tees and Stockton-on-Tees borough councils. Option (b) was the first choice for all three groups on Hartlepool borough council, for the Labour and Conservative groups on both Langbaurgh-on-Tees and Stockton-on2Tees borough councils and for the Conservative group on Middlesbrough borough council. Option (c) was the preference for all three groups on Cleveland county council. The county council was supported in this view by the Association of County Councils.

  Representations were received in favour of option (a) from the National Association of Local Councils and in favour of a shadow period of about 11 months between the elections to, and implementation of, the new unitary authorities from Unison.

  I have placed copies of all these representations in the Library.

  Waterways Ombudsman
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints have been received by the waterways ombudsman from the date of appointment by the British Waterways Board in August 1993.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since the date on which the waterways ombudsman was appointed, six complaints have been received.

  Colliery Spoil
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those individuals and organisations who responded to minerals planning guidance note 3, on coal mining and colliery spoil disposal; and if he will place copies of those responses in the Library.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am arranging for copies of the responses to be placed in the Library of the House together with a list of those who responded to the consultation exercise.

  Total area (ha)

  Area occupied by national park (ha)

  Percentage of area designated as national park

  Devon CC

  671,096

  114,438

  17·0

  West Devon DC

  115,973

  52,001

  44·8

  Teignbridge DC

  67,600

  26,264

  38·8

  South Hams DC

  88,693

  15,985

  18·0

  Mid Devon DC

  91,539

  283

  0·3

  North Devon DC

  108,620

  19,905

  18·3

  Somerset CC

  345,120

  48,732

  14·1

  West Somerset DC

  72,720

  48,732

  67·0

  Cumbria CC

  681,000

  250,517

  36·8

  Allerdale DC

  125,729

  55,980

  44·5

  Eden DC

  215,814

  45,440

  21·0

  Copeland DC

  73,711

  51,150

  69·4

  South Lakeland DC

  155,066

  97,947

  63·2

  Northumberland CC

  503,165

  104,949

  20·9

  Alnwick DC

  108,012

  34,430

  31·9

  Berwick DC

  97,606

  19,037

  19·5

  Tynedale DC

  222,096

  51,482

  23·2

  North Yorkshire CC

  831,297

  293,468

  35·3

  Hambleton DC

  131,158

  21,400

  16·3

  Ryedale DC

  159,822

  55,000

  34·4

  Scarborough DC

  81,678

  61,100

  74·8

  Craven DC

  117,994

  80,851

  68·5

  Richmond DC

  131,710

  75,117

  57·0

  Cleveland CC

  59,090

  6,100

  10·3

  Langbaurgh DC

  24,050

  6,100

  25·4

  Derbyshire CC

  262,858

  88,646

  33·7

  Derbyshire Dales DC

  79,548

  45,904

  57·7

  High Peak DC

  54,079

  40,382

  74·7

  North East Derbyshire DC

  27,667

  2,360

  8·5

  Cheshire CC

  232,846

  8,557

  3·7

  Macclesfield DC

  52,523

  8,557

  16·3

  Staffordshire CC

  271,754

  20,500

  7·5

  Staffordshire Moorland DC

  57,624

  20,500

  35·6

  Oldham Metropolitan

  14,112

  2,899

  20·5

  Barnsley Metropolitan

  32,863

  2,999

  9·1

  Kirklees Metropolitan

  40,992

  4,200

  10·4

  Sheffield Metropolitan

  36,755

  14,496

  39·4

  England

  13,047,800

  960,501

  7·3

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which Governments have adopted the target of a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide on 1988 levels by 2005; and what plans he has to adopt this target.

  Mr. Atkins
  As far as I am aware, only the Governments of Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg have formally and unconditionally adopted such a target. The United Kingdom is committed, though its ratification of the United Nations framework convention on climate change, to take measures aimed at returning emissions of

  National Parks
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish for each local authority and for England as a whole(a) the total area, (b) the area occupied by national parks and (c) the percentage of area occupied by national parks.

  Mr. Atkins
  The figures are as follows. Those local authorities which are not listed do not have land designated as a national park within their boundaries.

  carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000. The Government have no plans at present to adopt a different target.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether local authorities and council tax payers outside the reorganised areas will be protected from the increased costs of local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Curry
  In most cases reorganisation should, over time, lead to reduced costs. There would need to be significant non-financial benefits to justify a reorganization
  337
  that did not lead to net savings. We would expect savings and, exceptionally, any net costs, to be confined to the areas being reorganised.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how it is proposed that the transitional costs of local government reform in England will be met in 1995–96 and in subsequent years.

  Mr. Curry
  Authorities subject to reorganisation in 1995 will be able to borrow to meet transitional costs incurred this year. Similar arrangements will apply for 1995–96 and later years, but taking account of authorities' ability to meet the costs from savings and receipts generated by reorganisation. We shall be consulting local government on the arrangements later in the summer.

  Oslo and Paris Commissions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals concerning nuclear issues have been tabled for the 16th joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions, 13 to 17 June; and if he will place in the Library a summary of them;

  (2) what will be the United Kingdom's policy in respect of the proposals concerning nuclear issues at the forthcoming 16th joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions; and what are the reasons for this policy;

  (3) how the recently announced Department of Environment review of radioactive waste management policy alters the position that the United Kingdom will take at the 16th joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions;

  (4) what representations his Department is prepared to accept from international organisations or Governments such as the member states of the Oslo and Paris Commissions, in relation to the Department of Environment review of radioactive waste management policy;

  (5) what representations his Department has had from Parcom member states regarding the forthcoming 16th joint meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  Draft recommendations on nuclear issues have been presented jointly by Denmark, Iceland, Ireland and Norway concerning:

  —the management of spent nuclear fuel;

  —environmental impact resulting from discharges of radioactive substances; and

  —increases in radioactive discharges from nuclear reprocessing plants;

  The Netherlands has submitted proposals concerning a revised reporting format proposal and Greenpeace has submitted papers on United Kingdom discharge policies and a non-reprocessing option. Copies of the proposals have been placed in the Library.

  It is not for one member of the commissions to disclose what has been said to it by other members in the course of negotiations.

  The United Kingdom considers that the role of the Oslo and Paris Commissions in radioactivity matters is to protect the marine environment with a general objective of ensuring that best available techniques are applied to inputs of radioactive substances within the appropriate regulatory system. The commissions do not have a role in the decision process for individual plants or management options.

  The preliminary conclusions of the review of radioactive waste management policy, announced by my
  338
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 19 May, will not be available until later in the summer. The Department of the Environment will, of course, give full consideration to all representations made in relation to the review.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the voting record of the United Kingdom on nuclear issues at the meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 1987 there have been seven Paris Commission recommendations on radioactive issues. The United Kingdom has accepted all of these except for the most recent, recommendation 93/5, concerning increases in radioactive discharges from nuclear reprocessing plants where, together with other contracting parties, the United Kingdom reserved its position.

  Somerset Levels and Moors
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the number of staff. employed in the management of the Somerset levels and moors national nature reserve for each year from 1987 to the present;

  (2) if he will list the area covered by management agreements in the Somerset levels and moors for each year since 1987 for agreements between the Nature Conservancy Council/English Nature and owners or occupiers of sites of special scientific interest;

  (3) what has been the total sum of money paid out and the average payment per hectare on management agreements in the Somerset levels and moors for each year since 1987 for agreements between the Nature Conservancy Council/English Nature and owners or occupiers of sites of special scientific interest;

  (4) what was the area in each moor, in the Somerset levels and moors national nature reserve in high water level management consistent with maintaining and enhancing its wetland nature for each year since 1987;

  (5) how many management agreement exist in regard to the Somerset levels and moors between English Nature and owners or occupiers of sites of special scientific interest and the number which are due to be reviewed in 1994–95;

  (6) how many staff have been employed in the negotiation and administration of management agreements on sites of special scientific interest in the Somerset levels and moors for each year since 1987 by the Nature Conservancy Council/English Nature;

  (7) what is the expenditure proposed by English Nature on the management of (a) the Somerset levels and moors candidate special protection area and (b) the Somerset levels and moors national nature reserve for the years (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97.

  Mr. Atkins
  From 1987–1990, one, and from 1990 to date, two staff have been employed in the management of the Somerset levels and moors national nature reserve. From 1987 to 1993, four permanent staff, and from 1993 to the present, three permanent staff, were involved in the negotiation and administration of management agreements in the Somerset levels and moors.

  There are 191 management agreements relating to the Somerset levels and moors, of which 12 are due for review in 1994–95. Information about payments under these agreements and the area covered is not available in the form requested. In 1993–94 the total sum paid out in annual

  339
  payments under management agreements in the Somerset levels and moors was £335,681, and the average payment was £151 per hectare per annum. As at 31 March 1994, 2,218.52 hectares were covered by management agreements.

  Estimated expenditure within the Somerset levels potential special protection area is expected to be at a similar level for 1994–95 and subsequent years. Net expenditure on the national nature reserve is negligible as the land is owned by English Nature and attracts receipts in excess of £15,000 per annum.

  Since 1987, the only area within the Somerset levels included in the experimental high water level area is Southlake, which covers some 130 hectares.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his policy on changes in greenhouse gas emissions from human-made sources within the United Kingdom after the year 2000;

  (2) which measures he will take to prevent an increase in carbon dioxide emissions from the United Kingdom from the year 2000 onwards;

  (3) what targets he has adopted or will adopt with respect to carbon dioxide emissions from the United Kingdom after the year 2000 onwards.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's position on action under the climate change convention was set out in chapter 10 of the United Kingdom's climate change programme, published in January. This commits the United Kingdom to making a full and appropriate contribution beyond 2000 to achievement of the convention's ultimate objective, and makes it clear that our national programme to achieve the current commitments in the convention will be reviewed and developed in the context of the international response.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has submitted a report or communication to the secretariat of the intergovernmental negotiating committee for a framework convention on climate change on the views of the United Kingdom Government for the review of the adequacy of commitments in article 4 of the convention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom has not at this stage submitted any papers on this subject to the secretariat.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to attend the 11th session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee for a framework convention on climate change, to be held in New York in February 1995.

  Mr. Atkins
  No decision has yet been made on United Kingdom representation at the 11th session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy on the negotiation of protocols under the United Nations framework convention on climate change.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are willing to consider any constructive proposal for protocols to the convention.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he plans to attend the 10th session of the 340
  intergovernmental negotiating committee for a framework convention on climate change, to be held in Geneva from 22 August to 2 September; and what matters will be discussed there.

  Mr. Atkins
  Officials from my Department and others will represent the United Kingdom at the 10th session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee. The agenda for the meeting has not yet been issued.

  Out-of-town Shopping Centres
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the planning applications(a) granted or (b) pending to build out-of-town shopping centres.

  Mr. Curry
  Planning applications are made to the local planning authority in the first instance and there is no central record of applications received or granted. We are monitoring major applications, and those which could have a cumulative impact. This helps inform the Secretary of State should he consider calling them for his own decision. That power is used sparingly.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many warehouse clubs are currently under construction in England; and how many have planning permission but have not yet started construction;

  (2) how many (a) out-of-town shopping centres and (b) out-of-town warehouse parks are under construction in England.

  (3) how many (a) out-of-town shopping centres and (b) out-of-town warehouse parks currently have planning permission but have not yet started construction in England.

  Mr. Baldry
  This information is not available.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legal costs were incurred by the United Kingdom Government in defence of the actions taken by the European Commission over the bathing water directive, July 1993 and the drinking water directive, November 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  The disbursements incurred on behalf of the United Kingdom in connection with the proceedings taken by the European Commission in the European Court of Justice concerning the bathing water directive, case C56/90, and the drinking water directive, case C337/89, were about £35,000. This figure includes counsel's fees, VAT, travelling and hotel accommodation, but does not otherwise include the costs of staff in the Treasury Solicitor's Department or of lawyers in the Department of the Environment who provided legal services and advised within the normal course of their duties.

  Local Referendums
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 96, if he will list the powers available to local authorities which would allow them to hold referendums on particular issues.

  Mr. Baldry
  Local authorities do not have any specific powers to hold referendums but may be able to rely on the
  341
  Local Government Act 1972, section 111—subsidiary powers of local authorities—in conjunction with one or more of their functions; section 141 of that Act—research and the collection of information; and the Local Government Act 1985, section 88—research and collection of information.

  Tenants' Cash Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been made available to the London boroughs of(a) Southwark, (b) Lewisham, (c) Lambeth and (d) Tower Hamlets to operate the tenants' cash incentive scheme in the last 10 years; how

  Year

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (a) Southwark

  Own resources

  0

  £100k

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Government resources

  0

  £200k

  £825k

  £250k

  0

  £150k

  Total resources spent

  0

  £89k

  £774k

  £198k

  0

  nyk

  Number of vacancies

  0

  10

  62

  15

  0

  110

  (b) Lewisham

  Own resources

  0

  £800k

  £960k

  0

  0

  0

  Government resources

  0

  £200k

  £540k

  £450k

  0

  £180k

  Total resources spent

  0

  £195k

  £484k

  £328k

  0

  nyk

  Number of vacancies

  0

  13

  33

  25

  0

  112

  (c) Lambeth

  Own resources

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Government resources

  0

  0

  £l.14m

  £1m

  0

  £540k

  Total resources spent

  0

  0

  £1.10m

  £920k

  0

  nyk

  Number of vacancies

  0

  0

  55

  46

  0

  136

  (d) Tower Hamlets

  Own resources

  0

  0

  £l.42m

  0

  0

  £250k

  Government resources

  0

  0

  £580k

  £500k

  0

  £310k

  Total resources spent

  0

  0

  £418k

  £378k

  0

  nyk

  Number of vacancies

  0

  0

  21

  23

  0

  137

  Notes:

  1. No Government resources were made available in 1989–90 and 1993–94.

  2. nyk = Not yet known.

  1 These figures are estimated and assume the resources allocated will be spent in full.

  Urban Waste Water
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to announce the designation of sensitive areas in accordance with annexe II A(b) and (c) of the urban waste water treatment directive (91/271/EEC).

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 May to my hon. Friend the Member of Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)Official Report, column 513.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is normal practice in the Department of the Environment, except in relation to some detailed technical consultations, technical exercises by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the London consultation exercise where respondents were informed
  342
  many council properties have been vacated as a result of the scheme in these areas during this period; and if he will make a statement on the long-term future of the scheme.

  Sir George Young
  The tables show the resources allocated to the cash incentive scheme in each of these London boroughs, along with the resources actually spent and the number of vacancies created, since the scheme was introduced in 1989.

  The cash incentive scheme is a cost-effective housing measure which enables local auathorities to improve the supply of affordable housing for rent to people in need, and at the same time assists households to buy a home of their own. We will continue to encourage local authorities to operate a scheme.

  that their names and addreses would be treated in confidence, to inform those consulted that all responses may be made publicly available unless respondents have requested that their comments should be treated as confidential.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what public opinion surveys his Department or consultants to his Department have conducted into the attitude of people in(a) West Cumbria or (b) the United Kingdom towards the policy option to return to Japan high-level waste arising from reprocessing at Sellafield.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether British Nuclear Fuels plc is in breach of planning conditions regarding the importation of spent fuel to the THORP receipt and storage facility; what action he is planning to take to enforce the planning condition; and if he will require BNFL to cease importation immediately in the interim.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am not aware that BNFL is in breach of any conditions attached to the planning permission for the
  343
  THORP receipt and storage facility at Sellafield. If it is, responsibility for taking appropriate enforcement action rests with Copeland borough council in the first place. I have no plans to require BNFL to cease importation of spent fuel.

  Shared Ownership Schemes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties bought under shared ownership schemes have been repossessed.

  Sir George Young
  Information on the number of repossessions of properties bought under shared ownership schemes is not collected by my Department and is not held centrally.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many properties bought under the right to buy scheme have been found to have some form of structural defect which was undetected at the time of purchase.

  Sir George Young
  Following comprehensive studies by the Building Research Establishment, 24 dwelling types in England have been designated as inherently structurally defective under part XVI of the Housing Act 1985. Where owners purchased such properties from public sector landlords before the defects became known, they were given rights to assistance under the 1985 Act. Local authorities estimated that there were almost 31,000 properties whose owners qualified for assistance under the scheme. Statistics are not held centrally on how many of those properties were bought under the right to buy scheme.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information about offers of outside employment to staff in this Department is not recorded.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which bathing beaches fail environmental standards because of seagulls.

  BM Scotland

  BM Manchester

  BM SouthEast

  BM South and West

  BM Noreast

  Number of redundancies

  210

  217

  320

  203

  335

  Of these:

  Total number made redundant by purchasers

  0

  10

  3

  3

  5

  Cost of redundancies £ million

  8·6

  8·8

  12·6

  8·2

  16·0

  344
  Mr. Atkins
  No bathing waters are considered to fail the bacteriological standards of the bathing water directive consistently because of seagulls. However, as the tests under the directive do not distinguish between human and other sources of faecal pollution it is possible that contamination by mammals and birds will contribute to occasional failures.

  Parish Polls
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 86, if he will make it his policy to collect information on parish polls.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans at present to adopt such a policy.

  Water Supplies
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the occasions in the last five years when a water authority or company has supplied water which has been found to be unhealthy, stating the water authority or company involved in each case.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1992 water companies in England and Wales carried out approximately 3.75 million tests of the various parameters by which compliance with the standards for drinking water are assessed. Of these tests, 98.7 per cent. demonstrated compliance with the relevant water quality standard. There is no evidence that any of the contraventions was of such a magnitude or duration as to endanger the health of consumers.

  Since the drinking water inspectorate was established on 2 January 1990, it has been informed by water companies of 295 incidents which affected, or threatened to affect, drinking water quality. To date no water companies have been prosecuted for supplying water unfit for human consumption.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on the latest available figures, if he will set out(a) by company, the money received for the sale of the Property Services Agency and (b) the cost of redundancy and early retirement following the sale of the agency.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer Wednesday 25 May 1994]: On (a), I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him on 19 January and 3 February 1994 on the proceeds from the sale, which have not changed. Updated information on (b), is set out in the table below, in the same format as the 3 February 1994 reply for completeness.

  Travellers
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of official gipsy sites in each local authority area in England for which statistics are collected.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer Thursday 26 May 1994]: My Department publishes annually in January a list of gipsy sites in England based on information provided by local authorities. The most recent list, January 1994, has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour organisations failed to meet their statutory financial objectives for 1992–93.

  Mr. Baldry
  In March this year, 27 statutory notices were served on 12 local authorities concerning the failure of their direct labour organisations to meet the required financial objective in 1992–93. Further notices were served in May and others will be served over the next few months.

  My right hon. Friend has now considered the responses of those authorities on which notices were served on 21 March.. He has today given directions to East Cambridgeshire—other catering; East Yorkshire—building maintenance, highways and sewerage; the London borough of Haringey—highways and sewerage; Hastings—highways and sewerage, ground maintenance, other catering; Maidstone—building maintenance and sport and leisure management; and North Hertfordshire—ground maintenance.

  These directions take three different forms:
  Preventing authorities from carrying out the defined activities after September 1995 if they fail to meet the required financial objectives for the work during the current year, 1994–95. East Yorkshire, Maidstone (building maintenance) and North Hertfordshire were given directions of this sort.
  Requiring authorities to seek the Secretary of State's consent if they wish to award work on the defined activity to their DLO following retendering which is currently underway. East Cambridgeshire, Hastings and Maidstone (sport and leisure management) fall into this category.
  Preventing the authority from carrying out elements of the defined activity through its own DLO. Haringey's direction fell into this category.

  The Secretary of State has also decided to take no further statutory action in respect of financial failure in 1992–93 by:
  Huntingdonshire (ground maintenance), Lancashire (ground maintenance), North Hertfordshire (sport and leisure management, vehicle maintenance), Sheffield (building cleaning, school and welfare catering) and Staffordshire Moorlands (ground maintenance) because they met their financial objectives in 1993–94;
  Mid Bedfordshire (sport and leisure management) because the work in question is to be contracted out.

  He is still considering responses from Burnley borough council—building maintenance, ground maintenance, new construction work, other catering, other cleaning, refuse collection; and from Sheffield City Council—refuse collection, other cleaning, and other catering.

  I am pleased to say that the majority of DLOs operate successfully, and provide a cost-effective service to local taxpayers. Local authorities have now had over five years' experience of CCT—over 10 years in the case of building and construction work. There is no reason why all DLOs
  346
  should not be able to operate to the prescribed financial standard. The number of notices being served this year reflects the fact that we are now taking statutory action against all DLOs recording any significant financial failures. I am also pleased to note that, in many cases where financial losses have been incurred, local authorities have taken prompt action to put matters right.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make regulations to extend compulsory competitive tendering to all local authority highway work by abolishing the present competition-free allowance.

  Mr. Baldry
  Regulations made under sections 7, 9 and 23 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 amending the Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) Regulations 1989 were laid before the House on 10 June. These come into force in England on 1 April 1995. The Government have consulted representatives of local authorities on these proposals, and the start date of 1 April 1995, seven months later than first proposed, reflects authorities' comments and allows additional time for authorities to carry out tendering.

  The regulations abolish the present 40 per cent. competition-free allowance for small general highways jobs undertaken by local authority direct labour organisations and remove the exemption from competition of winter maintenance work. Recent Audit Commission research showed that the progressive extension of competition for highways work had produced cost savings while maintaining standards of service. These amendments are in accord with the Government's aim to increase the areas of local authority work subject to competition to promote greater efficiency, to give greater value for money to local taxpayers, and to improve the quality of services.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals for the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to further local authority services.

  Mr. Baldry
  Compulsory competitive tendering is being extended to six professional support services, in a phased programme—legal services, professional construction and property services, IT, finance, personnel, and corporate and administrative services. Detailed proposals for each service are being developed in close and very productive consultation with the local authority associations, the Audit Commission, the Accounts Commission for Scotland and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The Government also propose to extend CCT to three further manual services—management of on-street parking, security work and vehicle management.

  Detailed consultation proposals for legal CCT and for the manual services were issued by my Department on 15 December 1993 and 16 November 1993 respectively. The Government have now considered the responses received from local authorities, the Law Society and other interested parties, and I have today tabled an order under section 2 (3) of the Local Government Act 1988 which will provide, subject to resolution of both Houses of Parliament, for these services to become "defined activities" for the purpose of CCT.

  I hope that the debates on the order will take place shortly. Subject to Parliament's approval of the order, the

  347
  Government will then make regulations under section 6 (3) of the 1988 Act, to establish the competition requirement and start dates.

  As regards legal services, the Government have concluded that the proportion of authorities' legal activity to be subject to CCT should be 45 per cent., as suggested in the consultation proposals. I have carefully considered the suggestion that the competition figure should be lower, but I feel confident that the proposed figure—subject also to a minimum in-house provision of £300,000 to safeguard the position of small authorities—will enable authorities to gain the benefits of competition across a wide range of their legal work, while ensuring that authorities can maintain the necessary in-house legal expertise. The minimum figure of £300,000 will be reviewed periodically to ensure that it continues to meet its purpose.

  The Government propose that authorities will be able to count the following categories of legal work towards meeting their CCT requirement: work carried out in-house following a voluntary competitive exercise; work carried out for locally managed schools; legal work related to housing management, where this service will become subject to CCT at a later date for the authority in question; legal work in support of other local authority activity which itself has been exposed to CCT and legal work already contracted out.

  In response to comments received, the draft order provides that, where individual members of staff spend less than 50 per cent. of their time on legal work, their time will not be included in the authority's aggregate of defined legal activity. We propose that the same cut-off figure will apply to the other professional support services also. This will reduce the administrative effort of operating CCT.

  We also propose that legal services will become subject to CCT from April 1996 in the London boroughs and English metropolitan districts. This will, I believe, allow authorities good time to prepare specifications and carry out tendering. For the English shire authorities, CCT will come into effect following local government review and the determination of each authority's new structure. Separate timetables will apply in Scotland and Wales.

  CCT requires authorities to operate free and fair competition. My Department will this week be issuing guidance to local authorities and others on the conduct of tendering for white collar services. This guidance reflects valuable comments received on the consultation draft, and it emphasises that quality of service should be fully considered alongside price, in selecting the best tender proposal.

  The Government have also considered responses to the consultation proposals issued on 22 February 1994 for the internal accounting framework to accompany the introduction of professional CCT. As indicated in the consultation proposals, authorities will be required to establish and publish a "Statement of Support Service Costs" as part of their annual accounts. Regulations under section 23 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to this effect will be made shortly. The new statements will identify the costs of each of the six support services to an authority, providing local taxpayers and authorities' members and managers with valuable new information. In order that SSSCs can cover all six support services from the outset, SSSCs will start in 1995–96 for the London boroughs and metropolitan districts. For the shire authorities. SSSCs will come into effect following local government review. The Chartered Institute of Public
  348
  Finance and Accountancy is writing guidance material to assist authorities prepare SSSCs, which it expects to complete and publish in the autumn.

  As the Minister for Transport in London and I told the House on 30 March—Official Report, columns 755 and 867, the three further manual services will become subject to CCT from October 1995 in the London boroughs and metropolitan districts, and following local government review in the case of the English shire authorities. The definitions of the further manual services have been clarified, following comments on the consultation proposals. We are discussing further with the local authority association provisions for exempting security work undertaken under byelaws which grant local authority officers powers of enforcement. I will make a further announcement in due course.

  Some 266 responses were received on the consultation proposals for legal CCT, 114 on those for the internal accounting framework, and 200 on those for the manual services. I have placed lists of responses in the Library.

  Local Government Management
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to make to the councillor's allowances system in the light of the recommendations of the joint working party on internal management of local government in England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government have accepted the recommendation of the working party on the internal management of local government that local authorities should have much greater discretion in deciding how much councillors should be paid in allowances. We agree with the working party that the present system is too prescriptive and that it places an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on local authorities. The changes that we propose to make will remove that burden and will encourage people with a wide range of backgrounds, experiences and skills to serve as councillors. Removing the ceiling on the allowance that leading councillors can be paid will allow local authorities to give more adequate remuneration to those councillors with special responsibilities. There will be no overall increase in public expenditure as a consequence of these changes.

  I have today written to those who chair the local authority associations seeking their views on the proposals that we are making. Copies of my letter to the associations have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Severance Pay
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to announce new severance pay proposals for local government employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are today beginning consultations with local government and other interested parties on new severance pay regulations to complement the Local Government (Compensation for Premature Retirement) Regulations 1982. Local authority associations, local authorities and other local government interests are being invited to submit representations by 13 July. Copies of the consultation material are being placed in the Library. We intend, subject to any further representations, to make and lay the regulations before the House in the summer.
  349
  We are proposing to give councils new powers to allow one-off payments to categories of pensioners who had their pensions reduced as a consequence of the Court of Appeal's judgment in Allsop v. North Tyneside.

  Our proposals also give councils the opportunity to provide improved levels of severance pay both for general cases of redundancy as a result of local government reorganisation. In developing our proposals we have considered carefully the advice of the Local Government Staff Commission (England) and views expressed by other interested parties.

  I am satisfied that these proposals are both fair in comparison with other public service schemes and affordable to local government. They provide a good statutory framework to help compensate employees made redundant and the terms proposed compare favourably with those available to other public sector employees.

  These proposals do not cover the staff commission's recommendations to compensate employees for reductions in pay—detriment—on which a further announcement will be made shortly.

  Costs of all severance packages must be met from authorities own resources and not from local authority pension funds. Future local government finance settlements will take account of the transitional costs of local government reorganisation, including those due to severance payments.

TREASURY

  Aggregate, Race Bank
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what royalties the National Rivers Authority will pay the Crown Estate Commissioners for aggregate dredged from Race bank.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  No decision has been made under the Government view procedure that Race bank will be the source of material for the Mablethorpe to Skegness coast protection scheme. If Race bank material is used, the NRA will pay the Crown Estate a royalty based upon the current commercial royalty rate in the area taking into account the quantity, quality, grade and location of the material used.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last five years the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and die costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nelson
  The list gives the firms which have provided consultancy work to Her Majesty's Treasury since 1991–92. I regret that information going back beyond this date can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The list gives a total value for each year but is not specifically broken down by firm. As some firms have only had single contracts for each year, giving information in the way 350
  asked would breach our commercial in confidence rules. The list excludes contracts awarded to individuals, academics and academic institutions.

  (£ million)

  1997–92

  Value of consultancy work (ex VAT) £9·4 million

  Firms involved:

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Delta Dimensions

  Moody Int. Dev.

  Price Waterhouse

  Touche Ross & Co.

  TPF&C

  Transtech Conslt. Services

  Allen & Overy

  Davis Polk & Wardwell

  Dewe Rogerson

  Hamada & Matsumoto

  Linklaters & Paines

  Mitsui Yasuda Wani & Maeda

  Stikeman Elliott

  S. G. Warburg

  1992–93 £2·2 million

  Firms involved:

  A'Time Ltd.

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Dorothy Bond Interiors

  Bywater Plc.

  Coopers & Lybrand Deloitte

  Delta Dimensions Ltd.

  Demograft Recruitment Conslt.

  Dunnett Shaw & Partners

  Edmunds, Ray & Associates

  Ernst & Young

  Inenco Group

  KPG Computer Support

  KPMG Management Conslt.

  LOGOTECH

  Morgan Grenfell

  Moody International Devlpmt.

  Mouchel Management Ltd.

  PMMS Consulting Group Ltd.

  Prime Strategy Conslt.

  Purcon Conslt. Ltd.

  Price Waterhouse

  Strategic Financial Mangmt. Ltd.

  Symonds

  Tillers Financial Services

  TPF&C

  Arthur Walton & Partners

  The Wyatt Company

  Allen & Overy

  Baring Brothers

  Brunswick

  Davis Polk & Wardwell

  Dewe Rogerson

  Linklaters & Paines

  Solid Solutions

  Touche Ross

  S. G. Warburg

  1993–94

  £5·9 million

  Firms involved:

  Archilles Conslt.

  BDO Binder Hamlyn

  Dorothy Bond Interiors

  Capita Management Conslt.

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Davis Langdon Conslt.

  D. W. Diamond Management Conslt.

  Dunnett Shaw & Partners

  Ernst & Young

  Ground Modelling Systems Ltd.

  Grosvenor Conslt. Services

  Hay Management Conslt. Ltd.

  Kingsley Lord Ltd.

  KPG Computer Support

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  351

  William M. Mercer

  Martial Exhenique & Partners Ltd.

  Montrose

  Price Waterhouse

  Symond Construction Management

  Touche Ross & Co.

  Wendy Pritchard Associates

  Wyatt Company (UK) Ltd.

  Brunswick

  Davis Polk & Wardwell

  Dewe Rogerson

  Kleinwort & Benson

  Linklaters & Paines Nishimura & Sananda

  Slaughter & May Solid Solutions

  Stikeman Elliott

  S. G. Warburg

  Past Office
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each of the last 10 years, the annual contribution made by the Post Office to the Exchequer(a) in corporation tax and (b) in specific Treasury contributions under its external financing limit.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is as follows:

  Corporation Tax £ million

  External financing requirement £ million

  1984–85

  2

  -26

  1985–86

  1

  -82

  1986–87

  2

  -136

  1987–88

  42

  -79

  1988–89

  31

  -60

  1989–90

  26

  0

  1990–91

  70

  0

  1991–92

  67

  -74

  1992–93

  83

  -80

  1993–94

  81

  1-182

  1 Latest estimate of outturn.

  Income Tax
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would be lost to the Exchequer by a 1p reduction in the basic rate of income tax; and how much would be generated by an increase in the basic rate of one penny in the pound.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The direct revenue effect of a 1p reduction or increase in the basic rate of income tax in a full year would be £1·8 billion at 1994–95 levels of income.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 397, when the 1993 figures for uncollected schedule D tax will be available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figure for uncollected schedule D tax for the account year 1993 will be included in the Board of Inland Revenue's annual report in the autumn.

  Personal Investment Authority
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Personal Investment Authority will start operating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Recognition of self-regulating organisations under the Financial Services Act 1986 is a352
  responsibility of the Securities and Investments Board. I understand that, subject to recognition, the Personal Investment Authority expects to begin regulating its members in July 1994.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies and independent financial advisers have joined the Personal Investment Authority.

  Mr. Nelson
  I understand that, as of 24 May, the personal investment authority had received 2,787 applications and that 299 firms had been accepted for membership.

  Public Service Pensions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further changes there have been in the rules relating to abatement of public servants' pensions since 11 July 1991; and what proposals she has to provide a procedure for the consideration of abatement as regards those in receipt of early retirement pensions under the local government superannuation and teachers' superannuation scheme who are re-employed in(a) the same branch of the public service and (b) any other branch of the public service.

  Mr. Portillo
  There has been no change in the Government's policy relating to the abatement of public service pensions since the then Economic Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) of 21 December 1989, column 370 and the Minister for State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) of 11 July 1991, column 425. Since then, the rules of the various public service pension schemes to which the policy applies will have been amended as necessary to give effect to it.

  The policy remains that those in receipt of an early retirement pension from a public service scheme who are re-employed in the same public service may have their pensions abated. Those who are re-employed in a different public service can be subject to abatement of either their pay or pension if the criteria for appointment required earlier public service experience.

  The detailed procedures for determining abatement are for the public services concerned.

  Alternative Minimum Tax
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 2 May 1991,Official Report, columns 296–97, estimating the effect on Treasury revenues in 1994–95 of introducing an alternative minimum tax.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information is as follows:

  Additional tax liability arising from introduction of alternative minimum tax on gross income, 1994–95

  Gross income of individual taxpayer (£)

  Rate of minimum tax

  20 per cent. £ million

  25 per cent. £ million

  Over 40,000

  35

  180

  Over 45,000

  30

  100

  Over 50,000

  25

  75

  353
  The estimates do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the new arrangements.

  Personal Income
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the breakdown of personal income in the United Kingdom as between earned income, benefits and basic state pension, occupational pensions, and supplementary pension, interest, profits and dividends at 1970, 1980, 1985, 1989 and 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on households' income and expenditure is published annually at current prices in table 4.9 of the "Central Statistical Office Blue Book, United Kingdom National Accounts" and on the CSO database; both sources are available in the Library.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Nelson
  The guidance has been available since 4 April. A copy has been sent to the hon. Member and copies have also been placed in the Library of the House.

Life Assurance and Unit Trust

  Regulatory Organisation
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the Official Report all the companies who have been fined, and the amounts imposed, for breaching the existing LAUTRO regulations.

  Mr. Nelson
  To date, LAUTRO has imposed the following fines:

  £

  (i) during 1994

  Norwich Union

  300,000

  Premium Life

  300,000

  Manulife

  65,000

  Aegon

  225,000

  Legal and General

  180,000

  Laurenlian Life

  70,000

  Crown Life

  130,000

  LAS

  145,000

  (ii) during 1993

  Canterbury Life

  80,000

  NMFM

  45,000

  Prosperity Life

  75,000

  Interlife

  160,000

  Colonial Mutual

  130,000

  Liberty Life

  80,000

  (iii) during 1992

  Scottish Widows

  120,000

  G R E

  100,000

  London & Manchester

  80,000

  Cannon

  50,000

  G A Life

  50,000

  C U Life

  50,000

  Norwich Union

  50,000

  Uncollected Tax
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 396, when the 1993 figures on uncollected corporation tax will be available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figure for uncollected corporation tax for the account year 1993 will be published in the Board of Inland Revenue's annual report in the autumn.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 398, when the 1993 figures for uncollected PAYE and national insurance contributions will be available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figures for uncollected PAYE and national insurance contributions for the account year 1993 will be included in the Board of Inland Revenue's annual report in the autumn.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 397, when the 1993 figures for uncollected capital gains tax will be available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figure for uncollected capital gains tax for the account year 1993 will be published in the Board of Inland Revenue's annual report in the autumn.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in real exchange rates measured in terms of relative unit prices since the second half of 1973; and to what extent this affected the demand for, and supply of, skilled labour.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 March 1994,Official Report, column 15, which provides references to exchange rate and price data, which can be used to calculate the information requested.

  The real exchange rate is only one factor affecting the demand for, and supply of, skilled labour. It is difficult to isolate the effect of changes in the real exchange rate from that of other factors, such as the impact of structural reform of the labour market.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he is giving to the provision of further guidance by the Inland Revenue as to the meaning and scope of scientific research as outlined in section 139 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Scientific research is defined in the Capital Allowances Act as covering"any activities in the fields of natural or applied science for the extension of knowledge".

  Whether any particular activities fall within this definition will depend on the facts of the case. However, in general terms, activities are scientific research if they involve the application of new scientific principles in an existing area of research or the application of existing principles in a new area of research. The essential test is innovation.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Nelson
  No consistent pattern has been followed in the past. It is now the Treasury's policy, when issuing a public consultation document, to ensure that those responding are aware that their responses may be made publicly available unless they have requested otherwise.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effects on employment, gross domestic product, total national insurance contributions and tax revenues of (i) the construction and (ii) the re-equipment activity arising from compliance with the requirements of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill over(a) 10, (b) 15, (c) 20 and (d) 25 years; and if he will explain the basis for his calculations.

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

  Government Bonds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is currently the largest purchaser of Government bonds.

  Mr. Nelson
  A sectoral breakdown of purchases of Government securities is given at table 10.2F of the Central Statistical Office's "Financial Statistics".

  Public Sector Companies
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the combined output in 1993 as a percentage of gross domestic product of(a) the companies privatised in the last 15 years and (b) those still n the public sector.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on the output of companies privatised in the last 15 years is not available on a national accounting basis.

  The estimates of output of companies still in the public sector are not yet available for 1993. However, for 1992 the output of these companies was 3.5 per cent. of gross domestic product.

  £ million

  1988–89

  1989–90

  11990–91

  11991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total public expenditure

  156,058

  175,115

  193,378

  212,513

  232,345

  244,500

  251,300

  Welsh Office Block

  3,482

  3,698

  4,329

  5,153

  5,825

  6,110

  6,410

  As percentage of total public expenditure

  2·2

  2·1

  2·2

  2·4

  2·5

  2·5

  2·6

  1 The increase from 1990–91 to 1991–92 is accounted for by an increase in the Community Care grant of £268 million. From 1992–93 onwards responsibility for Training in Wales was transferred from the Department of Employment.

  Excise Duties
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent differences between excise duties in the United Kingdom and France affecting pubs and clubs in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs are taking firm action against individuals attempting to evade duty and compete unfairly against legitimate trade by smuggling alcoholic drinks and tobacco. Those involved run the risks of losing the imported goods and the vehicle used to transport them, and of a prison sentence of up to seven years. In the 15 months to March 1994, customs made 1,588 detections involving £2·3 million in revenue.

  Small Companies
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to consider further a scheme to enable small companies which have been established for about five years to expand their premises, their staff and their output through some tax-friendly assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Proposals for measures to help business will be carefully considered in the run-up to the next Budget. Last year's Budgets included several measures to encourage the growth of small companies. In particular, the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts will stimulate funds for unquoted trading companies. Relief on capital gains where proceeds are reinvested in unquoted trading companies, and retirement relief, also give an incentive to invest in small companies.

  Welsh Office Block Grants
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what formula is used to calculate the Welsh Office block grant as a proportion of total expenditure.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Welsh Office block is determined under established formula arrangements, in accordance with which the block is adjusted by 6.02 per cent. of the changes made to plans for comparable English programmes.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much in percentage and cash terms of total public expenditure the Welsh Office block grants represented in each of the years between 1988–89 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information requested is contained in the table:

  Taxation
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide estimates for the years 1978–79 to 1995–96 of the proportion of income taken in(a) direct tax, (b) indirect tax and (c) total tax for single pensioners aged over 75 years on (i) average pensioner income, (ii) half average pensioner income and (iii) twice average pensioner income;

  (2) if he will provide estimates for the years 1978–79 to 1995–96 of the proportion of income taken in (a) direct tax, (b) indirect tax and (c) total tax for single pensioners aged 65 to 74 years on (i) average pensioner income, (ii) half average pensioner income and (iii) twice average pensioner income;

  (3) if he will provide estimates for the years 1978–79 to 1995–96 of the proportion of income taken in (a) direct tax, (b) indirect tax and (c) total tax for pensioner couples aged 65 to 74 years on (i) average pensioner income, (ii) half average pensioner income and (iii) twice average pensioner income;

  (4) if he will provide estimates for the years 1978–79 to 1995–96 of the proportion of income taken in (a) direct tax, (b) indirect tax and (c) total tax for pensioner couples aged over 75 years on (i) average pensioner income, (ii) half average pensioner income and (iii) twice average pensioner income.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 19 May 1994]: Figures for direct tax payments are in the table. Information on indirect tax payments is not available. For the hypothetical family types examined, real after-tax income rose, between 1978–79 and 1992–93, by over £30 per week for the single pensioner with an average income and by over £80 per week for a couple at 1992–93 prices.

  Income tax as percentage of gross income

  Multiples of average pensioner income

  ½

  1

  2

  Single aged 65–74

  1978–79

  0

  3·8

  17·0

  1979–80

  0

  2·5

  15·4

  1980–81

  0

  3·3

  16·6

  1981–82

  0

  7·6

  18·8

  1982–83

  0

  6·4

  18·2

  1983–84

  0

  5·4

  17·7

  1984–85

  0

  5·1

  17·6

  1985–86

  0

  4·2

  17·1

  1986–87

  0

  4·8

  16·9

  1987–88

  0

  6·1

  16·5

  1988–89

  0

  5·0

  15·0

  1989–90

  0

  5·5

  15·3

  1990–91

  0

  6·4

  15·7

  1991–92

  0

  6·9

  16·0

  1992–93

  0

  6·1

  15·5

  Increase in real net income, after tax 1978–79 to 1992–93 (percentage)

  44·7

  41·3

  47·5

  Single aged 75+

  1978–79

  0

  3·8

  17·0

  1979–80

  0

  2·5

  15·4

  1980–81

  0

  3·3

  16·6

  1981–82

  0

  7·6

  18·8

  1982–83

  0

  6·4

  18·2

  1983–84

  0

  5·4

  17·7

  1984–85

  0

  5·1

  17·6

  1985–86

  0

  4·2

  17·1

  1986–87

  0

  4·8

  16·9

  1987–88

  0

  5·3

  16·1

  1988–89

  0

  4·2

  14·6

  1989–90

  0

  4·7

  14·9

  358

  Multiples of average pensioner income

  ½

  1

  2

  1990–91

  0

  5·7

  15·3

  1991–92

  0

  6·2

  15·6

  1992–93

  0

  5·5

  15·1

  Increase in real net income, after tax 1978–79 to 1992–93 (percentage)

  44·7

  42·1

  48·1

  Couple, aged 65–74

  1978–79

  0

  8·4

  23·7

  1979–80

  0

  7·1

  21·4

  1980–81

  0

  7·8

  21·8

  1981–82

  0

  11·5

  23·1

  1982–83

  0

  9·8

  22·5

  1983–84

  0

  10·3

  22·7

  1984–85

  0

  9·7

  21·9

  1985–86

  0

  10·3

  22·0

  1986–87

  0

  10·3

  21·4

  1987–88

  0

  11·5

  20·7

  1988–89

  0

  10·6

  19·2

  1989–90

  0

  10·2

  19·0

  1990–91

  0

  2·8

  13·9

  1991–92

  0

  3·6

  15·0

  1992–93

  0

  3·0

  14·4

  Increase in real net income, after tax 1978–79 to 1992–93 per cent·

  46·9

  55·6

  64·7

  Couple, aged 75+

  1978–79

  0

  8·4

  23·7

  1979–80

  0

  7·1

  21·4

  1980–81

  0

  7·8

  21·8

  1981–82

  0

  11·5

  23·1

  1982–83

  0

  9·8

  22·5

  1983–84

  0

  10·3

  22·7

  1984–85

  0

  9·7

  21·9

  1985–86

  0

  10·3

  22·0

  1986–87

  0

  10·3

  21·4

  1987–88

  0

  10·9

  20·7

  1988–89

  0

  10·1

  19·2

  1989–90

  0

  9·8

  19·0

  1990–91

  0

  2·3

  13·5

  1991–92

  0

  3·1

  14·6

  1992–93

  0

  2·6

  14·0

  Increase in real net income, after tax 1978–79 to 1992–93 per cent·

  46·9

  56·2

  65·5

  Notes:

  1. The estimates use figures for the average gross incomes of singles and couples where the head is over 65 obtained from the Family Expenditure Survey. These figures are for calendar years and are only available up to 1992. Separate figures for the average incomes of those aged 65–74 and over 75 are not readily available. All figures are subject to sampling error. They are also not strictly comparable over time because of changes in the Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. The estimates assume that all income is taxable and that the pensioners have no tax allowances other than the personal and married couple's allowance.

  3. Gross income is assumed to be split between the husband and wife in the ratio 70:30. None of the wife's income is assumed to be from earnings.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide estimates for the years 1978–79 to 1995–96 of the level of income at which pensioner couples aged over 75 years start to pay income tax(a) in cash prices, (b) in 1994–95 prices, (c) expressed as a proportion of average earnings and (d) expressed as a proportion of average pensioner income;

  (2) if he will provide estimates for the years 1978–79 to 1995–96 of the level of income at which pensioner couples aged 65 to 74 years start to pay income tax (a) in cash

  359
  prices, (b) in 1994–95 prices, (c) expressed as a proportion of average earnings and (d) expressed as a proportion of average pensioner income.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 19 May 1994]: Only 30 per cent. of pensioners currently pay income tax. Available information on tax thresholds is given in the

  Tax threshold1 at current prices

  Tax threshold1 at constant 1994–95 prices2

  Tax threshold1 as percentage of average earnings3

  Tax threshold1 as percentage of average income of a pensioner couple4

  Aged 65–74 £

  5Aged 75 or over £

  Aged 65–74 £

  5Aged 75 or over £

  Aged 65–74 Per cent.

  5Aged 75 or over Per cent.

  Aged 65–74 Per cent.

  5Aged 75 or over Per cent.

  1978–79

  2,075

  2,075

  5,933

  5,933

  43

  43

  68

  68

  1979–80

  2,455

  2,455

  6,059

  6,059

  43

  43

  73

  73

  1980–81

  2,895

  2,895

  6,139

  6,139

  42

  42

  74

  74

  1981–82

  2,895

  2,895

  5,507

  5,507

  38

  38

  62

  62

  1982–83

  3,295

  3,295

  5,856

  5,856

  40

  40

  67

  67

  1983–84

  3,755

  3,755

  6,379

  6,379

  42

  42

  66

  66

  1984–85

  3,955

  3,955

  6,392

  6,392

  41

  41

  68

  68

  1985–86

  4,255

  4,255

  6,496

  6,496

  41

  41

  66

  66

  1986–87

  4,505

  4,505

  6,662

  6,662

  41

  41

  65

  65

  1987–88

  4,675

  4,845

  6,651

  6,892

  38

  40

  58

  60

  1988–89

  5,035

  5,205

  6,755

  6,983

  38

  39

  57

  59

  1989–90

  5,385

  5,565

  6,701

  6,925

  37

  38

  59

  61

  1990–91

  5,815

  6,005

  6,601

  6,817

  37

  38

  59

  61

  1991–92

  6,375

  6,575

  6,904

  7,121

  37

  38

  56

  57

  1992–93

  6,665

  6,875

  7,000

  7,221

  37

  38

  55

  57

  61993–94

  6,665

  6,875

  6,882

  7,098

  36

  37

  N/a

  N/a

  61994–95

  6,865

  7,075

  6,865

  7,075

  35

  36

  N/a

  N/a

  1 Married man's allowance for years prior to 1990–91. Personal allowance plus married couple's allowance for 1990–91 onwards.

  2 Assumes a growth in the retail prices index of 3.25 per cent. in 1994–95 in line with the forecast in the November 1993 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  3 Average earnings are taken to be the average gross annual earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are assumed to be equivalent to £347.70 a week in 1992–93, £359.90 in 1993–94 and £374.40 in 1994–95, based on illustrative earnings growth assumptions of 3½ per cent. in 1993–94 and 4 per cent. in 1994–95.

  4 Average income of a pensioner couple is derived from Family Expenditure Survey data and relates to calendar years. It is not possible to separately identify wife's income and so all income is assumed to be taxed as the husband's income.

  5 Aged 80 or over for 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  6 Provisional.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much disabled employees will have to pay at the maximum in additional income tax on the cost of the necessary alterations to a company car for their use; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: The new system for taxing employees on the private use of cornpany cars is based on 35 per cent. of the price of the car for tax purposes. The price of a car for tax purposes includes the price of accessories with the car. The amount of income tax any individual taxpayer has to pay on a company car depends on the list price of the car and the price of the accessories. "Accessories" includes optional extras such as an automatic gearbox or power steering, and special equipment for disabled people.

  Income tax is not charged if a car is provided for travel to and from work because a person is severely and permanently disabled to the extent that he or she can get to work no other way; the car has been specially adapted to the employee's needs; and no other non-business use of the car is permitted or made.

  If such a person uses the specially adapted car for other private travel the journeys to and from work are treated as if they were "business" travel. This means those journeys count towards the discounts from the car benefit charge.
  360
  table. The figures show that the tax thresholds for pensioners have risen significantly in real terms. For the single pensioner with an average income, real after-tax income rose by over £30 per week between 1978–79 and 1992–93 and for a married couple the increase was over £80 at 1992–93 prices.

  In addition, disabled people may be entitled to the mobility component of the disability living allowance which gives extra financial help to those whose disability impairs mobility.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much would be netted by putting value added tax on private school fees.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate of the revenue which would be received by removing the exemption from value added tax for private schools.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: The Treasury publication "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" shows an estimate for the total revenue forgone from the VAT exemption of education as being £600 million in 1993–94. This includes universities. No separate estimate has been made for private schools. Many types of establishment may fall under the general description of "private school". Some of these establishments provide education that is subject to the standard rate of VAT.

  Vehicle Licences, Northern Ireland
  Mr. Connally
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial provision was made in the current financial year for the payment of commissions to the Post Office for the issuing of vehicle licences in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Although no specific financial allocation was made in the current financial year for payment to Post Office Counters Ltd. for the issuing of vehicle licences in Northern Ireland, the agency responsible for vehicle licensing in Northern Ireland has been allocated £4.433 million for 1994–95 from which it has to deliver all its services.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what costing evaluation of the undiscounted lifetime costs for the proposed national repository for nuclear waste in Cumbria has been conducted by his Department.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have been asked to reply.

  Departmental officials have been participating in work to examine the cost implications of Nirex's proposed repository. The results of this examination will be considered in the radioactive waste management review being undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of(a) men and (b) women living in the London borough of Wandsworth who were refused income support during 1993 because they were regarded as not being actively seeking work.

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

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security from what date the Benefits Agency adopted the policy of making special payments if a claim for benefit is delayed six months beyond the management target for dealing with such claims; and how much has been paid out from that date.

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) on 4 May 1993, at column 10. Details of payments made for the year ending 31 March 1994 have not yet been collated.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what restrictions are placed on unemployed adults studying for less than 21 hours per week while in receipt of income 'support.

  Mr. Burt
  People attending a part-time course of not more than 21 hours a week may, under certain circumstances, continue to receive income support but only if they are continuing to make a sustained effort each week to find a job and are prepared to leave the course immediately a suitable vacancy becomes available.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Hague
  There are no plans to supplement the code of practice or the central guidance on interpretation with additional Departmental guidance on implementation.

  This Department's existing arrangements for the provision of information already work well and it is our intention that the code of practice will reinforce and build on them. References to the code will therefore be incorporated in any relevant procedural guidance.

  Eurostat Poverty Survey
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the recent Eurostat survey in respect of poverty and social security payments in Europe.

  Mr. Burt
  The report is a compilation of general statistics on life in the European Community and does not address the issue of poverty in relation to social security payments. However, the report shows that the United Kingdom's expenditure on social protection as a percentage of gross domestic product was above the European Community average in 1992.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential, and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Hague
  It is already normal practice in this Department for public consultation documents to include the advice that comments received may be made publicly available unless confidentiality is specifically requested.

  The results of consultation exercises may be made available in summary form, or responses may be published in full, depending on the nature of the issue and the strength and diversity of opinion.

  Civil Servants (Political Campaigns)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what limitations are placed on political campaigning by individuals employed by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Political activities of civil servants in this Department are determined by chapter 4.4 of the personnel management section of the civil service management code, a copy of which is in the Library.

  For the majority of staff below grade 7 level there are no limitations unless they are employed in certain areas of work. Staff at grade 7 level and above, administrative trainees and higher executive officers are barred from national political activities and must seek permission to take part in local political activities.
  363
  Where political activity involves campaigning about issues relating to this Department, staff must have regard to general rules on conduct set out in chapter 4.1 of the personnel management section of the civil service management code.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what limitations are placed on individuals employed by his Department regarding campaigning to change the workings of the Child Support Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Civil servants are bound by the rules set out in chapter 4.1 and annex A of the personnel management section of the civil service management code, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Campaigning by civil servants employed in this Department to change the workings of the Child Support Act 1991 through political or public activity would not be regarded as acceptable under the rules.

  Area

  Claims received

  Assessed at 14 per cent. or more disabled1

  Disallowed on employment grounds2

  Disallowed on medical grounds3

  South

  Anglia

  23

  3

  4

  4

  Chilterns

  22

  0

  4

  1

  South East

  441

  29

  21

  251

  West Country

  144

  4

  7

  39

  Wales and Central England

  East Midlands

  5,175

  406

  88

  3,447

  Greater Manchester

  308

  27

  11

  194

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  2,129

  106

  99

  1,254

  Merseyside

  463

  32

  21

  301

  Midlands South West

  619

  46

  24

  404

  Wales

  8,378

  1,103

  514

  5,020

  West Mercia

  3,478

  294

  147

  1,958

  Scotland and North

  East Scotland

  2,331

  80

  70

  1,708

  Glasgow

  228

  6

  9

  80

  North and West Yorkshire

  2,456

  287

  78

  1,563

  North, Central and West Scotland

  1,835

  47

  74

  1,410

  South Yorkshire

  6,168

  610

  127

  3,900

  Tyne Tees

  6,807

  490

  126

  5,237

  Total

  41,005

  3,570

  1,424

  26,771

  1 Claims assessed at 14 per cent. or more result in an award of benefit.

  2 Claims are disallowed where the claimant has not worked underground in a coal mine for at least 20 years.

  3 Claims disallowed on medical grounds include those where there is insufficient lung function loss; those where category 1 pneumoconiosis has not been diagnosed, and those where chronic bronchitis or emphysema has not been diagnosed.

  Figures are based on a 100 per cent. count and are subject to amendment. Not all the claims received would have been decided by 22 May.

  Independent Living Fund
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments were made from the independent living (1993) fund in 1993–94; and what conclusions he has drawn as to the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the fund in that period.

  Mr. Scott
  I am informed by the director of the independent living (1993) fund that, as at 31 March 1994, there were 224 severely disabled clients receiving payments from the fund. In a further 164 cases, an offer of help had been made by the fund but had not yet been accepted by the client.

  I am pleased with the progress that the fund has made in establishing partnership arrangement with local authorities and in devising effective joint care packages for

  Chronic Bronchitis
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals have applied for benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis or emphysema; how many of those claims have been successful in the period since the inception of the scheme; how many of these claims were refused on the basis of(a) insufficient lung function loss, (b) insufficient lengths of service and (c) non-diagnosis of class 1 pneumoconiosis; and if he will give these figures according to standard British Coal regions.

  Mr. Scott
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table gives the information by Benefits Agency area directorate as at 22 May 1994:

  individual clients. The trustees, director and staff have worked with dedication and with sensitivy to the needs of their clients during this period.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.
  365
  Mr. Hague
  Prior to 1985 civil servants were not required to report any job offers from an outside employer. Since then, this Department has required staff below grade 3, whether in procurement or contract work or not, to report any such approaches to a senior manager at least two grades above. Staff grade 3 or above are required to report any such offers to either the head of department or the Minister. Records of these reports are not kept.

  Records relate to staff who have made an application to take up an outside business appointment. They do not distinguish between types of outside appointment or specify whether the application was followed up or not.

  Some 78 applications were received for the period 1984–94 as shown in the table.

  Year

  Grade 3/above

  Below grade 3

  Total applications

  11984

  1

  8

  9

  11985

  8

  15

  23

  11986

  —

  15

  15

  11987

  1

  7

  8

  1988

  —

  10

  10

  1989

  1

  6

  1

  1990

  —

  3

  3

  1991

  —

  2

  2

  1992

  —

  —

  0

  1993

  —

  —

  0

  1994

  —

  1

  1

  1 figures relate to the Department of Health and Social Security.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to maintain in being his panel of experts, or a subgroup of it, in order to monitor the effectiveness and appropriateness of the new medical test of incapacity for work and to advise on such modifications as may prove necessary.

  Mr. Scott
  The assessment panel was formed to help us construct incapacity scales to be used in the new medical test. We are still considering the procedures for monitoring and evaluating both the new benefit and the medical test of incapacity.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to apply the Social Security (Sickness and Invalidity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1994 so as not to give discretion to refuse benefits on the grounds that a person is capable of work if he or she has undertaken work as a volunteer for fewer than 16 hours in the week in which it was performed; and if he will alter the regulations to make this clear.

  Mr. Scott
  The purpose of the regulations is to allow people who have been accepted as incapable of work for the purposes of sickness benefit, invalidity benefit or severe disablement allowance to do unpaid voluntary work of fewer than 16 hours in a week without losing benefit. We believe that they achieve this. They are not intended to override the usual medical control procedures which apply to all claims. If an adjudication officer decides, for other reasons, that a person is not incapable of work, it is clearly right that benefit can be withdrawn, notwithstanding the fact that a person is doing voluntary work. It is not our intention that people should lose benefit solely because they do such voluntary work, and this has been made clear in the guidance issued by the Benefits Agency.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which amendments to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill made in Standing Committee were taken into account in the compliance cost assessment; which amendments were not taken into account; and what were the reasons for the Government's approach in this regard.

  Mr. Scott
  Amendments which could be readily quantified were taken into account in preparing the compliance cost assessment. Others, for example on phase-in times, which were not specific enough to give a clear indication of timing or impact, made it impossible to identify costs over an unspecified period and therefore could not be taken into account.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in support of his Department's handling of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We have received a wide range of representations about the handling and implications of the Civil Right's (Disabled Persons) Bill.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what effects there are on his assessment of the costs of compliance with the requirements of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill if he takes into account clause 10 as amended in Committee and assumes compliance over a period of(a) 10, (b) 15, (c) 20 and (d) 25 years;

  (2) what estimate he makes of the additional costs of adaptation and/or replacement of (i) aircraft, (ii) trains, (iii) buses, (iv) coaches and (v) other means of carriage used in providing transport services to the public, if compliance with the requirements of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is deferred for (a) 10, (b) 15, (c) 20 and (d) 25 years.

  Mr. Scott
  The costs would depend not only on assumptions made about the rate at which compliance was achieved over the phasing period but also on the particular persons or bodies exempted from immediate compliance. Where it was possible to do so, the compliance cost assessment published on 5 May gave indications of the impact of longer phase-in periods. Further information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Investigation Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 617, how much his Department has spent on private investigation services during the last two years; if he will list those companies which have been employed by his Department during this period; what safeguards his Department took to ensure that these agencies were members of the Association of British Investigators; and what guidelines are currently in operation within his Department as regards this matter.

  Mr. Hague
  This Department spent £116,522 in 1992–93 and £65,261 in the 1993–94 year on the service of legal documents in connection with the collection of
  367
  arrears of national insurance contributions. The private and commercial investigations company used, which is not named for reasons of commercial confidentiality, is a member of the Association of British Investigators. No departmental guidelines are currently in operation with regard to this matter.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what response the Government have made to the European Commission's Green Paper on social policy which requested views from member states by 31 March on the best method of achieving progress in the integration of disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  A copy of the response to the European Commission by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is in the Library.

  Welfare Benefits, Europe
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the British welfare benefits are classed as(a) social security and (b) social assistance benefits for European Economic Area purposes.

  Mr. Burt
  For EEA purposes, social security benefits are those which are designed to meet the specific contingencies listed in article 4(1) of regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 on social security for migrant workers. The social security benefits for which this Department has responsibility are listed below. The definition also covers benefits in kind—that is, health care—provided by the national health service.

  Child Benefit

  Guardian's Allowance

  Maternity Benefit

  Sickness Benefit

  Unemployment Benefit

  Family Credit

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  One Parent Benefit

  Invalidity Benefit

  Retirement Pension

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Widow's Benefits

  Social assistance is not defined in EC legislation but is generally interpreted as covering non-contributory schemes which are often means-tested and based on individual need rather than specific contingencies.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proposals he has to make disability living allowance more accessible for those with learning difficulties.

  (2) what proposals he has to make access to disability living allowance more equitable for those with a mental illness.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 May 1994, c. 539]: Owing to a clerical error a phrase was inadvertently omitted. The reply should have been as follows:
  "None. Entitlement to disability living allowance is intended to depend on the care and mobility needs arising from a particular
  368
  condition, rather than on the condition itself. Access to DLA is available to all disabled people through the claiming process. The Benefits Agency provide support services to assist people in making a claim."

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Attorney-General in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  The Attorney-General
  Should a public consultation document be issued, usual practice would be followed whereby comments are sought on the understanding that they can be made publicly available unless respondents have requested that their responses be treated as confidential.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  The Attorney-General
  Since the Crown Prosecution Service was formed in 1986, there have been two instances of job offers reported by staff under section 14 of the rules. One came from a former member of staff at grade 3–1990—and the other from a member of staff at grade 5–1992. In each instance, the member of staff applied to join the organisation concerned. Since the Serious Fraud Office was formed in 1988, one approach on behalf of an outside employer has been reported under section 14 by a member of staff at grade 6–1993. This did not result in an application to join the organisation concerned. In none of these three instances did section 15 of the rules apply. There have been no reports in the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the legal secretariat to the Law Officers.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  [pursuant to his reply, 23 March 1994, c. 335–36]: Certain additional costs have been identified by the Crown Prosecution Service for 1992–93 and 1993–94. The revised information is set out in the table.
  369

  Department

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Crown Prosecution Service

  620K(7)

  477K(7)

  471K(12)

  665K(24)

  1549K(33)

  Serious Fraud Office

  270K(3)

  171K(4)

  88K(2)

  112K(9)

  1126K(5)

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  25K(2)

  Not known

  54K(6)

  335K(8)

  428K(14)

  Note: Figures in parentheses represent the number of contracts that year.

  1 Figures not yet complete.

  2 Approximate figure.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to ratify the 11th protocol to the European convention on human rights.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom signed protocol 11 to the European convention on human rights on 11 May 1994, the date on which it was opened for signature. We intend to ratify the protocol in due course.

  Student Awards
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Departments of Social Security and of Employment and the Department for Education will jointly address funding of students aged over 19 years on full-time courses following the reduction in availability of discretionary awards.

  The Prime Minister
  Full-time higher education students at undergraduate level are generally eligible for a mandatory award, regardless of their age. The report of the independent survey of discretionary awards provision, published by the Gulbenkian Foundation on 8 April, estimates an increase of 20 per cent. in the total number of discretionary awards made between the 1990–91 and 1993–94 academic years.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is currently considering his response to the Gulbenkian report. My right hon. Friends and their Departments regularly consult on matters of mutual concern, including student support.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister when he plans to publish his office's guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing his office's guidance.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Pan Am 103
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Government of Germany about the attitudes of the legal authorities in Scotland and Germany towards those accused of perpetrating the crime against Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.

  The Prime Minister
  None. The case is in the hands of the prosecuting authorities.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 June.

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

  European Union
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister whether continuing membership of the European Union is dependent on member Governments being opposed to all forms of authoritarian rule in their own country; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  It is a fundamental principle of the European Union, reflected in both the preamble and article F of the treaty on European Union, that its member states have systems of government founded on the principles of democracy.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 470, if his office will seek to obtain a copy of the receipt and letter for the Ritz hotel in Paris referred to in the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Mr. Peter Preston, editor of The Guardian.

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave on 18 May 1994,Official Report, column 470.

  Post Office
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 102, what considerations he is taking into account in determining whether a leak inquiry would be justified.

  The Prime Minister
  It is not the usual practice to give details about such matters.

  Climate Change Conference
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to attend the first conference of the parties to the Framework convention on climate change to be held in Berlin from 27 March to 7 April 1995; and what will be his targets for the conference.

  The Prime Minister
  No decisions have yet been taken on attendance at the conference of parties in 1995. The
  371
  convention requires that meeting to resolve a number of issues relating to the operation of the convention and the implementation of parties' commitments. The United Kingdom will be looking for a successful resolution of those issues.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of

  Job applications under the business appointment rules

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  By Grade

  Grade 3 and above

  1

  1

  1

  3

  6

  3

  4

  7

  —

  1

  Below Grade 3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  4

  By Function

  People in contract/procurement sections (under section 15 rules)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  People in other sections (under section 14 of rule)

  1

  1

  2

  3

  6

  3

  5

  7

  2

  2

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlay the Government's decision not to seek to amend the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill at Committee stage; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Although the Government share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people, we favour specific legislation. Despite concerns about the Bill's clarity, affordability and practicality, we examined it in detail, in a considered way, at Committe stage to see whether any parts of it were appropriate and acceptable. Having decided that the Bill could not be accepted, the Government subsequently announced their intention to consult within six months on proposals for action in five key areas: employment, access to goods and services, financial services, access to buildings and the establishment of a new advisory body on disability.

  Beggars
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the subject of beggars in the last three months.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received numerous representations.

  Third-party Claims
  Mr. Dtdyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 15 March, what success Her Majesty's Government have had in persuading eastern European countries, which are not yet members of the third-party liability regime, to join the convention system, and implement its provisions in their national law; and what agreements have been reached with recipent states on the indemnification of western countries for third-party claims in the event of an accident at a plant that they have assisted.

  The Prime Minister
  Several eastern European countries, among them Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and
  372
  grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  The Prime Minister
  Information about job offers is not held centrally. For the areas covered by the Cabinet Office and Office of Public Service and Science votes, the number of applications to join companies is as follows:

  Romania, already belong to the Vienna convention. The Czech Republic acceded to it in March. Estonia acceded in May.

  A number of other countries in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have still to accede. This is a matter of concern to all those interested in helping them to improve nuclear safety. Every opportunity, both bilaterally and multilaterally, is being taken to persuade them of the importance of acceding to the Vienna convention and implementing its provisions in their national legislation.

  The Government of the United States have concluded interim indemnity agreements with Russia and Ukraine. These cover material provided under the United States bilateral nuclear safety assistance programmes to those two countries. As an interim measure, the European Commission is continuing to negotiate an appropriate indemnity from the Governments of Russia and Ukraine for European companies involved in the European Union nuclear safety assistance programme.

HEALTH

  Per Capita Expenditure
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure per head in cash and standard prices, for each region and nationally, on(a) hospital and community health services, (b) general practitioner services, excluding prescriptions, (c) general dental services, gross and net of charges and (d) general practitioners prescribed prescriptions for each year since 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Expenditure on hospital and community health services, general practitioners' services, general dental services and general practitioner prescribed prescriptions in 1991–92 and 1992–93 will be placed in the Library.

  Comparisons of per capita spend figures on hospital and community health services need to be treated with caution. First, not all the expenditure covered arises from population related activities. Secondly, crude populations do not reflect differences in age structure or relative health

  373
  care need. These differences feature in the formulae used to inform the main allocations made to regional health authorities.

  Primary Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure per head of population on primary care by family health service authority, including fundholders' budgets, in the last available year.

  Dr. Mawhhmey
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 26 May at column 305.

  Administration Costs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of health care spending is absorbed by administration(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the United States of America.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Comparable figures are not available. There are no internationally accepted definitions of either health spending or of spending on administration of health services.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has as to a causal link between the consumption of dairy products and the incidence of diabetes in children.

  Mr. Sackville
  While there have been suggestions of a relationship between the onset of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and the early introduction of cow's milk in the diet of infants, there is as yet no firm evidence of a causal link. This possibility will be examined in a study to be mounted in the south-west of England.

  Coxsackie Virus
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of the coxsackie virus in England in the last two years; and in what geographical areas the problem has been identified.

  Mr. Sackville
  The incidence of coxsackie virus infection varies considerably between years, as in the case with many infectious diseases; the reported incidence of coxsackie virus infection was particularly low in 1993. Estimates of the incidence of coxsackie virus infection are based on voluntary reports made to the public health laboratory service communicable disease surveillance centre by microbiology laboratories throughout England and Wales. Inter-regional variation in reported incidence reflects both true variations in incidence and variations in diagnostic and reporting practice.

  Coxsackie Virus Infection, 1992–93 Laboratory Reports to PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre

  Regional Health Authority

  1992

  11993

  Northern

  78

  88

  Yorkshire

  56

  28

  Trent

  83

  51

  East Anglian

  32

  12

  North West Thames

  37

  11

  North East Thames

  13

  12

  374

  Regional Health Authority

  1992

  11993

  South East Thames

  28

  17

  South West Thames

  36

  10

  Wessex

  77

  49

  Oxford

  33

  14

  South Western

  126

  94

  West Midlands

  81

  21

  Mersey

  40

  29

  North Western

  51

  17

  England

  771

  453

  1 1993 data provisional

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken into the coxsackie virus in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  The public health laboratory service is developing new diagnostic tests for coxsackie virus infections; these new tests should overcome many of the problems currently associated with the diagnosis of coxsackie infections.

  The PHLS is also undertaking a retrospective analysis of the epidemiology of coxsackie virus infections in England and Wales over the last 20 years.

  Research into dilated cardiomyopathies and persistent myopericarditis due to coxsackie viruses is being conducted by a teaching hospital in London.

  There is a multicentre study of myalgic encephalomyelitis that is investigating whether there is an association between ME and, among other infections, coxsackie virus infection.

  The Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, is supporting research at the university of Essex concerning the molecular analysis of receptors specifically in coxsackie virus A9.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 324, if she will list for each NHS trust in the Trent region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority area within which that trust is situated.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 May at column 324 and to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 25 May at columns 214–15. The information for national health service trusts which lie within the boundaries of the remaining health authorities in Trent region is given.

  BARNSLEY DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Barnsley Community and Priority Services NHS Trust

  Mr. R. Kefford

  Mrs. M. Michaels

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  Mr. A. Sherriff

  Mr. R. Cave

  Mrs. M. Young

  DONCASTER DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Lucas

  Miss C. Fleming

  Mrs. M. Spencer

  LEICESTERSHIRE DISTFUCT HEALTH AUTHORITY
  375
  West Lindsey NHS Trust

  Mr. S. Buchanan-Parker

  Mr. A. Roberts

  Mr. D. Weir

  Fosse Health NHS Trust
  Mrs. G. Parker

  NORTH DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Chesterfield & North Derbyshire Royal Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. P. Lindley

  Community Healthcare Services (North Derbyshire) NHS Trust
  Mrs. P. Spencer

  ROTHERHAM DISTRITCT HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Mr. I. Stephen

  Mr. M. Colbear

  Mrs. G. Brooke

  Rotherham Priority Services NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Salmon

  Mr. T. Palmer

  Mr. J. Hyde

  South Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance & Paramedic Service NHS Trust

  Mr. J. Chambers

  Mr. P. Threlfall

  Mr. S. Mahon

  Mrs. P. Battersby

  SOUTHERN DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT HEALTH AUTHORITY

  Community Health Services, Southern Derbyshire NHS Trust

  Mr. C. Marsland

  Mr. B. Billings

  Southern Derbyshire Mental Health Unit NHS Trust
  Miss K. Johnson

  Derby City General Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. N. Woods

  Consultants
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much money was spent in each health region on merit awards for consultants;

  (2) how many consultants received merit awards in 1993–94 in each health region.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the numbers of consultants who received distinction awards in 1993–94 in each health region is shown in the table. Information on money spent by region is not available centrally.

  Distinction awards—analysis by region England at 31 December 1993

  Region

  Number

  Northern

  371

  Yorkshire

  396

  Trent

  499

  East Anglia

  251

  North West Thames

  475

  North East Thames

  670

  South East Thames

  531

  South West Thames

  357

  London SHAs

  402

  Wessex

  294

  Oxford

  300

  South Western

  325

  West Midlands

  528

  Mersey

  264

  North Western

  459

  Total

  5,893

  Note: Where a consultant works in more than one region he or she has been included in the total for each.

  GP Co-operatives
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, where general medical practitioners have formed co-operatives to provide out-of-hours cover for patients and those co-operatives are being provided with financial support by their local family health service authorities, that financial support is paid to the corporate body or other organisation operating the co-operative or personally to the individual general practitioners who make up the co-operative.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Reimbursements under the statement of fees and allowances are made by family health services authorities to general practitioners.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to whether the NHS Pensions Agency policy in respect of myalgic encephalomyelitis sufferers is in line with her Department's position on the likelihood of recovery from myalgic encephalomyelitis; and what action she plans to take.

  Mr. Sackville
  The prognosis for any illness is a matter of clinical judgment in individual cases. The statutory requirement for the early payment of national health service pension benefits is that a person must be permanently incapable of discharging efficiently the duties of his or her employment.

  Myasthenia Gravis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research the Government have commissioned into the causes and treatment of myasthenia gravis;

  (2) how many people in each health region have been diagnosed as suffering from myasthenia gravis:

  (3) what help and advice she has given to the Myasthenia Gravis Association.

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures for the numbers of people diagnosed as having myasthenia gravis who have been admitted to hospital are published in volume 1 of the "Hospital Episode Statistics", copies of which are available in the Library. The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The MRC is always willing to consider scientifically sound proposals for research. At present, the council funds two groups specifically to investigate myasthenia gravis: one at Oxford to investigate immune mechanisms and immunotherapy in myasthenia; the second at Newcastle upon Tyne investigates altering a T cell epitope in experimental autoimmune myasthenia gravis. The Myasthenia Gravis Association has not approached the Department for help or advice.

  Osteoporosis
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice she is to receive regarding osteoporosis; and when she intends to publish it.

  Mr. Sackville
  An expert group was set up last November to provide advice on the current state of
  377
  knowledge and research about osteoporosis, and what further work needs to be done. We have yet to receive the group's advice, and will need to consider in the light of it any further action that is indicated.

  Private Care Homes
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the guidance issued by her Department in 1989 in regard to the placing of national health service patients in private nursing or residential homes still stands; and if she will make it her policy that no such patient will be placed in a home if this compels that patient to take personal responsibility for the charges made by the home.

  Mr. Bowls
  Where a person is assessed as requiring long-term care secured by the national health service and is placed in a private nursing or residential care home, the national health service will be responsible for meeting the full costs of care.

  NHS Property and Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy for valuation reports on surplus national health service land and property prepared for regional health authorities by district valuers to be made available for public inspection after the sale has been concluded.

  Mr. Sackville
  It would be inappropriate for valuation reports to be publicly available, whether made by the district valuer or the private sector. Those reports are commercially confidential, and the release of price-sensitive information could disadvantage future land and property transactions.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she intends to take to ensure that NHS trusts and health authorities detail in their business plans arrangements to ensure that all staff involved in recruitment and selection receive training in fair procedures and that records are kept, as set out in the Goal One instruction contained in the document, "Ethnic Minority Staff in the NHS: A Programme for Action"; and what steps she intends to take to ensure that this requirement is drawn to the attention of general practitioners.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We expect all national health service health authorities and trusts to comply with each of the relevant goals in the programme of action, and family health services authorities to ensure that general practitioners are made aware of the programme's principles of good employment practice which it contains.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs have refused to comply with the Goal One instruction contained in the document, "Ethnic Minority Staff in the NHS: A Programme for Action".

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Compliance is a matter for national health service employers.

  Rights of the Child
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps have been taken by her Department in fulfilment of article 24, on health and health services, of the UN convention on the rights of the child adopted by the United Kingdom Government in December 1991;

  (2) what steps have been taken by her Department in fulfilment of article 23(1) (2) (3) and (4), on disabled children, of the UN convention on the rights of the child adopted by the United Kingdom Government in December 1991;

  (3) what steps have been taken by her Department in fulfilment of article 32, on child labour, of the UN convention on the rights of the child adopted by the United Kingdom Government in December 1991.

  Mr. Bowls
  The information requested is contained in the United Kingdom's first report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which was published in March 1994, and copies of which were placed in the Library.

  Health Authority Mergers
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the advertising of vacancies for chief executives designate of merged health authorities before a merger has been agreed.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is good management practice to make adequate preparations to ensure that mergers, if agreed, are effectively managed. In many cases this may necessitate advertising the post of chief executive designate in advance of the decision on the merger application being made.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances it is her Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if she will arrange for her Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responses to consultation documents are usually sought on the understanding they may be made public, unless those responding explicitly ask for them to remain confidential. This practice has been strengthened by the code of practice on access to government information, published in April.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she has been consulted by, or made representations to, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the application to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons made by the World Health Organisation; and what representations she has made to the World Health Organisation on its submission.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—gave him on 1 February at column 605 and 28 February at column 547, which stated that the

  379
  Government's submission to the International Court of Justice will set out the position of the Government on this issue. Relevant Departments, including the Department of Health, have therefore been consulted. The Department has made no representation to the World Health Organisation about its submission to the court.

  Generic Prescribing
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will publish the name of the general practitioner achieving the highest percentage of generic prescribing;

  (2) what percentage of (a) fundholder and (b) non-fundholder general practitioners are prescribing (i) 50 to 55 per cent., (ii) 55 to 60 per cent., (iii) 60 to 65 per cent. and (iv) 65 to 70 per cent. generically.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is not available centrally.

  Disciplinary Procedures
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendation was made by the joint working party on disciplinary procedures in relation to monitoring of the procedures, collection of data and the reviewing of the procedures; to what extent this recommendation has been implemented; and what data have been collected.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A joint working party to review hospital and community doctors' and dentists' disciplinary procedures reported in 1988. One recommendation was:"Arrangements for monitoring the new procedures, including the regular collection of data, should be introduced and that the effectiveness of the procedures should be reviewed after a period of three years from the date of implementation".

  Circular HC(90)9, copies of which are available in the Library, asked authorities to maintain anonymised returns of cases brought under the new procedures in order to inform a new joint working party which would review that circular. The new JWP was established in April 1993 and information gathered. However, it did not offer a full picture because of the introduction of trusts, which are free to develop their own disciplinary procedures. We are considering the options following this review.

  1990–91 £000?s

  1991–92 £000?s

  1992–93 £000?s

  1993–94 £000?s

  Staff Budget: Whole Department

  82,968

  87,540

  95,172

  99,351

  Of Which:

  Staff Budget: NHS Executive

  24,300

  20,912

  30,089

  25,135

  Total Administrative Budget:

  Whole Department

  221,391

  260,966

  297,922

  237,228

  Of Which:

  Total Administrative Budget:

  NHS Executive

  31,615

  27,066

  43,115

  34,831

  Source: Annual accounts and budgetary control reports of the Department of Health.

  Notes:

  1. Figures have not been adjusted for inflation.

  2. Figures for the NHS Executive are not directly comparable from year to year because of organisational changes between the NHS Executive and the rest of the Department.

  3. Figures for the whole Department include the NHS Executive, but do not include the Departments' agencies.

  NHS Facilities (Visits)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on(a) her rights and (b) the rights of the Opposition spokesperson to visit any NHS facility.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I expect national health service authorities and trusts to welcome visits by hon. Members, subject only to their being able to make proper arrangements for the reception of the visitor and to avoid disruption of services to patients.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many job offers were reported by staff in her Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is available for Department of Health staff from 1989. There were three staff of grade 3 and above that reported job offers: one each in 1990, 1991 and 1992, all of which resulted in formal applications to take up appointment and were subsequently approved by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. There were no reported job offers by staff below grade 3 or those in sections concerned with procurement or contract work.

  Budget Statistics
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the staff budget and (b) the total budget in each year since 1989 for her Department and the NHS Executive.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is shown in the table on the budgets for staff costs and total administration costs for the Department as a whole—including the National Health Service Executive, but excluding the agencies—and separately for the executive since 1990–91, the earliest year for which these figures are available.

  Disability
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have for participation in the European Union's third action programme for disabled people for the period 1992 to 1996.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government have arranged for 78 organisations to represent the United Kingdom in the European Union's third action programme for disabled people, Handicapped People Living in Europe Independently in an Open Society—HELIOS—II, and hosted a United Kingdom HELIOS II national information day in London on 16 March 1994.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision was made in the cash allocations to health authorities in 1994–95 for changes in statutory sick pay regulations.

  Total Revenue Regional Allocations 1988–89—1994–95

  £000s

  Region

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern

  797,242

  848,201

  919,839

  1,147,719

  1,296,989

  1,405,474

  —

  Yorkshire

  892,850

  951,237

  1,038,375

  1,319,565

  1,506,424

  1,683,748

  —

  Northern and Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,135,357

  Trent

  1,108,652

  1,186,453

  1,306,016

  1,624,908

  1,857,143

  2,090,721

  2,122,377

  East Anglia

  476,823

  509,021

  573,993

  679,020

  772,669

  870,369

  —

  Oxford

  528,725

  571,433

  625,762

  782,812

  901,697

  987,004

  —

  Anglia and Oxford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,917,369

  North West Thames

  921,523

  987,621

  1,095,615

  1,414,088

  1,607,377

  1,698,024

  —

  North East Thames

  1,159,454

  1,216,604

  1,343,012

  1,576,063

  1,741,036

  1,916,795

  —

  North Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,819,284

  South East Thames

  1,021,511

  1,070,897

  1,197,440

  1,456,340

  1,608,091

  1,818,090

  —

  South West Thames

  821,339

  866,172

  974,174

  1,174,744

  1,306,669

  1,399,450

  —

  South Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,291,405

  Wessex

  664,598

  711,839

  799,142

  1,000,087

  1,148,345

  1,299,640

  —

  South Western

  786,162

  843,043

  929,814

  1,191,631

  1,355,032

  1,499,430

  —

  South and West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,857,420

  West Midlands

  1,278,807

  1,358,535

  1,475,301

  1,776,990

  1,990,023

  2,208,628

  —

  Mersey

  643,564

  680,280

  741,964

  945,184

  1,068,046

  1,159,332

  —

  North Western

  1,098,130

  1,161,388

  1,264,943

  1,485,585

  1,665,604

  1,798,677

  —

  North West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,041,056

  ENGLAND TOTAL

  12,199,380

  12,962,724

  14,285,390

  17,574,736

  19,825,145

  21,835,382

  22,488,406

  Yearly Percentage Change

  —

  6·3 per cent.

  10·2 per cent.

  23·0 per cent.

  12·8 per cent.

  10·1 per cent.

  3·0 per cent.

  Notes: 1. Final revenue cash limits include adjustments and transfer between revenue and capital.

  2. The 1994–95 figure is the initial cash limit and will be amended during the year.

  3. Regional health authorities were restructured in 1994–95.

  4. Up to 1990–91 regional allocations were made on the basis of the population treated within the region (catchment populations). From 1991–92 allocations have been made for resident populations irrespective of where residents are treated. Because of this change regional figures before and after 1991–92 are not strictly comparable.

  5. Changes were made to the definition of capital spending in 1993–94. Some items of expenditure formally treated as capital are now treated as revenue.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of cash top sliced by regional health authorities from their allocations in each year since 1988–89, including 1994–95; and what was the total cash available to district health authorities for discretionary use in each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1993–94 regional health authorities top sliced £2 billion from their allocations for resident population and allocated £15·5 billion to district health authorities to spend on their resident population. In 1994–95 the figures were £1·8 billion and £16·6 billion respectively. Information is not available centrally prior to 1993–94.
  382
  Mr. Sackville
  Specific allocations are not made for individual pay or price pressures. Health authorities are expected to manage within the total resources available to them. Provided pay rises are earned through increased efficiency, hospital and community health services activity will increase by around 4 per cent. this year.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total revenue allocation for regional health authorities in each year since 1988–89, including 1994–95; and what was the percentage change in each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Total cash limits for each regional health authority from 1988–89 to 1994–95 are shown in the table.

  Powered Wheelchairs
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the benefit to permanently disabled adults and children of providing them with an indoor/outdoor powered wheelchair; how many permanently disabled adults and children there are; and what would be the total cost of providing each of them with such a powered wheelchair.

  Mr. Bowls
  Decisions about the issue of wheelchairs, including powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs, are matters for health authorities and national health service hospital and community care units—trusts—in the light of their resources and priorities.
  383
  Excluding those on the blind register and those with mental disabilities, the number of people registered as disabled with local authorities at 31 March 1993 was 1,336,925. Of these, 679,057 were classified as being very severely, severely or appreciably handicapped. Not all of these people will require a wheelchair.

  In the 12 months to 31 March 1993, the number of wheelchairs, including powered wheelchairs, on issue by the NHS in England was 179,308 and expenditure on the wheelchair service was £39,859,696. There are no figures available centrally about the total cost of providing powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs to everyone who might benefit from them.

  The cost of each such wheelchair will vary considerably according to the user's needs and can range from a standard model costing around £2,500 up to £20,000 for sophisticated wheelchairs for people with very severe disabilities.

  NHS Pay Settlement
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she, or her officials, have had with representatives of the Epsom Healthcare NHS trust, regarding arrangements for meeting the pay increase recommended by the pay review bodies.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The trust has advised that it will be making pay awards, agreed locally, in line with the recommendations of the national pay review bodies. These increases have been implemented with effect from 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice has been issued by her Department or the

  Confidential enquiries into Maternal Deaths 1988–90 England and Wales Category of death by place of birth

  Direct1

  Indirect2

  Fortuitous3

  Late4

  United Kingdom

  89

  59

  19

  26

  Republic of Ireland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  New Commonwealth and Pakistan

  20

  6

  4

  8

  Other countries

  3

  3

  —

  1

  Not stated

  27

  14

  10

  7

  Totals

  139

  82

  34

  42

  1Direct = Death was directly related to obstetrics.

  2Indirect = Pregnancy was related, but not the primary cause of death.

  3Fortuitous = Death was unconnected with pregnancy.

  4Late = Death occurred more than 42 days after cessation of pregnancy.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the numbers of (i) direct maternal deaths and (ii) indirect maternal deaths registered in England and Wales in each of the three-year periods 1985–87, 1988–90 and 1991–93 which were of women born in(a) the United

  Deaths of women aged 16 to 50 from complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium by country of birth, 1985–87, 1988–90 and 1991–92, England and Wales

  Maternal deaths

  Country of birth

  Direct1 (ICD9 630–646, 649–676)

  Indirect1 (ICD9 647, 648)

  1985–87

  1988–90

  1991–92

  1985–87

  1988–90

  1991–92

  Total

  114

  129

  81

  23

  25

  9

  United Kingdom

  90

  102

  57

  20

  23

  6

  Republic of Ireland

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  New Commonwealth and Pakistan

  12

  18

  13

  3

  2

  1

  384
  NHS Executive regarding the pay settlement recommended by the pay review bodies; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what is the total number of NHS trusts which have so far declared themselves unable to fund the pay increase recommended by the pay review bodies; and if she will list them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No advice has been issued and no trusts have declared themselves unable to fund the pay increase.

  Job Evaluation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts currently have contracts with external consultants for job evaluation programmes within the trust; and what data are being collected by her Department on total expenditure on such contracts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  It is for each individual national health service trust to determine whether it wishes to employ external consultants for this purpose. The information is not available centrally.

  Maternal Deaths
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the numbers of (i) direct maternal deaths, (ii) indirect maternal deaths, (iii) fortuitous maternal deaths and (iv) late maternal deaths in England and Wales reported to the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths in each of the three-year periods 1985–87 and 1988–90 which were of women born in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Ireland, (c) the New Commonwealth and Pakistan, (d) other countries and (e) unstated countries.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is contained in the table. Data are available for the 1988 to 1990 period only.

  Kingdom, (b) the Republic of Ireland, (c) the New Commonwealth and Pakistan, (d) other countries and (e) unstated countries.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table. Information for 1993 is not yet available.
  385

  Maternal deaths

  Country of birth

  Direct1 (ICD9 630–646, 649–676)

  Indirect1 (ICD9 647, 648)

  1985–87

  1988–90

  1991–92

  1985–87

  1988–90

  1991–92

  Other countries

  9

  8

  10

  —

  —

  2

  Unstated countries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 International classification of diseases 9th revision—ICD9–630–676 cover complications of pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium. Of these, ICD9 647 and 648 may be considered indirect causes of the pregnancy as they cover conditions in the mother classifiable elsewhere in the ICD9 but complicating pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium. The remaining conditions may be considered direct mutes relating to pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium.

  Notes:

  1. There may have been other deaths to women who were pregnant or had recently given birth where this information was not shown on the death certificate or was not selected as the underlying cause of death.

  2. There are no data yet available for 1993.

  Hospital Integration Support
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 April,Official Report, columns 661–62, which hospitals received financial support under the hospital integration support systems project; and to what amount in each year.

  Mr. Sackville
  Tables have been placed in the Library which identify those hospitals which have received either capital or revenue funding from the hospital information support systems initiative.

  Number of ambulance staff (whole-time equivalent) in post per thousand resident population in each regional health authority area in England

  Estimated population (provisional) thousand

  Ambulance officers and control assistants

  Ambulance men and women

  Whole-time equivalent

  Per 1,000 population

  Whole-time equivalent

  Per 1,000 population

  September 1991

  Northern

  3,091·7

  170

  0·05

  1,100

  0·36

  Yorkshire

  3,680·9

  220

  0·06

  1,340

  0·36

  Trent

  4,719·8

  280

  0·06

  1,580

  0·33

  East Anglian

  2,082·7

  130

  0·06

  670

  0·32

  North West Thames

  1,519·1

  40

  0·03

  420

  0·28

  North East Thames

  1,476·0

  70

  0·05

  490

  0·33

  South East Thames

  2,251·7

  120

  0·05

  790

  0·35

  South West Thames

  1,757·0

  100

  0·05

  550

  0·32

  Wessex

  2,979·4

  140

  0·05

  810

  0·27

  Oxford

  2,560·0

  130

  0·05

  700

  0·27

  South Western

  3,298·6

  220

  0·07

  1,250

  0·38

  West Midlands

  5,265·6

  260

  0·05

  1,580

  0·30

  Mersey

  2,415·8

  90

  0·04

  730

  0·30

  North Western

  4,011·2

  200

  0·05

  1,310

  0·33

  London Ambulance Service

  7,098·7

  170

  0·02

  1,970

  0·28

  Total

  48,208·2

  2,340

  0·05

  15,290

  0·32

  September 1992

  Northern

  3,089·9

  180

  0·06

  1,150

  0·37

  Yorkshire

  3,698·0

  220

  0·06

  1,290

  0·35

  Trent

  4,745·0

  270

  0·06

  1,550

  0·33

  East Anglian

  2,089·4

  120

  0·06

  670

  0·32

  North West Thames

  1,529·0

  80

  0·05

  550

  0·36

  North East Thames

  1,484·6

  70

  0·05

  460

  0·31

  South East Thames

  2,258·9

  120

  0·05

  800

  0·35

  South West Thames

  1,761·9

  100

  0·06

  590

  0·33

  Wessex

  2,993·3

  140

  0·05

  810

  0·27

  Oxford

  2,581·4

  120

  0·05

  710

  0·27

  South Western

  3,315·9

  220

  0·07

  1,260

  0·38

  West Midlands

  5,277·6

  320

  0·06

  1,580

  0·30

  Mersey

  2,415·5

  90

  0·04

  710

  0·29

  North Western

  4,018·0

  170

  0·04

  1,300

  0·32

  London Ambulance Service

  7,113·9

  210

  0·03

  2,010

  0·28

  Total

  48,378·3

  2,420

  0·05

  15,420

  0·32

  Sources:

  1. Work force: Department of Health statistical survey — KM49.

  2. Population figures: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) officers and (b) ambulance men and women were in post per thousand resident population in each year since 1991–92 in each regional health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 19 May 1994]: The information available is shown in the tables.
  387
  Notes:

  1. Includes data for NHS trusts in each region.

  2. It is not possible to disaggregate the numbers of officers and control assistants.

  3. The 1991 figures for Northern region and 1992 figures for North West Thames region have been corrected and vary from those published previously. The 1992 population figures—estimates—have been updated and vary from those published previously.

  4. London ambulance service population figures determined by using districts in the four Thames regions whose ambulance service is covered by the LAS.

  Mouth Cancer
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many notifications and deaths from mouth cancer have been recorded for each of the last five years, by region, age, gender and socio-economic group.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 23 May 1994]: Data on cancer registrations for England and Wales and for the regions by site, sex and age are published in the "Cancer Statistics", series MB1. Tables will be placed in the Library which show the number of deaths from mouth cancer—international classification of diseases 140–145—by regional health authority, age, sex and social class.

  Value of health care bought from private hospitals resulting from £12 million made available under the waiting list initiative in February 1994

  Regional health authority1

  Allocation (£)

  Value of health care bought from private hospitals

  Number of patients treated in private facilities

  Northern

  951,000

  The Nuffield Hospital, Newcastle —

  £175,000

  70

  Yorkshire

  1,094,000

  The Nuffield Hospital, Hull and The East Riding BUPA Hospital, Anlaby —

  £154,000

  163

  The Falloden Hospital, Leeds —

  £5,400

  32

  Trent

  880,000

  None

  East Anglia

  110,000

  The Evelyn Hospital, Cambridge and The Cambridge Lea Hospital —

  £80,000

  56

  North West Thames

  1,057,000

  None

  South East Thames

  1,179,000

  None

  South West Thames

  909,000

  None

  Wessex

  716,000

  None

  Oxford

  651,000

  The Paddocks Hospital, Aylesbury —

  £4,000

  6

  AMI Chiltern, Great Missenden —

  £7,000

  4

  South Western

  971,000

  The Taunton Nuffield, The Exeter Nuffield, and The Woodmill Hospital, Exeter —

  £84,000

  84

  St. Mary's Hospital, Bristol —

  £155,000

  55

  The Woodmill Hospital, Exeter —

  £130,000

  42

  West Midlands

  1,520,000

  None

  Mersey

  729,000

  None

  North Western

  1,233,000

  None

  Total

  12,000,000

  £794,400

  512

  1 No bid for additional funding was received from North East Thames RHA.

  Health Visitors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health visitors are employed in each district health authority area;

  Waiting Lists Initiative
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 424, if she will provide details of (a) funds allocated for each regional health authority under the waiting list initiative announced 17 February and (b) how much of each regional health authority allocation was spent on the purchase of services from independent sector providers, giving details of the independent providers involved and the value of the contracts.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 23 May 1994]: The information is shown in the table. Initial returns show that at least 38,000 in and out-patients have benefited from earlier treatment as a result of the Government's initiative.

  (2) how many health visitors are employed in relation to the number of children in each health authority area.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: The information will be placed in the Library.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all non-governmental organisations, international associations and companies which received funds from Her Majesty's Government for projects in China together with the projects and the amounts involved in each case for 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A list of those projects that received United Kingdom bilateral assistance in 1991–92 and 1992–93, showing expenditure and the organisations involved, has been placed in the Libraries of the Houses.

  Under the European Union co-operation programme, disbursements to China in 1991–92 and 1992–93 were 24 mecu—£18.47 million—United Kingdom share £2.96 million.

  ODA contributed £304,000 to the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation over these two years for an artificial limb factory project in Fuzhou.

  The World Food Programme's food aid commitments to China for 1991, 1992 and 1993 totalled 412,000 tonnes.

  The United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Children's Fund and the Food and Agriculture Organisation have programmes in China. Our contributions to the core budgets of these agencies in 1991–92 and 1992–93 were as follows:

  £ million

  UNFPA

  16·5

  IPPF

  14·5

  UNDP

  58·0

  UNICEF

  18·5

  FAO

  19·8

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the annual reports of the World bank, the International Finance Corporation and the Asian Development bank, which are in the House of Commons Library, for details of the activities they support in China.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what gaps there are in the food pipeline to Rwanda; and how is it proposed to close them.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Despite major logistical problems, the World Food Programme is maintaining basic food supplies to all the refugee camps bordering Rwanda, and is also moving supplies into both north and south Rwanda. We are providing £1.25 million of emergency food aid. In addition, we have given two mobile grinding mills to WFP for the production of maize flour, at a cost of £290,000.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about cholera outbreaks in Burundi and the extent to which these are connected with refugees from Rwanda; and how the international community is responding to them.
  390
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Some 60 cases of cholera have been reported in the Burundian capital, Bujumbura, with no evident link to refugees from Rwanda. United Nations agencies are presently monitoring the situation.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the role of the World Health Organisation in a crisis such as the situation in Rwanda; and what assessment he has made of how the organisation is fulfilling that role in Rwanda.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The World Health Organisation has responded quickly to the situation in Rwanda. It is a member of the United Nations humanitarian advance team in Nairobi and has also participated in the United Nations flash appeal. It has dispatched seven emergency health kits—each provides medical supplies for 70,000 beneficiaries for three months—for Rwanda refugees in surrounding countries. It is establishing four stations to monitor cross-border assistance into Rwanda. It is too early to assess how well the WHO is fulfilling its role as the leading health agency in this emergency situation.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the findings of the recent Overseas Development Administration mission to Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Overseas Development Administration mission visited the Kagera region of north-western Tanzania, the Kabale district in southern Uganda, and the Byumba prefecture in northern Rwanda on 21 to 26 May 1994.

  The mission found that the British emergency aid already provided has been used effectively and was much appreciated, and that the relief efforts of the UN agencies, particularly UNHCR in northern Tanzania, the non-governmental organisations and the Red Cross movement were impressive and well co-ordinated. The political situation remains volatile and the refugee exodus is continuing. External emergency aid will be required for the foreseeable future.

  The main conclusions of the mission are that our future strategy should focus on:

  improving the strategic planning and management of the overall humanitarian aid operation

  expanding the operational capacity of non-governmental organisation implementing agencies to reach refugees/displaced in greatest need

  responding to the governments of Tanzania and Uganda concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the crisis.

  As a result of these findings, my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced on 2 June that Britain is allocating a further £5 million of emergency aid to support displaced and refugees in Rwanda and neighbouring countries. This brings the amount of emergency aid provided bilaterally since April 1994 to over £11 million.

  Aid (Military Expenditure)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what element of military expenditure is included in Britain's aid figures.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None.

  Multilateral Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Britain's aid budget contributes to multilateral aid; and how this has changed over the past five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is as follows:

  Multilateral assistance as a percentage of total ODA assistance

  Percentage

  1988–89

  41

  1989–90

  37

  1990–91

  36

  1991–92

  45

  1992–93

  46

  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he estimates to be the scale of the present food shortage in Ethiopia and Eritrea; what are the problems that he expects to arise in the coming months; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the international response to the problem.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Further to my answer of 10 May, col.79, the World Food Programme reports that 1994 food aid pledges to Ethiopia stand at 900,000 tonnes. For Eritrea, the WFP and the FAO estimate 1994 food aid needs at 255,000 tonnes, of which 180,000 tonnes have been pledged. The main priorities in the coming months are to fulfil pledges promptly and to ensure adequate and timely distribution of food aid to areas in need.

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Britain's bilateral aid budget is spent on humanitarian relief; and how this percentage figure has changed over the past five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is as follows:

  Bilateral humanitarian assistance1 as a percentage of total ODA bilateral assistance

  Percentage

  1988–89

  8

  1989–90

  5

  1990–91

  6

  1991–92

  14

  1992–93

  13

  1 ODA uses certain multilateral agencies as a means of delivering assistance to individual countries. This expenditure has been included in the figures above in order to provide a complete picture of ODA's bilateral humanitarian assistance effort.

  OECD Development Assistance Committee
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries in central and eastern Europe now qualify as developing countries recognised by the OECD's development assistance committee.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All countries in central and eastern Europe which receive aid are listed in the Development 392
  Assistance Committee's list of aid recipients. Those which appear in that part of the list detailing countries whose aid receipts count as official development assistance are: Tajikistan, Armenia, Kyrgystan, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Albania and the states of ex-Yugoslavia. Full details are given in the Development Assistance Committee chairman's report for 1993, entitled "Development Co-operation: Aid in Transition", a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of gross national product in rank order is contributed in and by each member of the OECD's development assistance committee.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The information is as follows:

  Net Official Development Assistance as a Percentage of Gross National Product in 1992, all DAC Donor Countries

  Percentage

  Norway

  1·16

  Sweden

  1·03

  Denmark

  1·02

  Netherlands

  0·86

  France

  0·63

  Finland

  0·62

  Canada

  0·46

  Switzerland

  0·46

  Germany

  0·39

  Belgium

  0·39

  Portugal

  0·36

  Australia

  0·35

  Italy

  0·34

  United Kingdom

  0·31

  Japan

  0·30

  Austria

  0·30

  Spain

  0·26

  Luxembourg

  0·26

  New Zealand

  0·26

  United States of America

  0·20

  Ireland

  0·16

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Britain counts debt forgiveness for non-Overseas Development Administration export credits in ODA totals; and whether care for asylum seekers is counted in his figures for overseas development assistance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Debt forgiveness in relation to officially supported export credits is included in the United Kingdom's total official development assistance figures in accordance with the OECD Development Assistance Committee's guidelines. In the financial year 1992–93, the total debt forgiven for agreements under the Toronto and Trinidad terms in respect of officially supported export credits was £51.1 million.

  Assistance to asylum seekers is not included in the United Kingdom's total official development assistance.

  Food Aid
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to transfer responsibility for programmable food aid to the European Community Humanitarian Office; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on this matter.
  393
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  There have been reports for some time that the Commission was considering transferring responsibility for all Community food aid to the European Community Humanitarian Office. However, we know of no firm plans to do so. Were the Commission to take this step, which is within its management prerogative, our attitude would be based on our assessment of the impact the move might have on the overall effectiveness of Community food aid.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the Government's review of the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 15 March,Official Report, col. 586.

  Central and Eastern Europe
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on aid to central and eastern Europe this year; and how much has been spent in each of the past five years, with the overall percentage change in spending over the period.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Figures for the current financial year and for 1993–94 are not yet available. Bilateral spending in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in previous years was as follows:

  £ thousands

  CEE

  FSU

  1989–90

  63,888

  31

  1990–91

  14,673

  2

  1991–92

  27,025

  26,845

  1992–93

  32,719

  15,832

  The CEE figure for 1989–90 includes an exceptional United Kingdom contribution of US$100 million, £61·71 million, to the currency stabilisation fund for Poland. If this is excluded, spending in the CEE increased over the period 1989–90 to 1992–93 by 1,402 per cent. When the FSU is included, the percentage increase is 2,097 per cent. The figures exclude United Kingdom contributions made through multilateral agencies.

  North-West Somalia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the role of the World Health Organisation in the development of areas such as north-west Somalia; and what assessment he has made of how the organisation is fulfilling that role in north-west Somalia.

  Mr. Lennox Boyd
  The World Health Organisation informs us that, in addition to providing emergency assistance to north-west Somalia, it is establishing longer-term support to enable improvements to the existing health care system, better disease control and continuing provision of vaccines and drugs. Reports to date suggest that the WHO has made some limited progress in difficult circumstances.

  Albania
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what policy the European Union has on giving aid to Albania; and when he expects that such assistance will reach Albania.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The European Community programme of assistance to Albania started in 1991, initially in the form of humanitarian and food aid. It was extended in 1992 to include longer-term technical assistance under the PHARE programme and balance of payments support. The allocations for humanitarian and food aid have been fully disbursed together with the first tranche of balance of payments support. A further tranche of balance of payments support is expected to be agreed shortly. Approximately half the technical assistance so far committed under the PHARE programme has been disbursed.

  Crown Agents
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the role the Crown Agents have in the procurement cycle in relationship to private military, security or police companies.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Crown Agents have associated with Securicor plc on a number of tenders to public sector bodies. They have not placed any orders under this arrangement.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what private military, security or police companies are currently under contract or licence to the Crown Agents.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None, other than the employment of Pegasus Security Group by the Crown Agents to meet their own office security requirements.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has received from the Commonwealth Institute about its future; and when he intends to respond.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The institute's board has prepared the outlines of a relaunch plan. This will be examined in further detail at the board's executive committee meeting on 21 June at which the Secretary of State's representative will be present.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations or proposals he has from the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland about its future; and what response he has given.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The chairman of the Commonwealth Institute, Scotland has submitted a plan for keeping the body in being after 1996. This will be examined at the institute's executive committee meeting on 21 June, at which the Secretary of State will be represented.

  South Africa
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the procedures and time scales involved in dealing with a South African application to rejoin the Commonwealth.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Commonwealth Secretary-General announced on 31 May 1994 that, following consultations with member Governments, he had accepted South Africa's application to rejoin the Commonwealth and its renewed membership would be effective on 1 June 1994.

  Proposals will be put before the House in due course to give effect to South Africa's resumption of Commonwealth membership as it relates to Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

  Private Members' Bills
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have(a) requested parliamentary counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Parliamentary counsel drafts not on behalf of private members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. With the authority of Ministers, amendments were drafted by parliamentary counsel on the instructions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and subsequently passed to the private Member sponsoring the Antarctic Bill.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he supports the appointment of special rapporteurs for Rwanda and Burundi; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We supported the creation by the Commission on Human Rights of the post of special rapporteur on Rwanda and welcome the appointment of Mr. Rene Degni Segui. No member of the United Nations has called for the appointment of special rapporteur on Burundi, where the United Nations is focusing on preventive action.

  For Year

  KPMG £

  Touche Ross £

  Price Waterhouse £

  Ernst & Young £

  Theodore Goddard £

  Capita £

  CSL Group Ltd. £

  1989–90

  5,200

  164,800

  607,800

  nil

  2,500

  —

  nil

  1990–91

  357,800

  132,200

  679,800

  1,110,100

  44,800

  —

  7,800

  1991–92

  2,073,900

  564,600

  391,700

  1,771,500

  59,500

  —

  nil

  1992–93

  404,100

  8,000

  693,600

  237,000

  35,100

  12,000

  11,000

  1993–94

  702,800

  402,300

  1,331,200

  2,417,500

  35,000

  186,100

  91,200

  No money has been spent in the last years on consultancies by the following companies:

  Prime

  Basis

  Dibb Lupton Broomhead

  Shreeveport

  396
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the obstacles to the implementation of the United Nations Security Council's decision to deploy 5,500 troops in Rwanda; and how it is proposed to clear these obstacles.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The main obstacles will be to obtain the consent of both parties and to identify member states willing to contribute troops and equipment to the operation.

  The secretariat is working on these issues, and the Secretary-General is due to report to the Security Council on progress in the near future.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the United Nations Security Council intends to meet again about Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Security Council has discussed Rwanda in informal sessions several times since the adoption of Security Council resolution 918. The council will meet again in due course to consider the Secretary-General's report called for in SCR 918.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for each of the last five years, the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The table shows the identified costs of consultancy work by the named companies used by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic and aid wings in each of the last five financial years.

  Information on all other consultancies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The amounts spent on the named consultants by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Aid and Diplomatic Wings are as follows:

  Yemen
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which EC countries plan to offer sanctuary to non-Yemeni nationals resident in the Yemen who are forced to flee due to the civil war but whose travel documents do not confer a right of settlement elsewhere.
  397
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have not discussed with our European Union partners the subject of sanctuary for those leaving Yemen.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has to assist impartial non-Yemeni nationals caught up in the civil war in the Yemen to whom the facility of embassy help is not available.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Nationals from 23 other countries were evacuated with British citizens on flights arranged by the FCO which left Sana'a on 9 and 12 May. The British embassy in Sana' a continues to offer consular advice to British citizens and to unrepresented European Union and Commonwealth nationals who inquire.

  Kurdish People
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had, and with whom, concerning the rights of Kurdish people living under the control of the Turkish Government.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights and the problems of the Kurdish region of south-east Turkey with the Turkish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in Ankara in January and in Istanbul last week.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the exact time and date on which his Department were made aware of the contents of the statement made by Mr. Mak Foon Than Drax in Hong Kong in August 1983; and if he will make a statement.

  FCO (including ODA) contributions to United Nations specialised agencies (£ sterling)

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO)

  2,075,631

  2,519,459

  2,468,841

  2,781,607

  3,322,588

  Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO)

  8,610,850

  9,625,688

  10,095,585

  10,466,825

  12,130,211

  World Health Organisation (WHO)

  6,438,977

  13,278,191

  10,965,162

  11,648,673

  11,233,493

  International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

  3,213,140

  2,625,344

  2,381,364

  2,714,364

  1,425,000

  United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO)

  78,121

  156,468

  99,100

  136,159

  101,324

  International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA)

  458,680

  470,363

  241,598

  375,542

  595,466

  World Meteorological Organisation (WMO)

  0

  29,218

  206,857

  152,369

  91,493

  Iran
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific measures Her Majesty's Government(a) have taken and (b) plan to take to combat the activities of Iranian terrorists in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are very concerned about continuing reports of Iranian involvement in terrorism. We watch Iran's actions very closely but do not comment on specific measures taken to combat this problem.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the parliamentary human
  398
  Mr. Goodlad
  We became aware on 23 August 1983 of certain allegations made by Mr. Mak to the Royal Hong Kong police.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of all those who attended a meeting at 10.30 am in the chambers of the Attorney General of Hong Kong on 17 January 1985; and in what capacity each person was present.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The meeting held on 17 January 1985 took place in the office of the Financial Secretary and was attended by the late Sir John Bremridge, Financial Secretary: Michael Thomas, Attorney General; Mr. Chooi Mun-Sou; and an official from the Attorney General's office.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total time spent on bail awaiting trial by Mr. George Tan in Hong Kong since 1983; and when the Governor estimates that the trial of Mr. Tan might reach a conclusion.

  Mr. Goodlad
  George Tan was first arrested by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in April 1983. He has been on bail since then, except for a brief period when he was in custody. His trial is expected to reach a conclusion in 1995.

  United Nations Specialist Organisations
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department has given to each of the United Nations' specialist organisations in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department's contributions to the specialised agencies of the United Nations in each of the past five years are set out in the table.

  rights group report on the extra-territorial interference by Iran with Iranian citizens in exile, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We found the parliamentary human rights group's report on Iran a timely and useful contribution to the debate on Iran's human rights record. We remain seriously concerned at reports alleging Iranian responsibility for the assassination of dissidents in exile.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what investigations he has initiated into the recent allegations that the Iranian Government have given support to the IRA.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our investigations have shown conclusively that there have been contacts between Iranian
  399
  intelligence and the IRA. We shall continue to watch Iran's actions very closely to satisfy ourselves that there are no further exchanges.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew.Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government infonnation has been issued in both the diplomatic and aid wings. It includes a leaflet and application form available to members of the public on how to apply to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the code and guidance circulars to staff explaining the code and how to respond to inquiries received under it. Copies of these documents have been deposited in the Library. The aid wing will be issuing a leaflet for public use later this month. Additionally, the FCO's code of practice inquiry unit refers, as necessary, to the central guidance on interpretation.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts are being made in the European Union to assess the impact of the common agricultural policy upon developing countries and to alleviate any damaging effects.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The common agricultural policy was reformed in May 1992, partly because dumping of surplus produce on world markets under the European Community's agricultural policies was clearly affecting developing countries.

  The United Kingdom is pressing for reductions in EC price support and for better targeting of remaining support towards environmental and social objectives without detrimental effect on developing countries.

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what joint initiatives Her Majesty's Government have proposed at the United Nations to combat international terrorism.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our European partners have expressed our continuing concern in the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights about the problem of international terrorism. The resolution adopted at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights specifically urged the Government of Iran to refrain from activities against members of the Iranian opposition abroad and to co-operate whole-heartedly with the authorities of other countries in investigating and punishing offences reported by them.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise at the next political co-operation meeting of the 400
  Foreign Affairs Council the measures required to combat the activities of terrorist groups from outside EU member states operating within the European Community member states.

  Mr. Hogg
  There are no plans to raise this subject at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council but we do have regular contacts with our European Union partners about how best to tackle the problems of terrorism.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Indonesian Government over the death of the trades union activist Ms Titi Sugiasti in Bandung, West Java in April.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I understand that the Indonesian police, who are investigating the case referred to by the hon. Member, have not yet drawn any conclusions from their inquiries. The British embassy in Indonesia will continue to monitor developments.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the United States-sponsored resolution in the United Nations calling for an immediate halt to the export of all anti-personnel mines; and if he will set out his reasons.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom supported this resolution; however, in doing so, we stated our view that anti-personnel land mines directed at military targets are legitimate defensive weapons. If they are used in accordance with protocol II of the United Nations weaponry convention, and particularly if they are fitted with self-destructing or self-neutralising mechanisms, they do not pose the same dangers to civilian populations. We think that it would be wrong if possession of self-destructing or self-neutralising anti-personnel mines were restricted to countries with the capacity to manufacture them; and therefore we do not consider that such mines fall within the scope of this resolution.

  China
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government regarding the re-arrest of Wei Jingsheng.

  Mr. Goodlad
  European Union representatives in Peking last month expressed to the Chinese authorities the concern of all European Union Governments about the arrest of Wei Jingsheng and requested his immediate release.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each visit made to Malaysia by Mr. N. MacKillop of the Royal Hong Kong police in connection with the Carrian and related cases since 1983; whether the Malaysian authorities were formerly notified of each of these visits; and whether the Malaysian authorities were given access to all the documents obtained in Malaysia by Mr. MacKillop, including those found in a vehicle in Kuala Lumpur.
  401
  Mr. Goodlad
  There was one visit to Malaysia by two senior officers of the Royal Hong Kong police, one of whom was Mr. N. MacKillop. The visit was official and was arranged through Interpol. At all times the Malaysian authorities were aware of the visit. No documents were seized and the officers concerned have no recollection of any documents being found in a vehicle in Kuala Lumpur.

  Law of the Sea
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom timetable for signing the UN convention on the law of the sea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The UN convention on the law of the sea—UNCLOS—is no longer open for signature. We are considering whether to accept the proposed agreement on the implementation of part XI of the convention and thereafter whether to accede to UNCLOS.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made as to which major maritime nations will not sign the UN convention on the law of the sea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The UN convention on the law of the sea is no longer open for signature. The United Kingdom, United States and Germany did not sign the convention when it was open for signature.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries which have signed the new law of the sea convention; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Some 155 states and four other entities signed the law of the sea convention when it was open for signature between 1982 and 1984. Some 61 states have now ratified or acceded to the convention. I have placed in the House of Commons Library a list of signatories and one of ratifiers and acceders.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made as to which developed countries are expected to sign the United Nations convention on the law of the sea.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Most developed countries, but not the United Kingdom, United States or Germany, signed the United Nations convention on the law of the sea after it was opened for signature in 1982. No major developed country ratified the convention. Many may now do so following the adoption of the agreement on the implementation of part XI of the convention, which the General Assembly is to consider in July.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the timetable for the adoption of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations convention on the law of the sea was adopted by the third United Nations conference on the law of the sea in 1982. The agreement on the implementation of part XI of the convention will be considered by the United Nations General Assembly with a view to its adoption in July 1994. The convention itself comes into force on 16 November 1994.
  402
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the likely timetable for agreement to be reached on part II of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea; and if he will list the countries which have raised objections to it, indicting the nature of the objections.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Part II of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea has not been the subject of any negotiation since UNCLOS was concluded in 1982. Many industrialised countries objected to the terms of part XI, concerning deep seabed mining, including the United Kingdom, United States and Germany, which refused to sign the Convention. The United Nations Secretary-General's consultations on part XI, which began in 1990, have recently been concluded. A draft resolution and a draft agreement on the implementation of part XI will be submitted to the United Nations General Assembly on 27 to 29 July. I have placed in the House of Commons Library a copy of the draft resolution and agreement.

  Embassies and Consulates
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the annual cost of British embassies and consulates in(a) the United States and (b) the world.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The annual cost of British embassies and consulates in 1992–93, the latest financial year for which final expenditure figures are available, was:

  (a) the United States £33 million.

  (b) the world £365 million.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement of the role played by British embassies and consulates in protecting the rights of British citizens when travelling abroad.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The functions which consular officers may perform are set out in article 5 of the Vienna convention on consular relations and the corresponding provisions of the bilateral consular conventions.

  The role of consular officers varies according to the circumstances of individual cases. Each year consular staff overseas deal with over 2 million inquiries from British citizens.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements are made to respond to urgent facsimile or other messages concerning immigration cases that are sent by his staff to British embassies during public holidays.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  All British diplomatic missions overseas designate a duty officer to attend to urgent matters which arise outside normal working hours.

  Arms Control Department
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why his Department's arms control and disarmament department has been disbanded.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The arms control and disarmament department has been disbanded as part of a wider redistribution of work on defence, security and non-proliferation issues aimed at providing a more
  403
  coherent and effective response to the international security challenge that we now face, including in the areas of arms control and disarmament. All work formerly done by ACDD has now been reallocated either to the non-proliferation department or to the security policy department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  It is not FCO practice to issue public consultation documents.

  Overseas Crime
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department and British consulates overseas take to ensure that British citizens who are victims of crimes committed in overseas countries are guaranteed access to justice under the legal system pertaining in the country where the crime is committed.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Where British nationals become victims of crime in other countries, consular officers will ensure that they are advised how to report the crime to the local authorities and, if appropriate, assisted to do so. It is for individuals to pursue redress through the local legal system, based, if necessary, on advice given to them by a local lawyer.

  Criminal Justice Procedures
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Government receives representations from foreign Governments relating to citizens of those Governments involved in cases before British courts; and if his Government make representations to foreign Governments relating to British citizens involved in cases before the courts of those Governments.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We are not aware of any recent case where a foreign Government have questioned judicial proceedings. Interventions are not made by British officials in cases which are before properly constituted courts in foreign countries.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure that the Government ratify the chemical weapons convention by the time it is scheduled to enter into force.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are committed to ratifying the chemical weapons convention and will introduce the necessary implementing legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Cyprus
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he and (b) one of his Ministers next plans to visit Cyprus (i) to discuss a solution to the problems of the island and (ii) for other purposes.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are no plans for a visit to Cyprus by an FCO Minister in the immediate future.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he plans to support Cyprus's application to join the European Union.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The United Kingdom has welcomed Cyprus's membership application. There are clearly difficulties in Cyprus joining the European Union while the intercommunal dispute remains unresolved. The Council will review Cyprus's application early in 1995 in the light of developments in the intercommunal process. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom supports the Commission's talks with Cyprus to familiarise it with the EC's existing legislation.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ministers have visited the Republic of Cyprus since 1979(a) to discuss a solution to the political problems there and (b) for other purposes; who those Ministers were; and which Cypriot Ministers they met.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Ministerial visits to Cyprus since 1979 are set out in the table:

  (a) Ministerial visits to Cyprus to discuss a solution to the political problems there:

  April 1980 — Lord Privy Seal (Rt. Hon. Sir Ian Gilmour) met President Kyprianou and Foreign Minister Rolandis.

  October 1983 — (Lady Young), Minister of State, FCO met President Kyprianou, Foreign Minister Iacovou and Defence Minister Veniamin

  October 1993 — The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary met President Clerides and Foreign Minister Michaelides

  (b) Ministerial visits to Cyprus for other purposes:

  December 1992 — (Mr. Hugh Rossi, MP), Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled met Mr. Papageorgliou, Minister for Labour and Social Insurance.

  September 1983 — (Mrs. Peggy Fenner), Parliamentary Secretary, MAFF, met Mr. Andreou, Minister of Commerce.

  September 1983 — (Mr. Richard Luce), Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, met Mr. Veniamin, the Acting Foreign Minister.

  November 1983 — (Mr. Channon), United Kingdom Minister for Trade, met Mr. Andreou.

  July 1984 — (Mr. Peter Brooke), Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the Department of Education and Science, attended Commonwealth Education Ministers Conference.

  September 1989 — (Mr. David Mellor), Minister of State, Department of Health, attended Conference of European Ministers responsible for Family Affairs.

  October 1990 — (Baroness Hooper), Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, attended Conference of European Health Ministers.

  June 1992 — (Mr. Michael Jack), Minister of State at the Home Office, attended meeting of European Ministers of Justice.

  October 1992 — (Dr. Brian Mawhinney), Minister of State for Health attended Commonwealth Health Ministers Conference.

  May 1993 — The Lord Chancellor, (Lord Mackay of Clashfern), attended Commonwealth Law Conference.

  September 1993 — (Lady Chalker), Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and Minister for Overseas Development, attended Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when he expects to put in the British submissions to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons;

  (2) what representations he has received and what consultations he has held on the British submissions to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons;

  (3) whether his submissions to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons will be published or placed in the Library.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 547.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have participated in the EU discussions within the framework of working groups on a common European foreign policy in respect of the application by the World Health Organisation to the International Court of Justice on nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  They have.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his submissions to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons will embrace the question of threat to use as well as possession and use.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The request is for an opinion on whether the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict would be lawful, and that question is addressed by our submission.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to other EU Governments about an EU submission to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons, on concerting individual Government submissions or on a common EU position on the issue.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 547. In drafting our submission, we have had consultations with Government Departments, allies, and some European partners.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will be seeking parliamentary approval for the British Government's submission to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. Our submission to the International Court of Justice will be approved by relevant Ministers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the admissibility of the World Health Organisation submission to the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As we made clear during the debate at the World Health Assembly in 1993, we do not 406
  consider that the question of the legality of nuclear weapons is within the competence of the World Health Organisation. We have great respect for the valuable work that the World Health Organisation has conducted in the health field. The legality of nuclear weapons, however, is an entirely different matter.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development talks on Sudan which concluded in Nairobi on 17 May; and what are the prospects for further peace talks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  On 17 May the Government of Sudan and Sudan People's Liberation Army factions signed an agreement on the opening of specific air destinations and surface corridors to humanitarian relief supplies. The next round of talks is scheduled for mid-July.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Courts (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will set out for each year since 1990(a) the total amount of spending incurred in respect of the administration of the courts in Wales and (b) the total number of staff employed by the courts in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table sets out the total amount of spending incurred since 1990 in respect of the administration of the magistrates courts in Wales, and the Crown county courts on the Wales and Chester circuit which includes areas in Cheshire. Figures for 1993–94 have not yet been finalised.

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  32·974

  1991–92

  39·896

  1992–93

  46·695

  The table sets out the total number of permanent staff employed in the magistrates courts in Wales and in the Crown and county courts in the Wales and Chester circuit on 31 December of each year.

  Year

  Number

  1990

  1,270·0

  1991

  1,297·5

  1992

  1,269·5

  1993

  1,277·5

  Solicitors' Firms (Franchises)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish the number of solicitors' firms which have so far applied to the Legal Aid Board for a franchise.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Some 933 firms of solicitors have applied to the Legal Aid Board for a franchise in one or more franchised categories of work. This represents a total of 1,512 offices which have made such an application.

EMPLOYMENT

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he plans to publish his departtnental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on freedom of information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April, and what has been the cause of delay in publication of the guidance.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Internal guidance notes on the operation of the code of practice in the Employment Department and in the Employment Service have been available for some time; the Health and Safety Executive's internal guidance will be available shortly; the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service relies on the central guidance on interpretation of the code of practice. Copies of internal guidance notes are being placed in the Library.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evaluation he has made of the Fire Brigades Union report entitled, "Cutting the Lifeline", on the implications for fire safety of the proposals under consideration by his security task force, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The review team has considered all submissions made to it as part of the inter-departmental review on enforcement of fire safety legislation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State awaits the review team's report.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many chairs of industrial tribunals are currently employed; and at what total cost per annum.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Chairmen of industrial tribunals may be either full time—that is, salaried—or part time—paid on a sessional basis. The numbers of chairmen in post at 31 March and the estimated costs for the 12 months up to that date were as follows:

  Full-time chairmen

  Part-time chairmen

  Numbers

  84

  199

  Cost

  £4,961,076

  £2,122,531

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment from which organisations the lay members of industrial tribunals are selected.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In accordance with the legislation governing the industrial tribunals, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State appoints the lay members after consultation with a number of bodies representing employers and employees. In the last appointment round the following organisations were consulted:

  Employer Bodies:

  Association of British Chambers of Commerce

  Confederation of British Industry

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Department of Health (in respect of NHS Management)

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Institute of Directors

  408

  Local Government Management Board

  National Chamber of Trade

  British Retail Consortium

  Employee Bodies:

  Council of Managerial and Professional Staffs

  Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union

  Federation of Managerial, Professional and General Associations

  Royal College of Midwives

  Royal College of Nursing

  Trades Union Congress

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time for which industrial tribunal hearing rooms are occupied each day.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The average length of a sitting day for the industrial tribunals, England and Wales, for the 12 months ended 31 March was 3.83 hours. To this must be added around half an hour preparing for the hearing and discussing the decision. These figures take no account of time spent on related interlocutory work and drafting and checking the tribunal's decision. I regret that figures are not available for the industrial tribunals, Scotland.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the chairs of industrial tribunals are(a) women and (b) from the ethnic minorities.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The figures are as follows:

  Per cent.

  Full-time chairmen

  Part-time chairmen

  Women

  14·3

  6·8

  Ethnic minorities

  3·6

  1·6

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what sums are required from applicants to industrial tribunals by way of a deposit; and in what circumstances any such deposit will not be returned.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Applicants, or respondents, may be ordered to pay a deposit of up to £150 as a condition of proceeding with their case where at a pre-hearing review the industrial tribunal considers that they have no reasonable prospect of success. The deposit is only forfeited, in full or in part, if parties lose their case at full hearing and have costs awarded against them. In that case the deposit goes towards payment of the costs.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average daily, weekly, monthly or annual fee of a chairperson of an industrial tribunal.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The figures as at 31 March are as follows:

  £

  Regional chairmen (annual salary)

  65,912

  Full-time chairmen (annual salary)

  54,035

  Part-time chairmen (daily fee)

  246

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many adult males were employed in the United Kingdom in(a) 1964 and (b)
  409
  Miss Widdecombe
  In June 1964 there were 16,488,000 males in the work force in employment in the United Kingdom, compared to 13,718,000 in June 1993. Over the same period, female numbers rose from 8,444,000 to 11,520,000.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many married women were employed in the United Kingdom in(a) 1964 and (b)

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimate for spring 1993 from the labour force survey for the United Kingdom is that 8.4 million married women were in employment.

  There are no equivalent LFS estimates before 1979, but the census of population held in 1966 shows 5 million married women in employment in the United Kingdom.

  Southwark

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Tower Hamlets

  Claimant unemployed 18–24 year olds (April 1994)

  5395

  6,046

  4,943

  4,277

  Further Education students aged 18–25 years domiciled within each borough1 (academic year 1992–93)

  Full-time and Sandwich

  1,015

  1,456

  1,018

  1,108

  Part-time

  1,526

  2,282

  1,677

  1,451

  Total

  2,541

  3,738

  2,695

  2,559

  1 Students may study in places other than where they are domiciled.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the London borough of Southwark have found employment in the last 12 months; and how many of these jobs were(a) full-time and (b) part-time or job share.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information held centrally relates only to the number of people placed into jobs by the Employment Service jobcentres and numbers of people leaving claimant unemployment.

  Between April 1993 and April 1994 jobcentres covering the Southwark area placed 9,591 people into employment. Nineteen out of 20 of all the jobcentre vacancies filled in Southwark during this period were for full-time jobs and the remainder for part-time. It should be noted that, nationally, only about one quarter of all engagements are made through jobcentres. Figures are not available for job-share vacancies.

  In the Southwark local authority area the unadjusted number of people leaving claimant unemployment between April 1993 and April 1994 was 24,198. Information is not routinely available on the destinations of claimants who leave unemployment. However, past survey evidence indicates that the majority of people who leave claimant unemployment go into jobs.

  Psychometric Testing
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what use his Department makes of psychometric testing techniques; what plans he has to extend the use of psychometric testing techniques in his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department's main use of psychometric tests is in the individual assessment of the capabilities of, people with disabilities by placing, assessment and counselling teams. Where tests are used,
  410
  Mr. Plckthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many men between the ages of 18 and 45 years were unemployed in 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the United Kingdom, in 1993, the average level of claimant unemployment, unadjusted for seasonal effects, stood at 1,700,561 among men aged between 18 and 44—the closest available age group.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people in the London boroughs of Southwark, Lambeth, Lewisham and Tower Hamlets between the ages of 18 and 25 years are in(a) further education, (b) Government employment training schemes and (c) currently unemployed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The available information for individual boroughs, which does not cover participants in Government training schemes, is given in the table:

  performance then forms part of the basis for counselling and action planning to support people's efforts to find employment. Internally, the Department uses psychometric tests to a limited extent in its management development programmes.

  Providers with whom the Department contracts to deliver services to unemployed people may choose to use psychometric tests. Guidance is made available through a regularly updated, "Review of Psychometric Tests for Assessment in Vocational Training"; this authorative publication was initiated by the Department and is now maintained by the British Psychological Society.

  The Department has no plans to extend the use of psychometric tests as such, but will do so where they offer a cost-effective addition to the basis for decisions.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to. be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Where comments are sought in consultation exercises, it is already the Department's usual practice to make clear that they are sought on the understanding that they can be made publicly available unless respondents have requested that their remarks be treated as confidential.

  North Yorkshire TEC
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the administration cost of the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council for 1993–94.
  411
  Miss Widdecombe
  During the 1993–94 financial year, the North Yorkshire training and enterprise council received a management fee from the Employment Department of £1,460,995. The administrative costs of the TEC will be shown in its audited accounts which will be published shortly.

  Training
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure on(a) employment training and (b) youth training in 1993 within the Greater London area; and how many (i) men and (ii) women were on such schemes.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Table 1 shows the total expenditure on training for work, which replaced employment training in 1993 and youth training in 1993 within the Greater London area. Information on the number of men and women on YT and TFW is not available in the format requested. Table 2, however, shows how many men and women started on these schemes throughout 1993.

  Table 1 Total expenditure 1993–94 contract year (Provisional)

  £

  Youth Training

  47,960,837

  Youth Credits

  9,958,616

  Total Youth Training and Youth Credits

  57,919,453

  Training for Work

  60,036,946

  Notes:

  1. The 1993–94 Contract Year is 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994.

  2. The expenditure figure is provisional and may be revised. Training and Enterprise Councils have 4 accounting periods (an accounting period is 4 weeks) in which to bring to account expenditure relating to their 1993–94 contract.

  3. From 29 March 1993 Training for Work replaced Employment Training, Employment Action and High Technology National Training. Training for Work offers people who are long term unemployed the opportunity to improve and update skills or learn new ones, or to do temporary work of benefit to the community.

  Table 2 Trainee starts during the 1993–94 contract year

  Male

  Female

  Youth Training

  9,640

  6,912

  Youth Credits

  3,781

  2,778

  Total Youth Training and Youth Credits

  13,421

  9,690

  Training for Work

  27,057

  18,916

  Note: Youth Credits is a system which gives school leavers an entitlement usually in the form of a voucher or 'smart-card' with a specific monetary value, to purchase vocational training from employers or training providers.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, (1) pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 50, about the destinations of youth trainees by training and enterprise council area, if he will update the table to cover the period July 1992 to June 1993;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 21 March, Official Report, column 50, about qualifications obtained by employment training and training for work leavers, if he will update the table to cover the period July 1992 to June 1993;
  412
  (3) pursuant to his answer of 21 March, Official Report, column 50, about the destination of employment training and training for work trainees, if he will update the table to cover the period July 1992 to June 1993;

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 21 March, Official Report, column 50, about the destination of youth trainees, if he will update the tables to cover the period July 1992 to June 1993;

  (5) pursuant to his answer of 21 March, Official Report, column 50, about the destinations of employment training and training for work leavers in each training and enterprise council area, if he will update the table to cover the period July 1992 to June 1993;

  (6) pursuant to his answer of 21 March, Official Report, column 50, about the qualifications obtained by employment training and training for work leavers in each training and enterprise council area, if he will update the table to cover the period July 1992 to June 1993.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the information is contained in a number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Modern Apprenticeship Scheme
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what wage rates trainees on the modern apprenticeship scheme will receive; and how long an apprenticeship will last.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Wage rates will be a matter between the employer and the young person, reflecting the employer's investment in the training and the expectation of the young person of improved wage rates later on. Modern apprenticeships are not time bound; there will be flexible arrangements for the time individuals need to become qualified, which could by three years or longer.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what industries and types of work are to be covered by the modern apprenticeship scheme as set out in the "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" White Paper; and what has been the change in the number of jobs in these areas since 1979.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The modern apprenticeships initiative will make a major contribution to Britain's skill supply by providing young people with high quality training in technical, craft, supervisory and junior management occupations across a wide range of sectors. The intention is that from September 1995 the modern apprenticeship initiative will cover all sectors, but prototypes will run in the following sectors from September 1994: agriculture, business administration, chemicals, child-care, electrical installation, engineering manufacturing, engineering construction, information technology, marine engineering, Merchant Navy, polymers, retail, steel and travel service.

  Information about changes in the number of jobs in these areas is not available in the form and for the period requested. The basis on which occupational information is collected was changed in 1989.

  The table provides estimates of the numbers of people working in these occupations for spring 1993 and spring 1991, the earliest date for which comparable data are available:
  413

  Employees of working age in Great Britain

  Occupation

  1991

  1993

  Change+-(Thousands)

  Change Percentage

  Managers and Administrators

  2,708,736

  2,980,610

  +272

  +10·0

  Associate professional and technical occupations

  1,875,301

  1,882,160

  +7

  +0·4

  Craft and related occupations

  2,758,326

  2,278,945

  -479

  -17·4

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Should the hon. Member require information about the earlier period between 1979 and 1989, I will send it to him and place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of(a) low pay and (b) job insecurity on skills levels in the areas covered by the modern apprenticeship scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Lack of skills often leads to low-paid insecure jobs. By gaining high-quality, relevant skills, young people can improve their employment and earnings prospects. Modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern apprenticeships will help 70,000 young people a year to attain such skills.

  Unrealistic pay levels for young people would result in reduced employment and poorer opportunities.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his oral statement of 24 May,Official Report, column 197, what is his estimate of the cost of implementing the recommendations contained in the Health and Safety Commission's "Review of Regulations" report.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Commission's "Review of Regulations" is intended to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory regime. Most of what needs to be done lies within the commission's existing remit, and builds on the approach that it has taken over the past 20 years. The commission has advised me that it will begin to implement its proposals and recommendations on the basis of its existing public expenditure provision; but the matter will be kept under review.

  Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the total recurrent costs of employment in the private and public sectors are the estimates of £75 million and £20.4 million costs to private and public sector employers, respectively, given in the compliance cost assessment in respect of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the total costs of employment in the public and private sectors is not available.

  Structural Unemployment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what he considers to be the current level of structural unemployment in London; and what assessment he has made of the trend of changes in this level.
  414
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no generally recognised and commonly used definition of structural unemployment.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made in negotiations with the European Union for the utilisation of Britain's allocation of money under the European social fund objective 3.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The European Commission opened formal negotiations on the United Kingdom objective 3 plan on 27 April. Subsequently, there have been two further negotiating meetings. The United Kingdom has consistently pressed for speedy progress and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for what purposes he is using objective 3 money from the European social fund.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Great Britain plan for European social fund objective 3 in 1994–99 outlines the purposes for which the Government propose to use the money. A copy of this document is in the Library. The plan has not yet been agreed by the European Commission.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 3 May,Official Report, column 428, for what reasons he decided not to use any of Britain's allocation of European social fund money for objective 4.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 25 January,Official Report, column 223.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

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

  Private Investigation Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 166, how much his Department has spent

  415
  on private investigation services during the last two years; if he will list those companies which have been employed by his Department during this period; what safeguards his Department took to ensure that these agencies were members of the Association of British Investigators; and what guidelines are currently in operation within his Department as regards this matter.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  In the last two years, the Employment Service has twice instructed solicitors to use private investigation services as detailed in the previous answer of 11 May 1994,Official Report, column 166. In the first case, the cost to the ES from the private solicitor was £75. In the second case, the ES has not yet been billed by the Treasury Solicitor; the cost is estimated to be £100.

  In both cases the solicitors who engaged the investigation agencies were responsible for ensuring that they were reputable.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Lord President of the Council in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office does not normally issue public consultation documents. Any future exercise would be conducted in accordance with the code of practice on government information and any other relevant guidance.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, how many representations the Commission has received regarding the need for a creche
  in the parliamentary estate.

  Mr. Beith
  In this Parliament the Member answering for the Commission and the Chairman of the Administration Committee have replied to 24 oral or written questions regarding the provision of child care. A further six questions to the Commission stand on the Order Paper for oral reply. In addition, 47 Members have so far added their names to early-day motion 862.

  Legislation (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list each Bill presented to Parliament since 1964 which has proposed setting up an elected body for Wales, indicating the year of presentation, the proposer and the final stage at which it arrived.

  Mr. Newton
  The Scotland and Wales Bill introduced in 1974 was subsequently lost in the House of Commons in 1976.

  The "Wales Bill" introduced in 1977, received Royal Assent on 31 July 1978 and was later repealed in 1979 following a referendum.
  416
  Information on private Bills and private Members' Bills can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Office of Gas Supply
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Minister made the appointment of the Director General of Gas Supply; and if he will make a statement on the process involved in the appointment.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The appointment was made by me in accordance with section 1 of the Gas Act 1986. External executive search consultants were employed, and the post was advertised in the national press.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place a copy of the job specification for the Director General of Gas Supply in the Library.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I am arranging for a copy of the job specification given to the executive search consultants to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the interviews for the appointment of the Director General of Gas Supply were made.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The ministerial interviews for the shortlisted candidates for the appointment of Director General of Gas Supply took place on 20 and 22 July and on 1 September 1993.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which company was used in the recruitment of the Director General of Gas Supply.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Saxton Bampfylde was appointed as the executive search consultants in connection with the appointment.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the blocks on the United Kingdom continental shelf that have been licensed to oil companies, and have been identified as containing oil and gas reserves, have remained undeveloped for more than eight years since the blocks were first licensed; what are the combined estimated reserves of those blocks; and how many blocks lie off the coast of the north-west of England.

  Mr. Eggar
  Up until the end of 1985, there are a total of 106 significant discoveries in 87 blocks without development approval.

  Of these 106 significant discoveries, 15—in 13 blocks—are presently under discussion for development.

  The remaining 91 significant discoveries—in 77 blocks—contain estimated total gas reserves of 5,777 billion cubic feet, and oil and condensate reserves of 1,767 million barrels.

  One discovery block of these 91 discoveries is in the north-west area of England.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans the Government have to encourage oil
  417
  companies to bring forward their development plans to maintain the level of United Kingdom engineering expertise.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have frequent discussions with the oil industry to see whether there are any fiscal measures that can be introduced which will encourage development.

  In addition to this, my officials review with the companies on a regular basis their programmes for future developments. Where they identify discoveries with no foreseeable development, the companies are encouraged to offer them, by sale or swap, to other companies.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade under what circumstances blocks that have been licensed to oil companies can be confiscated on the grounds that they have not been developed; and what is the maximum period a block can be left unexplored or undeveloped before the Government will take action.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under the current regulations that govern licences in seaward areas, licensees are required to submit a development plan within a period of 18 years if the licence period is to be extended. If there is any breach or non-observance by the licensees of any terms and conditions of the licence, including exploration and drilling commitments, the Secretary of State may revoke the licence.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those blocks which he considers should never be licensed for oil exploration because of their environmental sensitivity.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: I attach great importance to environmental considerations in the exploration for our oil and gas reserves, and will continue to do so. Knowledge of environmental sensitivities is developing over time, as are the methods of addressing them and the techniques used in exploration. I will, of course, continue to discuss the offer of blocks with environmental organisations—including the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—and will take their views into account when deciding which blocks can be licensed.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the allocation of blocks to companies for oil and gas in the Irish sea; and what environmental restrictions have been put on these companies.

  Mr. Eggar
  The following operating companies hold licences to explore for oil and gas in the Irish Sea and develop any finds:

  Amoco
  113/29, 113/30

  Arco
  107/21

  British Gas Exploration and Production
  110/2A, 110/2B, 110/3A, 110/8A, 110/9A, 110/15, 111/3, 111/4, 111/8, 110/10, 111/15, 113/26A, 113/27A

  Chevron
  103/3, 106/28, 106/29, 110/18

  Clyde
  113/28

  Conoco
  110/5, 110/11A
  418
  Deminex
  109/15

  Elf Enterprise Caledonia
  108/29, 108/30, 111/25, 111/29, 111/30

  Esso
  112/10, 112/14, 112/15, 113/11

  Hamilton
  103/2, 103/7, 107/1, 107/6, 110/6, 110/7C, 110/13, 110/15

  Kelt
  110/7B

  Marathon
  102/10, 103/1, 103/6, 106/18, 106/19, 106/23, 106/27, 110/17

  Oryx
  110/3B, 110/3C, 110/9B

  Premier
  110/10

  Ranger
  110/4

  Where necessary, appropriate conditions have been attached to licences to protect any environmental sensitivities which have been identified. A copy of each of the environmental protection conditions which were attached to licences awarded in the 14th round of licensing has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Engineers
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans the Government have developed to promote the involvement of professionally qualified engineers in the design, construction, operation and management of engineering projects and processes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Government made it clear in the White Paper on competitiveness—Cm. 2563—that adopting best practice and improving management skills in engineering is important and that United Kingdom firms should utilise and reward engineering skills at all levels. It is, however, ultimately up to employers to decide how they best involve engineers in their businesses.

  Objective 1 Projects
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to issue details of the rules and regulations governing the role of the private sector in objective 1 projects; when he expects that discussions with the European Commission concerning additionality will be resolved; what progress is being made in expediting the Merseyside objective 1 programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Negotiations with the European Commission on the Merseyside objective 1 single programming document are nearing their conclusion.

  There is already guidance on the role of the private sector in structural funds projects. This is currently under review by United Kingdom Government Departments and the European Commission.

  AEA Technology
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 27 April,Official Report, column 166, how many staff from the Warren Springs Laboratory transferred to AEA Technology on 1 April; and what were the redundancy costs of those staff that did not transfer.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Eighty-five Warren Spring Laboratory staff were transferred to AEA Technology. Some staff who did not transfer have taken posts elsewhere in the civil service. There have been no compulsory redundancies. It will take some time before the full costs of staff severance are known but they are expected to be less than £5 million.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each of the last five years, the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broornhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My Department is unable to provide the information requested other than at disproportionate cost.

  Jordan
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the total value of United Kingdom exports to Jordan, and also the value of each of the broad category titles of the standard international trade classification for(a) 1971 to 1980 and (b) 1981 to 1990.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information is provided in the following table:

  Value of United Kingdom Exports to Jordan (£ million, Current Prices)

  Section Description

  1971–80

  1981–90

  0 Food and live animals

  23·9

  67·8

  1 Beverages and tobacco

  7·1

  22·3

  2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels

  2·0

  6·4

  3 Mineral fuels, lubricants, and related materials

  3·7

  12·7

  4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes

  0·7

  1·8

  5 Chemicals and related products, not elsewhere specified

  46·2

  145·3

  6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material

  88·0

  204·4

  7 Machinery and transport equipment

  207·6

  621·9

  8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles

  49·5

  167·4

  9 Commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere

  18·5

  581·5

  TOTAL

  447·1

  1,831·3

  Source: Overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Exports Credit Guarantee Department support was offered to the Kingdom of Jordan or any contractors supplying the Kingdom in connection with, or as a result of, the memorandum of undertaking signed on 28 November 1979.
  420
  Mr. Heseltine
  Yes.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether exported material requiring an export licence, and later returned to the United Kingdom for repair or modification, requires a fresh export licence; and if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance that exists on this point.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Goods subject to United Kingdom export control at the time they are re-exported in the circumstances described require the authorisation of an export licence. Many such exports are authorised under open general export licences. Copies of the relevant licences have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Where goods were initially exported under the authority of an individual licence, they may normally be re-exported under the terms of the original licence.

  Private Members' Bills
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have(a) requested parliamentary counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Parliamentary counsel drafts not on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers.

  On no occasions since April 1992 have amendments been drafted by parliamentary counsel on instructions from DTI and subsequently passed to private Members.

  Post Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy that postal deliveries to very rural areas will be safeguarded if the proposed privatisation of the Post Office is implemented.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Yes. We have repeatedly made clear that the universal service to every address in the country, at a uniform tariff, is non-negotiable.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to safeguard two daily mail deliveries if the Post Office is privatised.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of deliveries a day is currently an operational issue for the Post Office. There are significant parts of the country where there is only one daily delivery. Regulatory arrangements in the event of a change in the status of the Royal Mail will be covered in the forthcoming Green Paper.

  Pensions and Life Insurance
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from companies operating in the pension and life industry advocating direct Government regulation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, the Secretary of State has direct responsibility
  421
  for the regulation of all United Kingdom authorised insurance companies. The industry seeks no change from the present arrangements.

  Military Exhibitions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what United Kingdom firms have been supported by his Department to attend any military, security or police exhibition(a) within the United Kingdom or (b) overseas since 1979; and if he will detail the nature of the support and the number of companies which attended each event.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department of Trade and Industry does not provide support for United Kingdom firms to attend exhibitions within the United Kingdom.

  The Department does provide support for United Kingdom firms to attend overseas exhibitions in the form of a subvention towards the cost of participation. Relevant information for the period before 1 April 1988 can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. For the period after that date, support for firms attending military, security or police exhibitions has been provided as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of events

  Number of firms

  1988–89

  4

  70

  1989–90

  4

  114

  1990–91

  7

  131

  1991–92

  10

  151

  1992–93

  12

  266

  1993–94

  9

  95

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on freedom of information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publication of the guidance.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has not produced its own guidance on interpretation of the open government code of practice. We rely on the central guidance which has already been placed in the Library of the House.

  Guidance on procedures for operating the code within my Department has, however, been available for some time. I am sending the hon. Member a copy and also placing copies in the Library of the House.

  Electrified Fencing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many export licences have been granted for past and on-going exports of electrified fencing and barrier products designed to deliver electric shocks to people;

  (2) what licensing requirements apply to the export of electrified fencing and barrier products designed to deliver electric shocks to people.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Electrified fencing and barriers are not in themselves licensable under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994. Portable anti-riot devices for administering an electric shock or an incapacitating substance, and riot control vehicles electrified to repel boarders are controlled under the legislation. Details of the number of export licences approved for these controlled items could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on matters discussed and decisions taken, including details of any matters on which votes were taken, at the Energy Council in Brussels on 25 May.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Council considered several issues and received reports from the Commission on matters of interest. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached unanimous political agreement on guidelines for energy trans-European networks. It was agreed that a formal common position, including a decision on a list of projects of common interest, should, if possible, be taken at the next Energy Council. This would allow enough time for the projects to be considered individually and for the opinion of the European Parliament to be taken into account.

  The Commission reported to the Council on progress on the European energy charter treaty. It was agreed that the Community should work for the treaty to be concluded later this month.

  There was a discussion of the electricity liberalisation directive, and general endorsement of the need for further work on five key areas. These are: access to networks, public service obligations, a system for providing new capacity, unbundling of accounts and the role of the system operator.

  There was a general discussion of the need for a Community energy policy. A Commission proposal for a Green Paper was welcomed. The importance of consulting widely within industry was supported by several member states. The Commission presented its proposal for Thermie II, which is concerned with support for near-market energy technology projects, their demonstration and dissemination of the results.

  The Council adopted, unanimously, conclusions on two Commission communications. One was on energy and cohesion and the other on nuclear safety in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The hydrocarbon licensing directive, which had been agreed at the 10 December 1993 Energy Council, was adopted unanimously without discussion.

  Apart from the "A" points which were agreed without discussion, no formal votes were taken by the Council.

  System X
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many system X telecommunication systems have been exported since 1989; and to which countries.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Exports of system X telecommunications systems have been made to the following countries: the United States of America, Russia, China, Colombia, Gibraltar, Kenya, India, Kuwait, the Falklands and the Philippines. Information on the number of systems exported is not publically available and is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he made of the implications for environmental protection when he drew up the proposal contained in his report on competitiveness, Cm 2563.
  423
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The United Kingdom sustainable development strategy—Cm 2426—published in January 1994, outlined the Government's proposals for ensuring that future economic development and environmental protection are fully compatible. The proposals in Cm 2563 are fully consistent with the principles set out in the strategy, and in particular take account of the Government's determination to seek the least burdensome and prescriptive means for achieving its environmental objectives.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he plans in the loan guarantee scheme or similar assistance to small firms in the context of the publication of the competitiveness White Paper.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The small firms loan guarantee scheme was changed significantly twice during 1993. There are no current plans to further amend to the scheme.

  £ thousand

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Employment Department

  Scottish Office

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Welsh Office

  Cost of copies for external distribution

  Purchases of White Paper from HMSO

  12

  5

  1

  1

  1

  Production of 5,000 copies of an offprint of Education and Training chapter

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Production of 130,000 copies of the summary version

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Production of 3,500 copies of the bilingual summary version

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Distribution costs

  70

  2

  1—

  1—

  1

  1 Item less than £500

  Table: Estimated costs of external distribution of competitiveness White Paper and related documents.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department requires staff to report job offers. However, there is no central record kept of such offers. Such information could be obtained, therefore, only at disproportionate cost.

  Any firm job offer an individual wishes to take up is subject to the business appointment rules procedure.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about obstacles to the greater take-up of loans under the loan guarantee scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A number of representations and complaints are received about the unavailability of loans under the small firms loan guarantee scheme. The majority of these concern businesses whose proposals have been rejected by lenders on commercial grounds. With both
  424
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many copies of "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" have been printed; and what was the total cost of production and distribution.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The White Paper on competitiveness was published by HMSO. A total of 10,500 copies were produced. The production costs are a matter for HMSO, and in accordance with normal practice were reflected in the price of the White Paper. In addition, the DTI met preliminary design, writing and typesetting costs of approximately £30,000.

  The table sets out provisional costs, excluding staff time, incurred by a range of Departments in purchasing the White Paper for external distribution, and in producing summary versions and extracts. It also sets out the costs of external distribution of the White Paper, the summary versions and extracts.

  public and lenders' funds at risk, scheme applications must be assessed carefully by lenders for their commercial viability.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the take-up of loans under the loan guarantee scheme over the past three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of loans guaranteed under the small firms loan guarantee scheme in each of the past three financial years was 1991–92, 2,933; 1992–93, 2,342; and 1993–94, 3,886. Take-up of the scheme increased considerably following the enhancements introduced on 1 July 1993 and current average monthly take-up is now higher than at any time since 1984.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those organisations which have submitted applications to pre-qualify for the purchase of British Coal mining activities in respect of each regional coal company and for each care and maintenance colliery.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The identities of the parties which have submitted pre-qualification applications are commercially confidential.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many management and employee buy-out teams have applied for financial assistance during the sale of British Coal to prepare bids for purchase of(a) all five regional

  425
  coal companies, (b) each regional coal company, (c) each care and maintenance colliery and (d) each British Coal non-mining business.

  Mr. Eggar
  A number of MEBO teams have applied to the Department for financial assistance when preparing bids for(a) to (c) above and several offers have been made. However, details of these applications are commercially confidential. British Coal operates a similar scheme for MEBOs bidding for their non-mining businesses on which general offers will be invited and details of these applications are also commercially confidential.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each company which has pre-registered an interest in buying any of the five regional packages of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The identities of the parties who have submitted pre-qualification applications are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many individual companies have pre-registered an interest in buying(a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four or (e) five regional packages of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  The detail of pre-qualification applications is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each company which has registered an interest to buy(a) one, (b) two, (c) three, (d) four or (e) five regional packages of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The identities of the parties which have submitted pre-qualification applications are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have pre-registered an interest in buying any of the five regional packages of British Coal.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received 34 applications to pre-qualify for the sale of the five regional coal companies and the care and maintenance collieries.

  Public Houses
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to encourage the prosperity of British public houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Government have taken a wide range of measures to improve the commercial framework in which all firms, including public houses, operate. A number of these were described in the White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win"—Cm 2563.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigations his Department is undertaking into the issues raised by publicans in the lobby of Parliament on 11 May about upward-only rent clauses, the public house tie, and the enforcement of the beer orders; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am fully aware of the principal issues raised by licensees at the recent lobby and shall be meeting a number of publicans soon to discuss these further.
  426
  The beer supply tie is a contractual arrangement which has existed for many years, and I have no plans at present to take any action in this area. The United Kingdom will of course participate fully in any review of EC regulation 1984–83, the beer block exemption, when this is carried out.

  Enforcement of the beer orders is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading, and his staff continue to monitor compliance. Any complaints received are carefully examined for evidence of any breaches of the orders.

  As a landlord and tenant matter, upward-only rent reviews are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Deregulation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's deregulation initiative.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  A booklet "Deregulation—Cutting Red Tape"—copies of which are available in the Library of the House—was published in January setting out the aims and achievements of the deregulation initiative to date. Since then further developments have included:

  The completion of the departmental reviews of their regulations. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has recently submitted a report to the Prime Minister on the results of this.

  There are now 873 regulations earmarked for amendment or repeal, and 359 of the task forces' 605 recommendations have now been accepted and work is being taken forward by the new task force under the chairmanship of Francis Maude.

  The Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill has now completed its passage through the Commons and is currently before another place.

  The review of fire safety regulations has now submitted its report to the Government. We are considering its recommendations and how to proceed regarding publication. We continue to work with the European Commission and other member states to ensure that deregulation is at the heart of European policy making and that all new EC proposals are fully justified in terms of their costs and benefits.

  Exports, Cyprus
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing for Cyprus the exports for each year since 1980 from the United Kingdom classified under section 9 of the standard international trade classifications.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The information is provided in the table:

  Value of United Kingdom exports to Cyprus for section 9 of the SITC commodities and transactions not classified elsewhere

  (£ million, current prices)

  Year

  Value

  1980

  3·3

  1981

  4·9

  1982

  4·2

  1983

  5·2

  1984

  6·7

  1985

  3·8

  1986

  4·0

  1987

  3·3

  1988

  2·9

  1989

  2·6

  1990

  2·8

  1991

  2·2

  1992

  2·3

  1993

  2·2

  Source: Overseas trade statistics of the United Kingdom

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that the Government ratify the chemical weapons convention by the time it is scheduled to enter into forte.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government are committed to ratifying the chemical weapons convention and will introduce the necessary implementing legislation as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 75, to which organisations outside Government a full copy of the Stoy Hayward report on insolvency was sent.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No organisations outside Government have been sent a full copy of the Stoy Hayward report.

  Public Utilities
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many disabled people were connected to(a) gas, (b) electricity and (c) telephone in 1993–94;

  (2) how many women over 60 years and men over 65 years were connected to (a) gas, (b) electricity and (c) telephone in 1993–94.

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for the boards of British Gas, British Telecom and the regional electricity companies.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects to receive the report of the scrutiny team concerned with fire safety;

  (2) if he will publish the report of the fire safety scrutiny team;

  (3) what undertakings Ministers have given that no changes will be made in fire safety arrangements based upon the conclusions of the scrutiny team unless there was full consultation with the fire authorities; and if he will inform those authorities of the conclusions.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The fire safety review team have completed its work and its report has been submitted to the Government. Ministers are now considering the report and the question of its publication. No decisions have been taken but the Government have made it consistently clear that they are committed to full consultation with interested parties before any changes in the existing arrangements are made.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.
  428
  Mr. Heseltine
  The code of practice on government information commits the Department to publishing relevant facts and analysis underlying major policy proposals. This would include details of any public consultation exercise. Comments on public consultation documents are sought on the basis that the Department would not want to publish individual responses against the wishes of those providing them.

  Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions reprocessing at THORP has been(a) interrupted and (b) interfered with since it started shearing spent nuclear fuel earlier this year.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a management matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evaluation he has made of the implications for the projected profitability of THORP of the report by the Japanese Government's Advisory Committee for Energy calling for a significant slow-down in the industrial re-use of plutonium returned from the reprocessing plants at Sellafield.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercial matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 604, if he will provide such information as is available on the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 13 May 1994]: The Comptroller and Auditor General frequently reports on privatisations under section 9 of the National Audit Act 1993 and in doing so generally includes information on the costs of advisers—which may include consultants, legal, financial and other advisers. Since 1993, the following figures have appeared in such reports relating to privatisations undertaken by the DTI and the former Department of Energy:

  Reference and subject

  Costs of advisers £ million

  1993–94

  HC59 The Sale of the British Technology Group

  12·80

  1992–93

  HC10 The Sale of the Twelve Regional Electricity Companies

  228·8

  HC46 The Sale of National Power and PowerGen

  217·2

  1989–90

  HC210 Sale of Government Shareholding in British Steel plc

  15·6

  1987–88

  HC22 Sale of Government Shareholding in British Gas plc

  35·0

  1987–88

  HC243 Sale of Government Shareholding in
  Rolls-Royce plc

  32·2

  429

  Reference end subject

  Costs of advisers £ million

  1984–85

  HC495 Sale of Government Shareholding in British Telecommunications plc

  36·0

  1 Advisers' fees.

  2 United Kingdom advisers' fees.

  3 Fees to advisers in respect of the United Kingdom offer.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the volume of investment in manufacturing industry in real and constant price terms in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Estimates of manufacturing investment at current and constant prices may be obtained from the Control Statistical Office database accessible through the House of Commons Library.

  Cetaceans (Disturbance)
  Mr Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he expects guidelines on acoustic disturbance of cetaceans during seismic exploration activity to come into force;

  (2) when he will publish draft guidelines on acoustic disturbance of cetaceans during seismic exploration activity;

  (3) which non-governmental organisations he intends to consult on draft guidelines on acoustic disturbance of cetaceans during seismic exploration activity; and when he intends to consult them.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: I have been asked to reply.

  The non-governmental groups to be consulted on draft guidelines include Wildlife and Countryside Link—cetacean group—which represents 10 voluntary groups; the Wildlife and Countryside Link groups for Scotland and Wales; the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society; Greenpeace; World Wide Fund for Nature and the Friends of Cardigan Bay. I hope to issue a draft shortly and will then need to take account of any comments before publishing the guidelines in final form. They will become fully operational at that point.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many charters have been reissued imposing higher standards and targets; and if he will give details of the higher standards and targets in each case.

  Department

  Compensation paid (nearest £000)

  From

  To

  British Rail

  4,427

  April 1992

  30 November 1993

  London Underground

  184

  August 1992

  7 January 1994

  Northern Ireland Railways

  2

  November 1992

  19 January 1994

  HM Customs and Excise

  14

  January 1992

  31 December 1993

  Benefits Agency

  4,071

  April 1992

  March 1993

  Contributions Agency1

  76

  April 1991

  March 1993

  430
  Mr. David Davis
  The following charters have been revised and give details of improved standards of service.The Benefits Agency Customer Charter now gives standards for the clearance times of all benefits rather than just the main benefits; a standard of 10 minutes for waiting to be seen by a receptionist or no more than 30 minutes when very busy; and a standard of 10 working days for responding to correspondence.
  The Contributions Agency employers charter now gives standards for customer satisfaction of 80 per cent., up from 75 per cent; a standard of 10 minutes for waiting to see a receptionist or no more than 30 minutes when very busy; a standard of 10 working days for responding to correspondence; a standard to respond to a request for a visit within one week and to carry out the visit within two weeks; and a standard that office appointments will be arranged within two weeks of being requested.
  The London Underground Ltd. customer charter now gives higher operational standards for trains in customer service—from 97.5 per cent. to 98 per cent.; for escalators in customer service—from 87 per cent. to 89 per cent.; and for lifts in customer service—from 85 per cent. to 92 per cent. It also gives higher customer satisfaction standards for providing information on trains—from 78 per cent. to 86 per cent.; for providing information on stations—from 76 per cent. to 81 per cent.; for staff helpfulness and availability—from 83 per cent. to 86 per cent.; for train cleanliness—from 76 per cent. to 81 per cent.; and for station cleanliness—from 85 per cent. to 89 per cent.

  Other charters due to be revised this year include the parents charter, the job seekers charter, the contributors charter, and the patients charter for Wales. In addition, the courts charter is due to be revised in early 1995.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much compensation was paid(a) under previous compensation arrangements during each of the five financial years before the adoption of the citizens charter provisions and (b) under the provisions of the citizens charter (i) in total and (ii) by relevant Department and agency.

  Mr. David Davis
  Details of the amount of compensation paid under the provisions of the citizens charter and under previous compensation arrangements before its adoption are not held centrally. However, at 21 January 1994, it was estimated that £9,383,000 had been paid out in compensation under the provisions of the citizens charter. This does not, however, include compensation paid by privatised utilities or local authorities for failure to meet service standards, as details are not held centrally. This figure is broken down in the table shown.

  In addition, in the financial year 1992–93, the Inland Revenue paid £389,000 in compensation for
  ?serious error" as defined in the code of practice "Mistakes by the Inland Revenue"; and HM Customs and Excise paid £532,000 in repayment supplements between January 1992 and 31 December 1993.
  431

  Department

  Compensation paid (nearest £000)

  From

  To

  Employment Service

  89

  April 1992

  March 1993

  Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland1

  520

  April 1991

  20 January 1994

  1 These figures represent payments made from April 1991, four months before the Contributions Agency and Northern Ireland Social Security Agency charters were introduced.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) which public services have reduced the response time for dealing with complaints under the citizens charter; and if he will give details of the reduction in each case;

  (2) how many complaints mechanisms for public service users contained in the citizens charter programme involve a lay element within that mechanism; and if he will give details;

  (3) what form of redress or compensation is available to citizens when a public body stipulating a specific response time for complaints fails to respond within the time required;

  (4) how many of the public services under the provisions of the citizens charter stipulate a response time for dealing with complaints; and what those response times are in each case;

  (5) how many of the complaints mechanisms for public service users contained in the citizens charter programme now have an independent element; and if he will list them.

  Mr. David Davis
  Each public service organisation is responsible for the delivery of citizens charter standards to its own particular customers, and for ensuring an appropriate response if the standard is not met.

  Details of the procedures and mechanisms in place within each individual organisation are not held centrally. However, the Government recognise the importance of all public services, including Government Departments, having effective complaints procedures. In June 1993, Ministers set up the citizens charter complaints task force, with a specific remit to look at how public services deal with complaints and to ensure that their procedures operate in line with citizens charter principles. The complaints task force is chaired by Lady Wilcox, chairman of the National Consumer Council, and its members draw upon considerable expertise from both the public and private sectors.

  The task force published in October 1993 a booklet "Effective Complaints Systems: Principles and Checklist", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House. This sets out good practice in complaints handling, and it has been widely disseminated to public services. It states that people should be told when they can expect a response; be kept informed of progress; and given an explanation if deadlines are not met. It also states that complaints procedures should include independent review within the organisation where appropriate—review by someone within the organisation but separate from the direct line management of the person or section complained about; the Inland Revenue complaints adjudicator is an example of this.

  The task force's programme of reviews of complaints systems in individual public services is now well under way. The task force also plans to issue over the next few months a series of discussion documents on various aspects of complaints handling, including speed of
  432
  response and independence of investigation. The findings from its reviews, and feedback from the discussion papers, will form the basis of its final report to Ministers in spring 1995.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of the initiatives to date under the citizens charter programme to develop user consultation, representation and participation in public services.

  Mr. David Davis
  The citizens charter encourages all public service organisations to develop user consultation, representation and participation in the services they provide to their customers.

  The citizens charter unit does not hold records of the initiatives undertaken by individual public service organisations. However, a number of initiatives have been taken centrally. In August 1993, the unit published the results of its own customer survey which showed that seven out of 10 people were aware of the citizens charter and that there was strong support for the aims of the charter. In addition, Lady Wilcox, chairman of the citizens charter complaints task force, has invited people to write to her with their experiences of how their complaints have been handled, to provide the task force with first hand information from users of public services. The task force has also recently commissioned research into what service users think of public service complaints systems.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which Departments and agencies had extra-statutory compensation arrangements before the adoption of citizens charter provisions.

  Dr. David Davis
  Details of the statutory compensation arrangements in place before the adoption of the citizens charter provisions are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing his departmental guidance.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In addition to the general guidance on implementation of the code of practice, which was produced by the Office of Public Service and Science for use throughout Government, specific guidance was prepared for use within my departments—OPSS, the Central Office of Information and Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Staff in the Prime Minister's Office have received the same material. Both documents have been publicly available since early April, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Chartermarks
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which organisations previously awarded chartermarks have had a chartermark taken away from them for failure to uphold standards and deliver a service in accordance with charter principles.

  Mr. David Davis
  No organisations have had their chartermarks taken away, although the citizens charter unit reserves the right to take away a chartermark from an organisation whose performance subsequently falls significantly below standard.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the operation of a clear and effective complaints procedure with an independent element is one of the criteria taken into consideration in awarding a chartermark.

  Mr. David Davis
  Yes.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidance he has given to civil servants on the application of rules governing political activity to campaigning against privatisation of the Post Office.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The principles and rules on civil servants' political activities are set out in chapter 4.4 of the personnel management section of the civil service management code. A copy is in the Library. No specific central guidance has been issued on privatisation of the Post Office.

  DNA Bank
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evaluation he has made of the suitability of the Westlakes Research Institute at Whitehaven as host for the first European DNA bank.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Westlakes Research Institute is proposing to undertake a study in conjunction with Newcastle university on the links between genetic make-up and disease. The question of a European DNA databank does not arise.

  Necrotising Fasciitis
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research has been done by the Medical Research Council to find a vaccine for necrotising fasciitis;434
  what were the dates on which each project (a) began and (b) ended; and what were the considerations which led to the ending of each project.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Although no work has been funded specifically for the development of a vaccine for necrotising fasciitis, basic research has been, and continues to be, funded by the Medical Research Council which could underpin the development of a vaccine.

  The MRC microbial pathogenicity research group—which was part of the council's clinical research centre, Harrow and has since moved to Nottingham—carried out a study into necrotising fasciitis as part of its programme of research. This study was carried out between 1982 and 1987. The results were published in scientific journals in 1987 and 1988.

  The council continues to support major programmes in bacterial infection including those being carried out at a new Centre for Bacterial Infection and Immunity in Nottingham. This centre, which will cost £2.6 million over the next five years, was opened on 11 May 1994. The MRC is always willing to consider for support soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is usual practice for consultation documents issued by the Office of Public Service and Science to state that responses received may be made publicly available unless respondents request that their remarks be treated as confidential.

  Maritime Markets
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those advisers and areas where the technology foresight programme is looking at maritime markets.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Maritime markets will be included in several areas of the technology foresight programme including, for example, agriculture, natural resources and environment; energy; food and drink; and transport. A wide range of individuals and organisations will be consulted during the foresight programme.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Private Members' Bills
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from her Department have(a) requested parliamentary counsel to assist in preparing amendments to
  private Members' Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.

  Mr. Jack
  Parliamentary counsel drafts not on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. In any event, no amendments have been drafted by parliamentary counsel on instructions from this Department and subsequently passed to private Members in respect of any private Members' Bills since April 1992.

  Sheep Farmers
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will provide additional quotas to newly established sheep farmers who had small quotas in their first year.

  Mr. Jack
  Newly established sheep farmers, depending on their circumstances, are able to claim quota under the following arrangements if they:Claimed premium for the first time in 1992, they will already have been allocated quota under special arrangements;
  Claimed premium for the first time in 1993, they were able to apply to the 1993 reserve, and we are currently considering their applications;
  Are newcomers to farming or first-time claimants in 1994 or subsequent years, they may apply to the 1994 or subsequent year's national reserve.

  Sheep Slaughtering, Spain
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 20 April,Official Report, column 558, what reply she has received from the Spanish Agriculture Minister; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  We have been assured that the slaughterhouses concerned have been inspected and that the Spanish authorities are ensuring that they comply with Royal Decree 1614/87, regarding the stunning of animals prior to their slaughter.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration the Government have given to the representations made by farmers and landowners concerning the European Commission's nitrate directive regarding the limit of nitrate per litre of drinking water; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The main concern of farmers and landowners is that any nitrate limit should be based on the best and most up-to-date scientific and medical advice available. We share that concern and have urged the Commission to take it fully into account in its current review of the drinking water directive (80/778/EEC).436
  Separately we published a consultation paper on 18 May inviting farmers, landowners and others to comment on our proposals to designate vulnerable zones under the nitrate directive (91/676/EEC).

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live animals exported for slaughter from the United Kingdom are then returned to Britain for sale.

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will set out the legislation applicable to the further fattening of animals, the procedures followed and the point at which live animals exported are reclassified as being the responsibility of another country;

  (2) how the Government interpret the term "further fattening" of live animals for food.

  Mr. Soames
  The welfare of all livestock kept on agricultural land, whether for fattening or for other farming purposes, is protected by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and by regulations and codes of practice made under that Act. The prevention of cruelty to animals, including farm livestock, is also covered by the Protection of Animals Acts 1911 to 1988.

  Provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981 and orders made under it protect the welfare of animals during transport and at markets. This legislation does not distinguish between animals for further fattening and other categories, although the term "further fattening" is normally understood to refer to animals which are intended for food production but are not for immediate slaughter.

  The Animal Health Act, either directly or by orders made under it, also requires the notification of certain animal diseases and contains measures to control or prevent the spread of disease.

  It is the responsibility of each member state to enforce Community and national legislation within its territory and to co-operate with other member states in the exchange of information which will assist enforcement of Community law.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans she has to introduce restrictions of journey times for animals for slaughter;

  (2) what plans she has to reduce the number of hours of the transportation of live animals.

  Mr. Soames
  The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 places a limit of 15 hours on the transport of farm livestock without the provision of food or water. The introduction of new controls on animal transport will depend on the outcome of European Community negotiations.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to seek to amend the treaty of Rome to recognise the status of animals as sentient beings.

  Mr. Soames
  Amendments to the treaty are a matter for intergovernmental conferences of the EU member states. Following the last such IGC, a declaration was agreed at Maastricht on the need for the Community to take full
  437
  account of the welfare of farm animals when drawing up legislation. This followed a United Kingdom initiative and is a very positive step forward.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to introduce special licensing of vehicles and drivers engaged in the transportation of animals.

  Mr. Soames
  Transporters of livestock must comply with welfare provisions made under the Animal Health Act 1981. The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 requres any person having control of an animal transport undertaking to ensure that animals are entrusted only to persons possessing the knowledge necessary to administer appropriate care to the animals in transport. The need for any further measures will be kept under review in the light of European Community developments.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the responsibilities of her Ministry concerning the quotas for the export or import and slaughter of farm animals.

  Mr. Soames
  In the sheep, beef and pig sectors there are no quotas for the export from the United Kingdom of live animals either for slaughter or for breeding. Quotas for imports of live sheep, cattle and pigs—and sheepmeat, beef and pigmeat—from third countries to the European Union are set for the EU as a whole and are administered in each member state by designated agencies. There are no specific import quotas for the United Kingdom.

  For the slaughter of farm animals in the United Kingdom there are no quotas, but there is a restriction on the weekly throughput of small abattoirs, for hygiene purposes. Ministers negotiated into the EC directive governing the production of red meat less onerous structural requirements for low-throughput abattoirs which can achieve the necessary hygiene standards by handling one animal at a time. At the December 1992 Agriculture Council, my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State secured an increase in the throughput limit for such abattoirs from 12 livestock units to 20 livestock units per week, until 31 December 1994. The increase was welcomed as giving considerable flexibility to smaller businesses. The Commission is due to review the effect of the directive on small businesses and Ministers will press for the increased low-throughput limits to be made permanent.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment her Department has made of the export of meat carcases as a viable and achievable alternative to the transport of live animals abroad for slaughter.

  Mr. Soames
  United Kingdom exports of meat, the value of which is considerably greater than that of exports of live animals for food, provide an important contribution to the British economy. The movement of animals is a matter for commercial judgment subject to animal welfare and health safeguards.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to give greater powers to animal welfare and health inspectors concerned with the transport or slaughter of animals.
  438
  Mr. Soames
  The appropriate inspectors already have wide powers under the Animal Health Act 1981, the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 and the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will list by category the number of live animals exported from the United Kingdom in each year since 1979;

  (2) if he will list by category the numbers of live animals imported into Britain in each of the past 15 years.

  Mr. Soames
  Trade data are only available for the United Kingdom as a whole. Annual data for years prior to 1993 on the numbers and types of animals imported into the United Kingdom can be found within the Central Statistical Office publication "MA 20—Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" and its predecessor publications. Data for 1993 are still provisional and subject to change but can be obtained by amalgamating the year to date data from two further Central Statistical Office publications, namely the "MM20—Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with countries outside the EC" for December 1993 and the "MQ20—Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with countries within the EC" for the fourth quarter of 1993.

  Copies of all these publications can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many animals were exported from the United Kingdom for veal and foie gras production in the latest available year;

  (2) for what purposes animals have been exported from the United Kingdom in the latest available year.

  Mr. Soames
  Exports of live animals from the United Kingdom are generally for one of three purposes: (i) for breeding, (ii) for further production, or (iii) for immediate slaughter.

  Trade data on exports for production of veal and foie gras are not available; however, no live geese were exported last year.

  Animals exported from, or imported to, the United Kingdom are recorded under the internationally used United Nations standard industrial trade classification system. This does not comprehensively classify the purposes for which animals are exported. Details of the system can be found in the Central Statistical Office publication "MA 21—Guide to the Classification of Overseas Trade Statistics", and in particular division 00 thereof, a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many local registered veterinary inspectors in the United Kingdom there were in every year since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  The recorded number of local veterinary inspectors in Great Britain in each of the years 1987–93 is as follows:

  Year

  Number of LVIs

  1987

  4,870

  1988

  5,120

  1989

  5,165

  439

  Year

  Number of LVIs

  1990

  5,370

  1991

  5,479

  1992

  5,852

  1993

  5,841

  Figures prior to 1987 are not readily available.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current Government position on the export of live animals; and what legislative changes have occurred since 1979.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government continue to press for high standards of animal health and welfare to be applied throughout the European Community to the transport of animals, including exports.

  Legislative changes since 1979 are listed as follows:

  (a) EC Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport (OJ No. L340, 11 12 1991, p. 17) (revoked and replaced two earlier directives).

  (b) The following national (GB) legislation came into force which also implements the above directive:—

  The Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) (Amendment) Order 1979, S.I. 1979/1013

  The Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981, S.I. 1981/1051

  The Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order 1988, S.I. 1988/815

  The Welfare of Poultry (Transport) Order 1988, S.I. 1988/851

  The Welfare of Poultry (Transport) (Amendment) Order 1989, S.I. 1989/52

  The Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992, S.I. 1992/3304

  (c) In addition, a number of EC directives laying down detailed animal health rules governing intra-community trade in live animals have been implemented in Great Britain by means of the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1993 (S.I. 1993/3247).

  Cereals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much a farmer growing cereals will be paid in arable aid for each hectare of cereals grown in 1993–94 in England, inclusive of less-favoured areas; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  The payment rate for cereals in England under the arable area payments scheme for 1993–94 will be 207.55 ecu per hectare. This will be converted to sterling at the green rate prevailing on 1 July 1994. At the current green rate, this would amount to £191 per hectare.

  Payments will be reduced if the base area is exceeded.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she plans to publish her departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Jack
  Copies of the Department's explanatory note on the implementation of the code of practice have been made available on request to the Ministry's helpline and a copy of the note has been placed in the Library of the 440
  House. Details were announced in a news release on 5 April. We are now working on making available, under the terms of the code at paragraph 3(ii), explanatory material on our dealings with the public subject to the provisions of confidentiality under part H of the code. The code envisages that this material is made available, as soon as practicable. There is a very substantial amount of material, covering all facets of the Ministry's schemes and procedures. We hope to make good progress by the end of the year.

  Slaughtering
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to introduce specific labelling of meat slaughtered under legal exemption by pre-stunning slaughter methods.

  Mr. Soames
  I have no such plans.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many horses are slaughtered for export in EC-approved abattoirs in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  The four slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom licensed to slaughter horses for export last year handled around 4,000 equines for human consumption. Data are not kept on the destination of the meat, but so far as my Department is aware the vast majority of the meat produced was exported.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she has taken to ensure that the piece rate payments scheme operated widely in the United Kingdom slaughterhouses does not cause cruelty as a result of its emphasis on speed.

  Mr. Soames
  It is the responsibility of all engaged in the slaughtering of animals to ensure that the requirements of welfare legislation are observed. This applies. irrespective of the method of payment to the abattoir work force.

  Animal Sales
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to restrict the numbers of times animals, except for calves, can be presented for sale in any month.

  Mr. Soames
  The restrictions on the sale of calves, under the Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990, were introduced in response to specific concerns about the hawking of very young calves from market to market. The order was amended last year to give added protection for young lambs and goats in markets. This legislation will be kept under review, but it is not evident that further controls, equivalent to the restrictions on marketing of calves, are needed for other categories of farm animal.

  Scrapie
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to which animal species scrapie and similar diseases have been transmitted.

  Mr. Soames
  I shall write to the hon. Member since the position is complicated and depends not only on the species of animal but the genetic make-up of the individual animal and the strain of scrapie involved in the trial.

  BSE
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of(a) United Kingdom dairy herds, (b) United Kingdom beef suckler herds and (c) total United Kingdom herds with adult breeding cattle have experienced at least one case of BSE, since November 1986.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: Since November 1986 approximately 58 per cent. of dairy herds, 13 per cent. of beef suckler herds and 27 per cent. of total herds in the United Kingdom have experienced at least one confirmed case of BSE. Records are not available which separate the total number of herds with adult breeding cattle.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 10 June; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 10 June in Luxembourg, together with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  The Council unanimously adopted a framework regulation enabling it to decide, on a case-by-case basis, when licences for fishing should be supplemented by a special permit to fish in certain waters, so as to enable the nature and extent of the fishing effort deployed to be tightly prescribed, monitored and enforced. I recognised the need for this new management tool, notably following the completion of negotiations on the integration of Spain and Portugal and then Norway into the CFP. However, I told the Council that I shared the concerns of the United Kingdom fishing industry about the practical implications of this additional layer of administration. Moreover, I pointed out that the burdensome weight of fisheries regulation was an issue that went wider than the permit scheme. A number of other member states expressed similar preoccupations.

  In response, the Commission made a formal statement that its proposals for any specific application of permits will take account of the practical and economic implications for fishermen. While it must be effective in securing the controls required, any scheme imposing permits must involve the minimum administrative burden and efficient arrangements for the initial issue and subsequent modification of permits. The management of any permit scheme will be a matter for the member states.

  The Council concluded that permits should not be required for fishing vessels under 10 m in length operating exclusively within their territorial waters and the Council deferred a decision on whether the permit system should apply to EU vessels operating in third country waters. I welcomed the outcome of this negotiation, which demonstrated the willingness of the Council and the Commission to take proper account of the realities of the fishing industry.

  In a wider recognition of the burdens of regulation on the fishing industry, the Commission responded positively to my suggestion that it examine systematically how the current body of regulation can be simplified. It made it
  442
  clear that it would welcome proposals from the fishing industry—an offer which I hope our own fishermen will take up.

  In the absence of a European parliamentary opinion, no decisions were taken on the Commission's proposal on drift nets and the Council held only a general discussion. Officials will continue to examine the proposals, and particularly the scope for enhanced enforcement of the north-east Atlantic tuna industry. The Council will revert to the issue when the European Parliament's opinion is available. Meanwhile, EU fishing vessels are prohibited from using drift nets longer than 2.5 km in any fishery.

  The Council unanimously adopted a mandate for the Commission to open negotiations with Greenland, under the EU/Greenland agreement, on the fishing opportunities and other arrangements to apply for the five-year period beginning 1 January 1995. The United Kingdom benefits from opportunities to fish at Greenland.

  The Council discussed Canadian legislation enabling Canada to act against flag of convenience and unflagged vessels in the area administered by the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation. The Council agreed that the EU should inform Canada of its concern about the extent of the powers taken and urge Canada to co-ordinate her enforcement activities with NAFO partners, including the EU. I agreed that such an approach should be made but was unhappy about the terms in which it was expressed and as a consequence abstained on the matter in order to allow a community view to go forward.

  The Council had a limited discussion on the state of the market for fisheries' products. I pressed the Commission to provide the complete analysis of this complex problem which had been previously promised. This was agreed, and the Commission was asked to undertake the work and report back to the September Fisheries Council, if appropriate with proposals.

  The Council unanimously approved a proposal, which will be adopted as soon as the European Parliament's opinion is available, on the methodology for measuring the tonnage of fishing vessels, which is important for managing a number of aspects of the CFP. To take account of the difficulties the EU fishing industry faces, it was agreed that an estimating formula could be adopted for vessels below 15 m and that, for medium-sized vessels—15 to 24 m—an extended deadline of 1 January 2004 would be allowed for completion of the measuring exercise. This outcome will be very helpful to the United Kingdom.

  The Council unanimously adopted a regulation covering the EU's Mediterranean waters which introduces technical conservation rules, notably about the use of various kinds of fishing nets and other gear.

  A Commission proposal establishing compensation for the additional costs incurred in the marketing of certain fisheries products from the Azores, Madeira, the Canary Islands and the French Department of Guiana as a result of their very remote location was adopted by qualified majority vote. The Netherlands and the United Kingdom were unable to support the measure because the funding procedures adopted were not satisfactory.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 30 and 31 May; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This meeting of the Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, held only a brief discussion of the Commission's price proposals for farm support prices for 1994–95 and related measures and concluded that adoption of this package should be an urgent priority for its next meeting on 20 June.

  At the instigation of the German Minister, the Council discussed bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The Commissioner, Mr. Steichen, reaffirmed the need for policy to be based on science, stressing that there were no grounds for questioning the current trade rules for meat and live animals. I explained the comprehensive measures adopted by the United Kingdom to bring BSE under control and safeguard against any risk to public health. I and several other Ministers endorsed the Commission's plan to maintain surveillance, to tighten the rules on rendering processes and the use of specified bovine offals in cosmetics and to extend to the whole of the Community the ban on feeding meat and bone meal to ruminants which the United Kingdom adopted in 1988.

  The Council unanimously agreed to extend until 30 June 1994 the marketing year for various fruits and vegetables.

  Sheep Premium Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is(a) the estimated number of farmers in England entitled to receive sheep premium grants and (b) the number of claims, together with the

  £ million (Scheme year)

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994 (estimate)

  Beef Special Premium

  63·9

  75·4

  including extensification premium

  21·1

  25·8

  82·6

  92·4

  Suckler Cow Premium

  43·5

  64·3

  including extensification premium

  33·9

  38·8

  55·9

  77·8

  Sheep Annual Premium (including Less Favoured Area Supplement)

  120·0

  175·1

  182·4

  208·6

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she intends to take to prevent environmental damage other than over-grazing on grazed land, with particular reference to lowland areas.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Our policies will continue to employ a range of instruments to help prevent environment damage. These include codes of good agricultural practice for the protection of soil, water and air; the provision of free advice to farmers on conservation and avoiding pollution; a number of targeted incentive schemes—for example, environmentally sensitive areas scheme—and safeguards within the arable support scheme.

  The reformed arable support arrangements also include measures to prevent environmental damage. They render permanent grassland ineligible for arable support payments. And all farmers receiving arable support payments must observe a range of conditions on set-aside land, including protection of environmental features,
  444
  corresponding percentage figure expressed as a proportion of (a), which were settled by (i) 30 April 1994, (ii) 15 May 1994 and (iii) 31 May 1994.

  Mr. Jack
  Some 64,000 sheep producers in England received automatic allocations of quota, or received quota under the special arrangements for 1992, first time claimants. These producers were eligible for payments under the 1993 sheep annual premium scheme, provided they met the other requirements of the scheme. Some farmers combine to submit only one claim and the total number of 1993 claims was 42,713. As at 30 April 1994, 88 per cent. of first and second advances under the 1993 scheme had been paid and 65 per cent. had also received the final payment. At 15 May, the corresponding figures were 89 per cent. and 72 per cent. respectively and at 31 May 89 per cent. and 86 per cent. respectively.

  Over-grazing
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost for England in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993 and what is her estimate for 1994 of (i) the sheep annual premium, (ii) the suckler cow premium and (iii) the beef special premium; what estimates her Department has made of the environmental damage caused in England through over-grazing by livestock for which each of those premia are being paid; what estimates her Department has made of environmental damage other than over-grazing being caused in England on farm land grazed by livestock for which the above premia are being paid; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Expenditure in England on the three schemes is shown in the table. I have no figures for the value of any environmental damage attributable to these schemes.

  requirements on maintenance of a green cover to minimise nitrate leaching and restrictions on the use of fertilisers and pesticides.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health Service Staff
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of health visitors, district nurses, school nurses and community psychiatric nurses expressed as whole-time equivalents at September 1988, September 1989, September 1990, September 1991 and September 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on health visitors, district nurses and school nurses is available only on a comparative basis for the three years 1990 to 1992 and is set out in the table, expressed as whole-time equivalents at September of each year.
  445

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Health visitors

  324·41

  395·37

  454·53

  District nurses

  619·06

  639·12

  719·30

  School nurses

  70·22

  71·50

  85·45

  Information on community psychiatric nurses is available only for 1992 and is set out in the table, expressed as whole-time equivalents at September.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Health visitors

  540·61

  538·61

  537·61

  1—

  1—

  District nurses

  842·95

  842·95

  842·95

  1—

  1—

  School nurses

  110·43

  110·43

  110·43

  1—

  1—

  Community psychiatric nurses

  371·01

  384·51

  384·51

  1—

  1—

  Planned secondments by Health and Personal Social Services employing authorities in each year are as follows:

  Health visitors students

  6·00

  8·00

  6·00

  6·00

  1—

  District nurse students

  20·00

  18·00

  17·00

  17·00

  1—

  1 Information is not available centrally.

  Planning
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will require the Department of the Environment planning service to ensure that all land in housing development sites will be allocated to house property and that developers will no longer be permitted to abandon and leave derelict any area of land within a housing development.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Department of the Environment (NI) considers that, where circumstances permit, the provision of open space in new housing development is desirable. However, the Department recognises that the on-going maintenance of such open space can cause difficulties and normal practice is now only to make its provision a requirement of planning permission where future maintenance arrangements can be put in place.

  Health Workers
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of health visitor students and district nurse students in training expessed as whole-time equivalents at March 1988, March 1989, March 1990, March 1991, March 1992 and March 1993.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of students who commenced training expressed as whole-time equivalents, in each year is as follows:

  Year

  Health visitors

  District nurses

  1988

  35

  28

  1989

  23

  22

  1990

  31

  20

  1991

  29

  9

  1992

  24

  10

  1993

  29

  15

  446

  1992

  Community psychiatric nurses

  183·00

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the planned numbers of health visitors, district nurses, school nurses and community psychiatric nurses, health visitors, students and district nurse students for 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on the planned numbers, expressed as whole-time equivalents, is as follows:

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recommendations from the Planning Appeals Commission on planning inquiries held in Northern Ireland since 1973 have not been upheld by the responsible Minister.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Ten.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each of the last five years the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Details of payments to individual consultancy firms have not been disclosed as this would breach commercial confidentiality. A list of the consultancy firms employed each year has been placed in the library.

  Expenditure on consultants by Northern Ireland Departments for each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  £

  1989–90

  12,901,349

  1990–91

  7,674,423

  1991–92

  12,987,469

  1992–93

  8,717,868

  1993–94

  15,408,337

  Loyalist Paramilitary Groups
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of persons suspected of being loyalist paramilitary members and those
  447
  suspected of being republican paramilitary members who were arrested in the Ards area between January and July 1993; how many in each category were subsequently charged; and what were the figures in each case for the period July 1993 to May 1994.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The available information is for the Newtownards RUC sub-division, and is as follows:

  1 January 1993 to 31 July 1993

  1 August 1993 to 31 May 1994

  Number of suspect loyalists arrested

  34

  30

  Suspect loyalists charged

  13

  5

  Number of suspect republicans arrested

  1

  3

  Suspect republicans charged

  —

  —

  By Loyalists

  By Republicans

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1987

  15

  19

  65

  81

  1988

  22

  26

  62

  74

  1989

  18

  32

  39

  68

  1990

  19

  29

  46

  71

  1991

  40

  46

  47

  54

  1992

  39

  52

  36

  48

  1993

  47

  57

  35

  43

  For the whole period 1969 to 1993, the approximate breakdown is 32 per cent. by Loyalists and 68 per cent. by Republicans.

  Schools (Capital Funding)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will provide a detailed list of the schools in both the primary and secondary sectors in Northern Ireland that have received capital funding over the past four years; and what were the amounts in each case.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Vehicle Licences
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations took place before, and what considerations underlay, the decision to cease issuing vehicle licenses through post offices in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Brendan Magee. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Brendan Magee to Mr. Michael Comuirty, dated 6 June 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to reply to your question regarding the decision to cease issuing vehicle licences through post offices in Northern Ireland.
  Only 14 post offices in Northern Ireland are designated for re-licensing of vehicles. Figures for 1993–94 show that 61 per cent. of customers licensed their vehicles at DVLNI local offices, 22 per cent. by post to DVLNI Head Office and 17 per cent. at the designated post offices.
  448
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of deaths due to terrorism have been caused by loyalist paramilitary groups in each of the past 20 years in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  An annual breakdown, attributing murders to specific terrorist groups, is available only from 1987. The figures are set out as follows:The key consideration underlying the decision was the need for DVLNI to make economies to live within its budget allocation for 1994–95. DVLNI is a demand led organisation engaged on the core activities of registering vehicles, licensing vehicles and the issuing of driver licenses. When savings need to be made they have to be in the method of delivery as the Agency cannot limit the volumes of business.
  Prior to the decision being made, the Agency Advisory Board was told of the difficulties created by the shortfall in funding. After further discussions with the Agency's parent department (DOE NI) a paper was prepared informing the Minister of DVLNI's intention to withdraw the facility. Post Office Counters Ltd. were also kept informed.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The principles contained within the code of practice on Government information have applied to the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments since 4 April 1994. In common with United Kingdom Departments, we will use the central guidance on interpretation of the code, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out by county a breakdown of the 1993 arable area payments scheme.

  Mr. Ancram
  To date the number of applications received and amounts paid under the EC arable area scheme in Northern Ireland by county are as follows:
  449

  Main scheme (set-aside)

  Simplified scheme

  County

  Total No. of applications

  Total amount paid £

  Total No. of applications

  Total amount paid £

  Antrim

  7

  62,681·75

  670

  610,590·73

  Armagh

  7

  88,088·92

  249

  225,733·59

  Down

  66

  661,110·32

  1,039

  1,095,369·67

  Fermanagh

  —

  —

  2

  1,136·02

  Londonderry

  32

  285,703·41

  658

  638,822·28

  Tyrone

  7

  46,910·24

  334

  295,806·12

  TOTAL

  119

  1,144,494·64

  2,952

  2,867,458·41

  Special Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children currently attend special schools in Northern Ireland; what is the estimated cost during the school year 1993–94 of providing a mid-day meal for pupils in special schools in Northern Ireland; and what is the estimated saving to the Department of Education (Northern Ireland) arising from the decision to introduce a charge for school meals in special schools during the 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 school years from September 1994.

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of children attending special schools in Northern Ireland is 4,392.

  Cost estimates are not available on a school year basis, but the estimated cost during the financial year 1993–94 of providing a mid-day meal for pupils in special schools in Northern Ireland was £701,000.

  The estimated savings arising from the decision to charge for school meals from September 1994 in the financial years 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 are as follows:

  £

  1994–95

  65,000

  1995–96

  180,000

  1996–97

  275,000

  Police, Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the population of the borough of Castlereagh; how many community police officers operate within the borough; and if he will make a statement on the adequacy of policing within the borough.

  Sir John Wheeler
  At the time of the last census in 1991, the population of the borough of Castlereagh was 60,799.

  The deployment of police officers is an operational responsibility of the Chief Constable, but I understand that three sergeants and 28 constables are dedicated to "community police officer" duty in the Castlereagh area. However, all officers are encouraged to adopt a community role at all times.

  The Chief Constable takes into account both operational requirements and available resources in the deployment of police officers.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Sir John Wheeler
  If it is the intention of the Northern Ireland Office or of any of the Northern Ireland Departments to make responses to a consultation document publicly available, those consulted are informed that their responses will be made public unless the writer explicitly asks for them to be kept confidential.

  The code of practice on Government information commits Government Departments to publishing relevant facts and analysis underlying major policy proposals and decisions and this will include the details of consultation responses. The code does not require provision of the responses themselves, although this will often be the most straightforward way of providing the information.

  Housing Association Ombudsman
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in appointing an ombudsman for housing association tenants in both Northern Ireland and Wales.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  It is intended to appoint an ombudsman for tenants of registered housing associations in Northern Ireland by the end of the year. This is in line with the commitment contained in "The Citizen's Charter Second Report 1994". The position in Wales is a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list for each of the last five years the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sproat
  Since it was established in April 1992, my Department and its two agencies awarded contracts as follows:
  451

  (a) KPMG—seven contracts valued at approximately £186,000.

  (b) Touche Ross—two contracts valued at approximately £210,000.

  (c) Price Waterhouse—three contracts valued at approximately £221,000.

  (d) Ernst and Young—four contracts valued at approximately £162,000.

  (e) CSL—nil.

  (f) Prime—nil.

  (g) Basis—nil.

  (h) Theodore Goddard—nil.

  (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead—nil.

  (j) Capita Management Consultancy—one contract valued at approximately £34,000.

  (k) Shreeveport—nil.

  Contracts valued at approximately £6 million have been awarded to the following 86 organisations:

  Accord Group—TYZACK

  ADAS

  AIBS

  Ajax Health and Safety

  Alan Rhodes Associates

  Alter Ego

  Baker, Wilkins and Smith

  BDM Limited

  Bedford Timber Preservation

  BMRB International

  Brenda White Associates

  Capita Management Consultancy Ltd.

  Cluttons

  Communication by Design Ltd.

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Crane Davies Limited

  Cumbria Tourist Board

  David Jacques

  David Greaves

  Derek Etherington

  Donald Piggot

  Drivas Jonas

  Engineering Surveys Ltd.

  Ernst and Young

  Feilden and Mawson

  Fitch

  Food Services Associates (Henley) Ltd.

  GAH Limited

  Halcrow Fox

  Heart of England Tourist Board

  HH&S Ltd.

  Humberts Leisure Ltd.

  Institute of Manpower Studies

  J. M. Consulting Ltd.

  John Sumsion

  John Herbert Partnership

  John Barnes

  Kennedy and Donkin

  Korn Ferry International

  KPMG

  Land Use Consultants

  Lawrence Graham

  Library and Information Co-operation Council

  Light Projects

  Lowe Bell Communications

  Mason

  Mercer Management Consultants

  MEW Research

  Moon Communications

  National Economic Research Associators

  Naylor Conservation

  North West Tourist Board

  Northamptonshire Archaeological Unit

  Numbers Market Research Limited

  P. Flaxman

  PA Consultancy

  Paper White Design Consultants

  PE International

  Peter Morley Associates Ltd.

  Positive Solutions

  Price Waterhouse

  452

  Research International

  Review team appointed consisting of Professor Richard Marks and Richard Munday

  RM Consultants

  RMJM and Caroe and Partners

  Royston Brown

  Search Training International Ltd.

  Sema Group Systems Ltd.

  Stoy Haward

  Symonds

  TA Consultancy

  Tectus

  The Jenkins Group

  The Conservation Practice

  Thesaurus

  Touche Ross

  Towers Perrin

  University of London

  University of Cambridge

  Vital Statistics Limited

  Warrington Fire Research

  Watts and Partners

  William Page

  WLF Pierce and Partners

  Yorks and Humberside Tourist Board

  It is not possible, without involving disproportionate cost, to give figures for each of the three financial years since the Department was established.

  National Lottery
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish in final form his directions to the distributing bodies of the national lottery.

  Mr. Brooke
  I will shortly issue final directions under section 26(1) and (2) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to the Arts Council of England, the Sports Council, the Millennium Commission and trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will issue similar directions to the distributing bodies operating in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will issue directions to the National Lottery Charities Board when it has been established. Financial directions under section 26(3) will shortly be issued to all the established distributing bodies for formal consultation.

  Treasure Trove
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will now consult the National Council for Metal Detecting concerning treasure trove.

  Mr. Brooke
  Treasure trove is now the responsibility of my Department. The National Council for Metal Detecting has been consulted on treasure trove by the sponsors of a private peer's Bill, the Treasure Bill, which secured Government support during its passage through the House of Lords. The Bill aims to reform the law of treasure trove and provides for a statutory code of practice on the payment of rewards. If the Bill completes its passage through the Commons, my Department has undertaken to consult interested parties on the code of practice and this consultation would certainly include the National Council for Metal Detecting.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department published its procedural note setting out how the Department intends to respond to requests made under the code of practice on access to government information, on 30 March 1994. A press release issued on 29 March explained how the public could obtain copies of the note.

  I have placed a copy of the note in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Non-departmental Bodies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the non-departmental bodies in Scotland the conduct of which can be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Mr. Lang
  The non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are as follows:

  The Crofters Commission

  The Red Deer Commission

  Scottish Homes—except in respect of actions as a landlord

  The Scottish Legal Aid Board

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  The Scottish Medical Practices Committee

  The Scottish Sports Council

  The Scottish Tourist Board

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory provisions govern the right of appointed members of non-departmental public bodies to inspect information held by that organisation; and in what circumstances such information can be withheld from them.

  Mr. Lang
  The detailed right of members of any NDPB depend on the basis on which the body was set up. Some NDPBs are governed by the Companies Acts, some by other statutes or royal charter and others have no statutory basis. However, as the board of an NDPB has ultimate responsibility for the performance of the body, I would expect its members to have access to all material information held by the body.

  Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will release immediate dedicated funding to enable Scottish local authorities to provide more homes that are suited to the needs of elderly and disabled persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Substantial resources totalling some £426 million have been made available to local authorities in 1994–95 for investment to meet the housing needs of their areas. These allocations are generally not earmarked for specific purposes and it is for 454
  local authorities themselves to determine how to utilise the resources available to them, including the level of expenditure on the provision of housing suited to the needs of the elderly and disabled.

  Alcohol (Illegal Resale)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions have taken place since 1 January 1993 of people illegally importing and reselling alcoholic liquor in Scotland; how many resulted in fines or imprisonment; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics in this category are not separately kept and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the meetings of the proposed authorities will be in public and their guidelines about the need for openness and accountability will be the same as for local authorities.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The new water and sewerage authorities will not be part of local government. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for them to be required to follow guidelines produced for local authorities. It will be for the new authorities themselves to decide whether any of their meetings should be open to the public. The new authorities will be under a statutory obligation to have regard to the interests of every person who is a customer or potential customer and the customers council will be established to represent the interests of customers and potential customers to the new authorities.

  Foreign Students
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many third-level students from(a) the Republic of Ireland, (b) other European Community countries and (c) non-European Community countries were enrolled in universities and colleges in Scotland in each year since 1984–85; and what has been the cost or income in each category to the Scottish education budget.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Students enrolled in Scottish universities and colleges from:

  Year

  (a) Republic of Ireland

  (b) Other European Union countries

  (c) Non-European Union countries

  1984–85

  58

  493

  4,849

  1985–86

  60

  592

  5,752

  1986–87

  90

  654

  6,378

  1987–88

  163

  788

  6,253

  1988–89

  282

  970

  6,049

  1989–90

  366

  1,521

  6,316

  1990–91

  450

  2,028

  6,429

  1991–92

  596

  2,669

  6,408

  1992–93

  763

  3,369

  6,665

  For 1993–94, the total cost of tuition fees for students from European Union countries met by the Scottish education budget and administered by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland is £5·7 million. Equivalent figures for 1992–93 and 1991–92 are £4.8 million and –3.1 million respectively.
  455
  Students from non-European Union countries are expected to meet the full cost of their tuition. Income from non-European Union students is credited to the host institution and not to the education budget.

  Law Students
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students are currently studying for a diploma in legal practice at each Scottish university.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information collected by the Law Society of Scotland for the academic year 1993–94 is as follows:

  University

  Number of Students

  Aberdeen

  92

  Dundee

  75

  Edinburgh

  116

  Glasgow

  113

  Strathclyde

  102

  Total Scotland

  498

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has of the total cost involved in funding a law student who completes an LLB and diploma in legal practice at a Scottish university.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimated cost of full public funding for a student completing a four-year LLB and a one-year diploma in legal practice is £28,550. This estimate assumes full funding of tuition by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council and full student support based on elsewhere maintenance rates, no parental/spouse contribution and no excess travel.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students currently studying for a diploma in legal practice at Scottish universities have not yet secured a legal traineeship place.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available estimate is 230.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish Education Department-funded places there are for the diploma in legal practice each year.

  Lord James Dougals-Hamilton
  Institutional grant funding for teaching at Scottish higher education institutions is now the responsibility of the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. There is no separate category or allocation of funded or fees-only places for the diploma in legal practice. Taught undergraduate and postgraduate courses in law and legal studies are included but not specified by SHEFC in the broader category of "Social Sciences". The number of post-graduate student awards available for Scottish-domiciled students undertaking the diploma course in 1993–94 is 390. Other students may finance their own costs of tuition and maintenance.

  Gender Reassignment Surgery
  Mrs. Fyffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will use his powers to require the Western general trust hospital, Edinburgh, to continue its previous policy of 456
  carrying out at least one gender reassignment operation per year or to ensure that an appropriate hospital in the Lothian health board area continues to carry out this work;

  (2) what is his policy on the availability and funding of gender reassignment surgery.

  Mr. Stewart
  It is a matter for individual health boards to decide whether to purchase gender reassignment services and, if so, what resources to devote to them.

  Lothian health board has decided not to purchase gender reassignment routinely from 1 April 1994. However, I understand that the board will enable patients who have already undergone the complex counselling and other preparatory work and are already on a waiting list to proceed to surgery where a commitment has previously been given.

  Cancer
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many cases of bone cancer per 100,000 head of population there have been in Scotland in each year since 1970;

  (2) how many cases of cancers of all types per 100,000 head of population there have been in Scotland in each of the years since 1970.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Rate per 100,000 population

  Year of diagnosis

  Bone and connective tissue

  All malignant neoplasms

  1970

  2·55

  298·90

  1971

  2·52

  289·21

  1972

  2·49

  309·20

  1973

  3·00

  322·57

  1974

  2·44

  314·47

  1975

  2·94

  355·78

  1976

  3·00

  356·25

  1977

  3·21

  365·03

  1978

  2·86

  379·85

  1979

  3·15

  383·23

  1980

  3·27

  395·19

  1981

  3·11

  403·19

  1982

  2·40

  407·22

  1983

  2·68

  415·66

  1984

  2·90

  427·27

  1985

  2·73

  428·29

  1986

  2·25

  427·85

  1987

  2·68

  438·39

  1988

  2·94

  440·87

  1989

  3·00

  442·71

  1990

  2·97

  467·83

  1991

  2·72

  459·33

  1992

  12·68

  1461·61

  1 Provisional figures.

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 407, if he will list the ways in which trust status will allow the Scottish ambulance service to make much faster progress towards the achievement of its four main objectives listed in his answer.

  Mr. Stewart
  Faster progress is expected because:

  a. the trust board will be dedicated full-time to the running of an ambulance service, facilitating faster decision making;

  457

  b. the trust will have freedom to negotiate with staff and their local representatives on terms and conditions of service which encourage and reward performance;

  c. local accountability will improve the responsiveness of the service; and

  d. the trust will have freedom to optimise the use of its assets and resources to enhance patient care.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the last five years the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 21 February 1994,Official Report, columns 51–52, and to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 16 March 1994, Official Report, columns 659–60.

  Health Workers
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of health visitors, district nurses, school nurses and community psychiatric nurses expressed as whole-time equivalents in September of each year from 1988 to 1992.

  Mr. Stewart
  For information on the requested categories of community nurses, I refer the hon. Member to my reply given to her on 16 June 1993,Official Report, columns 547–50.

  Figures for school nurses are as follows:

  Whole-time equivalent at September

  Year

  Number

  1988

  234·4

  1989

  229·6

  1990

  232·9

  1991

  292·4

  1992

  286·5

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of health visitor students and district nurse students in training expressed as whole-time equivalents in March of each year from 1988 to 1993.

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

  Health Visitors and District Nurses in training: Whole-time equivalents as at 31 March

  In Training

  Health Visitors

  District Nurses

  1988

  249

  104

  145

  1989

  190

  81

  109

  1990

  212

  109

  103

  1991

  146

  85

  61

  1992

  108

  52

  56

  11993

  104

  51

  53

  1 1993 figures are estimates.

  Note: Statistics may not include students who are not on the NHS payroll.

  Sexual Abuse
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases relating to the sexual abuse of children were reported by the police to the procurator fiscal in each Scottish region in each of the past five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not readily available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many payments were made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which resulted from the sexual abuse of children in Scotland in each of the past five years; and what was the total paid in awards for each year:

  (2) how many awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board relating to the sexual abuse of children in Scotland in each of the last five years involved a case where a criminal conviction also resulted.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many claims where recevied by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which resulted from the sexual abuse of children in Scotland in each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of applications received by the board relating to the sexual abuse of children in Great Britain is set out:

  Year

  Number

  1989–90

  1,318

  1990–91

  1,812

  1991–92

  2,881

  1992–93

  3,200

  The board's records do not show how many of the applications result from the sexual abuse of children in Scotland.

  The board did not record statistical information of this type before April 1989 and the information for 1993–94 is not yet available.

  Coxsackie Virus
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research is being undertaken into the coxsackie virus in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on this is not held centrally, but my Department is aware that the Aberdeen university microbiology department is deeply involved in research into the coxsackie virus, particularly in relation to heart disease and chronic fatigue syndrome. This research is being funded by the Wellcome Trust, the Linbury Trust and the British Heart Foundation. A joint research project is currently planned with a group at the Southern general hospital in Glasgow.

  In addition the regional virus laboratory at Ruchill hospital, Glasgow is conducting research into the early diagnosis of coxsackie infections using a technique which can identify small amounts of DNA to replace traditional methods of culture. The relationship between coxsackie viruses and chronic fatigue syndrome, aseptic meningitis and juvenile onset diabetes are also actively under research investigation. This work is currently supported by grants from the ME Association and the Linbury Trust.
  459
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the incidence of the coxsackie virus in Scotland in the last two years; and in what geographical areas the problem has been identified.

  Mr. Lang
  The available information is derived from reports confirming the infection received from laboratories by the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health. The figures for 1992 and 1993 for each health board area are set out. These data do not necessarily reflect the total incidence of the infection in the community, since doctors do not routinely send specimens from every case for laboratory confirmation.

  Health board area

  Number of laboratory reports

  1992

  1993

  Argyll and Clyde

  45

  79

  Ayrshire and Arran

  10

  4

  Borders

  5

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  29

  44

  Fife

  17

  10

  Forth Valley

  28

  35

  Grampian

  12

  5

  Greater Glasgow

  169

  204

  Highland

  98

  38

  Lanarkshire

  113

  127

  Lothian

  59

  18

  Orkney

  0

  0

  Shetland

  0

  2

  Tayside

  6

  3

  Western Isles

  7

  2

  Unknown1

  39

  36

  Scotland

  637

  608

  1 cases where the laboratory reported the isolation of Coxsackie virus but where information on the health board area of residence of the patient was not recorded.

  Operating Theatres
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many operating theatres are currently in use; and what plans there are to increase their number in any health board areas.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Stammering
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider giving financial support for an all-Scotland specialist centre for children who stammer; and what estimate he has made of the cost of providing this service.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish Office has only recently received a proposal for such a service submitted by the Association for Stammerers. I shall write to the hon. Member once this has been considered.

  Rev. Morris McKenzie
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will establish a judicial inquiry into the actions of agencies involved and the circumstances connected with the detention of the Rev. Morris McKenzie and the search of his and church premises in South Ronaldsay on 27 February 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department's internal guidance on the commitment in the code of practice to answer requests for information has been available since the beginning of April. I am arranging for a copy of that guidance to be sent to the hon. Member and for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. Internal guidance on the code's other commitments will be made available in due course.

  Surgeons
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) newly qualified surgeons and (b) surgeons from outwith Scotland took up posts in NHS hospitals; and how many left the service, in the most recent full year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Stewart
  In the year ending 30 September 1993, 31 newly qualified consultant surgeons were appointed to posts in NHS hospitals in Scotland and 21 consultant surgeons left the NHS in Scotland either on retiral or for other reasons. Fifteen of the newly qualified consultant surgeons were appointed from outwith the NHS in Scotland. A further two previously qualified consultant surgeons were recruited from outwith Scotland.

  These data are derived from a linked comparison of 1992 and 1993 census files. Excluded, therefore, are any doctors who join and then leave between those census dates, although the number is likely to be negligible.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in which surgical specialities there remains a shortfall in qualified surgeons; and what steps are being taken to overcome the shortage.

  Mr. Stewart
  From the information available on consultant posts in the surgical specialities, 92 per cent. of posts advertised since January 1993 have been filled. The senior registrar establishment has been increased in 1994 in ear, nose and throat surgery, general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, plastic surgery and urology. NHS employers have been advised to fill and maintain the senior registrar establishment in all the surgical specialities to provide the numbers of trained surgeons expected to be needed in the future.

  Adoption
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proposals his Department has for ensuring that adoption services are part of the full range of child care services provided by each of the new local authorities;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the effect of local government reorganisation on adoption services;

  (3) what proposals his Department has for ensuring that adoption agencies will continue to provide the same range of placement options for children requiring specialist services pre and post-placement.
  461
  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided about adoption services by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on 31 March,Official Report, columns 832–33.

  Reorganisation of local government will involve some restructuring of services for children, including adoption. But every care will be taken to ensure that services currently available will be maintained. The strategic child care plans which are to be developed from the proposals in "Scotland's Children" will be of direct relevance in this respect. My officials have already had preliminary discussions about reorganisation with the British Agencies

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Voluntary agencies

  58

  49

  65

  54

  36

  Local Authorities

  355

  326

  327

  250

  257

  Non-agency

  423

  482

  386

  357

  493

  TOTAL

  836

  857

  778

  1737

  786

  1 Total includes a further 76 cases for which information on applicant or agency is not available.

  Information on the number of adoptions granted is not available centrally. However, the number of applications granted was on average 97 per cent. of applications made.

  Under the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, voluntary adoption societies are subject to approval by the Secretary of State in order to ensure that they maintain high professional standards of service and that statutory requirements are observed. Approval is based on periodic inspections, on-going monitoring of the operation of societies and assessment of their effective contribution to the adoption service.

  Trauma Centres
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what evaluation of trauma centres is being conducted, and by whom; and if that evaluation will include the future role of accident and emergency departments which will not cater for such tasks as are to be transferred to trauma centres.

  Mr. Stewart
  The report of a policy review by the Scottish Office Home and Health Department, entitled "Emergency Healthcare in Scotland: Future Structure of Accident and Emergency Services", was published on 11 April 1994. The NHS Management Executive is considering how the recommendations in the report for the future provision of trauma and other accident and emergency services in Scotland should be taken forward.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 738, how many people have died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease between April 1993 and May 1994; and if he will list in each case the names of the deceased and the location of death and the duration of the illness; and whether the procurator fiscal has made a decision as to whether there should be a fatal accident inquiry.

  Mr. Lang
  The number of people in Scotland who have died from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease between April 1993 and April 1994 is as follows. The figure for May 1994 is not yet available.
  462
  for Adoption and Fostering which are grant aided by the Government and which have an important national role to play in the development of adoption services.

  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many adoptions were arranged in the last five years by:(a) voluntary organisations, (b) local authorities and (c) in total;

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the ability of voluntary organisations to arrange adoptions at current levels.

  Mr. Lang
  The numbers of adoption applications made to Scottish courts in the five years to 1992 are as follows:

  Number

  Definite

  28

  Probable

  9

  TOTAL

  37

  The names of the deceased cannot be disclosed on grounds of patient confidentiality. Information about the location of deaths from CJD, both definite and probable, for the period April 1993 to April 1994 will be published in the third annual report of the CJD surveillance unit in early July. The information requested on the duration of the illness in each case and on any associated fatal accident inquiries is not held centrally.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out by region a breakdown of the 1993 arable area payments scheme.

  Sir Hector Monro
  A breakdown of 1993 claims in Scotland under the arable area payments scheme could only be provided on a regional basis at disproportionate costs. The information is, however, available on an less-favoured area/non-LFA basis and is as follows:

  LFA (ha)

  non-LFA (ha)

  Total (ha)

  Cereals

  40,334

  277,997

  318,331

  Oilseeds

  5,013

  56,738

  61,751

  Protein crops

  48

  4,101

  4,149

  Set-aside

  8,742

  61,619

  70,361

  Simplified Scheme

  35,062

  20,985

  56,047

  Health Boards (Motor Cars)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount of money spent on motor cars by(a) health boards and (b) hospital trusts in 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not held centrally. Neither health boards nor NHS trusts are required to seek prior approval for the purchase of motor cars.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what number and proportion of members of hospital trusts are(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) members of other health professions and (d) ancillary hospital workers.

  Mr. Stewart
  General and dental practitioners and employees of health service bodies are ineligible for appointment as chairman or non-executive director of an NHS trust. On the basis of information held centrally, 28 –12 per cent.—of non-executive appointees have medical qualifications, seven–2 per cent.—have nursing qualifications and nine–4 per cent.—are members of other health professions. Of the five executive directors on each trust, at least one must be a medical or dental practitioner and one must be a registered nurse or registered midwife.

  Fine Defaulters
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners were serving sentences for fine defaults at the latest available date given(a) as an absolute number and (b) as a percentage of the prison population and broken down by gender.

  Average daily population in Scottish penal establishments for April 1994

  Average daily fine default population

  Average daily "non-fine default? population

  Averagedaily total population

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Male

  75

  1

  5,243

  95

  5,318

  97

  Female

  6

  —

  168

  3

  174

  3

  TOTAL

  81

  1

  5,411

  99

  5,492

  100

  The percentages in some instances do not add to totals due to rounding.

  Housing Association Tenants Ombudsman
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints have been reported upon by the housing association tenants ombudsman; how many of these have been acted upon by housing associations since December 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The housing association ombudsman service which came into operation on 1 April 1994 has received 25 complaints. All cases are still under investigation, but I am advised that the ombudsman expects action on one complaint to be resolved shortly.

  National Parks
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scoiland if he will publish for each region and for Scotland as a whole(a) the total area, (b) the area occupied by national parks and (c) the percentage of area occupied by national parks.

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are no national parks in Scotland.

  Rape and Murder Trials
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many convictions for rape and/or murder in the past 20 years have been returned on (i) an 8:7 and (ii) an 8:6 majority jury verdict.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available. Section 154 of the Criminal
  464
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of this 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 A. Godman, dated 14 June 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of prisoners serving sentences for fine default at the latest available date, given as an absolute number and as a percentage of the prison population, broken down by gender.
  The table below gives the information for April 1994. The first column reflects only those individuals received solely to serve a sentence for fine default or those who are serving such a sentence consecutive to an existing sentence: it does not include those who may be serving a fine default sentence which is fully concurrent with an existing sentence.

  Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 requires the foreman of the jury to declare only whether the verdict was not unanimous.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies and reviews he has undertaken on self-corroborated evidence in rape and murder trials; what criteria are applied when deciding whether self-corroborated evidence is sufficient for prosecution; what plans he has to revise the principle of self-corroboration in Scots law; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No piece of evidence in Scots law can corroborate itself. The essence of corroboration lies in the conjunction of separate testimonies, each from an independent sources pointing to the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Even where there is an unequivocal admission of guilt, the law requires independent evidence from a source other than the accused pointing to the truth of his confession.

  The law is well settled and applies not only in cases of rape and murder. There has, therefore, been no such studies or reviews and there are no plans to revise the principle of corroboration.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances the Solicitor-General normally becomes involved in meetings with the prosecution prior to, and during, a trial for murder and/or rape; in what proportion of such trials the Solicitor-General becomes involved in this way; what matters are likely to be discussed at such meetings; and if he will make a statement.
  465
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland—as is my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate—is available for consultation and advice in any serious case if the need arises.

  Meetings are usually informal and it is not possible to say with any accuracy in what proportion of trials they occur, or to list the matters likely to be discussed.

  NHS Hospitals (Creches)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his policy that creche facilities at NHS hospitals, whether a trust status or not, should give priority to the children of hospital employees in preference to selling places to those who do not work in the hospital.

  Mr. Stewart
  The use of creche facilities in NHS hospitals is for the health board or NHS trust to determine.

  Raymond Gilmour
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names of the police officers involved in the original prosecution of Raymond Gilmour who were not interviewed in the investigation following his application for prerogative of mercy; if he will give reasons in each case; if he will detail the dates and place of any interview in which these officers participated prior to the submission of the application; if he will give the name and official designation of those conducting these interviews; and if the(a) recording and (b) transcripts of these interviews are available for public inspection.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend's letter of 18 April 1994 explained to the hon. Member that six of the seven police officers involved in the original investigation were interviewed last year and that the other officer had died in the intervening period. None of those officers was interviewed on behalf of my right hon. Friend prior to the submission of the application. The interviews were conducted by the regional procurator fiscal at Paisley and senior officers of Strathclyde police. Statements made in the course of investigations carried out on behalf of the Secretary of State are confidential.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his normal practice when considering applications for the prerogative of mercy in respect of evidence which could have been presented during original or appeal trials; how he applied this practice during his consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy by Raymond Gilmour; what such evidence in this case he dismissed; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend may refer a case to the Court of Appeal in terms of section 263(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 where he considers that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place in the case of a convicted person. Exceptionally and alternatively, he may recommend an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. My right hon. Friend exercises his powers of reference only where new evidence or fresh considerations of substance can be identified in relation to a person's conviction.

  The High Court has held that before it will consider new evidence on appeal it must be shown that the additional evidence was not available or could not reasonably have
  466
  been made available at the trial. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend would not normally refer a case to the Court of Appeal in terms of section 263(1) of the 1975 Act on the basis of evidence which could reasonably have been led at trial.

  All aspects of the petitions submitted on behalf of Mr. Gilmour last year were carefully considered, as my right hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Member of 18 April this year explained.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, during his consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy by Raymond Gilmour, he ascertained what scientific means investigating officers used to estimate the distance between the murdered body of Pamela Hastie and the tree referred to in Gilmour's alleged confession; and how he accounts for the discrepancies between the various statements of the distance.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Evidence about the location of the victim's body was before the court of trial and was therefore a matter for the jury to assess.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail the investigative procedures which were followed during the consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy by Raymond Gilmour; if he will list the departments, agencies and other bodies involved in the investigation; if he will list the name of each person interviewed during the investigation; if he will give the dates and purposes of each interview; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the request of the Scottish Office, matters raised in the representations submitted by solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Gilmour were thoroughly investigated by the regional procurator fiscal at Paisley with the assistance of senior police' officers. The results of these investigations were duly referred to the Crown Office, which provided reports for my right hon. Friend; details of such inquiries are confidential.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the application for the prerogative of mercy was submitted on behalf of Raymond Gilmour; when it was referred to the Crown Office for investigation and assessment; when the investigative process was completed; and what date the case was referred back to the Scottish Office for decision; and what date a decision was taken.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As explained in my reply to the hon. Member on 7 December 1993, a petition was submitted on behalf of Mr. Raymond Gilmour on 8 January 1993; this petition was referred to the Crown Office on 22 January 1993. Further representations on Mr. Gilmour's behalf were submitted on 12 March and 27 May last year. Reports were received from the Crown Office on 26 August and 2 September 1993. Further investigations were requested on behalf of the Secretary of State on 13 October 1993, the results of which were received from the Crown Office on 8 December 1993. A decision was taken on this case on 15 April 1994 and my right hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member on 18 April 1994 to inform him of that decision.
  467
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the majority verdict given by the jury in the original trial of Raymond Gilmour; and what was the reasons for the absence of one of the jurors.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not normally known. I understand in this case however that the guilty verdict was 8:6, one juror having become unfit to continue to serve through illness.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he gave during his assessment of the application for the prerogative of mercy to the apparent inconsistencies in the explanation given by Raymond Gilmour as to his whereabouts on the day that Pamela Hastie was raped and murdered; if he will detail precisely what these apparent inconsistencies are; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This matter was not raised in the petitions submitted on Mr. Gilmour's behalf last year.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what detailed reasons were given to him by the Minister of State for his decision to withdraw from further consideration of the application for the prerogative of mercy submitted by Raymond Gilmour; on what date he was notified of this decision; if he will detail the sources from which the Minister of State sought and obtained advice; what recollections of involvement in the original prosecution led the Minister of State to decide to withdraw from consideration of the application; on what date he first reported these recollections to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following receipt of a report on Mr. Gilmour's case in February this year, my noble and learned Friend advised the Secretary of State in March that he intended to withdraw from consideration of the papers. My noble and learned Friend advised the hon. Member on 30 March this year of his reasons for his withdrawal and the limited nature of his earlier involvement in his previous capacity as a law officer. Decisions on such cases are taken personally by the Secretary of State.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Lang
  All consultative documents issued by my Department inform those consulted that their responses will be made available to the public unless they indicate that they wish their reply to be treated as confidential.

  Turing Institute
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland at what point Scottish Enterprise was informed of the financial difficulties which eventually led to the Turing Institute being forced into liquidation; what part was played by Scottish Enterprise in the decision that the 468
  institute could not continue trading; and whether financial assistance from Scottish Enterprise was sought by the institute in an attempt to stave off liquidation.

  Mr. Stewart
  I understand that Scottish Enterprise had been aware of the difficulties being experienced by the institute for around six months prior to it going into liquidation; that it was the directors of the institute themselves who decided to call in the liquidator and that Scottish Enterprise played no part in that decision; and that the company had made no official approach to Scottish Enterprise for further financial assistance since it had been made clear to the company that everything possible had been done to help it in its present form.

  Scottish Enterprise's involvement with the institute was, however, essentially an operational matter on which Scottish Enterprise itself is best placed to advise. I know that it would be happy to discuss the matter in detail with the hon. Member if he would find that helpful.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of the minority shareholding which Scottish Enterprise took when the Turing Institute became a limited company in 1992; and what active role in the running of the institute was taken by Scottish Enterprise or its representative.

  Mr. Stewart
  This is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise which the hon. Member may be best advised to take up with it direct. However, I understand that Scottish Enterprise's shareholding in the company comprised £100,000 in ordinary shares and £150,000 in preference shares. Scottish Enterprise had a representative on the board of the Turing Institute who, I understand, acted as non-executive chairman.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cases of alleged miscarriage of justice, both past and present, in which the prosecuting officer was the officer whose name has been supplied to him.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is not aware of any such cases in which the investigating officer was the officer in question.

  Local Enterprise Companies (Pollution)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers are available to local enterprise companies to treat land polluted by industry; and what is the total area of land polluted by industry which has been treated by each local enterprise company.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have been given wide-ranging functions and general and specific powers under the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990. Those include discretionary powers under section 4(1)(h) and 5(1)(e) respectively to bring derelict land into use or improve its appearance or to assist its being so brought or improved. Those powers and functions are, within certain limits, delegated to the local enterprise companies through their operating contracts with the core bodies.

  Information on the total area of land polluted by industry which has been treated by each local enterprise

  469
  company is not held centrally. I have therefore asked the chairmen of Scottish Enterprise and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise to write to the hon. Member to provide the information requested.

  Out-of-town Facilities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many(a) out-of-town shopping centres and (b) out-of-town warehouse parks are currently under construction in Scotland;

  (2) how many warehouse clubs are currently under construction in Scotland; and how many have planning permission but are yet to start construction;

  (3) how many (a) out-of-town shopping centres and (b) out-of-town warehouse parks have planning permission but are yet to start construction in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  Detailed information on planning applications, planning consents or projects under construction is not held centrally.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proposed method of charging and mechanics of payment for water and sewerage services if his local government reorganisation proposals are enacted.

  Sir Hector Monro
  It will be for the new water and sewerage authorities to determine water and sewerage charges and the mechanics of payment. These will be set within the framework laid down in the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill and will be subject to the scrutiny and approval of the new Customers Council.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the 25 per cent. discount for single adult households will continue for water and sewerage services after local government reorganisation.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Levels of charge and decisions about discounts will be matters for the new water and sewerage authorities. Their charging schemes will be subject to consultation with and approval by the Customers Council.

  Procurators Fiscal
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the procurators fiscal in Scotland, the districts which they cover and their administrative addresses.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given as follows:

  Procurator Fiscal

  District

  Address

  A. D. Vannet

  Aberdeen

  Inverlair house, West North street, AB9 1AL

  A. T. W. Wilson

  Airdrie

  Sheriff court, Graham street, ML6 6EE

  I. D. Douglas

  Alloa

  Sheriff court, FK10 1HR

  Mrs. B. Bott

  Arbroath

  Aitken house, 15 Hill street, DD1 1BR

  N. G. O'Brien

  Ayr

  29 Miller road, KA7 2AX

  470

  Procurator Fiscal

  District

  Address

  A. J. M. Colley

  Banff

  Sheriff court, AB4 1AU

  I. Henderson

  Campbeltown

  Sheriff court, PA28 6AN

  E. B. Russell

  Cupar

  Sheriff court, KY15 4LS

  D. R. Hingston

  Dingwall

  Sheriff court, Ferry road, IV15 9QX

  H. T. Westwater

  Dornoch

  Sheriff court, IV25 3FD

  J. Cardle

  Dumbarton

  3 High street, G82 1NB

  D. J. Howdle

  Dumfries

  Sheriff court, Buccleuch street, DG1 2AN

  D. K. Heywood

  Dundee

  15 West Bell street, DD1 1HD

  R. T. Hamilton

  Dunfermline

  Sheriff court, Carnegie drive, KY12 7HW

  D. L. Webster

  Dunoon

  Sheriff court, PA23 8BQ

  A. R. G. Fraser

  Duns

  Sheriff court, TD11 3DU

  R. F. Lees

  Edinburgh

  3 Queensferry street, EH2 4KB

  G. K. Buchanan

  Elgin

  Sheriff court, IV30 1BU

  G. E. Scott

  Falkirk

  Mansionhouse road, Camelon, FK1 4LW

  J. F. McKay

  Forfar

  Sheriff court, DD8 3LA

  Mrs. A. Neizer

  Fort William

  Sheriff court, PH33 6BR

  A. C. Normand

  Glasgow

  10 Ballater street, G5 9PS

  C. C. Donnelly

  Greenock

  Sheriff court, Port Glasgow road, Bogston PA15 2AA

  A. J. P. Reith

  Haddington

  15 Lodge street, EH41 3DX

  W. G. Carmichael

  Hamilton

  Cameronian house, ⅗ Almada street, ML3 0HG

  W. W. Orr

  Inverness

  2 Baron Taylor's street, IV1 1QL

  A. R. G. Fraser

  Jedburgh

  Sheriff court, TD8 6AR

  J. G. McGlennan

  Kilmarnock

  St. Marnock street, KA1 1DZ

  F. R. Crowe

  Kirkcaldy

  3 East Fergus place, KYI 1XG

  F. Walkingshaw

  Kirkcudbright

  Sheriff court, DG6 4JW

  D. K. Adam

  Kirkwall

  Sheriff court, KW15 1PD

  S. R. Houston

  Lanark

  Sheriff court, ML11 7NE

  D. K. Adam

  Lerwick

  Sheriff court, ZE1 0HD

  H. R. Annan

  Linlithgow

  Stuart house, 181/201 High street, EH49 7EN

  C. B. McClory

  Lochmaddy

  Sheriff court, PA82 5AE

  B. R. Maguire

  Oban

  Sheriff court, PA34 4AL

  J. D. Friel

  Paisley

  106 Renfrew road, PA3 4DX

  R. F. Lees

  Peebles

  Sheriff court, EH45 8SW

  I. A. McLeod

  Perth

  52 Tay street, PA1 5TR

  I. S. McNaughton

  Peterhead

  70 St. Peter street, AB4 6QD

  471

  Procurator Fiscal

  District

  Address

  C. B. McClory

  Ponree

  Sheriff court, IV51 9EH

  C. C. Donnelly

  Rothesay

  Sheriff court, PA20 9AB

  D. MacNeill

  Selkirk

  Sheriff court, TD7 4LE

  K. Valentine

  Stirling

  Sheriff court, FK8 1NH

  E. K. Barbour

  Stonehaven

  Sheriff court, AB3 2JD

  Mrs. D. Wilson

  Stornoway

  County buildings, PA87 2JF

  F. Walkingshaw

  Stranraer

  Sheriff court, DG9 7AA

  H. T. Westwater

  Tain

  1 Tower street, IV19 1DY

  A. N. MacDonald

  Wick

  Sheriff court, KW1 4AJ

  Staff of Grade 3 and above

  Staff below Grade 3

  Staff Employed in Sections concerned with procurenent or contract work

  Staff Employed in other Sections

  Subsequent Application

  1985

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1986

  1

  2

  —

  3

  3

  1987

  1

  2

  —

  3

  2

  1988

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1989

  —

  3

  —

  3

  2

  1990

  —

  4

  —

  4

  3

  1991

  —

  3

  —

  3

  3

  1992

  4

  1

  —

  5

  5

  1993

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1994

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

EDUCATION

  Special Educational Needs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment he has made of the costs involved in the implementation of the code of practice on special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  The guidance in the code should not give rise to additional costs: it reflects current good practice in identifying and assessing special educational needs and should result in the more effective and efficient use of existing funding. The Government have introduced new grant for education and training support in 1994–95 to help schools develop special educational needs policies in the light of the code of practice.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate he has made of the number of children who will require additional learning support including those who will require statements as a result of the implementation of the code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs.

  Mr. Forth
  Paragraph 2:2 of the code of practice reflects the long-standing estimate that some 20 per cent. of pupils will have special educational needs at some stage of their school career. The purpose of the code of practice is to help ensure that these pupils' needs are appropriately met. Most children's needs will be met in mainstream schools without the making of a statement.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is set out in the table:

  Dearing Report
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the response of the teacher unions and associations following the publication of the Dearing report on the national curriculum and testing.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Dearing report was broadly welcomed by the teacher associations. Following its publication in January, all but one of the associations called off their boycott of the national tests.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the teaching of British history within the national curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend published his proposals for a revised history curriculum on 9 May. Those proposals put British history at the heart of the curriculum. The proposals are the subject of a public consultation which will last until the end of July. Following the consultation, he proposes to make an order which will require schools to teach the new history curriculum from September 1995.

  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received concerning the proposals for his study of English in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has received seven letters on the proposals for English since they were published for consultation on 9 May. The consultation is being managed by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, and consultees have been asked to respond to
  473
  the authority rather than to the Department. The authority will be advising me on the outcome of the consultation later in the year.

  GCSE
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of young people achieved five or more GCSE passes at grades A to C last year; and what was the equivalent figure for 1989.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Some 41 per cent. of 15-year-olds in England achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A to C in 1993, compared with 33 per cent. in 1989.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research he has funded on the value of nursery education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This Department has not directly funded any research into the value of nursery education recently.

  Mr. Insley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received on improving the provision of nursery education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations on nursery education in recent months.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list in order the 10 local education authorities that provide the highest number of places for nursery education for the under-fives per head of population and the 10 which provide the lowest number; and what plans he has for bringing the level of provision of the worst up to that of the best.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows the local education authority areas in England, which, in January 1993, had the highest and lowest participation rates for pupils under five in maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools. In addition, many children under five are taught in infant classes in primary schools; these are not included in the figures given. Information about nursery places is not held centrally. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that we are looking at possible ways of extending the opportunities for children under five as resources allow and within our policy of promoting choice, diversity, quality and cost-effectiveness. This may thus incorporate all aspects of under-five provision and not simply be limited to maintained nursery schools and classes. We will announce our conclusions when we are ready to do so.

  Percentage of children under five attending maintained nursery schools and nursery classes in maintained primary schools January 1993

  LEA

  Percentage

  Newham

  64

  Walsall

  60

  Cleveland

  57

  Sandwell

  57

  Manchester

  57

  Merton

  57

  North Tyneside

  55

  Salford

  54

  474

  LEA

  Percentage

  Wolverhampton

  54

  South Tyneside

  53

  Tower Hamlets

  53

  Gloucestershire

  0

  Bromley

  2

  Somerset

  3

  Wiltshire

  4

  West Sussex

  5

  Hampshire

  5

  Norfolk

  5

  Kent

  5

  Dorset

  5

  Essex

  6

  Havering

  6

  Secondary School Places
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether his Department proposes to end the allocation of secondary school places by random selection.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he does not consider random selection to be an appropriate way of allocating school places. It is, however, for local education authorities to determine arrangements for admission to county and voluntary controlled schools. I understand that Lancashire LEA has decided to consult parents and others on a proposal that the use of random selection for admission to schools in Burnley and Ormskirk be discontinued.

  Gulbenkian Report
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration he has given to the Gulbenkian report on discretionary awards.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend is still considering this report.

  Truancy
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the tables on truancy published last year by his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government attach particular importance to regular school attendance. The tables published in November 1993 showed that significant amounts of valuable learning time were being lost due to unauthorised absence. Rates of unauthorised absence also varied widely between individual LEAs and schools. In order to obtain the full picture on pupil absence we are extending the publication requirement in 1994 to include authorised as well as unauthorised absence. The publication of absence data is an important part of a school's accountability to parents and the wider community.

  Primary School Overcrowding, Redbridge
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when he next plans to visit the London borough of Redbridge to discuss primary school overcrowding.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

  Student Support
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will introduce new measures to improve financial support for students in further and higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend makes satisfactory arrangements to provide support through mandatory awards and student loans for most students domiciled in England and Wales on designated courses in higher education. Provision of support for other students in further and higher education is a matter for LEAs and other award-making bodies. Access funds are available for full-time students in particular financial difficulty.

  Private Sector Finance
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to encourage the injection of private sector finance into state-funded education.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has established a task group to co-ordinate work to promote and monitor the expansion of opportunities for private finance in education. We shall be publishing an information pack designed to encourage wider investment, and are reviewing the possibility of further action.

  Responsible Citizenship
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that schools nurture in their pupils an appreciation of responsible citizenship.

  Mr. Forth
  Schools have a statutory responsibility under section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to promote pupils' spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development, and to prepare them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experience of adult life.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations his Department has received from schools expressing concern that further education

  Thousands

  Academic year

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Universities

  69·2

  69·9

  72·3

  73·6

  78·3

  Open University

  6·5

  6·4

  6·5

  6·8

  7·2

  Polytechnics

  37·0

  38·6

  42·4

  48·7

  54·1

  Colleges

  13·4

  14·5

  13·8

  13·1

  16·3

  TOTAL

  126·1

  129·4

  134·9

  142·2

  155·9

  Source: Statistical Bulletin July 1993 and provisional 1992 data (unpublished).

  Counselling Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his Department's policy on establishing a confidential counselling service in all schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  Teachers have a general pastoral responsibility for the welfare and well-being of their
  476
  colleges are now encouraging 15 and 16-year-old school students to take A-levels in college rather than a school sixth form.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has received some representations from schoolteacher organisations and others about the general question of pupils transferring from schools to colleges in the FE sector. The Department has made it clear that we would expect pupils of compulsory school age to be admitted to FE colleges only exceptionally, where it was clearly justified in the individual case. The Department has also received representations from eight schools proposing that the requirement on schools to distribute information about local colleges to pupils in key stage 4 should be extended to include information about post-16 provision in neighbouring schools.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding(a) parental choice and (b) appeal procedure in relation to (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A large number of representations are made to the Department each year about parental choice, school admissions and appeal procedures. Many are from individual parents seeking information or advice. Because of their varied nature, no record is kept of the total number of such approaches.

  Graduates
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what have been the numbers of students graduating from(a) universities and (b) polytechnics in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Boswell
  The table below shows the number of first degree graduates from former universities Funding Council-funded universities, the Open university, former Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council-funded polytechnics—including Scottish central institutions—and FE and HE colleges in Great Britain in each of the last five academic years for which information is available.

  pupils. Schools need to work closely with a range of specialist support services which may be best placed to offer advice, information and counselling to individual school-age youngsters.

  Pupil Reports
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of parents currently receive a written report on their child's progress at least once a year in England.
  477
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the current reporting regulations schools in England are required to send a written report to all parents on their child's progress at least once in every school year.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has received from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority about the number and proportion of schools withdrawing from this year's key stage 2 pilot tests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority received a very favourable response from schools invited to take part in its technical and special educational needs pilot. Some 638 schools initially agreed to take part; 84 schools have subsequently withdrawn.

  There was also an invitation to all schools to request copies of the key stage 2 test papers. Around three-quarters did so. There was no need for these schools to report whether they administered the tests.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools conducted 14-plus examinations in English and other subjects this year; how many refused to do so; what number of pupils and teachers were involved in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what information he has received from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority about the proportion of schools at key stage 3(a) administering SATs in 1994 and (b) reporting the results; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what information he has received from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority about the number of schools at key stage 3, which have (a) completed all 1994 SATs, (b) completed some 1994 SATs, (c) completed no 1994 SATs and (d) reported the results, where SATs have been taken; and if he will make a statement.

  (3) what information he has received from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority about the proportion of schools (a) administering this year's key stage 1 tests and (b) reporting the results; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is too early to say how many and what proportion of schools have and have not administered the key stage 1 and 3 tests. Early indications are that there has been significantly more testing in schools than last year.

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the value of the assets transferred from the public to the private sector incurred in the process of the privatisation of the Grant-Maintained Schools Centre.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Grant-Maintained Schools Centre Ltd. has always been a private company, limited by guarantee. Until March 1994 it received grant from the Department for specific purposes. From 1 April 1994 the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation Ltd., a non-profit making company limited by guarantee, has taken over from the centre the activities relating to the provision of 478
  factual information and advice to schools considering grant-maintained status; and the foundation is now grant-aided by the Department. The Centre, as a private sector company, will be continuing its other activities on a purely commercial basis. No assets were transferred from the public to the private sector as a consequence of these changes.

  Conditions attached to previous grant aid to the GMSC Ltd., and to current grants to the GMSF Ltd., require that the proceeds from the disposal of any assets which were purchased from public funds should be surrendered to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money was spent by his Department and the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation(a) on literature designed to provide information on grant-maintained status, (b) on advertisements promoting the availability of such information and (c) on conferences for head teachers and governors in each month since May 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Figures for expenditure by the Department on these three areas of activity are not readily available on a month-by-month basis. Nor would they provide a reliable indication of activity in any particular month, because of time lags in the receipt of invoices and in payments.

  The available data on the Department's spending on information about grant-maintained status is:

  1993–94 £

  11994–95 £

  Publications

  297,913

  38,495

  Advertising

  207,000

  —

  Conferences

  309,492

  34,532

  1 To end May.

  The Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation started operations on 1 April. By the end of May it had not incurred any expenditure on publications, advertising or conferences.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many opt-out ballots were held in each month since May 1993; how many schools voted to become grant-maintained; and how many voted to remain with the local education authority in each month.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out below.

  Parental ballots on grant-maintained status

  Number of schools balloting

  Number of 'Yes' ballots

  Number of 'No' ballots

  1993

  May

  77

  56

  21

  June

  80

  55

  25

  July

  46

  33

  13

  August

  11

  9

  2

  September

  9

  3

  6

  October

  16

  13

  3

  November

  36

  22

  14

  December

  40

  28

  12

  1994

  January

  18

  16

  2

  February

  30

  16

  14

  March

  39

  23

  16

  479

  Number of schools balloting

  Number of 'Yes' ballots

  Number of 'No' ballots

  April

  26

  12

  14

  May

  23

  9

  14

  Secondary Schools
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many local education authorities in England allow secondary school allocation to be determined by random selection.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is not held centrally. Circular 6/93, which gives guidance on admission arrangements, underlines the Secretary of State's view that it is not appropriate to determine admission by lot in the event that a school is oversubscribed.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what(a) personal and (b) professional specifications need to be met by shortlisted applicants for the post of chief executive of the Teacher Training Agency.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The published advertisement for the chief executive of the. Teacher Training Agency sets out the general requirements of the post. The decision as to which candidates should be placed on the shortlist will be based on an assessment by executive search consultants of the relevant personal qualities and experience of individual applications.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much money has been budgeted for the retention of a recruitment agency to advise on the appointments of(a) a chief executive and (b) other members of the Teacher Training Agency.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The amount of money which has been budgeted for the retention of a recruitment agency to advise on the appointment of a chief executive is £24,000.

  We do not intend to use a recruitment agency to assist with the appointment of the remaining members of the board.

  Firms listed in the question with whom contracts we re placed and total value of those contracts

  Other firms with whom contracts were placed

  Value of contracts in column (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1989

  KPMG Peat Marwick:

  £313,000

  BIS Ltd.

  CMC Ltd

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Digitus

  Fearnhart

  Illston & Crowcroft

  SCOLL Ltd

  £242,000

  Psychologists
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is his assessment of the adequacy of the supply of educational psychologists; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he intends to issue guidelines to local education authorities about minimum staffing levels for educational psychology services based on the Warnock report recommendations of 1978;

  (3) what measures he will take to reduce waiting lists for children to be seen by educational psychologists.

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave to him on 19 and 24 May Official Report, columns 547 and 138 respectively. My right hon. Friend has seen no evidence to suggest that there are unacceptable delays for children waiting to be seen by educational psychologists. Local education authorities are responsible for determining the staffing levels of their educational psychology services in order to fulfil their statutory responsibilities. The number of educational psychologists has increased by 31 per cent. since 1985.

  Parents (Complaints)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many complaints by parents about schools have been investigated by the local government ombudsman in each of the last five years; and how many of those complaints concerned(a) maintained or local authority-maintained schools, (b) voluntary aided and (c) grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held by the Department. The annual report of the local government ombudsmen for 1992–93 notes that 19 investigation reports in that year concerned education.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for each of the last five years the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is listed.
  481

  Firms listed in the question with whom contracts we re placed and total value of those contracts

  Other firms with whom contracts were placed

  Value of contracts in column (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1990

  KPMG Peat Marwick:

  £250,000

  BIS Ltd.

  Touche Ross:

  £64,000

  ICL Ltd.

  Ernst & Young:

  £35,000

  PE International

  Butler Cox

  Oracle Ltd.

  Amtec Consulting

  CMC Ltd.

  CMG Ltd.

  Coopers & Lybrand

  FI Group

  Henley Consultants

  Hoskyns Ltd.

  Intac Ltd.

  Kinesis Computing

  Lalcrest Ltd.

  LBMS Ltd.

  Oxford Computer Training

  Radius Ltd.

  RML Ltd.

  SCOLL Ltd.

  Tranrate Ltd.

  Tunnock & Parish

  Two B Ltd.

  £609,000

  1991

  Touche Ross:

  £169,000

  Sema Systems

  Price Waterhouse:

  £60,000

  LBMS Ltd.

  CSL Ltd.:

  £23,000

  PE International

  Ernst & Young:

  £15,000

  Duhig Berry

  KPMG Peat Marwick:

  £12,000

  Kinesis Computing

  Admiral Ltd.

  BIS Ltd.

  Coopers & Lybrand

  EIS Ltd.

  Express Consultancy

  Forvus Ltd.

  Insight Consulting

  Thorn EMI

  WS Atkins

  BBT Ltd.

  Brown Associates

  Dataflex

  Howard Whiteside & Partners

  Kinsley Lord

  London University

  Mcneil Robertson Partnership

  Microsoft Ltd.

  MSL Ltd.

  MTA Ltd.

  National Computing Centre

  Neville Russell

  Oracle Ltd.

  Oxford Computer Training

  PA Consulting

  Poplar Consultants

  Radius Ltd.

  Research Machines Ltd.

  Robson Rhodes

  ROCC Computing Ltd.

  SC Scicon

  SCS Ltd.

  Software Sciences

  £1,214,000

  Sybase Ltd.

  482 483

  Firms listed in the question with whom contracts we re placed and total value of those contracts

  Other firms with whom contracts were placed

  Value of contracts in column (b)

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1992

  KPMG Peat Marwick:

  £ 112,000

  BIS Ltd.

  Ernst & Young:

  £51,000

  Insight Consulting

  CSL Ltd.:

  £34,000

  Admiral Ltd.

  Touche Ross:

  £25,000

  Aid To Industry

  Price Waterhouse:

  £23,000

  Audit Consultancy & Training

  Shreevepott Ltd.:

  £20,000

  BBT Ltd.

  Central Office of Information

  Coopers & Lybrand

  Duhig Berry

  Express Consultancy

  Forvus Ltd.

  Granada Computer Services

  Kinesis Computing

  MFT Computer Systems

  MSL Ltd.

  Oxford Computer Training

  Oracle Ltd.

  PE International

  Richard Ellis

  Saxton Bampfylde

  Sema Systems

  Thomas Henley Architects

  £1,713,000

  1993

  KPMG Peat Marwick:

  £124,000

  Ove Arup & Partners

  Touche Ross:

  £91,000

  PA Consulting

  Price Waterhouse:

  £89,000

  Arden Business Consultants

  Capita Ltd:

  £26,000

  Express Consultancy

  CSL Ltd:

  £14,000

  Uden Consulting Ltd.

  AMP Systems

  Barony Consulting

  Beard Dove Ltd.

  BIS Ltd.

  BUPA Occupational Health

  CMG Ltd.

  Coopers & Lybrand

  DEGW London

  Ingres Ltd.

  Kinesis Computing

  Kingdom Technology

  KPG Ltd.

  Microsoft Ltd.

  Morgan Harris Burrows

  N. M. Rothschild

  Oxford Computer Training

  Trackit Systems

  WS Atkins

  £1,187,000

  Honest Broker Service
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many education authorities and schools have established an independent honest broker service for parents and pupils, along the lines of that established by the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not held centrally.

  Admissions and Exclusions Appeal Committees
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many lay members have been appointed to admissions and exclusions appeal committees in England and Wales from January 1994 under the provisions of the Education Act 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on the number of lay members who have been appointed to appeal committees in England is not collected by the Department. The 484
  constitution of appeal committees is the responsibility of the local education authorities in the case of county and controlled schools, and the governing bodies in the case of voluntary-aided, special agreement and self-governing—grant—maintained—schools.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has responsibility for education matters in Wales.

  Student Awards
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether there is any intention to delegate funding for discretionary awards to the Further Education Funding Council or to colleges.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend is considering what, if any, changes should be made to the administration of discretionary awards in the light of the report on discretionary award provision published by the Gulbenkian Foundation on 8 April. Any plans to change the current arrangements would be announced to Parliament at the appropriate time.

  Adult Training
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to discuss with the Department of Employment ways of making it possible for adults to study towards the improvement of their employment prospects.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's proposals for increasing participation in education and training were set out in the White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win" published on 24 May. The Department for Education has regular discussions with the Employment Department about matters of mutual interest, including access of adults to education and training to improve their employment prospects.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the minimum period for the teaching of a non-Christian religion at key stage 1; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the statutory requirements in respect of the teaching of non-Christian faiths by the age of 11 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The law does not specify statutory minimum periods to be devoted to the teaching of individual religions. Section 8(3) of the Education Reform Act 1988 requires a locally agreed syllabus to"reflect the fact that the religious traditions of Great Britain are in the main Christian, whilst taking account of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".

  A syllabus which contained only Christianity for a whole key stage would not fully meet this requirement, but this does not mean that each of the principal religions must be taught in equal depth or at each key stage. In the syllabus as a whole and at each key stage, the relative content devoted to Christianity should predominate. The precise balance between Christianity and other religions in an individual syllabus is for the local agreed syllabus conference to decide in the light of the legal requirements, and taking into account both the local and national position.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he has taken to ensure that the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority consults parents on their proposals for national model syllabuses for religious education.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority consulted the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations as part of its wide consultation on the draft model syllabuses, published in January. Final versions of the models will be published in July.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will publish details of the representations he has received expressing concern about proposals by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority in relation to compulsory religious education, in respect of the teaching of non-Christian faiths to primary age school children.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received about 200 letters on that subject. The number of religions in addition to Christianity that should be covered during the primary phase was one of the issues on which the 486
  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority specifically sought comments during consultation on its model syllabuses for religious education. The authority is considering the results of that consultation and will publish final versions of the models in July.

  Ecological Subjects
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance he gives to schools on the teaching of ecological subjects.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The national curriculum is the focus for teaching and learning in schools. Ecological questions are addressed through subjects such as science, technology and geography. My right hon. Friend's priority is to revise the national curriculum requirements, and he has no plans to publish additional guidance on ecological matters specifically.

  Sex Education Circular
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the status of the paragraphs 20 and 22 of the sex education circular of 11 February omitted from the new circular.

  Mr. Forth
  Circular 11/87 has been superseded by circular 5/94 which explains the provisions of the Education Act 1993 in relation to sex education in maintained schools in England, and offers guidance to local education authorities and schools on implementation. Circular 5/94 sets out schools' legal obligations, including the requirement that sex education must encourage due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life and contains a summary of the law on sexual behaviour.

  Technology Colleges
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the grant-maintained and voluntary aided schools in Essex that applied to become technology colleges and set out for each of the schools for which an application was approved(a) the specific, quantifiable performance indicators, set out by the school in support of its application, which were used as a basis for determining the approval of the application, (b) the value of the additional grants that the technology college will receive from the Department for Education, or other sources of public funds, by way of the initial capital grant, enhanced capital formula allocation, and additional revenue funding and (c) the value of the financial contribution to be made by sponsors from industry and commerce to the initial establishment of the technology college and to the annual cost of its operations.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Three schools in Essex have submitted full applications to become technology colleges and have been approved to operate as technology colleges from 1 September 1994. They are Chalvedon school, Basildon; the Philip Morant school, Colchester; and Saffron Walden high school, Saffron Walden. Other schools are at varying stages in preparing their applications.

  Each approved technology college's plan includes one or more targets relating to increased curriculum provision in the specialist subjects of technology, science and mathematics; one or more targets relating to increased

  487
  take-up of such provision; and one or more targets relating to improved test and examination attainment in these subjects. Each has been invited to submit a bid for a. capital project which involves a capital grant of up to £100,000; and a bid for additional annual grant, at the rate of £60 per pupil in 1994–95, for support, equipment and training for the teaching of technology, science and mathematics.

  Each of the three schools has been pledged sponsorship from industry and commerce of some £100,000 to be made available in the school's first year of operation as a technology college. Additional contributions from sponsors to the annual cost of operation of a technology college are a matter for the schools and their sponsors.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the impact of the reduction in section 11 expenditure on access to, and participation in, the national curriculum of children from ethnic minorities in Brent, Hackney, Redbridge, Avon, Buckinghamshire, Cleveland, Hertfordshire, Birmingham, Lancashire and Wolverhampton.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Decisions on the funding of the education of their pupils, including those from ethnic minority groups, are primarily for individual schools and local education authorities. Maintained schools have a statutory duty to deliver the national curriculum as a basic entitlement for all pupils, whatever their background. My right hon. Friend will continue to monitor, through the Office of Standards in Education, the standard of educational provision in all maintained schools, including provision for those pupils for whom English is not their first language. Additional support for the latter category through section 11 grants and the single regeneration budget are matters for, respectively, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Forth
  The Department now advises respondents to all public consultation documents that their responses may be made public unless they specifically request confidentiality.

  School Transport (Seatbelts)
  Ms Whalley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what responses he has made to the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of the (i) fitting of seat belts to school mini-buses and for school journeys and (ii) the end of the three-to-a-seat rule.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is in close touch with the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Clinical Academic Staff
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what steps he intends to take to reduce the delays arising in the translation of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body award, paid to doctors each year on 1 April, to clinical academic staff;

  (2) what steps he is taking to improve morale and career prospects within academic medicine in order to ensure the continued recruitment, retention and motivation of clinical academic staff of the necessary calibre;

  (3) what steps he is taking to ensure that clinical academic staff receive the same pay awards for 1994 as their national health service counterparts.

  Mr. Boswell
  The negotiation of pay awards for clinical academic staff is a matter for the university employers, not for my right hon. Friend. It is also for them as employers to decide how best to recruit, retain and motivate their clinical academic staff.

  Bradford Muslim Girls School
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received, during the consultation period, following the application by the Bradford Muslim girls community high school to be granted voluntary aided status; how many representations(a) supported the application and (b) opposed the application; what meetings his officials have had with representatives of the school to discuss the application; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received no such representations. Officials are to meet representatives of the school on 20 June. On the question of a statement on the proposals, I refer the hon. Member for Bradford, West to replies I gave on 31 January,Official Report, column 522 and 23 May, Official Report, column 46.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to promote progress in making schools and other places of learning accessible, on a reasonable basis, to disabled people.

  Mr. Forth
  The Education (Special Educational Needs) (Information) Regulations 1994 require schools to publish, by 1 August 1995, information about their SEN policies, including information about facilities which assist access by pupils who are disabled. Guidance as to how schools might address that requirement is set out in paragraphs 37–39 of circular 6/94–"The Organisation of Special Educational Provision"—which draws attention to the desirability of a spectrum of mainstream schools being fully accessible to the disabled.

  Regulations recently made under section 21 of the Education Act 1993 require local education authorities and the Funding Agency for Schools, where it has relevant planning responsibilities, to provide each other and the Secretary of State with information on access to schools for pupils in wheelchairs biennially starting in 1995.

  We have promoted, through guidance to the Further and the Higher Education Funding Councils, the development of provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. Both the funding councils have in hand initiatives designed to improve access for these students.

  Specialist Teacher Assistants
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many bids for training specialist teacher assistants his Department has received from(a) higher education institutions, (b) individual schools, (c) consortia of schools and (d) local education authorities.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a total of 137 bids, of which 69 fall within the categories mentioned, as follows:

  Number

  (a) higher education institutions

  44

  (b) individual schools

  1

  (c) consortia of schools

  0

  (d) local education authorities

  24

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Forth
  Detailed records of job offers reported and applications made by staff under the requirements of the business appointment rules have been maintained by the Department since 1990. The information requested is given in the table. Twelve of the 14 applications reported in 1990 and 1991 came from member of Her Majesty's inspectorate.

  Job offers reported

  Grades concerned

  Contract or procurement work

  Other sections

  1990

  1

  Grade 3 or above

  No

  Yes

  8

  Below grade 3

  No

  Yes

  All above reports were followed by applications to join the company concerned.

  1991

  5

  Below grade 3

  No

  Yes

  Four of the above reports were followed by applications to join the company concerned.

  1992

  No record of any reported job offers.

  1993

  2

  Grade 3 or above

  No

  Yes

  Both of the above reports were followed by applications to join the company

  1994

  1

  Grade 3 or above

  No

  Yes

  The above report was followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Publications
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which circulars, orders or regulations set out in the timetable for Department of Education publications have not been published or made by the due date; what was the due date in each case; when was the date of publication or making of the order or regulation; and, in respect of those still outstanding, when they are expected to be made.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 26 May 1994]: Legislation came into force on the dates originally anticipated in the Education Act 1993 irrespective of any slippage in publication of circulars or other publications. Publication dates for documents which missed the deadline set out in the "Education Act 1993: Timetable of DFE publications" are as described in the list:

  Title

  Planned publication date

  Actual or expected publication date

  Incorporation of Governing Bodies and Dual Use (circular)

  November 1993

  15 December 1993

  GM Schools: Acquisition, Transfer and Governance (circular)

  November 1993

  31 December 1993

  Local Management of School (circular)

  December 1993

  31 January 1994

  Provisions for under 5s (circular)

  January 1994

  towards end of summer 1994

  Supply of School Places (circular) (included 'GM school: alteration and discontinuance?)

  March 1994

  summer 1994 (statutory provisions still came into force on 1 April 1994)

  Effective Classroom Policies on Behaviour and Discipline (circular)

  April 1994

  27 May 1994

  Education of Pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (circular)

  April 1994

  27 May 1994

  Sex Education (circular)

  April 1994

  6 May 1994

  Time Limiting on Exclusions Procedures (circular)

  April 1994

  27 May 1994

  Exclusions: Money Following the Child (circular)

  April 1994

  end of June 1994

  Education otherwise than at School and Pupil Referral Units (circular)

  April 1994

  27 May 1994

  Education of Sick Children (circular)

  April 1994

  27 May 1994

  Education of Children looked after by LAs (circular)

  April 1994

  27 May 1994

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the need for condoms to be supplied to prisoners known to be at risk of contracting or spreading the HIV virus.

  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.
  491
  Letter from D. Lewis to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what assessment he has made as to the need for condoms to be supplied to prisoners known to be at risk of contracting or spreading the HIV virus.
  The Prison Service AIDS Advisory Committee has recently completed a review of all aspects of HIV in prisons including measures which need to be taken to prevent the spread of HIV infection amongst the prison population. The report of this review is now being considered. In addition the Prison Service has commissioned a study currently being carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry and the National AIDS Counselling Training Unit into risk behaviours amongst prisoners. The results of this study will be available in January 1995.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is currently being conducted into the spread or prevalence of HIV and AIDS among prisoners; and when he expects this research to be concluded.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what research is currently being conducted into the spread or prevalence of HIV and AIDS amongst prisoners.
  A pilot feasibility study into the prevalence of HIV amongst prisoners has recently been completed. This study was an extension of the Public Health Laboratory Service's series of unlinked anonymised HIV prevalence studies being carried out elsewhere in the community. The aim of the study was to ascertain whether it was possible to persuade prisoners to provide anonymously a sample of saliva for HIV testing and to answer a short questionnaire to determine the possible route of transmission. It is hoped that the results of the study will be available shortly.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prisons. have(a) full-time and (b) part-time HIV counsellors; and for how many hours each week, by institution.

  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 R. Tilt to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service HIV counsellors.
  The Prison Service completed, in 1993, a programme of education and training of selected staff so as to provide in each establishment at least two centrally trained HIV counsellors. By the end of 1993, 200 prison staff had been trained in HIV counselling based on the World Health Organisation model for training in HIV counselling, as adapted by the Prison Service AIDS Advisory Committee for prisons in England and Wales. In addition, the Prison Service has 550 centrally trained HIV care and support officers. These officers, of whom there are also at least two in each establishment, have undergone a four day training course in HIV awareness. They are easily contacted by prison inmates who may have concerns about HIV, and who can then be referred to the internal HIV counsellors or external HIV counsellors if this is deemed necessary.
  There are no full-time HIV prison counsellors. All Prison Service HIV counsellors and care and support officers combine
  492
  this work with other responsibilities—they are nurses, health care officers, discipline officers, psychologists, chaplains, probation officers, governors and prison medical officers.
  Prisoners with HIV infection who are well, are expected to be seen by prison medical officers at least on a three monthly basis for full clinical and laboratory monitoring of their state of health. Prisoners with HIV infection may of course request to see a care and support officer, HIV counsellor and/or a prison medical officer whenever they feel this is necessary. It is not therefore possible to say how much HIV counselling by hours per week each prisoner with HIV infection receives.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to the suitability of the wing allocated for young offenders in HM prison Gloucester for offenders of this type.

  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 D. Lewis to Mr. Robert Maclennan, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the suitability of the wing allocated for young offenders in Gloucester prison.
  Gloucester prison is a local prison and may hold prisoners of all classifications, including young prisoners. The 81 cells in C wing, which now hold young prisoners were certified suitable for this purpose by the Area Manager.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average daily number of juveniles remanded in custody in(a) March and (b) April.

  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 14 June 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 daily number of juveniles remanded into custody in (a) March and (b) April.
  During both March and April provisional information indicates that on average five juveniles, aged 15 to 16, a day were received on remand into a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the United Kingdom will have the discretion to admit a person whose name is on the persona non grata list envisaged in the draft regulation for a common visa list when there are strong compassionate or other reasons justifying admission.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under article 12 of the draft external frontiers convention a member state would have discretion to admit a person who was on the joint list of inadmissible persons established under article 10 of the convention, on humanitarian grounds, in the national interest or by reason of international commitments. Entry given in such circumstances would, however, be restricted
  493
  solely to the territory of the member state concerned and there would be a duty to inform other member states of the decision taken.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an unemployed Irish national married to a non-European Economic Area spouse will be issued with a residence permit automatically, by virtue of rights to settle under the provisions of the common travel area.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. Any application made by an Irish national for a residence permit under the provisions of EC law will be dealt with in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, in the same way as an application from a national of any other European Economic Area state. However, Irish nationals will continue to be regarded as settled here under domestic immigration law.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances the United Kingdom will have the discretion to refuse entry to a person who has been granted a European visa; and what rights of appeal or redress will apply.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under the draft external frontiers convention a person holding a uniform visa would not require a United Kingdom national visa to gain entry to the country, but possession of a uniform visa would not entitle the holder to admission. Refusal of admission to a person holding a uniform visa would not attract a right of appeal since uniform visas will be available only for short stays.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for primary legislation to remove the benefits of the common travel area residence status from Irish nationals whose legal basis for residence is held to be that of European Economic Area law.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people will know if their names have been placed on the persona non grata list envisaged in the draft regulation on a common visa list; whether all countries will have common criteria for placing people on this list; whether these criteria will be made public; and in what circumstances names will be removed from the list.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  A joint list of persons to be refused entry to member states of the European Union is provided for in article 10 of the draft external frontiers convention. Article 10.3 sets out the criteria for the inclusion of persons on the list. There has not yet been any agreement on the detailed rules for the application of these criteria, which remain a matter for discussion between member states. It may not be either practicable or in certain cases desirable to introduce an obligation to inform a person of his inclusion on the list. The text of the detailed rules referred to above is likely to fall within the criteria for deposit in both Houses in accordance with the scrutiny arrangements for title VI matters. It will be for individual member states to remove from the list names which they themselves have included, as circumstances change.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he had with the Irish authorities about the proposal that Irish citizens with non-European Economic Area spouses will need to apply for residence permits in order that their spouses may benefit from EEA rights.
  494
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Irish authorities have been kept closely informed of the provisions of the draft Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994 under which the non-EEA dependants of Irish nationals will benefit from EC rights of residence in the same way as the non-EEA dependants of other EEA nationals.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it will be his practice that non-European Economic Area national children and young people who are granted EEA family permits will continue to be entitled to them after they pass the age of 21 years, or cease to be dependent, and that they will be granted settlement along with the EEA family member on whom their rights depend.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under the provisions of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, non-EEA dependent children of EEA nationals who are exercising rights of residence in the United Kingdom may reside here on the same basis, irrespective of age. However, those children of EEA nationals who pass the age of 21 and cease to be dependent will need to qualify on their own account if they wish to remain in the United Kingdom, unless they have already been granted settlement in line with the EEA national on whom they were at the time dependent.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many migrant citizens of the European Union or persons purporting to be such there are in each of the past five years whose identify card or passport has been investigated either on the instigation of the immigration service or on the instigation of officials of his Department in order to establish the validity or genuineness of the document; in how many cases such documents were considered to be genuine and applying to the applicant; in how many cases it was concluded that this was not the case; if he will break down the figure by nationality; and in cases where the document was rejected, what right of appeal was offered to the applicant.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  This information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the number of falsified, counterfeit or fraudulently obtained EC documents and those used by impostors detected at United Kingdom ports and airports of entry in each of the last three years. The nationality shown is that which the holder of the document purported to be.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Belgium

  54

  28

  45

  Denmark

  1

  2

  4

  France

  308

  386

  485

  Germany

  8

  3

  38

  Greece

  53

  31

  31

  Ireland

  2

  1

  Nil

  Italy

  39

  37

  168

  Luxembourg

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Netherlands

  93

  79

  193

  Portugal

  190

  96

  143

  Spain

  16

  13

  12

  United Kingdom

  337

  310

  462

  Total

  1,101

  986

  1,581

  The same rights of appeal are available to a person in possession of a forged or falsified passport who is refused leave to enter the United Kingdom or removed as an illegal entrant as to those refused leave or removed in other circumstances.

  Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date in March the number of prisoners in England and Wales being held three to a cell reached zero; on what dates since then prisoners have been held three to a cell, and 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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisoners sharing three to a cell.
  This information is submitted routinely by establishments on the last Friday of each month, and was collected exceptionally on 31 March 1994, the end of our financial year.
  On Friday 25 March 1994 there were twenty-four prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for one at Leicester prison. On Thursday 31 March 1994 and Friday 29 April 1994 there were no prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for one.

  Escapees
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many escapes there were from Group 4 Court Escort Services during 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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of escapes from Group 4 escorts in the East Midlands and Humberside.

  Notified reductions in numbers of Section 11 posts, with effect from

  Grant recipient

  Grant cost £ 1993–94

  Allocation £ 1994–95

  April 1994

  September 1994

  Avon

  818,931

  615,251

  —

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  323,379

  230,860

  —

  —

  Barnet

  863,312

  748,243

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  3,151,026

  2,361,022

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  1,423,166

  1,053,875

  214·00

  —

  Bexley

  161,586

  100,138

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  5,483,109

  4,046,501

  —

  —

  Blackburn

  68,107

  49,539

  —

  —

  Bolton

  1,171,230

  880,595

  21·00

  —

  Bradford

  5,611,597

  4,204,150

  —

  —

  Brent

  2,402,307

  1,742,385

  1—

  1—

  Buckinghamshire

  1,490,140

  1,180,697

  —

  —

  Burnley

  25,772

  18,774

  —

  —

  Bury

  486,477

  354,547

  1—

  1—

  Calderdale

  1,165,370

  853,361

  —

  9·00

  Cambridgeshire

  1,335,768

  976,563

  —

  —

  Camden

  1,563,056

  1,111,346

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  10,727

  7,888

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  99,664

  73,862

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  653,286

  479,638

  —

  —

  Coventry

  2,785,023

  2,108,375

  —

  276·76

  Croydon

  1,327,959

  949,775

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  1,432,669

  1,046,415

  —

  22·50

  Devon

  15,816

  11,949

  1—

  1—

  Doncaster

  137,275

  100,338

  —

  —

  Dudley

  1,121,136

  877,198

  —

  —

  Durham

  171,737

  119,090

  —

  —

  Ealing

  3,418,619

  2,632,879

  —

  1—

  496
  Between the commencement of the service on 5 April 1993 and 31 May 1994, there have been a total of 31 escapes, excluding 19 prisoners immediately recaptured. The Group 4 court escort and custody service covers work previously undertaken by both the prison and police services within the contract area. In the first year of operation Group 4 carried out a total of 100,656 prisoner movements and the escape statistics should be seen in that context.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the budget allocations for section 11 grants for 1993–94 and 1994–95; if he will list the numbers of section 11 posts reported to his Department as having been made redundant; and how many of those redundant posts were held by members of ethnic minorities in Brent, Hackney, Redbridge, Avon, Buckinghamshire, Cleveland, Hertfordshire, Birmingham, Lancashire and Wolverhampton.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Available information is shown in the table.

  Previously grant has been paid as a proportion of actual salary costs incurred. The first figure shows the amount of grant payable in relation to expenditure reported by the authority or institution as having been incurred during 1993–94. The second figure is the budget allocation which has been notified to the authority or institution in relation to its expenditure in 1994–95, under new arrangements for the payment of grant. The other two columns show numbers of posts of which formal notification had been received from an authority or institution by 10 June that, with effect from April 1994 or Septemberr 1994 respectively, they would no longer form part of a project attracting section 11 grant. Information is not held centrally as to particular arrangements for the management of a reduction in the number of posts, or as to the ethnic background of postholders.
  497

  Notified reductions in numbers of Section 11 posts, with effect from

  Grant recipient

  Grant cost £ 1993–94

  Allocation £ 1994–95

  April 1994

  September 1994

  East Sussex

  179,216

  139,412

  1—

  1—

  Enfield

  1,432,895

  1,058,164

  —

  —

  Essex

  34,685

  25,755

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  32,918

  22,732

  —

  —

  Gloucester

  40,868

  28,983

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  362,423

  265,008

  1—

  1—

  Greenwich

  1,770,981

  1,329,673

  13·70

  —

  Gwent

  268,583

  192,662

  —

  —

  Hackney

  3,957,860

  3,147,620

  1—

  1—

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  962,912

  713,289

  3·60

  —

  Hampshire

  748,448

  558,367

  —

  —

  Haringey

  3,165,094

  2,604,874

  1—

  1—

  Harrow

  752,412

  556,992

  —

  —

  Havering

  50,636

  39,169

  —

  —

  Hereford and Worcester

  238,339

  175,235

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  1,975,256

  1,503,058

  —

  1—

  Hillingdon

  413,068

  317,055

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  1,905,257

  1,401,864

  —

  —

  Humberside

  390,983

  275,983

  —

  —

  Hyndburn

  23,426

  17,860

  1—

  1—

  Islington

  2,120,080

  1,434,673

  26·50

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,152,828

  899,845

  14·00

  —

  Kent

  1,386,302

  1,095,957

  1—

  1—

  Kingston

  152,223

  106,742

  —

  —

  Kirklees

  3,222,136

  2,402,511

  1—

  1—

  Lambeth

  1,477,280

  1,109,603

  1—

  1—

  Lancashire

  5,843,285

  4,629,966

  —

  1128·31

  Leeds

  2,153,838

  1,725,338

  —

  —

  Leicester

  165,214

  115,597

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  4,290,729

  3,228,512

  —

  1—

  Lewisham

  2,155,486

  1,637,467

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  69,958

  61,319

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  216,630

  165,185

  1—

  1—

  London Boroughs Grants Unit

  160,067

  123,071

  1—

  1—

  Manchester

  2,827,118

  2,225,999

  3·60

  19·50

  Merton

  713,163

  490,246

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough

  7,179

  3—

  —

  —

  Newcastle

  411,262

  303,140

  1—

  1—

  Newham

  2,847,660

  2,206,728

  1—

  1—

  Norfolk

  78,002

  68,285

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  161,692

  115,586

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  65,123

  49,312

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  890,134

  663,758

  —

  —

  Nottingham

  84,003

  61,435

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1,991,441

  1,519,199

  —

  —

  Oldham

  2,510,714

  1,909,961

  2·50

  1—

  Oxford City

  7,650

  3,322

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  871,818

  684,260

  —

  1—

  Preston

  18,199

  12,834

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  1,240,862

  933,052

  1—

  1—

  Redditch

  17,935

  12,971

  —

  —

  Richmond

  76,799

  56,225

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  1,582,323

  1,193,213

  17·00

  —

  Rotherham

  442,168

  327,313

  —

  —

  St. Albans

  23,628

  18,105

  —

  —

  St. Helens

  18,975

  14,043

  0·90

  —

  Salford

  64,834

  47,498

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  1,644,471

  1,228,775

  1—

  1—

  Scunthorpe

  31,615

  16,103

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  2,299,408

  1,697,662

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  114,218

  84,104

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  591,519

  444,978

  1—

  1—

  South Yorkshire FCDA

  16,649

  12,751

  —

  —

  Southampton

  5,876

  11,422

  —

  —

  Southwark

  2,513,573

  1,965,479

  1—

  1—

  Staffordshire

  1,088,534

  924,043

  5·75

  —

  Stockport

  103,265

  76,079

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  317,330

  237,235

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  115,825

  87,284

  —

  —

  Surrey

  400,899

  291,845

  —

  —

  Sutton

  62,881

  46,902

  —

  —

  Tameside

  780,925

  585,940

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  9,048,416

  6,826,782

  1—

  1—

  Trafford

  329,296

  242,981

  1—

  1—

  Wakefield

  404,567

  296,729

  —

  —

  498 499

  Notified reductions in numbers of Section 11 posts, with effect from

  Grant recipient

  Grant cost £ 1993–94

  Allocation £ 1994–95

  April 1994

  September 1994

  Walsall

  2,125,562

  1,579,939

  —

  50·30

  Waltham Forest

  2,056,550

  1,585,015

  —

  —

  Wandswoith

  1,809,548

  1,434,386

  —

  19·00

  Warwickshire

  1,045,855

  785,021

  —

  —

  West Midlands FCDA

  86,633

  65,241

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  280,628

  212,623

  1—

  1—

  West Yorkshire FCDA

  129,534

  95,651

  —

  —

  Westminster

  1,958,679

  1,498,548

  —

  —

  Wigan

  60,071

  44,078

  1—

  1—

  Wiltshire

  163,849

  121,565

  —

  —

  Wirral

  95,393

  75,839

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  2,065,570

  1,575,008

  —

  —

  FE Colleges

  Arnold and Carlton

  69,417

  45,530

  —

  —

  Barnet

  70,552

  59,505

  —

  —

  Bexley

  31,028

  24,920

  —

  —

  Birmingham FE

  1,918,978

  1,376,534

  —

  —

  Bradford and Ilkley

  315,097

  219,568

  —

  —

  Cambridge Regional

  192,189

  142,792

  —

  —

  Charles Keene

  100,043

  77,199

  —

  —

  Coventry Tech

  58,620

  47,229

  —

  —

  Crawley

  48,191

  34,688

  —

  0·64

  Croydon

  108,841

  77,665

  —

  —

  Dewsbury

  70,764

  52,895

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  26,428

  18,684

  —

  —

  Dudley

  187,614

  136,755

  —

  —

  Ealing

  124,070

  93,710

  —

  —

  Enfield

  149,646

  111,567

  —

  —

  Gateshead

  30,524

  21,437

  —

  —

  Gloscat

  33,781

  24,312

  —

  —

  Greenhill

  218,531

  162,085

  —

  —

  Hackney

  304,289

  234,260

  1—

  1—

  Hammersmith and West London

  38,774

  28,865

  —

  1·00

  Hendon

  174,843

  128,419

  —

  —

  Henley

  72,099

  50,799

  1.33

  —

  Hopwood Hall

  23,630

  3—

  —

  —

  Huddersfleld

  108,625

  68,385

  —

  —

  Islington

  92,214

  67,102

  —

  —

  Joseph Chamberlain

  93,841

  67,762

  —

  —

  Keighley

  51,246

  44,658

  0·44

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  41,761

  33,119

  —

  —

  Kingsway

  65,894

  49,613

  —

  —

  Leyton 6th Form

  23,680

  18,574

  —

  —

  Luton 6th Form

  87,785

  64,118

  —

  —

  Mancat

  43,847

  32,652

  1—

  1—

  Newcastle

  55,715

  39,206

  1—

  1—

  Newham

  426,655

  225,627

  1—

  1—

  North East London

  174,501

  124,985

  —

  —

  North Hertfordshire

  73,449

  56,138

  —

  —

  North West London

  446,261

  352,602

  1—

  1—

  Northampton

  104,267

  77,420

  —

  —

  Nottingham Consortium

  134,419

  110,736

  —

  —

  Oakland

  82,996

  60,499

  0·70

  —

  Oldham

  68,447

  58,463

  1—

  1—

  Park Lane

  137,391

  110,314

  —

  —

  Rotherham

  33,933

  24,874

  —

  —

  Sandwell

  4—

  51,876

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  244,610

  172,067

  —

  —

  Southgate

  61,584

  49,649

  —

  —

  Tameside

  53,649

  40,638

  —

  —

  Thomas Danby

  200,581

  146,874

  —

  1—

  Tile Hill

  66,060

  47,158

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  485,309

  356,733

  —

  —

  Tresham

  70,489

  59,848

  —

  —

  Uxbridge

  77,084

  51,481

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  32,847

  24,773

  0·50

  —

  Walsall

  26,680

  18,074

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  47,021

  35,591

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  59,480

  48,140

  —

  —

  West Hertfordshire

  71,787

  64,296

  —

  1—

  Westminster

  54,137

  44,189

  —

  1—

  Wirral

  14,754

  10,788

  —

  —

  Woolwich

  35,767

  24,583

  —

  —

  500 501

  Notified reductions in numbers of Section 11 posts, with effect from

  Grant recipient

  Grant cost £ 1993–94

  Allocation £ 1994–95

  April 1994

  September 1994

  Grant-maintained schools, etc·5

  Ash Green

  7,525

  6,217

  —

  —

  Ashcroft

  4,546

  3,549

  —

  —

  Avon Valley

  15,571

  11,750

  —

  —

  Beechview

  9,322

  6,995

  1—

  1—

  Bridgewater and Brindley Hall

  17,746

  13,111

  1—

  1—

  Burntwood

  74,081

  55,687

  1—

  1—

  Claremont

  18,016

  13,629

  —

  —

  Copland

  50,336

  33,860

  —

  0·50

  Deacons

  49,746

  24,823

  —

  1·50

  Djanogly CTC

  31,072

  23,343

  —

  —

  Francis Bacon

  32,166

  24,645

  0·30

  —

  George Dixon

  628,445

  81,865

  —

  —

  Graveney

  94,891

  69,720

  1—

  1—

  Greenford

  61,314

  39,461

  —

  —

  Greenwood Dale

  34,388

  26,111

  —

  —

  Hall Green

  12,810

  9,320

  —

  —

  Hamilton

  54,648

  41,410

  —

  —

  Hendon

  35,052

  28,041

  —

  —

  Holly Hall

  62,083

  3,778

  —

  —

  Holy Trinity

  14,151

  10,819

  —

  —

  London Oratory

  54,050

  38,025

  1—

  1—

  Myton

  26,977

  19,888

  —

  —

  Ninestiles

  612,687

  16,530

  —

  —

  Northampton Boys

  21,001

  13,372

  —

  —

  Northolt

  7,745

  5,379

  1—

  1—

  Oldfield

  5,409

  3,645

  1—

  1—

  Radcliffe

  13,903

  10,478

  1—

  1—

  Raines Foundation

  36,169

  27,146

  —

  —

  Reading Girls

  16,566

  12,773

  —

  —

  Robert Napier

  1,652

  1,220

  —

  —

  Small Heath

  67,441

  50,626

  —

  —

  Stratford

  71,641

  54,277

  —

  —

  Wood End

  6,726

  6,815

  —

  —

  Wrenn

  36,240

  27,351

  —

  —

  1 Information, or further information, is awaited from the authority or institution.

  2 It is understood that functions previously funded under section 11 will continue under the authority?s mainstream funding.

  3 Section 11 project approved only until 31 March 1994.

  4 Separate project not established until 1 April 1994.

  5 The table does not include schools with new project proposals which are in the process of consideration, or where a budget allocation figure for 1994–95 has not yet been finally notified.

  6 Part-year expenditure figure—separate project established during 1993–94.

  Local Authority Elections
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to collect centrally and arrange for the official publication of the results of all local authority elections and by-elections.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Results of local authority elections outside London are collected by the local government chronicle elections centre, university of Plymouth, and published in the local elections handbook series. Electoral data for London boroughs are collected and published by the London Research Centre. It would not be an effective use of resources for the Home Office to duplicate the work of either the university of Plymouth or the LRC.

  The Home Office collects information on the number and turnout in by-elections. This is published annually in "Social Trends" and the Central Statistical Office?s "Annual Abstract of Statistics". We do not currently publish the results of individual by-elections and there are no plans to do so.

  Homicide
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales were serving sentences for homicide at the latest available date, given(a) as an absolute number and (b) as a percentage of the prison population, and broken down by gender.

  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 14 June 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 prisoners in England and Wales were serving sentences for homicide at the latest available date, given (a) as an absolute and (b) as a percentage of the prison population, and broken down by gender.
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 March 1994. On that date sone 3,600 persons in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for whom an offence was recorded were serving sentences for murder, attempted murder, making threats to kill, conspire/aid/incite murder, manslaughter,

  503
  infanticide, death by reckless driving and "other" homicides. They accounted for 11 per cent. of the sentenced prison population for whom an offence was recorded. The correspond- ing proportion for males was 11 per cent. and for females 12 per cent.

  Restraint Use
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times restraints were used on(a) prison inmates and (b) persons in police custody during 1993.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Provisional information for 1993 shows that there were 111 applications of restraints under rule 46 of the Prison Rules 1964 and rule 49 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 1988 in Prison Service establishments. Those applications cover the use of canvas jackets, body belts, handcuffs and ankle straps but do not include the use of protective rooms and special cells. It also does not cover the use of restraints while prisoners are being escorted between Prison Service establishments or between cells to the governor?s office within an establishment, matters on which information is not collected centrally.

  No information is collected centrally on those held in police custody on whom restraints are used.

  Prison Staff Ratios
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ratio of staff to prisoners at each prison in England and Wales at the latest available date.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about staff to prisoner ratios in the Prison Service.
  A table showing the ratios of staff of all grades to prisoners at each prison, as at 25 May, has been placed in the House of Commons library.

  25 May 1994

  Establishment

  Ratio

  Acklington

  1:1·8

  Albany

  1:1·3

  Aldington

  1:1·6

  Ashwell

  1:2·1

  Askham Grange

  1:1·3

  Aylesbury

  1:0·8

  Bedford

  1:1·1

  Belmarsh

  1:1·0

  Birmingham

  1:1·4

  Blakenhurst

  1:1·7

  Blantyre House

  1:1·4

  Blundeston

  1:1·5

  Brinsford

  1:1·4

  Bristol

  1:1·1

  Brixton

  1:0·9

  Brockhill

  1:1·2

  Bullingdon

  1:1·3

  Bullwood Hall

  1:0·9

  Camp Hill

  1:1·3

  Canterbury

  1:1·2

  Cardiff

  1:1·3

  Castington

  1:1·6

  504

  Establishment

  Ratio

  Channings Wood

  1:2·2

  Chelmsford

  1:1·2

  Coldingley

  1:1·3

  Cookham Wood

  1:1·3

  Dartmoor

  1:1·4

  Deerbolt

  1:1·5

  Dorchester

  1:1·4

  Dover

  1:1·1

  Downview

  1:1·5

  Drake Hall

  1:1·6

  Durham

  1:1·2

  East Sutton Park

  1:1·4

  Hmley

  1:1·5

  Erlestoke

  1:1·2

  Everthorpe

  1:1·2

  Exeter

  1:1·2

  Featherstone

  1:1·9

  Feltham

  1:1·4

  Finnamore Wood

  1:2·2

  Ford

  1:2·5

  Frankland

  1:0·8

  Pull Sutton

  1:0·8

  Garth

  1:1·5

  Gartree

  1:1·0

  Glen Parva

  1:1·7

  Gloucester

  1:1·1

  Grendon (including Spring Hill)

  1:4·0

  Guys Marsh

  1:1·0

  Hollesley Bay

  1:1·0

  Haslar

  1:1·7

  Hatfield

  1:1·1

  Haverigg

  1:1·5

  Hewell Grange

  1:1·4

  High Down

  1:1·3

  Highpoint

  1:1·7

  Hindley

  1:1·1

  Holloway

  1:1·0

  Holme House

  1:1·6

  Hull

  1:1·1

  Huntercombe

  1:1·2

  Kingston

  1:1·2

  Kirkham

  1:2·7

  Kirklevington

  1:1·0

  Lancaster Farms

  1:1·3

  Lancaster

  1:2·0

  Latchmere House

  1:1·8

  Leeds

  1:1·6

  Leicester

  1:1·1

  Lewes

  1:1·1

  Leyhill

  1:2·2

  Lincoln

  1:1·6

  Lindholme

  1:1·5

  Littlehey

  1:2·0

  Liverpool

  1:1·6

  Long Lartin

  1:0·7

  Low Newton

  1:1·5

  Maidstone

  1:1·4

  Manchester

  1:1·1

  Moorland

  1:1·6

  Morton Hall

  1:2·2

  New Hall

  1:1·0

  North Sea Camp

  1:1·9

  Northallerton

  1:0·8

  Norwich

  1:1·0

  Nottingham

  1:1·0

  Onley

  1:1·7

  Oxford

  1:2·1

  Parkhurst

  1:0·5

  Pentonville

  1:1·4

  Portland

  1:1·3

  Preston

  1:1·2

  Pucklechurch

  1:0·6

  Ranby

  1:1·6

  Reading

  1:0·9

  Risley

  1:1·5

  Rochester

  1:0·8

  Rudgate

  1:2·2

  Send

  1:1·4

  505

  Establishment

  Ratio

  Shepton Mallet

  1:1·3

  Shrewsbury

  1:1·3

  Stafford

  1:1·5

  Standford Hill

  1:1·9

  Stocken

  1:1·8

  Stoke Heath

  1:1·3

  Styal

  1:1·0

  Sudbury (including Foston Hall)

  2:1·0

  Swaleside

  1:1·5

  Swansea

  1:1·1

  Swinfen Hall

  1:1·1

  Thorn Cross

  1:1·4

  The Mount

  1:2·4

  The Verne

  1:1·9

  Thorp Arch

  1:1·3

  Usk

  1:1·3

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1:1·3

  Wakefield

  1:1·1

  Wandsworth

  1:1·2

  Wayland

  1:2·1

  Wellingborough

  1:1·6

  Werrington

  1:1·3

  Wetherby

  1:1·1

  Whatton

  1:1·6

  Whitemoor

  1:0·8

  Winchester

  1:1·0

  Wolds

  1:1·7

  Woodhill

  1:1·1

  Wymott

  1:1·0

  Note: The figures are to the nearest decimal point.

  Prison Population
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of(a) remand and (b) sentenced male prisoners were aged (i) 16 and under, (ii) 17 to 21 inclusive, (iii) 22 to 24 inclusive, and (iv) over 24 years at the latest available date;

  (2) what percentage of (a) remand and (b) sentenced female prisoners were aged (i) 16 and under, (ii) 17 to 21 inclusive, (iii) 22 to 24 inclusive and (iv) over 24 years at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answers 26 May 1994]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking what percentage of (a) remand and (b) sentenced male and female prisoners were aged (i) 16 and under, (ii) 17 to 21 inclusive, (iii) 22 to 24 inclusive and (iv) over 24 years at the latest available date.
  The latest available provisional information is for the prison population in Prison Service establishments on 31 March 1994 and is given in the attached tables.

  Percentage of population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales by type of custody and sex on 31 March 19941

  Type of custody

  Age

  Percentage of remand population

  Percentage of sentenced population

  Males

  16 and under

  2

  1

  17–21

  29

  18

  22–24

  17

  15

  Over 24

  52

  66

  506

  Type of custody

  Age

  Percentage of remand population

  Percentage of sentenced population

  Females

  16 and under

  0

  1

  17–21

  19

  13

  22–24

  16

  15

  Over 24

  65

  71

  1 Provisional figures. Sentenced includes fine defaulters but not non-criminal prisoners.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the prison population broken down by security category, at the latest available date.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the prison population broken down by security category, at the latest available date.
  The latest information is for 3 May 1994 and is given in the attached table.

  Estimated adult male sentenced population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales by security category on 3 May 19941

  Number

  Category "A"

  600

  Category "B"

  5,500

  Category "C"

  15,400

  Category "D"

  5,600

  1 Excludes sentenced adult males awaiting categorisation, young offenders and sentenced female prisoners who are categorised as suitable for open or closed conditions only and remand prisoners who are not assigned a security category until they are sentenced.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales were serving sentences for violent offences at the latest available date, given(a) as an absolute number and (b) as a percentage of the prison population, and broken down by gender.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners in England and Wales were serving sentences for violent offences at the latest available date, given (a) as an absolute number and (b) as a percentage of the prison population, and broken down by gender.
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 March 1994. On that date some 16,200 persons in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for whom an offence was recorded were serving sentences for violence against the person, robbery or for a sexual offence. They accounted for 46 per cent. of the sentenced prison population for whom an offence was recorded. The corresponding proportion for males was 46 per cent. and for females 27 per cent.
  507
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the prison population was(a) remand and (b) sentenced prisoners in each of the last 36 months and at the latest available date.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what percentage of the prison population were (a) remanded and (b) sentenced prisoners in each of the last 36 months and at the latest available date.
  The available information for the percentage of remand and sentenced prisoners in custody is calculated for the last day of each month. It is given in the table for the period March 1991 to March 1994.

  Percentage of prison population by type of custody England and Wales, March 1991 to March 19941 2

  Percentage on remand

  Percentage sentenced

  1991

  March

  21

  78

  April

  22

  77

  May

  22

  77

  June

  22

  77

  July

  22

  77

  August

  22

  77

  September

  23

  76

  October

  23

  76

  November

  22

  77

  December

  22

  77

  1992

  January

  23

  76

  February

  23

  76

  March

  22

  77

  April

  22

  77

  May

  22

  77

  June

  22

  77

  July

  21

  78

  August

  22

  77

  September

  22

  77

  October

  22

  77

  November

  22

  77

  December

  21

  78

  1993

  January

  23

  76

  February

  23

  76

  March

  23

  76

  April

  23

  76

  May

  24

  75

  June

  24

  75

  July

  24

  75

  August

  25

  74

  September

  25

  74

  November

  25

  73

  December

  24

  75

  Average time served in custody in Prison Service establishments under sentence1 by prisoners discharged from determinate sentences on completion of sentence or on licence, 1980–19912

  Months

  Average time served in custody under sentence1

  Young Offenders

  Males

  Females

  Adult Males

  Adult Females

  1980

  —

  —

  8·3

  —

  1981

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  508

  Percentage on remand

  Percentage sentenced

  1994

  January

  26

  73

  February

  25

  73

  March

  24

  74

  1 Prisoners held in police cells are included in both the total prison population and included with the remand and sentenced populations.

  2 Non-criminal prisoners are included in the total prison population but are excluded from both the remand and sentenced.

  Remand Prisoners
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time spent on remand by(a) males and (b) females remanded into custody in 1993.

  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 D. Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 14 June 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the average time spent on remand by (a) males and (b) females remanded into custody in 1993.
  The available information is estimated from the figures for the population and receptions of untried prisoners in 1993. For males the average time served as an untried prisoner was estimated as 55 days and for females 39 days.

  Prisoners (Time Served)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount of time served by(a) male and (b) female prisoners released from prison in England and Wales in each year since 1980.

  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 14 June 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 amount of time served by (a) male and (b) female prisoners released from prison in England and Wales in each year since 1980.
  Information on the average time served in custody is published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (Tables 3.15, 4.15 and 5.15 of the 1991 edition, Cm 2157), copies of which are available in the Library of the House. I attach a table giving the available information. Information for 1992 will be published in "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1992" which is to be published this month. I regret that incomplete information is available before 1988.
  509

  Average time served in custody under sentence1

  Young Offenders

  Males

  Females

  Adult Males

  Adult Females

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  6·0

  —

  1986

  —

  —

  6·6

  4·2

  1987

  —

  —

  6·7

  4·6

  1988

  4·1

  3·3

  7·0

  4·8

  1989

  4·7

  3·7

  7·5

  5·3

  1990

  5·0

  4·8

  8·0

  5·8

  1991

  4·7

  3·9

  8·4

  6·2

  1 Excluding time served in custody on remand awaiting trial or sentence, which counts towards the discharge of sentence.

  2 Excludes discharges following recall after release on licence, non-criminals and persons committed to custody for non-payment of a fine.

TRANSPORT

  Security
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the use of private detective agencies and security companies by his Department.

  Mr. Key
  Private detective agencies are principally used by the Department to assist with prosecutions for failure to pay vehicle excise duty, claims for damage to roads and actions against trespassers. Other uses include tracing former employees who inadvertently have been overpaid, and inquiring into complaints by the public about an employee.

  Security companies are used by the Department to provide a building custody service at some locations; for the collection and conveyance of cash for banking; for the protection of property required for road schemes; and for security advice and training.

  Private Members' Bills
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have(a) requested parliamentary counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct parliamentary counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.

  Mr. Norris
  Parliamentary counsel drafts not on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers.

  With the authority of Ministers, amendments were drafted by parliamentary counsel on instructions from my Department and subsequently passed to private Members in respect of the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) etc. Act 1993 and the Merchant Shipping (Salvage & Pollution) Bill.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money was spent in each of the last two financial years on Vehicle Inspectorate enforcement.

  Mr. Key
  Some £22,427,000 was spent on Vehicle Inspectorate enforcement in 1992–93. For 1993–94, the forecast outturn spend is £22,109,000.
  510
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the budget set for Vehicle Inspectorate enforcement for this financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The answer is £22,021,000.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the efficiency targets set for each executive agency within this Department for the next two years.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My reply of 29 April Official Report, column 385 and that of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic of 12 April, Official Report, column 83, set out the key targets, including efficiency targets, which I have set the executive agencies in my Department for the year 1994–95. I have also set the Department, including the agencies, a requirement to make a 20 per cent. improvement in efficiency with the target of achieving it over the two years beginning 1 April 1994.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what efficiency savings his Department will make this financial year; and what are the Department's efficiency savings targets for the next financial year.

  Mr. John MacGregor
  As I explained in my reply of 9 May to the hon. Member,Official Report, column 58, I have set my Department the requirement that it deliver a 20 per cent. efficiency saving and the target of securing this by 31 March 1996. Plans for delivering this saving are still being formulated. It is, therefore, too early to say how much of the saving will be achieved in 1994–95 and how much in 1995–96. It is not my intention to set separate targets for the two financial years.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any Vehicle Inspectorate testing stations will be closed because of the Department's target of 20 per cent. efficiency savings over the next two years.

  Mr. Robert Key
  There are no plans for closures of the Vehicle Inspectorate's testing stations. The network will be kept under review in the light of customer demand and the availability of suitable alternative facilities. Proposals for achieving the 20 per cent. efficiency savings required by my right hon. Friend have yet to be determined and considered by Ministers.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether any driving test centres in addition to the 22 test centre closures recently announced will be closed as a result of the Department's target to make 20 per cent. efficiency savings over the next two years.
  511
  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend announced on 9 May that he was requiring the Department to make an efficiency gain of 20 per cent. with the target of achieving it over the next two years. The chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency has been asked to submit proposals to meet this remit, and my right hon. Friend will be considering these in due course. No decisions have been reached.

  Pregnant Workers Directive
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to comply with the provisions of EC pregnant workers directive 92/85.

  Mr. Steven Norris
  The Department of Transport's maternity leave arrangements satisfy the maternity provision of the Trade Union Reform and Employment

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Financial advice on DVOIT privatisation1

  0

  0

  0

  177,967

  375,853

  553,820

  IT/IS strategy advice

  0

  0

  0

  90,000

  0

  90,000

  Disc network policy2

  0

  0

  0

  26,102

  0

  26,102

  TRL privatisation study1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  78,150

  78,150

  Routine Maintenance Management System3

  0

  25,000

  50,000

  50,000

  50,000

  175,000

  Network referencing

  0

  0

  0

  36,000

  73,000

  109,000

  Project management software2

  0

  0

  0

  171,980

  0

  171,980

  Implementation of computerised accounting system1

  0

  86,000

  8,000

  0

  0

  94,000

  Railways privatisation1

  0

  0

  0

  1,446,809

  1,446,809

  2,893,618

  PMS implementation study2

  0

  0

  24,654

  122,300

  0

  146,954

  Audit of ex-Trinity House liquidated funds2

  0

  0

  4,800

  0

  0

  4,800

  0

  111,000

  87,454

  2,121,158

  2,023,812

  4,343,424

  Touche Ross

  Accommodation Management Information System2

  0

  0

  0

  49,646

  19,935

  69,481

  Contracts let by DVLA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  96,000

  96,000

  Future of Greater Manchester Buses2

  0

  53,120

  0

  0

  0

  53,120

  The impact of price-fixing agreements2

  0

  5,000

  0

  0

  0

  5,000

  0

  58,120

  0

  49,646

  115,935

  223,701

  CSL

  Preparation of an in-house bid: included in figures for Touche Ross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  DVOIT privatisation1

  0

  0

  0

  18,000

  19,756

  37,756

  0

  0

  0

  18,000

  19,756

  37,756

  Prime

  Market Testing in DVLA

  0

  0

  0

  0

  47,000

  47,000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  47,000

  47,000

  Capita

  In-house bid for DVLA despatch

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11,000

  11,000

  Contracts let by Office Services

  0

  0

  0

  12,120

  83,817

  95,937

  0

  0

  0

  12,120

  94,817

  106,937

  Shreeveport

  Contracts let by DVLA

  0

  0

  0

  16,000

  28,000

  44,000

  In-house bid for the Register of Seamen and Shipping

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20,000

  20,000

  Contracts let by Office Services

  0

  0

  0

  47,188

  67,688

  114,876

  0

  0

  0

  63,188

  115,688

  178,876

  Basis

  Quality information system

  0

  0

  0

  0

  34,600

  34,600

  Monitoring of pavement life

  0

  0

  0

  0

  28,438

  28,438

  Bridge maintenance system

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5,288

  5,288

  512
  Rights Act 1993, which give effect to the corresponding articles of the directive. The health and safety provisions of EC directive 92/85, which are to be covered by an amendment to the health and safety at work regulations, will also be fully implemented by the Department by the required date.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last five years the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) CSL, (d) Prime, (e) Capita (f) Shreeveport, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Price Waterhouse and (k) Ernst & Young to his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  513

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total

  Payments to Basis/Mindworks (call-off contract)

  0

  19,581

  48,995

  69,803

  82,554

  220,933

  0

  19,581

  48,995

  69,803

  150,880

  289,259

  Theodore Goddard

  DVOIT privatisation: legal advice1

  0

  0

  0

  61,926

  255,828

  317,754

  0

  0

  0

  61,926

  255,828

  317,754

  Dibb Lupton Broomhead

  DVOIT privatisation: legal advice1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  227,247

  227,247

  0

  0

  0

  0

  227,247

  227,247

  Price Waterhouse

  Contracts let by DVLA

  0

  0

  25,000

  65,000

  66,000

  156,000

  >DVOIT privatisation1

  0

  0

  0

  45,000

  41,127

  86,127

  VI privatisation: feasibility study1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  72,500

  72,500

  London Buses privatisation1

  0

  0

  0

  117,000

  434,000

  551,000

  Advice on the privatisation of TRL2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  9,230

  9,230

  Taxation/company car advice2

  0

  0

  0

  5,850

  0

  5,850

  0

  0

  25,000

  232,850

  622,857

  880,707

  Ernst & Young

  Contracts let by DVLA

  0

  25,000

  65,000

  23,000

  0

  113,000

  OPRAF Consultancy2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  170,000

  170,000

  Railways privatisation1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  680,851

  680,851

  IT strategy support

  0

  0

  0

  0

  38,545

  38,545

  European engineering standards study2

  0

  0

  0

  87,414

  0

  87,414

  Payroll costs model2

  0

  0

  0

  106,000

  0

  106,000

  0

  25,000

  65,000

  216,414

  889,396

  1,195,810

  1 The figures relate to the closest financial years: figures for calendar years are unavailable.

  2 The figures shown are the expected values of the contracts at the time they were let: no further data are available.

  3 The contract stretches over more than one year: these estimates assume regular monthly payments.

  Departmental Costs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a breakdown of the running costs for his Department for the financial year 1993–94 into(a) staffing costs, (b) accommodation, (c) consultants' fees, (d) IT purchases, (e) stationery, (f) works and maintenance and (g) other.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The final outturn figures of my Department's running costs for the financial year 1993–94 will be made available shortly by the accounting officer, in the appropriation accounts. Provisional expenditure for the Department's running costs, including the gross costs of executive agencies that operate on a net running cost basis—the Driving Standards Agency, the Transport Research Laboratory and the Vehicle Certification Agency—and the Vehicle Inspectorate, which is a trading fund, in the breakdown requested is as follows:

  £ million

  (a) Staffing costs

  290·601

  (b) Accommodation

  61·741

  (c) Consultants' fees

  6·299

  (d) IT purchases

  21·621

  (e) Stationery

  6·439

  (f) Works and maintenance

  5·007

  (g) Other

  147·496

  London Underground
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) under what criteria the decision was taken to reduce the trigger for redress on the London underground; and what plans there are for further reductions;

  (2) how much compensation has been paid from the date that the trigger for redress on the London underground was reduced to 15 minutes; and to how many commuters it has been paid;

  (3) how much compensation was paid out in refund vouchers during the period that the trigger for redress on the London underground stood at 20 minutes; and to how many commuters it was paid.

  Mr. Norris
  The decision to reduce the trigger for redress was taken by London Underground Ltd., with the support of the Government, in order to provide those using the network with a more effective right of redress. I understand that LUL has no current plans for further reductions.

  London Underground paid out £208,283.60 in compensation in respect of 71,757 claims during the period when the trigger for redress stood at 20 minutes.

  London Underground has so far paid out £274,533.70 in compensation in respect of 124,220 claims since the trigger for redress was reduced to 15 minutes.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at
  515
  paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Norris
  Paragraph 3(ii) of the code of practice requires Departments to publish or otherwise make available their guidance on dealings with the public. On 7 April 1994, the Department of Transport circulated a departmental notice to all staff, advising them that all guidance on dealings with the public— including local rules and guidelines— should be made available for public inspection in local offices. The Department therefore fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 3(ii) of the code on 7 April 1994, without any significant delay.

  Piggyback Consortium
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he saw the final report of the Piggyback Consortium; and what assessment he has made of it.

  Mr. Freeman
  I welcome this report, which the consortium presented to me on 20 April. I would like to see it take the work forward to the next stage.

  Bus and Coach Safety
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent to him by Directorates-General VII of the European Commission regarding legislation to implement stricter safety laws for buses and coaches.

  Mr. Key
  I am not aware of any letter sent to my right hon. Friend by DG VII. However, I have arranged for a copy of a press notice issued by DG VII on 11 November 1993 to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve transport safety through the extended use of seat belts.

  Mr. Key
  I have to hand the report of the review of the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all seats in minibuses and coaches. I hope to be able to announce the conclusions shortly.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much will be spent by his Department on research into bus and coach safety in 1994–95; and how much has been spent so far in 1994–95.

  Mr. Key
  Some £360,000 has been allocated to bus and coach research in 1994–95. The projects have not yet started.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research information he has on the relative risks of coach travel in(a) exposed seats and (b) positions with a high back in front (i) with a seat belt and (ii) without a belt.

  Mr. Key
  There is no research permitting direct comparison of the relative risks associated with these features. However, coach and car accident data taken with seat belt research concentrated primarily on cars can tell us much about the potential benefits of belts, both lap and three-point, in coaches. There is strong evidence that ejection from coaches, particularly in roll-over accidents,516
  accounts for a significant proportion of fatalities. Seat belts help in such accidents. Ejection cannot, however, be prevented by the use of high backed seats.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will invoke article 36(A) of the treaty of Rome on the grounds of health and safety to introduce legislation requiring United Kingdom registered coaches and minibuses to be fitted with seat belts.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. Such vehicles can already, where appropriate, be fitted with seat belts.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he expects to complete his Department's inquiry into the fitting of seat belts in coaches and minibuses; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects to announce the conclusions of the inquiry into the cost and technical aspects of fitting seat belts to coaches and minibuses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  My right hon. Friend now has the report to hand and hopes to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Railway Pensions
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances a railway employee transferring from one company to another, but remaining in membership of the railway pension scheme, would receive pension benefits that are less favourable than would have been accrued prior to railway privatisation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Where the transfer is compulsory, the' employee's pension benefits will be protected in full. We have agreed that where an employee who has the right under article 11 of the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994 to remain in the railways pension scheme moves voluntarily to another section within the scheme, there will be automatic credit of the same number of "pension years" provided that his pensionable salary is not increased on transfer by more than 7·5 per cent. A greater figure may be agreed between the trustees and the new employer, and in normal circumstances we would expect them to be able to increase this to around 10 per cent. The new employer may pay into the scheme to augment his benefits. In the few other cases, there may be a credit of fewer years, but this will depend on individual circumstances.

  Spain-Morocco Ferry Service
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 55, if he will make a statement on the timetable for the infraction proceedings.

  Mr. Norris
  The timetable for infraction proceedings is a matter for the European Commission. We understand that the Commission intends to issue an article 169 letter to Spain in this case shortly.

  Rail Season Tickets (Extension)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport from what date British Rail adopted the policy of offering an extension to season tickets in recognition of periods when there was no effective service; and what has been the cost of this policy to date.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail introduced season ticket extensions more than 20 years ago. The cost of this policy is not separately identified by British Rail.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what circumstances other than the absence of an effective service during periods of strike action British Rail would extend a season ticket.

  Mr. Freeman
  British Rail will extend the validity of season tickets for days when it is unable to offer an effective train service or offer an alternative service.

  Anti-fouling Paint
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what present view he has of the performance advantages of TBT coatings over tin-free coatings for anti-fouling paint on ships; and if he will place the technical justification for that view in the Library;

  (2) what expenditures were incurred on the investigation of anti-fouling paints carried out for the International Maritime Organisation.

  Mr. Norris
  Research funded by the Department's Marine Safety Agency into the use of triorganotin compounds in anti-fouling paints indicates that the performance gap between TBT-based and modern tin-free coatings has narrowed. A copy of the research report "Critical Review of Current and Future Marine Antifouling Coatings" by Lloyd's Register Engineering Services will be placed in the Library. The cost of this research was £21,362.

  Ports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has in respect of port policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom Government's policies for our commercial ports over the past decade and more have reflected our broad policies to promote the encouragement of choice and competition, to allow transport to operate as far as possible in an unrestricted market, with intervention limited to areas such as safety and environmental issues. These policies will be continued.

  The Government's ports strategy has enabled the United Kingdom ports industry to take full advantage of commercial opportunities, improvements in productivity and efficiency, and be in the forefront of technological progress. Privatisation has achieved major benefits in terms of reduced costs, increased productivity and improved service to the consumer and the user.

  I have every confidence that our policies will provide the basis for further successful development of the ports industry; in particular; the Government believe that the future of a number of the remaining trust ports should be within the private sector.

  Newly Qualified Drivers
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to discourage dangerous driving by newly qualified drivers.

  Mr. Key
  We are taking forward the measures announced by my right hon. Friend on 9 February,Official Report, columns 270–71. We are developing road safety education material for the 16-plus age group in schools and colleges, a scheme for post-test driver training linked to lower insurance premiums, and a separate theory element to be included in the driving test from 1996; and are considering the introduction of a scheme requiring newly qualified drivers to retake the driving test if they commit serious traffic offences.

  Maritime and Waterway Research and Development
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will take action to press the EU Council Advisory Committee—CREST—to maintain the current balance of funding for research and development towards maritime transport and inland waterways; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will take action to press the European Commission to resist the separation of maritime transport and inland waterway-related research and development.

  Mr. Norris
  Whereas annex I to the European Commission's specific proposal for transport research in the fourth framework programme for research and technological development 1994–98 distinguishes research on inland waterway transport from that on maritime transport, the allocation of funds suggested in annex II of the proposal combines the two. I am content with this approach. Of the six modal sub-themes in part B of the proposal, the Commission suggests that maritime and inland waterway research should be given the biggest allocation of funds. The United Kingdom Government's view is that the most severe problems, of congestion and safety, are in the road and air transport sectors, for which the suggested allocations should be increased. Given that the total funding for the transport research programme is fixed, these changes can be made only if compensating decreases are accepted in other sub-themes. I do not therefore propose to press CREST to maintain the Commission's suggested level of funding for maritime and inland waterway research.

  London Underground (Power Failure)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much compensation has been paid out by London Underground to commuters for the delays incurred as a result of the power failure on the Central line in November 1993;

  (2) what was the overall cost of remedying the cause of the power failure on the Central line of the London Underground in November 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground estimates that the total cost which it has incurred as a result of November's power failure has been around £1,723,000. This figure includes the effect of the failure on ticket sales, and the cost of providing emergency bus services, as well as the direct engineering costs of putting right the fault. It also
  519
  incorporates approximately £193,000 of claims paid out under the terms of London Underground's customer charter.

  Ministry of Defence Airfield, Northolt
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to develop business aviation at the Ministry of Defence airfield at Northolt; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department and the Ministry of Defence will go out to consultation soon with industry on the way in which the private sector could be involved in making better use of the existing capacity for civil operations at RAF Northolt.

  A35
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans to build the Puddletown and Tolpuddle bypass on the A35.

  Mr. Key
  The Tolpuddle and Puddletown bypass is on a reserve list of schemes to be started this financial year if sufficient funds become available.

  Trunk Road Assessment Report
  Sir Michael Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to publish the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment report and his response to that report; and if he will place copies of the report in the Library.

  Mr. Key
  I refer my hon. Friend to the responses that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 20 May 1994,Official Report, columns 596 and 599.

  On publication, the report and the Government's response will be placed in the Library.

  Fennell Report
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met(a) Her Majesty's railway inspectorate and (b) London Underground to discuss progress in implementing the outstanding recommendations of the Fennell report into the King's Cross fire.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with London Underground and Her Majesty's railways inspectorate to discuss a variety of issues. In addition, he receives annual progress reports from London Transport on the implementation of the Fennell report's recommendations.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 59, what assessment he has been given by London Underground and Her Majesty's railways inspectorate of when each recommendation of the Fennell report will be implemented.

  Mr. Norris
  The time scale for completing implementation of the 10 remaining recommendations of the Fennell report remains under discussion between HM railways inspectorate and London Underground. Dates for completion of implementation have still to be determined.
  520
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 59, which recommendation of the Fennell report was not accepted by London Underground Ltd.; and by what other means it has been completed.

  Mr. Norris
  The recommendation in question was No. 117 which suggested that junior station staff be provided with paging equipment as an alternative to personal radios. London Transport felt this recommendation to be unnecessary as they had already accepted recommendation 116, which required the issue of radios to station staff, and were committed to providing all underground station staff with personal radios. This has now been done.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give for the last financial year(a) the target and (b) the actual outturn for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's vehicle excise duty enforcement.

  Mr. Key
  The target set for successfully completed VED enforcement cases in 1993–94 was initially £445,000—later increased to £455,000. The outturn for the year was 455,420 cases.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the total cost to public funds to date of the DVLA vehicle registration office review; and what is the total budget for the review.

  Mr. Key
  Some £106,000—VAT-inclusive—against a total budget of £115,000 VAT-inclusive.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons the Association of Chief Police Officers was asked to meet the consultants carrying out the DVLA and VRO review.

  Mr. Key
  As part of their work, the consultants were asked to recognise and balance the interests and requirements of various and separate VRO customer groups. Accordingly, the consultants met representatives of ACPO and a number of other organisations during the course of the review.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the revenue raised by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency owing to induced re-licensing.

  Mr. Key
  We estimate that in 1991–92, some 115,000 evaders or would-be evaders were encouraged to relicense their vehicles as a direct result of vehicle excise duty enforcement activity, realising some £8.4 million in revenue which would not otherwise have been collected. In 1993–94, following the introduction of the red windscreen warning notice scheme, some 345,000 motorists were encouraged to relicense with revenue recovery of around £28 million.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances vehicle excise offence reports may be discarded.

  Mr. Key
  The main reason for not proceeding with vehicle excise duty offence reports is that checks of the DVLA vehicle register reveal that the vehicles are in fact licensed and no offence has been committed. Other cases
  521
  are not completed because of defects in offence reports, more than one report being received for the same offence, problems in tracking down offenders, difficulties in serving summonses and availability of resources.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by each "no further steps" code the number of vehicle excise offence reports that the DVLA closed in the last financial year.

  Mr. Key
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  NFS 1–8 (see note)

  492,000

  NFS 9 (arrears of duty paid)

  5,563

  NFS 10 (case returned unheard by court)

  7,927

  NFS 11 (induced relicensing brought about by excise offence report or out of court settlement)

  130,000

  NFS 12 (induced relicensing brought about by windscreen warning notices)

  2,897

  Note:

  CODE 1 Unable to trace offender.

  CODE 2 No Offence, e.g., vehicle not on public road.

  CODE 3 Summons not served.

  CODE 4 Unable to interview/establish responsibility for vehicle.

  CODE 5 Prosecution discontinued by Crown Prosecution/ Police.

  CODE 6 Specified difficulties, e.g., keeper deceased, bankruptcy.

  CODE 7 Out of time.

  CODE 8 Unactioned, e.g., information on Excise Offence Report insufficient/incorrect.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the success of the automatic first registration and licensing user acceptance run by the DVLA;

  (2) what measures the DVLA intends to take to prevent fraud or misuse during the automated first registration and licensing trial in Bristol;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the negotiations between the DVLA, motor car manufacturers and dealers over the introduction of automatic first registration and licensing;

  (4) what security measures are in place for dealers or manufacturers taking part in the automated first registration and licensing trial run by the DVLA to protect the vehicle excise duty discs;

  (5) what is the start date for the automatic first registration and licensing pilot; how many dealers and manufacturers are involved in the trial; what is the length of the trial; and what is the estimated number of transactions the dealers and manufacturers will handle during the trial period;

  (6) which dealers have withdrawn from the automatic first registration and licensing pilot being run by the DVLA; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) which registration year the dealers and manufacturers taking part in the automated first registration and licensing pilot scheme run by the DVLA will use;

  (8) what was the original date of the automatic first registration and licensing user acceptance trial carried out by the DVLA; what is now the start date; and what are the reasons for the discrepancy;

  (9) what sanctions are available to the DVLA against dealers refusing to sign up to the automatic first registration and licensing scheme when it goes live across the country.
  522
  Mr. Key
  It was hoped that the first phase of the automated first registration and licensing scheme could have begun on 23 May. Unfortunately, user acceptance trials prior to that showed that more work needed doing on the computer programs, and the start date is now scheduled for 11 July, currently with the originally designated dealerships. Vehicles registered under the AFRL scheme will be allocated registration marks for the appropriate year.

  Participation by dealers and manufacturers in automated first registration and licensing is voluntary, but I am confident that they will find the scheme offers a number of advantages. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Retail Motor Industry Federation with which we have negotiated and co-operated throughout the scheme are confident of a high take-up rate. Two manufacturers are expected to take part in the initial phase, which will cover three months, but others may join either in this or the one to take place in the autumn. I expect 2,000 vehicles to be registered by computer over the three months. Vehicle excise discs will be kept in a secure environment as required of all of our current licensing agents.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information on the owners of vehicles the DVLA gave to community charge collectors in Scotland in 1993–94; who was responsible for releasing this information; and what action is being taken.

  Mr. Robert Key
  Under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill the Secretary of State can release the names and addresses of vehicle keepers to local authorities to assist in the investigation of an offence or where "reasonable cause" can be shown. The pursuit of unpaid debts by community charge collectors is covered by both these provisions and the information is accordingly released to local authorities by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the vehicle registration offices which have disabled access; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The vehicle registration offices on the list provide disabled access to their customer service areas:

  Vehicle Registration Offices with Access to Disabled Customers
  Aberdeen, Bangor, Birmingham, Bournemouth, Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Carlisle, Chelmsford, Chester, Croydon, Dundee, Edinburgh, Gloucester, Huddersfield, Hull, Ilford, Inverness, Ipswich, Leicester, Lincoln, Liverpool, Luton, Maidstone, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Northampton, Nottingham, Oxford, Portsmouth, Preston, Reading, Stanmore, Stoke, Swansea, Swindon, Taunton, Truro.
  Where access is not available into Vehicle Registration Offices, alternative arrangements are normally made (eg a bell is available in another part of the building to call for a member of staff to attend the customer). All offices will fully assist disabled customers.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the last financial year the number of excise offences reported to the Vehicle Registration Office network in the DVLA, the numbers processed and the money received by(a) out-of-court settlements and (b) successful prosecutions.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is as follows:
  523

  Number

  Number of excise offences reported

  1,891,000

  Number of cases processed

  1,631,000

  £ million

  Revenue from out of court settlements

  12·3

  Revenue from prosecutions (fines, costs, unpaid duty (S.9 Vehicles Excise Act 1971))

  33·5

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Transport who will decide whether to impose sanctions on a dealer misusing the automatic first registration and licensing system.

  Mr. Key
  Depending on the circumstances, either DVLA or the manufacturer.

  Jubilee Line
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many jobs will be created by the construction of the Jubilee line extension; what measures are being taken to ensure that the residents of Newham, Tower Hamlets, Southwark and Greenwich are employed in them; what estimate he has made as to the proportion of those jobs will be taken up by the residents in those boroughs; and how this is being monitored.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand from London Underground Ltd. that it is estimated that some 22,000 jobs will be created by the construction of the Jubilee line extension, about one third of which will be in the London area. LUL has asked its contractors to ensure that local people are made aware of the employment opportunities and that people trained under local construction training schemes are employed where possible. LUL is monitoring the position with its contractors.

  Ex-officials (Road Construction Companies)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials at grade 7 or above who have left his Department in the past five years now occupy management positions in any of the companies holding contracts for the construction of roads or which are significant suppliers to them.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held within the Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ship's Officers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning his proposals to remove officer nationality requirements for senior officers on vessels registered in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  There have been 50 responses to the consultation document setting out these proposals.

  Air Traffic
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the United Kingdom airlines' latest projection of the proportion of full-day peak and morning peak-time 524
  slots scheduled for a typical mid-August 1994 week at Heathrow and Gatwick as a proportion of total slots available for both periods.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held by the Department because slot allocation at those airports is carried out by an independent co-ordinator employed by the airport operator. I understand that of the total summer season slots allocated by the start of the season, approximately 54 per cent. at Heathrow and 70 per cent. at Gatwick had been allocated to United Kingdom airlines.

  A41
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's latest estimate of average daily traffic flows and average peak hour traffic flows on the A41 at Aston Clinton.

  Mr. Key
  Average weekday traffic flows on A41 through Aston Clinton in early May were 24,000 vehicles per day–16-hour. Maximum peak hour flows during the week are between 1,000 to 1,200 vehicles per hour in each direction.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress made and the timetable for the remaining planning stages of the A41 Aston Clinton bypass.

  Mr. Key
  We are making arrangements for a public inquiry to be held this year but at the same time pursuing withdrawal of the remaining objections to the supplementary orders. If successful we may not need a public inquiry. Progress beyond a public inquiry is uncertain and will depend upon its outcome and the availability of resources at the time.

  Highways Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which private sector organisation has been approached formally or informally by officials of his Department or Agencies on the potential for privatisation, market testing or contracting out of the Highways Agency.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Norris
  In the Department of Transport, practice when issuing consultation documents has varied in the past. In future, however, the Department will inform those consulted that their responses might be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he decided to cut the running costs of his Department by 20 per cent.; when the embargo on announcing the decision was lifted; and who took the decision to impose the embargo.
  525
  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department's running costs have not been cut. I have set it a requirement to make a 20 per cent. improvement in efficiency with the target of achieving it in the two years from 1 April 1994 to 1 April 1996. The requirement was announced on 9 May. By convention, the announcement was not made in the period immediately preceding the local government elections on 5 May.

  British Rail Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has about the number of assaults on British Rail staff(a) in 1993 and (b) to date in 1994.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows the total number of reported assaults on British Rail staff during 1993 and the first four months of 1994.

  Offence

  1993

  11994

  Attempted murder

  2

  0

  Grievous bodily harm

  19

  4

  Wounding

  20

  7

  Actual bodily harm

  356

  102

  Common assault

  168

  61

  Others

  14

  4

  Total

  579

  178

  1 1 January to 30 April.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Norris
  The rules on outside appointments do not require Departments to maintain records of job offers made to their staff. I regret that I cannot therefore provide the information requested.

  M40
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the strategic context in which the Highways Agency review of a road linking the M40 near Oxford and the A5 near Leighton Buzzard is being placed.

  Mr. Key
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced the outcome of the roads review it was made clear that the east-west route between the M40 and the M11 would be withdrawn. The strategic study of traffic needs in a corridor from the M40 to the A5 which was announced in January was confirmed. The Department is responsible for the strategic trunk road network and the study is in that context. The scope for the study has not yet been decided.

  Delivery of the road programme is for the Highways Agency.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the Government's policy on the European Commission's proposed directive on the introduction of measures aimed at promoting improvements in the travel conditions of workers with motor disabilities.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government position is set out in the explanatory memoranda of 17 April and 3 June 1991, which relate to the original proposal—4315/91 COM(90) 588 FINAL—and of 16 October 1991 on the amended proposal—4113/92 COM(91) 539 FINAL. Copies of those documents have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many people have had their vehicle excise duty exemption on disabled persons' vehicles cancelled due to improper use for each year since 1989;

  (2) what was the total number and percentage of claims for VED exemption which have been refused an exemption certificate for each year since 1989;

  (3) what was the total number of VED discs issued to disabled persons in (i) the 1976 scheme, (ii) Motability component and (iii) passengers getting disability living allowance or pre-attendance allowance for each year since 1989;

  (4) if he will give the number of people successfully prosecuted for the improper use of VED exemptions 'on disabled persons' vehicles for each year since 1989.

  Mr. Robert Key
  No record is maintained for the number of disabled people with an entitlement to exemption from VED which is cancelled because of improper use or the number of prosecutions carried out because of improper use of a vehicle exempted under the provision. In both instances, however, the number is likely to be very small. No statistics are available on the number of unsuccessful applications for certificates of exemption from VED.

  The total number of vehicles licensed under the disabled exemption was 320,000 in 1989, 380,000 in 1990, 420,000 in 1991, 470,000 in 1992 and 560,000 in 1993. There is no breakdown of these by category.

  Ex-officials (Road Construction Companies)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials at grade 7 or above who have left his Department in the past five years now hold directorships in any companies holding contracts for the construction of roads or which are significant suppliers to them.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held within the Department, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Department will carry out full consultations with the unions over staff surpluses in line with section 34 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.
  527
  Mr. Norris
  If a potential redundancy situation occurs, full consultation with the trade unions will take place, in line with the provisions of section 34 of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993.

DEFENCE

  RAF Personnel (Hearing Problems)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records he has of loss of hearing experienced by Royal Air Force personnel working in the vicinity of(a) four-engined Vulcan bombers and (b) other aircraft which are landing or taking off; and what steps were taken (i) in 1964 onwards and (ii) currently to prevent any such hearing loss.

  Mr. Hanley
  Although general medical statistics relating to noise-induced hearing loss among Royal Air Force personnel have been maintained since 1979, it is not possible to identify from these the source of the noise exposure responsible. Central records are not held of personnel who have experienced loss of hearing from working in the vicinity of Vulcan Bombers or other aircraft.

  Where there is a risk of noise induced hearing loss, the RAF has for many years made provision to prevent such loss by reducing the noise at source or by providing a barrier between source and receiver, such as hearing protectors, and by limiting exposure. A formal hearing conservation programme was introduced in 1970, and current service regulations are based on the Noise at Work Regulations 1989.

  Commonwealth War Graves Commission
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet members of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to discuss cuts to funding.

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met representatives of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on 21 February 1994 to discuss and agree our contribution to the Commission's budget for 1994–95. There are no plans for further meetings to discuss this year's funding.

  Commission staff would normally advise member nations of their funding requirement for 1995–96 in October. This will then be discussed by the commission's finance committee, on which my Department is represented.

  Minx Programme
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current stage of development of the Minx programme; and which companies are involved in it.

  Mr. Aitken
  No development of Minx is currently being undertaken.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the last five years the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a)
  528
  KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

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

  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tenders his Department received in response to the invitation issued in March for a pre-feasibility study contract on ballistic missile defence; and when he expects to announce the award of the contract.

  Mr. Aitken
  Responses to the invitation to tender are not due until the end of this month. We expect to be able to announce the award of contract this autumn.

  NATO (Counter-proliferation)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what matters in regard to counter-proliferation strategies for the alliance were discussed at the NATO ministerial meeting held in Brussels on 24 and 25 May.

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the communiqu? published following the ministerial meeting of the NATO defence planning committee. An overall policy framework for NATO's approach to proliferation was also released following a meeting of the North Atlantic council on 9 May. Copies of both documents will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department's internal guidance on the implementation of the code of practice has been freely available since 4 April, and may be obtained by either writing to my Department or telephoning the Ministry of Defence public inquiry office on 071–218–6645. I am also placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  RAF Instructors
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total Royal Air Force complement for(a) qualified flying instructors, (b) weapons instructors and (c) other aircrew instructors (i) at operational conversion units, (ii) on operational squadrons and (iii) elsewhere.

  Mr. Hanley
  As at 27 May 1994 the total number of Royal Air Force aircrew instructor posts was as follows:
  529

  Operational conversion units

  Operational squadrons

  Elsewhere

  Total

  Qualified flying instructors

  87

  49

  371

  507

  Qualified weapons instructors

  39

  39

  37

  115

  Other aircrew instructors

  224

  37

  162

  423

  Defence Costs Study
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the name and rank of Treasury officials on each of the defence costs study working groups on which the Treasury was represented; and what are the numbers of visits paid and formal meetings held by those teams.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Treasury has been represented on each of the 33 defence costs study teams. Treasury personnel involved, their rank and studies—as listed at pages 78 and 79 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1994—with which they were associated are as follows: Mr. P. Brook, grade 7—security; Ms V. Carpenter, SEO—estate and property; Mr. M. Davis, SEO—non-operational information systems; Mr. R. Devereux, grade 5– Procurement Executive—projects and practices; Procurement Executive—organisation and function; naval infrastructure; training; Mr. M. Donnelly, grade 5—market testing/contracting out; training; Navy management structure and manning; Army management structure and manning; RAF management, structure and manning; defence intelligence and minor studies; Mr. L. Palmer, grade 7—MOD police; research and development; Miss A. Perkins, grade 3—MOD head office; HQs, service command and TLB structure; repair, spares, storage and distribution; Ms H. Tierney, grade 7—financial management; and Mr. P. White, grade 7—recruiting and manning; medical. There is no central record of all the visits paid and meetings held by the defence costs study teams and such information could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the costings of options examined by the defence costs study prior to any recommendations being made.

  Mr. Aitken
  The proposals emerging from the work of the defence costs study, the broad outcome of which I hope to announce in July, will be subject to consultation in the normal manner. That consultation process will be supported by the publication of all relevant cost information.

  Military Rescue Co-ordination
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future organisation of military rescue co-ordination.

  Mr. Hanley
  Detailed internal work continues on the implementation of our plans to locate the single military rescue co-ordination centre at Pitreavie. The defence costs study is, however, looking at all support functions and defence sites across the country, including this one.

  Forth Area (Defence Facilities)
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the defence facilities in the Forth area.
  530
  Mr. Aitken
  Defence facilities in all parts of the country have been examined in the defence costs study. We plan to make an announcement on the outcome in July. However, I envisage a continuing role for defence facilities in the Forth area.

  Service Redundancies
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of redundancy packages for service personnel in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current redundancy programme began in the financial year 1992–93. In that year, redundancy payments of £232 million were made, followed by payments of £509 million in the financial year 1993–94.

  These payments include special capital payments, and early payment of terminal grants, commuted pension payments and the first year's payment of immediate pensions.

  Arms Exports (Jordan)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the expenditure ceiling contained in the memorandum of understanding agreement signed with Jordan on 28 November 1979 was reached; and how these matters were reported to Parliament.

  Mr. Aitken
  It is not our normal practice to provide details of specific MOUs.

  PRB (Belgium)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Royal Ordnance acted as a supplier, whether directly or through a Government defence export agency, to PRB of Belgium in the period from January 1981 to January 1985.

  Mr. Aitken
  It has been the established practice of successive Governments not to release information about individual defence exports.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what PRB of Belgium supplied to(a) International Military Services Ltd. and (b) its subsidiaries.

  Mr. Aitken
  This is a matter for the company.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what date, and for which category of export, or for which destination, Royal Ordnance, Defence Export Services Organisation, and companies and agencies linked to the MOD, had Crown status, or were exempt from export licence controls.

  Mr. Aitken
  All exports made by the Crown have Crown status. These are exports from any Government Department including exports through or by the sales supply organisation of the Defence Export Services
  531
  Organisation. Where Royal Ordnance exports were not conducted through the sales supply organisation, they required an export licence.

  Exports with Crown status are subject to the same foreign and defence policy considerations as those requiring an export licence. It is not Government policy to provide specific details of defence exports.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total value of sales made by Royal Ordnance directly through the defence exports sales supply division of his Department between January 1981 and January 1985.

  Mr. Aitken
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is the legal custodian of the books and records of International Military Services Ltd., its subsidiaries and former subsidiaries; and whether the advice of the Treasury solicitors has been sought or offered on this point.

  Mr. Aitken
  International Military Services Ltd. is the legal custodian of its books and records, which it keeps in accordance with company law. I am not aware of any advice on this point from the Treasury solicitor.

  Yugoslavia (New Zealand Troops)
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the training, command and control, logistic support and financial arrangements for the New Zealand company group to be deployed with British forces in the former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. Hanley
  The New Zealand Government authorised last month the deployment of a company group in support of UNPROFOR. We welcome this and have agreed that the company group should be attached to one of the British Army battalions serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We are still discussing with the New Zealand Government the details of the attachment and the level of assistance which will be provided to their contingent.

  Exercise First Crusade
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 108, how many squadrons of 1 Royal Tank Regiment participated in Exercise First Crusade.

  Mr. Hanley
  Three Sabre squadrons plus the HQ squadron of 1 Royal Tank Regiment took part in Exercise First Crusade.

  Mr. Stephan Kock
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contact(a) Defence Exports Services Organisation and (b) the Malaysian project office had with Mr. Stephan Adolphus Kock concerning defence sales to Malaysia during the period 1985 to 1990.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department has no record of any specific contact between the DESO or the MPO and Stephan Kock during the period.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Aitken
  Arrangements to record centrally all offers of outside employment to MOD Crown servants were put in place only from February 1992. Since that date, no such offers have been reported.

  Swan Hunter
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 March,Official Report, column 996, what has been the result of his inquiries in relation to a bid for Swan Hunter; and what assessment he has made of business links between Triacorp International and Mr. Barzan al Takriti.

  Mr. Aitken
  Information provided to my Department by CMN is being routinely assessed. These matters are commercially confidential to the company concerned, but one of the main considerations will be the ability of Swan Hunter and its prospective purchasers to satisfy our stated requirements in their bid responses in competitions for MOD work.

  If my hon. Friend has any information which he believes would be of help to my Department in making its assessment, I should be grateful if he would pass it to me.

  RAF Molesworth
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when was the last inspection made at National Security Agency, Molesworth under the terms of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty; when the last arrest was made at RAF Molesworth under the base byelaws; and how many breaches of security there have been at RAF Molesworth over the last 18 months.

  Mr. Hanley
  The last inspection at RAF Molesworth under the terms of the INF treaty was in December 1992. There have been no arrests under the byelaws at RAF Molesworth since 1990. The Ministry of Defence police have attended 12 security incidents at Molesworth in the last 18 months.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of the National Security Agency of America in the management of the joint analysis centre at Molesworth; how much the expansion of the joint analysis centre at Molesworth has cost and who has paid for this; if the hazardous waste stored at National Security Agency, Molesworth is from American bases in the United Kingdom; and if there are polychlorine benzines stored at this facility.

  Mr. Hanley
  The joint analysis centre at RAF Molesworth is operated by the United States European Command. No expansion of the JAC has been undertaken.
  533
  The cost of all works associated with the construction of this facility has been borne by the United States Government. The Defense Reutilisation and Marketing Organization is responsible for the resale or disposal of all United States Government property in the United Kingdom which is surplus to requirements. It operates a central collection facility at RAF Molesworth for the temporary storage of hazardous material. All electrical equipment received by the DRMO is tested for polychlorinated biphenyls. If they are found in concentrations exceeding legal limits, the material is disposed of through approved United Kingdom contractors.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the byelaw relating to RAF Molesworth are not used against intruders; what instructions have been issued to Ministry of Defence Police on arresting under RAF Molesworth byelaws or other similar byelaws; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  How MOD police deal with intruders will depend on the nature of the incident. Normally, the MDP will first ask those concerned to leave MOD property. Anyone who refuses to do so will be escorted from the property using the minimum force necessary to effect their removal. Where appropriate, offenders may be arrested and reported for breach of byelaws. If other offences are committed, such as criminal damage, the MDP make arrests accordingly.

  Ms Lindis Percy
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who authorised the arrest and detention of Ms Lindis Percy, of Bradford, when she entered RAF Chicksands in Bedfordshire on Thursday 19 May; who authorised her detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts; who summoned the Bedfordshire police to attend; who authorised the release of Ms Percy without charge; how long she was held in detention; how many British and American personnel concerned in her arrest and detention were armed; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Menwith Hill Station
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements, in addition to the agreement regarding the status of forces of parties to the North Atlantic treaty of 1951, have been made between Her Majesty's Government and the United States of America concerning Menwith Hill station.

  Mr. Hanley
  The site at Menwith Hill has been made available to the United States visiting forces and their civilian component in accordance with the agreement regarding the status of forces of parties to the North Atlantic treaty of 1951 and other arrangements appropriate to the relationship which exists between the United Kingdom and United States for the purposes of our common defence. It is not our practice to comment on the detail of such agreements.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of the National Security Agency of America in running Menwith Hill station in North Yorkshire; how many people working at Menwith Hill station are employed by the NSA, and who employs the chief of Menwith Hill station.
  534
  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the Adjournment debate of 25 March 1994 concerning Menwith Hill station, North Yorkshire,Official Report, columns 609–16.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many GCHQ staff are employed at Menwith Hill station.

  Mr. Hanley
  There is a significant GCHQ presence at Menwith Hill station. It is not Government policy, however, to give more detailed information on the deployment of GCHQ staff.

  RAF Chicksands
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when RAF Chicksands is due to close; what are the main activities undertaken at the base; and where those activities are to be transferred.

  Mr. Hanley
  The US air force will leave RAF Chicksands by the end of September 1995. RAF Chicksands is a US Department of Defence communications centre managed by the United States air force. It is not our policy to comment in further detail on operational matters.

  Officers (Cooks)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving officers in each service are entitled to the provision of cooks at public expense.

  Mr. Hanley
  The current number of posts for serving officers, where there is an entitlement for the provision of a cook at public expense, is as follows:

  Number

  Royal Navy/Royal Marines

  56

  Army

  33

  Royal Air Force

  26

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the reduction in the ship's complement on Her Majesty's royal yacht Britannia that could result from refitting with modern engines;

  (2) what are the estimated annual cost savings if Her Majesty's royal yacht Britannia is re-engined.

  Mr. Hanley
  If Her Majesty's yacht Britannia were to be re-engined, it would be necessary also to replace or refurbish other obsolescent equipments and systems. This could possibly save up to £2 million per annum in running costs, including a reduction in the ship's complement of around 75 posts. The capital costs of such work is, however, likely to be substantial.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what part Her Majesty's royal yacht Britannia will be playing in the D-day commemorations; and what alternative vessels have been designated in the event of non-operational availability.

  Mr. Hanley
  Her Majesty's yacht Britannia played a central part in the maritime events in the Solent and
  535
  channel on Sunday 5 June. This included carrying members of the royal family and visiting Heads of State in a review of ships at anchor off Spithead, leading a wreath-laying ceremony in mid-channel and crossing to Ouistreham. No alternative vessel was designated.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the authorised establishment of the Ministry of Defence police for each of the last five years; and what is its proposed establishment for each of the next five years.

  Mr. Hanley
  The establishment of the Ministry of Defence police for the last five years is:

  Police Officers

  Civilians

  1989

  4,964

  144·5

  1990

  4,990

  156

  1991

  5,113

  183

  1992

  5,307

  197·5

  1993

  4,938

  209

  It is not our practice to speculate on our likely future manpower requirements.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the role of the Ministry of Defence police.

  Mr. Hanley
  The future role of the Ministry of Defence police is under consideration as part of the study being conducted by Sir John Blelloch and his team. The final report is currently expected at the end of this month.

  Nuclear Submarines (Used Cores)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of providing an interim capability to transport used nuclear submarine reactor cores.

  Mr. Aitken
  The estimated cost of providing an interim capability using the two commercial containers will be in the order of £5 million.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of replacing the used core transport packages.

  Mr. Aitken
  The cost of replacing the used core transport packages with the new purpose-built containers is not yet finalised. We would not wish to prejudice contract negotiations currently taking place with industry by providing an estimated figure.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of obtaining a licence for the replacement for the used core transport package; and from which subheads of which votes these funds are taken.

  Mr. Aitken
  Until contract negotiations are complete, we are not in a position to speculate as to the likley cost of licensing the new purpose-built containers. Provision for funding of this work is currently contained in vote 03, sub-heading F.

  Nuclear Test Ban
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's current policy on the retention of the right to conduct safety tests under the comprehensive nuclear test ban regime currently being negotiated in Geneva.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government are committed to playing an active and constructive part in the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban. We will look for a verifiable and effective prohibition of all nuclear tests, with the aim of making a contribution to our international non-proliferation objectives. Previously, a minimal programme of nuclear testing has been an important part of proving the safety and reliability of our nuclear warheads. We now aim to use and develop alternative technologies.

  Fissile Materials
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's current policy on a fissile materials cut-off.

  Mr. Aitken
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—on 7 February to the hon. Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Smith),Official Report, column 15.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give further consideration to publication of his Department's inventory of fissile materials that are not currently in use in nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Aitken
  It would not be in the national interest to make public details of fissile material held for our nuclear weapons programme.

  Civilian Guard Force
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change the role of his Department's civilian guard force.

  Mr. Hanley
  We have no plans to change the role of the Ministry of Defence guard service.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for a home guard force to supplement the Ministry of Defence police and the civilian guard force.

  Mr. Hanley
  In the context of the defence costs study we are looking at the idea of creating military home service engagements for carrying out guarding duties. However, this is only one of a number of proposals relating to security which have emerged. Much more work is needed before we can decide to proceed with this particular idea.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.
  537
  Mr. Hanley
  When conducting consultation exercises, my Department considers carefully the need to publicise the background to Government decision making and the individual's right to privacy. Decisions on the need to publish are taken on a case by case basis, and responses are not published where an individual has asked that their remarks be treated as confidential. We have no plans to change this policy.

  Hospitals
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on capital improvements during the last(a) 20 and (b) 10 years at (i) royal naval hospital, Haslar and (ii) Royal Air Force Hospital, Wroughton.

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Trident
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the test firing of the United Kingdom Trident II D5 missile.

  Mr. Aitken
  Pursuant to my answer of 26 May 1994 at column 234, HMS Vanguard successfully launched an unarmed Trident II D5 ballistic missile on 26 May 1994. This was the first such test firing by a United Kingdom submarine, marking an important stage in the Trident programme. HMS Vanguard remains on schedule to deploy around the turn of the year.

WALES

  Forestry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list forestry land in Wales previously owned by the Forestry Commission, or Forestry

  Local Authority Urban Programme (UP), Rural Initiative (RI) Project of National and Regional Importance/Special Projects (PNRI/SP) and Strategic Development Scheme (SDS) allocations between 1991 and 1995

  Local authority and programme

  1991–92 including UP holiday project

  1992–93

  11993–94

  41994–95

  Clwyd CC

  RI

  165,000

  170,000

  279,000

  —

  UP

  1,769,020

  1,777,985

  804,817

  —

  PRNI/SP

  2,390,000

  2,361,000

  2,000,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,297,237

  Alyn and Deeside CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  267,613

  100,000

  337,500

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,337,527

  Colwyn DC

  RI

  40,000

  —

  32,000

  —

  UP

  279,707

  133,000

  70,000

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  580,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,447,000

  Delyn BC

  RI

  120,000

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  669,141

  756,658

  337,998

  —

  PRNI/SP

  650,000

  2,000,000

  1,950,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  828,758

  Glyndwr DC

  RI

  180,000

  270,000

  174,540

  —

  UP

  118,987

  225,237

  118,131

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  186,956

  538
  Enterprise, which has been sold into private ownership since 1 January 1989, with the dates of each sale and the yearly total amount of forestry land sold in each year in terms of (a) land area and (b) financial value.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Lists giving details of all areas of forest land sold in Wales by calendar year from 1981 to December 1993 are held in the Library of the House. The total areas sold and the receipts from the sales in each year since 1 April 1988 are given in the following table.

  Year ending 31 March

  Forest land sold (Hectares)

  Total receipts £ million

  1989

  1,226

  1.5

  1990

  1,102

  1.8

  1991

  934

  2·0

  1992

  1,231

  2·2

  1993

  1,014

  1·2

  1994

  11,222

  11·8

  1 Provisional figures.

  Strategic Development Programme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each county and district council what allocation of funding has been made under the strategic development scheme and its predecessor schemes, including the urban programmes, rural initiative, projects of national and regional importance and special projects, for the last three years and for 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 April 1994,c. 460–66]: I regret that the table provided with my reply to the hon. Member was incorrect. A revised table providing the corrected information is given as follows:
  539

  Local authority and programme

  1991–92 including UP holiday project

  1992–93

  11993–94

  41994–95

  Rhuddlan BC

  RI

  147,000

  —

  27,000

  —

  UP

  544,500

  1,125,000

  1,137,554

  —

  PRNI/SP

  840,000

  825,000

  1,200,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  820,867

  Wrexham Maelor BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,449,203

  549,559

  246,401

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,350,000

  200,000

  2,085,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,487,336

  Dyfed CC

  RI

  553,000

  2,312,700

  838,500

  —

  UP

  472,538

  308,684

  351,184

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  21,289,653

  Carmarthen DC

  RI

  557,650

  126,500

  120,000

  —

  UP

  136,438

  17,865

  17,865

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  3183,933

  Ceredigion DC

  RI

  140,000

  240,000

  302,000

  —

  UP

  137,127

  107,163

  76,781

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  500,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  3975,194

  Dinefwr BC

  RI

  78,000

  125,000

  236,000

  —

  UP

  687,731

  1,080,375

  427,830

  —

  PRNI/SP

  900,000

  600,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,443,915

  Llanelli BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  442,327

  1,095,627

  764,057

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,000,000

  1,200,000

  1,500,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,224,300

  Preseli Pembs DC

  RI

  33,450

  347,104

  1,021,460

  —

  UP

  283,080

  112,439

  140,000

  —

  PRNI/SP

  650,000

  700,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  927,015

  South Pembs DC

  RI

  60,000

  146,000

  678,340

  —

  UP

  219,247

  193,000

  221,792

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  1,000,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,481,272

  Gwent CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  5,499,696

  2,234,987

  1,355,759

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,054,000

  500,000

  500,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,389,256

  Blaenau Gwent, BC

  RI

  9,800

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  5,885,725

  1,680,885

  915,728

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,055,000

  700,000

  655,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,752,723

  Islwyn BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,070,884

  840,476

  722,920

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,266,908

  Monmouth DC

  RI

  236,000

  211,000

  56,911

  —

  UP

  31,683

  29,724

  203,306

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  540 541

  Local authority and programme

  1991–92 including UP holiday project

  1992–93

  11993–94

  41994–95

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  57,873

  Newport BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  703,392

  815,426

  1,039,886

  —

  PRN1/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,153,335

  Torfaen BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  821,739

  464,436

  345,344

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  640,075

  Gwynedd CC

  RI

  410,000

  208,000

  641,000

  —

  UP

  674,774

  1,495,728

  1,460,011

  —

  PRNI/SP

  248,000

  —

  806,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,310,629

  Aberconwy BC

  RI

  —

  617,983

  440,000

  —

  UP

  260,900

  190,900

  170,450

  —

  PRNI/SP

  759,000

  2,185,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,150,000

  Arfon BC

  RI

  300,000

  94,500

  590,000

  —

  UP

  512,403

  656,932

  381,854

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,126,060

  Dwyfor DC

  RI

  250,000

  156,400

  501,300

  —

  UP

  —

  150,000

  121,475

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,400,000

  1,900,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  787,464

  Meirionnydd DC

  RI

  —

  100,000

  526,100

  —

  UP

  402,039

  221,029

  157,595

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  667,826

  Ynys Mon BC

  RI

  52,000

  135,000

  390,000

  —

  UP

  538,406

  318,282

  127,071

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,140,368

  Mid Glamorgan CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  2,183,187

  2,374,309

  2,195,545

  —

  PRNI/SP

  7,430,000

  3,550,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,595,176

  Cynon Valley BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  2,284,621

  2,322,765

  1,775,532

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,946,880

  Merthyr Tydfil BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,071,184

  1,487,581

  987,046

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  902,769

  Ogwr BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,195,108

  1,355,902

  1,165,412

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  1,102,276

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rhondda BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,836,311

  1,899,285

  2,804,766

  —

  542 543

  Local authority and programme

  1991–92 including UP holiday project

  1992–93

  11993–94

  41994–95

  PRNI/SP

  900,000

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  4,460,290

  Rhymney Valley DC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  655,358

  1,161,266

  744,720

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  800,000

  Taff-Ely BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  675,850

  1,084,591

  533,282

  —

  PRNI/SP

  350,000

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  430,789

  Powys CC

  RI

  277,122

  500,000

  317,000

  —

  UP

  491,158

  114,640

  90,566

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  774,738

  Brecknock BC

  RI

  360,000

  —

  110,000

  —

  UP

  27,000

  250,000

  —

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  1,316,000

  2,330,000

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Montgomeryshire DC

  RI

  580,000

  196,826

  262,000

  —

  UP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  125,790

  Radnor DC

  RI

  420,000

  31,000

  —

  —

  UP

  14,686

  15,836

  15,836

  —

  PRNI/SP

  805,000

  250,000

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  182,918

  South Glamorgan CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,166,343

  1,624,470

  1,339,602

  —

  PRNI/SP

  400,000

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,227,698

  Cardiff CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,229,534

  1,076,683

  1,310,492

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  988,961

  Vale of Glamorgan BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  298,710

  577,677

  760,882

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  1,189,632

  West Glamorgan CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  1,123,304

  1,344,746

  1,632,821

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  300,000

  1,879,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,281,353

  Port Talbot BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  630,700

  183,047

  323,809

  —

  PRNI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  252,797

  Lliw Valley BC

  RI

  —

  —

  8,344

  —

  UP

  309,300

  432,078

  338,504

  —

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  281,758

  Neath BC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  823,520

  679,811

  314,785

  —

  544 545

  Local authority and programme

  1991–92 including UP holiday project

  1992–93

  11993–94

  41994–95

  PRNI/SP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  352,311

  Swansea CC

  RI

  —

  —

  —

  —

  UP

  574,727

  544,277

  964,804

  —

  PRNI/SP

  1,239,000

  —

  165,000

  —

  SDS

  —

  —

  —

  2,625,245

  1 Includes additional in-year allocations.

  2 Includes £0·5 million available to any local authority within the West Wales task force area.

  3 Does not include £1·9 million set aside for projects supported in principle for Carmarthen DC and Ceredigion DC.

  4 Includes slippage on schemes carried forward from 1993–94 and £10,000 revenue allocation for each of the five successful Community revival strategies, but excludes the capital allocations which will not be confirmed until receipt of the business plans in June 1994 or the money set aside for the development of the industrial village concept.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each of the last five years the cost to public funds of consultancy work provided by(a) KPMG Peat Marwick, (b) Touche Ross, (c) Price Waterhouse, (d) Ernst and Young, (e) CSL, (f) Prime, (g) Basis, (h) Theodore Goddard, (i) Dibb Lupton Broomhead, (j) Capita and (k) Shreeveport to his Department; and if he will list any other firms which have provided consultancy work and the costs to public funds for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Kilburn) on 15 April 1994,Official Report, columns 318–20, which provides details of individual consultancy firms employed by the Welsh Office since 1988–89.

  The Department's total expenditure on management consultancies is as follows:

  £ thousands

  1988–89

  479

  1989–90

  342

  1990–91

  229

  1991–92

  1,109

  1992–93

  1,416

  1993–94

  1,454

  Details of expenditure with individual firms cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to publish his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the departmental guidance.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office guidance on implementing the code of practice was issued internally on 19 April. I have sent a copy to the hon. Member and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and of the Welsh Office, Cardiff. A bilingual leaflet for the public is in preparation and will be distributed to advice centres and public libraries in Wales.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount was spent on repair and maintenance of school buildings by each local education authority in Wales and in Wales as a whole for each financial year since 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The available information is given in the following table. Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Gross current expenditure on repair and maintenance of local authority school buildings, fixed plant and grounds, at cash prices1

  £ million

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Clwyd

  3·0

  3·3

  3·7

  3·7

  Dyfed

  2·7

  3·9

  3·5

  4·3

  Gwent

  4·4

  4·9

  5·5

  6·4

  Gwynedd

  3·0

  2·5

  2·5

  2·5

  Mid Glamorgan

  9·6

  10·3

  12·5

  11·5

  Powys

  1·5

  1·5

  1·9

  2·1

  South Glamorgan

  4·2

  4·4

  4·7

  5·5

  West Glamorgan

  5·4

  6·4

  6·6

  5·9

  TOTAL COUNTIES

  33·8

  37·0

  40·9

  42·0

  Source: Local authority returns.

  1 Excludes all capital expenditure. Excludes grant-maintained schools. Includes salaries of building maintenance workers and groundsmen, cost of materials, recharges by external agencies, charges from direct service organisations, architects, engineers and surveyors and expenditure on energy conservation and on health and safety. From 1990–91 onwards, also includes contract charges—including those relating to compulsory competitive tendering arrangements. Excludes salaries of caretakers, cleaners, etcetera.

  Arable Aid
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the yield figures set for land in(a) less-favoured areas and (b) non-less-favoured areas in the calculation of arable aid payments in Wales for the 1994–95 marketing year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The yield in the LFA is set at 3.32 tonnes per hectare—t/ha—and the yield in the non-LFA is set at 5.17 t/ha. These yields give an overall average yield for Wales of 4·65 t/ha, the historical average yield for 1986–89, excluding the lowest and highest annual yields, as required by the EC regulation. It would require an EC change of regulation to allow more up-to-date yields to be used.
  547
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much a fanner growing cereals will be paid in arable aid for each hectare of cereals grown in 1993–94 in(a) less-favoured areas in Wales and (b) non-less-favoured areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The payment under the arable area payments scheme for cereals grown in Wales in 1993–94 will be 116·20 ecu per hectare in the LFA and 180.95 ecu per hectare in the non-LFA. These will be converted to

  Simplified Scheme

  Main Scheme

  County

  Area Claimed (ha)

  Cereals Area Claimed (ha)

  Oilseeds Area Claimed (ha)

  Protein Area Claimed (ha)

  Set-aside Area Claimed (ha)

  Total

  Clwyd

  3,707

  1,823

  209

  178

  442

  2,652

  Dyfed

  9,284

  3,508

  309

  240

  810

  4,867

  Gwent

  2,342

  2,501

  389

  129

  547

  3,566

  Gwynedd

  1,830

  783

  35

  43

  165

  1,026

  Mid Glamorgan

  320

  1,097

  139

  76

  238

  1,550

  Powys

  3,290

  2,421

  192

  75

  488

  3,176

  South Glamorgan

  882

  1,889

  98

  102

  398

  2,487

  West Glamorgan

  655

  114

  30

  —

  —

  170

  TOTAL

  22,310

  14,136

  1,401

  843

  3,114

  19,494

  The total number of claims received were Main Scheme 299.

  Simplified scheme, 2,223—this information is not available on a county basis.

  Education Policy (Representations)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the Buckley and Mynydd Isa head teachers' consortium to discuss their representations on educational policy for the early years.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a meeting.

  Nursery and Reception Classes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning his policies for nursery and reception classes in local education authority schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The provision of education for children aged under five in local education authority schools remains at the discretion of the local education authorities themselves.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) male and (b) female (i) teachers and (ii) ancillary staff are employed in each local education authority in Wales in nursery and reception classes; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The number of qualified teachers in nursery and primary schools in each local education authority, as at January 1993, are shown in the table. Data

  Overall cash increase over previous year £ million

  Percentage revenue cash increase over previous year Per cent.

  Revenue cash increase for health authorities? discretionary use £ million

  Percentage revenue cash increases for health authorities Per cent.

  1988–89

  46·5

  6·2

  39·3

  5·3

  1989–90

  144·0

  4·8

  51·3

  6·3

  1990–91

  72·8

  8·2

  57·6

  6·5

  1991–92

  103·7

  10·6

  92·0

  9·8

  548
  sterling at the green rate prevailing on 1 July 1994 but are likely to amount to some £107 in the LFA and £167 in the non-LFA.

  Payments will be reduced if the base area is exceeded.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out by county a breakdown of the 1993 arable area payments scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number of hectares claimed by county in Wales as at end March 1994 is as follows:

  on males and females are not separately available for nursery schools. The numbers of ancillary staff in nursery and primary schools and the numbers of teachers in nursery and reception classes are not collected centrally.

  Number of qualified teachers1

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Males

  Females

  Chwyd

  7

  388

  1,441

  Dyfed

  9

  332

  1,478

  Gwent

  22

  396

  1,547

  Gwynedd

  —

  246

  743

  Mid Glamorgan

  54

  48

  1,972

  Powys

  —

  127

  415

  South Glamorgan

  24

  287

  1,537

  West Glamorgan

  5

  327

  1,420

  1 Includes all full-time and part-time qualified teachers.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cash allocation for health authorities discretionary use in each year since 1988–89, including 1994–95; and what was the percentage change in each year.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The overall level of cash increases for hospital and community health services including the provision to health authorities is as follows:
  549

  Overall cash increase over previous year £ million

  Percentage revenue cash increase over previous year Per cent.

  Revenue cash increase for health authorities? discretionary use £ million

  Percentage revenue cash increases for health authorities Per cent.

  1992–93

  102·3

  9·1

  79·0

  7·0

  1993–94

  46·5

  3·7

  29·0

  2·2

  1994–95

  53·0

  4·3

  234·9

  2·8

  1 Net of estimated saving of £16·3 million from the reduction in the rate of employers' superannuation contributions from 7·5 per cent. to 4 per cent. This sum, although not additional to the overall level of resources available for hospital and community health service in 1989–90 was redistributed to health authorities as additional cash resources for their discretionary use.

  2 Includes £1 million transferred from the resources previously allocated to the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  The difference between the overall level of the cash increases and that provided to health authorities for their discretionary use represents the amount of money that has been earmarked each year for development in specific services from which health authorities derive benefit and which is allocated to health authorities during the financial year.

  St. Dogmael's Landslip
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the St. Dogmael's landslip; when he will visit the area to inspect the site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from a number of organisations and individuals. He has no plans to visit the area at present.

  Rugby Union
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance his Department has given, directly or indirectly, to the sport of rugby union in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Central Government funding for sport in Wales is channelled for the most part through the Sports Council for Wales. In 1993–94 the council provided financial assistance of £167,241, to the sport of rugby union football.

  National Parks
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for(a) each district council, (b) each county council, (c) each of the proposed new unitary council areas and (d) for Wales as a whole (i) the total area, (ii) the area of national parks and (iii) the percentage of the area occupied by national parks.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  With regard to the new unitary authority areas, I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the boundaries of the new authorities have been agreed by Parliament and will place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  (i) The total area of (a) each district council, (b) each county council and (d) Wales as a whole are published in Table 1.06 of the "Environmental Digest for Wales", No. 8, 1993, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  (ii) and (iii)

  (a) The approximate area of each district council covered by national parks and the percentage of the area covered by the national parks are readily available only in respect of the Brecon Beacons and Pembrokeshire Coast national parks. Details are given in the following table.
  550

  District

  Area covered by national parks (thousand hectares)

  Percentage of district area covered by national parks

  Brecon Beacons:

  Brecknock

  89·4

  50·0

  Dinefwr

  22·7

  23·2

  Cynon Valley

  5·4

  30·4

  Merthyr Tydfil

  2·5

  22·5

  Blaenau Gwent

  1·9

  15·0

  Torfaen

  0·1

  0·8

  Monmouth

  13·1

  15·7

  Pembrokeshire Coast:

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  41·5

  36·0

  South Pembrokeshire

  16·9

  38·7

  Source:

  Brecon Beacons national park.

  Pembrokeshire Coast national park.

  (b) For each county council the approximate area covered by national parks and the percentage of the area covered by national parks are as follows:

  County

  Area covered by national parks (thousand hectares)

  Percentage of district area covered by national parks

  Dyfed

  81·1

  14·0

  Gwent

  15·1

  11·0

  Gwynedd

  217·1

  56·2

  Mid Glamorgan

  7·9

  7·8

  Powys

  89·4

  17·6

  Source:

  Brecon Beacons national park.

  Pembrokeshire Coast national park.

  Countryside Council for Wales.

  (d) For the whole of Wales, national parks cover 409.8 thousand hectares, which is 20 per cent. of the total area of Wales.

  Rural Transport Innovation Grant Scheme
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of each grant approved by his Department in respect of the rural transport innovation grant scheme, under section 108 of the Transport Act 1985 for each year since 1987.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Three grants of £7,000, £8,762 and £2,450 were approved in 1987; three of £12,250, £11,000 and £11,000 in 1988; and one of £11,880 in 1990. No grants were approved in 1989 and none has been since 1990.

  Public Consultation
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what circumstances it is his Department's practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to inform those consulted that their responses will be made public unless they explicitly ask for them to be kept confidential; and if he will arrange for his Department to do so in all cases in future.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is my Department's normal practice, when issuing a public consultation document, to state that responses may be made public, unless respondees explicitly ask for their replies to be kept confidential. Non-confidential responses, or a summary, may be made available in a report or may be placed in the Library of the House and the Welsh Office, Cardiff.

  Hospice Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will issue guidelines on the payment arrangements for hospice care to health authorities and the social services departments of councils; what representations he has received in relation to the appropriate source of funding for hospice care; what provision he intends to make in relation to the means-testing of hospice care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Guidance will be included in a forthcoming Welsh health circular, notifying health authorities of their additional allocations for support of the voluntary hospice movement.

  My Department has received representations on funding for hospice care from Marie Curie Cancer Care and the George Thomas Centre for Hospice Care.

  Where palliative care during terminal illness is an-anged by the NHS, whether it is at home or as a hospice resident, there are of course no charges except where specifically allowed by statute—for example, prescription charges. Where, however, some support is provided by a social services authority, the usual rules for means-testing apply.

  Block Grant
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much in percentage and cash terms of the Welsh Office block grant was allocated to each of the 12 votes within class XV of the supply estimates between 1988–89 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  Welsh Office public expenditure in the supply estimates (£ million)

  1988–89

  Percentage of block

  Vote 1

  82

  NB

  Vote 2

  75

  NB

  Vote 3

  111

  NB

  Vote 4

  —

  NB

  Vote 5

  215

  7

  Vote 6

  87

  3

  Vote 7

  278

  9

  Vote 8

  856

  27

  Vote 9

  42

  1

  Vote 10

  —

  Vote 11

  —

  Vote 122

  —

  Vote 132

  —

  552

  1988–89

  Percentage of block

  The Block1

  3,173

  Cm. 288

  1989–90

  Percentage of block

  Vote 1

  79

  NB

  Vote 2

  90

  NB

  Vote 3

  118

  NB

  Vote 4

  —

  NB

  Vote 5

  258

  7

  Vote 6

  122

  3

  Vote 7

  305

  9

  Vote 8

  963

  28

  Vote 9

  46

  1

  Vote 10

  —

  Vote 11

  —

  Vote 122

  —

  Vote 132

  —

  The Block1

  3,488

  Cm. 617

  1990–91

  Percentage of block

  Vote 1

  99

  NB

  Vote 2

  101

  NB

  Vote 3

  112

  NB

  Vote 4

  —

  NB

  Vote 5

  322

  8

  Vote 6

  485

  12

  Vote 7

  315

  8

  Vote 8

  1,096

  26

  Vote 9

  52

  1

  Vote 10

  1,604

  39

  Vote 11

  30

  1

  Vote 122

  —

  Vote 132

  —

  The Block1

  4,142

  Cm 1,016

  1991–92

  Percentage of block

  Vote 1

  112

  NB

  Vote 2

  113

  NB

  Vote 3

  84

  NB

  Vote 4

  —

  NB

  Vote 5

  403

  9

  Vote 6

  543

  12

  Vote 7

  332

  7

  Vote 8

  1,284

  28

  Vote 9

  55

  1

  Vote 10

  1,828

  40

  Vote 11

  —

  Vote 122

  —

  Vote 132

  —

  The Block1

  4,609

  Cm 1,516

  1992–93

  Percentage of Block

  Vote 1

  151

  NB

  Vote 2

  121

  NB

  Vote 3

  71

  NB

  553

  1992–93

  Percentage of Block

  Vote 4

  156

  NB

  Vote 5

  503

  9

  Vote 6

  594

  11

  Vote 7

  353

  6

  Vote 8

  1,435

  26

  Vote 9

  60

  1

  Vote 10

  2,173

  40

  Vote 11

  67

  1

  Vote 122

  —

  —

  Vote 132

  —

  —

  The Block1

  5,473

  Cm 1916

  1993–94

  Percentage of Block

  Vote 1

  193

  NB

  Vote 2

  174

  NB

  Vote 3

  7

  NB

  Vote 4

  147

  NB

  Vote 5

  787

  14

  Vote 6

  619

  11

  Vote 7

  371

  6

  Vote 8

  1,525

  27

  Vote 9

  64

  1

  Vote 10

  2,150

  37

  Vote 11

  3

  0

  Vote 122

  4

  0

  Vote 132

  2

  0

  The Block1

  5,735

  Cm 2215

  1994–95

  Percentage of Block

  Vote 1

  204

  NB

  Vote 2

  34

  NB

  157

  2

  Vote 3

  6

  0

  Vote 4

  564

  9

  Vote 5

  488

  8

  Vote 6

  605

  9

  Vote 7

  365

  6

  Vote 8

  1,628

  25

  Vote 9

  66

  1

  Vote 10

  2,214

  35

  Vote 11

  5

  0

  Vote 122

  7

  0

  Vote 132

  14

  0

  6,410

  The Block2

  Cm 2515

  Note: The symbol (—) denotes nil or less than £0·5 million.

  NB=Non-Block. In 1994–95 the industry and training programmes became part of the block.

  1 The totals shown for the block are not the sum of the figures for block programmes shown against individual votes. They include non-voted items such as local authority credit approvals, and for years before 1990–91, local authority grants which, although paid through the votes, did not score in the planning total.

  2 The expenditure covered by these votes has changed over the years as follows: vote 12: 1988–1991, rate rebate grant; 1991–92, water privatisation; 1992–93, no vote; 1993 onwards, OHMCI; vote 13, 1988–89, transport supplementary grants; 1989–91, water privatisation; 1991–93, no vote; 1993 onwards, ERDF.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times since his appointment he has had an engagement in the area of Ogwr borough council; and how many times he has travelled through(a) the borough of Ogwr and (b) the Bridgend constituency going to and from official engagements.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have visited the area of Ogwr borough council six times since I became Welsh Secretary, as follows:

  1993

  1 June

  Bridgend

  14 October

  Bridgend

  3 November Laleston,

  Bridgend

  1994

  15 February

  Porthcawl

  28 March

  Bridgend

  30 March

  Ogmore

  It is not possible to estimate the number of times I have passed through the area, as this information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I frequently travel through Bridgend on the train on the way to Port Talbot, Swansea and the south-west.

  Civil Servants (Outside Appointments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many job offers were reported by staff in his Department under the requirements of the rules on the acceptance of outside appointments in each of the last 10 years by(a) staff of grade 3 and above, (b) staff below grade 3, (c) staff in sections concerned with procurement or contract work, under section 15 of the rules of 1 February 1993 and (d) staff in other sections, under section 14; and how many of these reports were followed by an application to join the company concerned.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following statistics are available:

  Year

  Number of job offers reported by staff

  Grade 3 and above

  Below grade 3

  Number of staff involved in procurement work

  1990

  1

  3

  —

  1991

  —

  4

  —

  1992

  —

  4

  1

  1993

  —

  1

  —

  1994 (to end May)

  —

  1

  —

  All those job offers resulted in applications to join the company concerned.

  Information covering the years 1986 to 1989 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Investigation Services
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 643–44, how much his Department has spent on private investigation services during the last two years; if he will list those companies which have been employed by his Department during this period; what safeguards his Department took to ensure that these agencies were members of the Association of British Investigators; and what guidelines are currently in operation within his Department as regards this matter.
  555
  Mr. Redwood
  Seven private investigation agencies have been used by my Department in the last two years, at a total cost of £7,684·10. Although there is no prerequisite for the agencies appointed to be members of the Association of British Investigators, all but two of these agencies have been members of the association.

  Private investigation services have been used in cases of damage to trunk road furniture and personal injury claims. The companies are not named for reasons of commercial confidentiality. There are no specific guidelines for their use, other than value for money considerations.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in developing a rights-of-way network in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The development of a public rights-of-way network in Wales falls to the CouniTyside Council for Wales working in partnership with local authorities, voluntary bodies and user groups.

  The council has set itself the target of ensuring that a public rights-of-way network is opened and available for use by 1995 and all eight Welsh highway authorities have confirmed their commitment to it. This interim network
  556
  should comprise at least national trails, routes of strategic importance to highway and planning authorities and paths of special value to local communities.

  A Wales-wide survey of rights-of-way was started in 1992, and to date over 100 surveys have been completed. The results have been analysed to provide detailed information on the location and condition of the Principality's network.

  By 1999, the system of rights-of-way should be open and available for use. These targets are endorsed by the Government.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many prescriptions were dispensed in Wales in 1993–94; and how many individuals received exemptions from prescription charges.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 17 May]: Some 34,330,000 prescription items were dispensed in Wales in 1993–94. It is not known centrally how many individuals received exemption from prescription charges. However, in 1993–94 28,840,000 prescripton items exempt from charges were dispensed— excluding those where a pre-payment certificate was involved.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk —Sat First in Parliament after the death of his father.

Iraqi Kurds and Sanctions
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will propose to the United Nations that certain engineering spare parts should be exempt from UN sanctions in order that they can be supplied to Iraqi Kurdistan to enable its factories to function again and aid the economy of the Kurdish people.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, humanitarian supplies are exempted from the UN sanctions regime on Iraq. This can be extended to spares for plants producing humanitarian goods. Applications for the import of any such consignments should be made to the Sanctions Committee in New York through United Nations agencies or international non-governmental organisations. Representatives of the Kurdish people in Iraq support and recognise the continuing need to uphold sanctions on Iraq.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she accept that if we allow these spare parts to reach Iraqi Kurdistan it will lessen the financial burden on the international community? Is this another example of UN bureaucratic red tape, and if it is can the Minister get out her scissors and cut it to shreds?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the burden on the international community could be reduced, but we are not prepared to see that happen at the expense of rigorous enforcement of the sanctions regime. Sanctions must apply to the whole of Iraq and we must ensure that all supplies are for humanitarian use only. But wherever I find red tape I can assure my noble friend that I take great pleasure in shredding it in the most effective way I can devise.
LordEnnals: My Lords, perhaps I may encourage the Minister in her statement about shredding red tape by asking whether she will accept two submissions? First, when the UN resolutions were passed with our full support and during all the action that followed, it was never the intention of Her Majesty's Government or of the international community to do damage to the Kurdish people, who have suffered more than anyone else from what has been done by Saddam Hussein. Secondly, does she accept that the British Government have a rather special position because in their wisdom,
1578
which I warmly support, they have shown an understanding of certain Kurdish needs? That wisdom should be continued in the cutting of red tape. Does she not accept that we have a special responsibility to do something?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very sympathetic, as the noble Lord knows, towards the cutting of red tape wherever I find it, but I think we have a problem here which we should face up to. One cannot lift sanctions from one part of a country. It is not our intention to damage the Kurds. In fact, I do not believe there is a single European country that has done more than we have to try to help the Kurds. We are in a special position. However, the UN reviewed the sanctions only a month ago: it was not able to conclude that conditions existed for lifting sanctions. That was the only possible outcome. My noble friend and the noble Lord want certain spare parts to be allowed to reach to a cement factory and various other plants. If it can be proved that those parts can be used only for humanitarian purposes, we must go on pressing for that. Certainly, such efforts will have my help.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not the case, even from what the Minister said, that recent history has shown that the Kurds have suffered more than anyone else at the hands of Saddam Hussein? They are suffering most under the present sanctions and have a terribly low quality of life. The noble Lord, Lord Archer, is correct. This is a special case. Can it not be treated as a special case and cannot the parts involved be moved there as quickly as possible in the interests of everyone concerned?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I understand the frustration on this issue. However, it is clear that while we can work very hard at any initiative that is clearly designated for humanitarian purposes we cannot have sanctions lifted simply on the Kurdish area. It would not work because UN sanctions apply throughout Iraq. While we recognise the harsh conditions and the fact that the Kurds are heavily dependent on foreign aid, we have to find another way of solving this rather vexed problem.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister give the House some indication of what is happening about the still fragile cease-fire as far as Kurdistan is concerned because any question of the supply of engineering parts and so on must be predicated on the resolution of that problem? Can the Minister say whether things look as though they are settling down? Is there now some real hope that the cease-fire will emerge into a full and lasting peace?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I get very nervous about predicting such things. No sooner does one make a prediction and say that the situation this week is better than when we discussed it a week ago than something else happens as a result of Saddam Hussein's twisted mind to make the situation worse for the people of northern Iraq and indeed the Shia Moslems in the marshlands as well. The situation is better but there are still sporadic outbreaks of fighting and

1579
bombing. We have to maintain a very careful approach to working with the Iraqi national congress and with all the Kurdish people with whom we have contact and so try to make sure that the pressure is alleviated as much as possible. But there is no easy solution to the evils of this man.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister realise that as regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, Saddam's forces are still outside Erbil and Dahok and that the only reason they do not come over the border is that of British and American aircraft fly over Kurdish land and give the Kurds confidence? Can the Minister confirm that those flights will continue so ensuring that Saddam is not able to come over the border?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Yes, my Lords.

Gas Supplies: Competition
2.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that their plans to increase competition in the gas supply industry will be to the benefit of all consumers.
Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, we are satisfied that competition and choice are a spur to efficiency and better tailored standards of service. Their principal effect is likely to be a strong downward pressure on costs and prices for the average consumer. The Government and Ofgas have set out, in a joint consultation document, proposals to enable the benefits of competition and choice to be brought to the domestic sector in an orderly manner.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am rather surprised that he referred to a joint consultation paper—this is the first I have heard of it—prepared by Ofgas and the Government themselves. Will the Minister confirm that Ofgas is supposed to be totally independent of the Government and British Gas? Does he agree that the recent appearance of Miss Spottiswoode, the Director-General of Ofgas, before a committee of the other place on her role in the situation and where she stands concerning the protection of the consumer suggests that the distance between them should be as far as possible?
As regards the Question on the Order Paper, the Minister must be aware of the serious concern of the groups representing the consumer at the lower end of the scale? They say that under the present plans the exercise known as cherry picking may take place where the most lucrative parts of providing gas and energy are syphoned off, leaving the expensive parts to be carried by people at the lower end of the social scale?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. It was right that there should be a joint consultation document. It was published on 9th May by
1580
my colleague, Mr. Tim Eggar, the Minister for Energy, and the Director-General of Gas Supply. That consultation document makes a number of comments, requests and various observations. I hope that the noble Lord will put those comments forward. As regards cherry picking, it is a fact that the managing director of Western Gas has said that he is confident that he can give domestic customers something like 10 per cent. off their current British Gas bills. That is a very optimistic note.
Lord Stoddartof Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I can remember the arguments against competition that were put forward when the Gas Bill was going through this House? It will be interesting to know why the Government have changed their mind. I ask the noble Lord two questions: can we have an assurance that there will be a unified gas price throughout the country, or will competition mean that some people in one part of the country will be paying more than people in another part of the country for the same product? Secondly, is it true, and does the Minister agree, that it is good for the industry and the country that about 25,000 people in the gas industry will be sacked as a result of government policy?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, competition has proved itself in so many areas since 1979 that I find it strange that the noble Lord should question it as regards British Gas, particularly since the more commercial aspects of that enterprise which have been subject to competitive pressure have led to a substantial reduction in prices. The noble Lord will know that in 1986 Parliament decided that there should not be a unified gas price and there has never been a commitment to change that. The noble Lord referred to 25,000 people being sacked. Clearly he knows a lot more than anybody else and I dispute that figure.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I have been in competition with British Gas for most of my working life. Nonetheless, does the Minister agree that British Gas has supplied the domestic consumer on an excellent basis and that the company has a good record? Is the Minister aware that it has a good back-up service and that it deals instantly with any risk of the escape of gas? Can the Minister assure us that if deregulation is extended to the domestic gas market the service will be at least as good, if not better, than presently provided by British Gas?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the substantial shake-up of the energy market more and more people will be able to follow the noble Lord's example in competing with British Gas and providing substantial benefits to all types of consumer. I join the noble Lord in congratulating British Gas on its record over recent years in providing, generally speaking, a fine, efficient service and particularly on its safety record. Equally, I join the noble Lord in saying that safety is of paramount importance. Broadly, the present system for handling gas emergencies will continue.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any idea of what the likely

1581
restructuring costs of the operation will be? If, as many experts advise us, the costs will be huge, who will pay them?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have no details of the likely costs. That is the kind of investigation that may well take place over the course of the next few months. We can then make decisions on how to proceed.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the regulation of the industry is important in terms of promoting competition and support for the consumer, the gas industry, and British Gas, is now essentially an international operation? Does the regulator take account of the international role of the gas corporation when making decisions? Is it not time that we looked at the role of regulators in general?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am glad to have the noble Lord's general support for the principle of competition. He is right in the sense that this is a market that is regulated by the regulator. The regulator looks at the domestic market and has to look at the players who operate within the domestic market. There is nothing to stop those who operate in the domestic market bringing their international businesses to the regulator's attention.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as usual the Minister has given some very forthright answers today. Indeed, I recall that last week he gave some forthright answers in an attempt to affect the result of the European election. Does he bear any responsibility for the devastating effect that that had on the Government?
Noble Lords: Answer!

Asylum Claims: Processing
2.52 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to reduce delays in reaching decisions on claims for refugee status by asylum seekers currently held for long periods in Campsfield House, Oxfordshire, and other detention centres.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, priority is given to asylum applications where the applicant is in detention. Measures which were introduced by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 have streamlined and accelerated the processing of all asylum claims.
Lord Jay: My Lords, although it is necessary that each case should be examined carefully, is it really satisfactory—or indeed good—for the reputation of this country that many who are genuine political refugees from oppression and who come to this country in search of civil liberties should find themselves incarcerated not for weeks, but for months, in the conditions of prisoner of war camps, managed in this case by the notorious Group 4 Security organisation from which there was a forcible outbreak only last week?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord is entirely fair. He refers to the centre being
1582
something like a concentration camp. In fact, Campsfield House is a hostel; it is not a prison. It has accommodation for 200 detainees. It has been extensively refurbished, and an architect advised on the colour schemes for the carpets and the curtains. Our experience is that many people who claim asylum are not asylum seekers, and that only about 3 per cent. of those who applied in 1993 were, in fact, granted asylum.
Lord Jay: My Lords, I most carefully did not say "concentration camp". I said that it was like a prisoner of war camp, which is what it is.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for getting the nomenclature wrong; but I do not think that what he said was particularly complimentary.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, as distinct from asylum seekers, is the Minister not concerned about the numbers of illegal immigrants who are managing to settle in our country? Would not the introduction of a national identity card scheme help to solve the problem?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is a great aficionado of an identity card scheme. We are concerned about the number of people who come to this country purporting to be asylum seekers, but who are in fact using the asylum system to try to get into this country. One of the reasons why we introduced the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act a short while ago was to try to expedite the process. I seem to remember that that legislation did not, regrettably, have the wholehearted support of the Opposition. The fact is that the Act has expedited matters a great deal. Those who are not proper asylum seekers can be dealt with in the proper way, and those who are asylum seekers can be given refugee status earlier.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of those who are held in Campsfield House and elsewhere are in a high degree of anxiety? Does he agree that that anxiety is caused in part by the uncertainty of their situation and not knowing for how long they will be held? Bearing in mind that they are not criminals but detainees, will the Minister undertake to ensure that as much information as possible is given to them about why they are there, how long they are likely to remain there, and how they can gain access to relatives and friends?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the anxiety of the right reverend Prelate. I should tell him that only about 1 per cent. of applicants are detained and that only 650 are detained at any one time. It is important that the right reverend Prelate should realise that the detained cases get priority. Detention decisions are authorised by a chief immigration officer. They are now reviewed locally at least every seven days. After one month, the case is reviewed at immigration service headquarters and, thereafter, monthly at increasingly senior levels. Reviews are conducted in close consultation with the asylum division and monthly notifications are sent to detainees to let them know where they stand.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Minister said that only 3 per cent. were genuine asylum seekers? If so, can he tell me how he knows that only 3 per cent. were genuine asylum seekers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we keep an account of those who apply for asylum and an account of those who are given asylum. The answer is that in 1992—I think that I said 1993—the figure was 3 per cent. and that in 1993 it was 7 per cent.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, to put the matter in perspective, can my noble friend say how many of those detained are awaiting the result of their internal appeal, and how many are there having further exercised their right to seek leave for judicial review?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend those particular facts, but I can tell him that the delay before the Act was passed was caused by having to await the original decision of the asylum division, then having to wait for the appeal to be determined, and then awaiting the documentation prior to removal. Before the passage of the Act, that process could take two to three years. Our aim is to resolve the application in three months—and that has largely happened. If the claim is without foundation—in other words, if the person has arrived from a safe third country or the claim was frivolous or vexatious—the appeal is determined within seven days. Other claims are supposed to be dealt with within 42 days.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, if what the Minister has said indicates that the Government are seeking to speed up the process, which is the idea behind the Question, does he accept that not only is there a humanitarian aspect to this, which was referred to by the right reverend Prelate, but that there is also a public relations aspect? Does he accept that there is bad publicity in other countries about the length of time that people are kept in prison circumstances when what they are seeking is freedom?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I dare say that they are seeking freedom, but when they come to this country saying that they are asylum seekers, one has to find out whether or not they are asylum seekers. If they come to this country without the proper entry permits, they are not allowed in. When they then say, "Ah, but we are seeking asylum", that has to be considered carefully. I can tell the noble Lord that half of the point of the Act that was introduced in 1993 was to speed up the process. Before the passage of that Act, there were only 50 or 60 officials in the asylum division, which was totally overloaded; there are now 650. That is one of the reasons why the process has been greatly expedited.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the people most genuine in seeking asylum are those least likely to have the documents?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be so; but it does not alter the fact that only 3 per cent. of the people
1584
who applied for asylum received it. The inference was that the other 97 per cent. were not proper asylum seekers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister criticised opposition to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act. Does he agree that our opposition was to the removal of appeals procedures that already existed? The Government's argument was that this would speed up appeals, and therefore, presumably, reduce the time that appellants spend in custody. Is it not curious, therefore, that in response to repeated requests the Government have been unable to give a figure for the average time spent in detention before an appeal is heard?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a number of people spend a variety of time in these places. Some of them are there for one or two months and others for two or three months. The most extreme cases are there for more than 12 months; but that is a small proportion of the total.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree that in order to give evidence it would be proper for him to state that the average time spent in detention before an appeal was heard was, prior to the passing of the Bill, X months and, since the passing of the Bill, it is Y months; in other words, a smaller figure. Cannot the Minister do that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that that will be particularly helpful because each case is considered on its merits. Some cases are dealt with very quickly and some take a long time to deal with. The average time is relatively immaterial.
Lord Jay: My Lords, could not the Government reduce the time by recruiting more adjudication officers to deal with these cases?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the number of people has risen from 50 to 650. That is a substantial increase by any standards.

Education Acts: Consolidation
3.2 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made on proposals for consolidating the extant Education Acts from 1944.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, a Bill to consolidate these Acts is in the process of being drafted by parliamentary counsel at the Law Commission. Since, subject to minor amendments by the Education Act 1993, the law relating to further and higher education is comprised in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 it is proposed that the consolidation Bill should deal mainly with the law relating to schools.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer but we have in the past been promised a consolidation Act. Is she aware that since the 1944 Act there have been 35 Acts and the 36th is going through Parliament at this moment? It is the 14th Act since

1585
1979. Only nine Acts have been repealed completely and the 1993 Act repeals quite a lot of all but the most formal provisions of the Education Act 1981. I believe that the Law Commission has been working on consolidation since 1987 but there have been four big Acts since then. Will the Minister give some idea about when this process will be complete?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not possible to be precise. The noble Baroness has given the catalogue of work that must be undertaken. It is a large task and it will be a large Bill, incorporating material from more than 20 Acts. The noble Baroness also pointed to the fact that some consolidation has already taken place. For example, the 1993 Act consolidated parts of the 1944, 1980, 1981 and 1988 Acts. The work is in hand and the noble Baroness is right in saying that it is desirable. We hope that it will not be too long before we see it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am relieved that consolidation is to take place: I congratulate my noble friend. Will she bear in mind the desirability of having a separate statute which deals with the education and training of those with special needs?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. I can assure him that the whole subject of legislation relating to children with special needs will be part of the consolidation Act.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is this not a comparatively simple piece of consolidation, probably direct reenactment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I defer to the noble and learned Lord about whether the task is simple. I am told that it is a very large task. I believe that it is time-consuming and complex. I simply take advice from parliamentary counsel that the work is in hand but, of course, other legislation often takes priority.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, what is the use of consolidating the legislation when a great deal of it will be repealed after the next election?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be helpful to have that in writing. There is some very desirable legislation on the statute book and I believe that it would be a very retrograde step to consider the possibility of repealing it. It is an important task and the work is in hand.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a consolidation Bill will greatly assist the process of repeal rather than having to deal with a whole range of annual Bills, as we have had to do of late? Does she accept that there is a great deal of anxiety and pressure among teachers, governors and parents in respect of the great weight of contentious and disruptive legislation that there has been in recent years and that consolidation will help to clarify the situation? Will she also confirm that the indication of consolidation means that in the years ahead we shall have a moratorium on such legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the point that has been made about assisting schools, teachers and
1586
researchers to facilitate their work when dealing with legislation. We issue a great deal of guidance to help people in that task. Consolidation, where it is possible to incorporate it in Acts, takes place. I can repeat only that it is important work. We believe that it is desirable and the work is in hand.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in view of the talk about repeal, does the Minister remember that Part III of the Act relating to children with special educational needs had the support of all sides of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, my noble friend makes an important point. A great deal of legislation is welcomed by the whole House. That includes the Education Act 1944, which I understand has support from the other side of the House. Much legislation, including that dealing with young people with special needs, education and training, the national curriculum and so forth, is desirable. We are talking about the technicality of consolidating legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when talking about the 1993 Act the Secretary of State referred to it as being the last piece of the jigsaw as regards schooling? During the Report stage of the Bill that is now going through your Lordships' House, the Minister used the same words and referred to the last piece of the jigsaw. Can we hope that we shall no longer have a Bill a year, as we have been doing lately?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, at the risk of repeating myself, I must say that I cannot pre-empt what will come in any future parliamentary Sessions. I thought that noble Lords opposite were promising a good deal of legislation in place of the legislation we are talking about today.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, one of the advantages of the constitution of this place is that it enables the proceedings on Private Bills to receive their final approval in the whole House. Before we give the Bill a Third Reading, there are a number of questions, which are not very long, to which I would like a reply from the Minister.
If noble Lords read the text of the Bill they will see that it is:
"An Act to make further provision for the control of unlicensed sex establishments in the City of Westminster and to relieve the Westminster City Council of their statutory duty to establish a new county primary school at Moxon Street in the City of Westminster".
I hasten to assure the House that as regards the first part, and particularly in view of the recent proceedings of the district auditor, I am strongly in favour of

1587
encouraging the Westminster City Council down the path of virtue. I most sincerely support any provision that it deems necessary for the control of these rather undesirable establishments.
What rather concerns me is that in the same Bill powers are taken to relieve the Westminster City Council of its statutory duty to establish a new county primary school in Moxon Street in the City of Westminster. Your Lordships will understand that I am entirely innocent of those matters and I have not been present during the proceedings on that Private Bill. But on the face of it, the matters do not seem to be connected. In other words, the desire of the Westminster City Council to be rid of its statutory obligation to establish a new county primary school at Moxon Street does not appear to be closely connected with the powers which it seeks in relation to the control of unlicensed sex establishments.
The council wishes to rid itself of its statutory duty. We know that the Government are very careful about the statutory obligations which they lay upon local authorities; that is, when they are not replacing them by quangos. But I should like some assurance that the Westminster City Council's desire to rid itself of its statutory duty to establish, a county primary school at Moxon Street is in no way connected with the removal from the City of Westminster of politically undesirable inhabitants who are unlikely to vote Conservative in succeeding elections and their replacement by what we should call more politically correct characters.
Are the two connected? The district auditors have already made their comments to which I shall not add. But are the two matters connected? Why was there a need at one time—and there must have been—for the establishment of a new county primary school at Moxon Street which has now, without any explanation to the House at any rate, apparently disappeared?
As your Lordships know, I raise those matters in a spirit of complete innocence. I merely seek an assurance that everything is in order and that when the district auditor makes his final report on all those matters, he will have no cause, even a superficial cause, to refer to the proposal that the council should rid itself of that particular statutory responsibility.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I can only hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord, regardless of his protestations of innocence, that there is absolutely no connection whatever between the two parts of the Bill. The main part of the Bill is devoted to the matters to which the noble Lord referred in his opening remarks when he quoted from the Title of the Bill.
Private Bills do not come before the House without some difficulty. This Bill provided an opportunity to tidy up a situation which needed tidying up. Therefore, the other provision was tacked on to the end of the Bill. The House is acquainted with other Bills which have come before us this Session which included matters that were not directly relevant to the other parts of those Bills. This is one of those occasions.
1588
I was grateful for the noble Lord's support for what is a very necessary measure in order that Westminster City Council can deal with the unlawful premises which are being used. It has managed to control those which receive a licence, but it is having considerable difficulties in relation to those which have no licence. I am sure that this provision will receive the support of the whole House.
I promise the noble Lord that the other matter is a technicality which needed to be dealt with. Quite obviously the two matters bear no relation, the one to the other.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the noble Lord assure me that there is nothing in this Bill which will prevent tugs of war taking place within the City of Westminster in view of the great success both of your Lordships and the secretarial staff in the annual tug of war last night?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am not quite sure how the noble Lord managed to introduce what took place across the road last night into a sex establishments provision. His imagination is obviously working very well this afternoon, and I give him the assurance that he seeks.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 7,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 8 to 18,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 19 to 33,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 34 to 40,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 41 to 51,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 52 to 61,

Schedules 7 and 8,

Clauses 62 to 66,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 67 to 78,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 79 to 94,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 95 to 127,

Schedule 12,

1589

Clauses 128 to 178,

Schedules 13 and 14,

Clauses 179 to 181.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
3.16 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: 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.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 142C:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
("Video recordings
Video recordings: increase in penalties

.—(1) The following provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (which create offences for which section 15(1) and (3) prescribe maximum fines of, in the case of sections 9 and 10, £20,000 and, in the case of other offences, level 5) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In section 9 (supplying videos of unclassified work), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection— "(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both,

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both."

(3) In section 10 (possessing videos of unclassified work for supply), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both,

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both."

(4) In section 1 I (supplying videos in breach of classification), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."

(5) In section 12 (supplying videos in places other than licensed sex shops), after subsection (4), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."

(6) In section 14 (supplying videos with false indication as to classification), after subsection (4), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."

(7) The amendments made by this section shall not apply to offences committed before this section comes into force.").

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 142D, 173A, 177A, 178B and 178ZCA. We turn now to the video
1590
amendments. I am sorry that the need to table our main video amendments before the House rose for the Recess meant that your Lordships and others did not have the: opportunity to comment on a draft before the amendments were tabled, but we thought that your Lordships would prefer to have the amendments tabled and to be able to discuss them in Committee rather than for the Government to wait for comments and table the amendments only on Report.
Any comments which your Lordships may make today will of course be carefully considered. If we are persuaded that the amendments which I am proposing are wrong, or that they are capable of improvement, then of course we can further amend them on Report.
By far the longer of the Government's two principal new clauses—Amendment No. 142C—is, I think, the easier one. It is designed to increase the penalties for offences under the Video Recordings Act 1984. At the moment the most serious offences—supplying unclas-sified videos or possessing unclassified videos for supply under Sections 9 and 10 respectively—can be tried only in the magistrates' court where someone who is convicted may receive a maximum penalty of a £20,000 fine. There is no imprisonment for those offences. Under our proposals, however, the offences will be made triable either way. That means that they will be able to be tried in the Crown Court where the maximum penalty will be two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. If they are tried in the magistrates' court, our amendment means that, as well as a £20,000 fine, there will be the possibility of imprisonment for six months.
The maximum penalties for most other offences under the Act are increased from a level 5 fine (which is £5,000) to include the possibility of a six-month prison sentence. They will continue to be triable only in the magistrates court.
The increased penalties for offenders will make clear the serious view which Parliament takes of those who break the law on videos, but that is only one of three measures to which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary referred in another place. The second is the British Board of Film Classification's agreement to raise classification standards for videos.
As most of your Lordships know, the British Board of Film Classification is an independent body which classifies cinema films on a non-statutory basis and has been designated as the classification authority under the Video Recordings Act 1984. That second measure will be reinforced by the third, which is the enactment of statutory criteria which the designated authority—that is, the British Board of Film Classification—must take into account when deciding whether or not to classify a given video, and also when it decides into which category a video should be put. It is that third element of the Government's proposals which has attracted most interest, and which I should try to explain.
We consider that it is right to change the law in order to provide firmer guidance for the British Board of Film Classification, both to help it in its difficult task and to help to protect the public. The Government are acutely aware of the considerable concern expressed that violent videos have contributed to crime by providing models

1591
of bad behaviour for children who are impressionable; and, indeed, by also providing models of bad behaviour for adults. Members of the Committee may recall the concern which was expressed in the wake of the appalling murders of James Bulger, Suzanne Capper and, most recently, Mr. Les Read. The press suggested very strongly in all those cases that the murderers had been influenced by videos. The trial judge in the James Bulger murder case, Mr. Justice Morland, also suggested that exposure to unsuitable videos might have accounted, at least in part, for the behaviour of the two boys, Thompson and Venables, who murdered James Bulger.
As a result, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary asked for police reports on those cases and on what role, if any, the videos had played in those crimes. The police reports did not support the theory that those crimes had been influenced by exposure either to any particular video, or to videos in general, and no evidence about the role of videos was presented in any of the prosecutions. Mr. Justice Morland later made it clear that his comments had been meant as a general contribution to the debate about videos and crime and that they were not based on any evidence at all in the Bulger case. I think that, in any case, it would have been unsafe to draw wider conclusions from such horrifying and, mercifully, such unusual crimes. However, that does not mean that we should not be concerned —and very vigilant—about the content of videos. We certainly should. That is why the Government are bringing forward their proposals today. Although there may be no evidence that videos cause crime, of course they affect people. Films affect people; books affect people; advertisements affect people. There is no reason to think that videos will not affect people. That is why we have the controls which we do, and why we are suggesting that they should be made tighter.
Amendment No. 142D, tabled in my name, lays down the criteria which the designated video classification authority —the British Board of Film Classification—must consider in determining whether a particular video work is suitable for classification and, if so, in which category it should be placed. The criteria are whether any harm may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour or incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents, or, indeed, human sexual activity. Material is covered if it deals with those subjects indirectly as well as directly. A "potential viewer" includes anyone who is likely to see the work in question if it is classified or placed in a particular category and it specifically includes children and young persons who are under the age of 18.
The advantages of that approach are, we believe, that it is consistent with the rest of the video classification system and it leaves the British Board of Film Classification with discretion to decide what to do once it has considered a work on the basis of the criteria which will be laid down in the Bill. If it concludes, for example, that the work will set a bad example to very young children, it need not ban the video altogether but
1592
it can place it in an age-restricted category. There may be some works which the board believes would have such a devastating effect on individuals or on society if they were released that there should be the possibility of their being refused a video classification altogether, and the clause leaves the board free to do that.
The criteria mean that the British Board of Film Classification must consider who is in fact likely to see a particular video, regardless of the classification, so that if it knows that a particular video is likely to appeal to children and is likely to be seen by them, despite its classification being for an older group, then the board must consider those children as potential viewers. That does not mean that the board must then ban the video altogether. The board will still have discretion on how, or whether, to classify it; but it must bear in mind the effect which it might have on children who may be potential viewers.
The amendment reflects the spirit of Mr. Alton's proposal which he put forward in another place but later withdrew. Moreover, his amendment is reflected in Amendment No. 144, tabled in the names of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. The requirement that the British Board of Film Classification should consider harm which may be caused to a potential viewer—which is in our amendment—corresponds broadly to the test of,
"psychological harm to a child",
which is to be found in the noble Lady's amendment. However, our amendment goes wider and is not confined to psychological harm or harm only to children. Harm to adults and to society in general can be taken into account. The requirement that the British Board of Film Classification should consider the possible harm to society which can be caused by the behaviour of potential viewers broadly corresponds to the test in the noble Lady's amendment which refers to an "inappropriate model" for children.
Amendment No. 142D requires the British Board of Film Classification to consider the harm which may be caused by a video because of its depiction of five particular subjects; crime, drugs, violence, horror and sex. They may overlap to some extent, and, of course, others may have different suggestions. However, I think that they represent the main areas of concern without all of us becoming bogged down in a lot of unhelpful detail about precisely what may or may not be shown. It is important to bear in mind that such statutory criteria are not intended to be exhaustive. The amendment says only that the board is to consider them,
"among the other relevant factors".
The British Board of Film Classification will remain free to take account of other factors such as bad taste, bad language or offensiveness towards particular groups. For those reasons, I hope Members of the Committee will approve the amendments tabled in my name. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I believe it will assist the Committee if I say a few words now about Amendment No. 144. Its object is exactly the same as that behind the noble Earl's amendment to which he has just spoken. Amendment No. 144 is the amendment which David Alton MP moved in another place but

1593
which he withdrew on the promise of a government amendment in this place. I tabled it as both a belt and braces operation in case the government amendment seemed inadequate and also to enable us to discuss the subject in Committee in this Chamber in case the government amendment was not forthcoming until a later stage. However, having seen the government amendment and being very happy with it, I shall not be moving Amendment No. 144.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I am grateful to the noble Lady for her remarks and for the fact that she spoke before me. I shall now address only Amendments No. 142C and 142D. Amendment No. 142C is the penalty clause about which I am sceptical, but I certainly shall not oppose it. I support Amendment No. 142D but would like—as the noble Earl knows, because I wrote to him on the matter—to make some suggestions about the wording for him to consider before the next stage of the Bill.
Given the normal situation that I have taken due note of during my two years in this Chamber, we are usually revising legislation which has come from the other place. However, on this occasion, we are dealing with a new clause because there was insufficient time in another place to deal with it. The Home Secretary suggested to Members of the other place that he would bring forward a new clause in this Chamber to replace what I shall call for shorthand "the Alton clause", and that is what we are now discussing.
I declare an interest which I feel is relevant to the two proposed new clauses; namely, that I am president of the Video Standards Council. At the beginning of the day we can pass legislation in this Chamber, but, at the end of the day, it has to be policed and put into effect. The video industry—an industry employing 50,000 people, which is twice as many as those employed in television and radio—tries to play a part in the matter.
I should like to discuss television and radio because we sometimes ignore in particular what is seen in the home on television and also what is heard on radio and concentrate on the problems that arise from videos. The video industry distributes and makes videos and there are mail order videos and wholesalers' videos. In country areas—areas which I now know better since I retired from another place—vans travel around the countryside distributing videos to villages. Old people prefer to watch videos than to make a journey into a town to visit cinemas and return late at night. Videos are a major aspect of the entertainment industry. However, I suggest that we are perhaps ignoring the entertainment that people watch in their homes on terrestrial and other forms of television.
The industry has its own code of practice with which I will not bore the House. The industry tries to police that code of practice itself. The industry has a staff training video so that staff are aware of the law. It is important that staff should be aware of the law as it stands at the present let alone when the new clause that was introduced by the noble Earl increases the penalties. There is a consultative committee which comprises the head teacher of a comprehensive school and representatives from churches and boys' clubs and
1594
which seeks their views on certain issues. There is a packaging committee, because I fully understand that the nature of some packaging and some of the notices in shops cause anxiety for some people.
The Video Standards Council, which is a voluntary body, does not award classifications. The noble Earl has already mentioned the British Board of Film Classification. Film classifications are voluntary, but those for videos are statutory. The industry is concerned that often when these matters are discussed there is a mix-up between videos about which people are-concerned and which have been classified and pornographic videos which have not been classified and are easily obtainable. I wonder to what degree these amendments today deal with that matter.
The matter of pornographic literature needs to be considered seriously because that is a problem. The video industry is worried about that problem because it is often tarred with a brush that paints it as being connected with pornographic literature when that is not the case. It is worth a visit to the offices of the British Board of Film Classification to see how the board assiduously looks at all the videos, and indeed the films, and awards a classification, in the case of videos under the terms of the 1984 Act.
I should point out that at the moment under the 1984 Act, which was a Private Member's Bill, the British Board of Film Classification has to take into account the likelihood of video works being viewed in the home. That is already the case. The change which has been proposed today is not new. Often the classification of a film is different from that of a video because one is to be shown in the home. Indeed there are also differences in other respects.
I recommended a film to my son who is in his thirties and has no need of protection from me. I found a particular part of the film very amusing. Not long ago my son watched the film while travelling to the United States on a plane and he discovered that the part of the film which I had said was hilariously funny had been cut out. It had been cut out because there was a captive audience on the plane and therefore the film had been awarded a different classification. This whole business of classification, and the difference in classification applied to entertainment that is to be viewed in the home as opposed to entertainment that is to be viewed in the cinema, is a matter that should be taken into account. One would not have thought that that was so from the discussion that took place on the Alton amendment—I had discussions with Mr. Alton because I understood the nature of what he was trying to do—but already the BBFC has to take into account the fact that a video will be shown in the home.
I would also point out that the video industry in this country is controlled to a far greater extent than elsewhere in Europe, and probably in the world. There is anxiety about the relationship between violent crime and videos. But as the noble Earl pointed out, that relationship is not clear. In the terrible case that arose not long ago, the judge made clear that he was making a general observation because no one knows the relationship between crime and videos or films. I have my own views on the matter. However, when I was

1595
Home Secretary, one day I would receive on my desk a research document that argued a certain point of view and the next day I would receive a research document that argued exactly the opposite point of view.
No one knows the relationship between crime and videos or films and one cannot trust—if that is the right word—the media on this matter because they look at one report and proclaim, "Ah, at long last academics have seen that there is a connection". However, the following day, they ignore a report they receive which claims the exact opposite point of view.
I know where I stand on this matter. When I was bringing up my children there were certain things I did not wish them to see. There were many things on television and radio that I did not wish them to see or hear. I am sad at the growth of bad language over the past 20 years. I was brought up in a home where, when the men came home from work—I imagine their language at work was pretty strong—they would never use bad language in front of their mother. Bad language has spread in the community in a way that I find difficult to accept. However, the judgment as to what is right and wrong has to be taken by the individual.
I wish to point out a fact that is germane to the way in which we decide the fate of these amendments today; namely, there already is classification. The classification Uc denotes that a film has a universal category and is suitable for everyone. A U classification denotes that a film can be watched by people of all ages. The parental guidance classification cannot be ignored.
If videos are rented, those who hire the videos have to belong to a club. Sometimes an assistant will refuse to provide a video and in such cases a father may enter the shop and say to the assistant, "Do not tell me what my children are going to watch. I want this film in my home and I am going to have it. I am not going to allow a shop assistant to tell me that I cannot have a video in my home". This Committee is quite entitled to support video classifications, but there are individuals in our society who will not be subjected to classifications.
There is a 15 classification and an 18 classification. I hope that the Minister will comment on my next point. I understand there is talk of introducing a 12 classification. That would be yet another classification where, if people ignored it, they would be committing a crime.
I would point out that the existing penalties for supplying or offering to supply an uncertificated video or game, or possessing an uncertificated video or game for the purpose of supply, can already involve fines up to £20,000. People who commit these offences will, under the Bill, face two years' imprisonment. All other offences at present involve fines of up to £5,000.
I shall support the Bill and I would like to think that increasing the fine and introducing a penalty of two years' imprisonment will stop those who supply videos when they should not do so. But the penalty that is now proposed is prison. If a young person enters an off licence and the licensee supplies drink to him when he is not entitled to buy it, all that happens is that the licensee loses his licence. But if someone supplies a video to someone who is not entitled to have it, he will
1596
end up in prison. I suppose that would be all right if the measure achieved the desired effect, but I wonder whether that will happen. I warn the Government that there is a danger that the law will become an ass.
The TV programme "EastEnders" is transmitted at a time of night when young people are supposed to be in bed. If it is made into a video, it will receive a 15 classification. If the video is shown to someone who is aged under 15, the person who is showing the video could be penalised by having to pay a fine, and/or being sent to prison. However, if it is shown on a Sunday—as it is—on BBC or ITV, a young person can watch the programme without any fear or favour. However, the person next door could be sent to prison for watching a video. I find that extremely strange.
"Morse" was my favourite TV programme and I am sorry that it is no longer shown. It could have gone on forever as far as I am concerned. In video form it would receive a 15 classification, but on TV anyone can watch it at any time. I have some video tapes of the TV "Morse" programmes. If they had a 15 classification and I showed those videos to someone under 15 I could be sent to gaol. But if I told that young person to watch the programme on television, I would be all right. I hope that the noble Earl will consider the matter.
I ask the Committee to consider another aspect of this matter to show my scepticism as regards the extra penalties. Who is going to police this provision? The police have enough to do and I believe that in 1987 an alteration was made to legislation to enable this policing to be carried out by trading standards officers. A year or two ago I went to watch the trading standards officers scrutinise videos at a location in West Yorkshire, my former constituency. Those officers simply do not have the time to police videos. I believe that there were two and a half posts covering the whole of West Yorkshire. Those officers were responsible for seeing whether videos were being sold or rented illegally. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear that there will be more trading standards officers. Otherwise we shall be doing something that looks good on paper but will have no effect in practice. Too often Home Office legislation is introduced to placate the public. Ministers say, "Look what a great job we have done." There is very little change but it looks good.
Incidentally, regarding sales of videos I hope that a close look will be taken at car boot sales. I am advised that car boot sales—although often in aid of charity— are where pornographic and unclassified videos are sold. That is also where videos are sold to people under the wrong classification. Therefore, it is important that the matter should be policed, in addition to having the proposed new clause on the Marshalled List today.
In general I support the new clause. However, I have asked the noble Earl to examine the weaknesses in it. The Alton amendment and the letter which the Home Secretary wrote to Mr. Alton and which was made available to us pointed out the weaknesses in the Bill. I wish to spend a few minutes on the Alton amendment, which has now been withdrawn, and consider how it has been addressed in the new amendment, which I support in general and which the Home Secretary brought forward in response to the feeling in the other place.

1597
In his letter the Home Secretary explained the classifications. He spoke about inappropriate models. I shall mention the three points which the Home Secretary made. I support him in what he said, not because I belong to the ex-Home Secretaries club but because he knew what he was talking about, having taken advice from the police and others on the amendment in the other place. That amendment looked good but would have been incapable of being put into effect.
The Home Secretary referred to the catchphrase "inappropriate model for children". He said that it presented serious difficulties. He added:
"It is of course highly subjective and immediately raises the question of 'inappropriate when measured against what standard?' If this question could be satisfactorily resolved it would probably be on the basis that the work depicted actions or attitudes which most people in this country would not wish children to adopt. But in absolute terms this would be a very low test. Very many works (indeed I suspect virtually all) would fall into this category by portraying at some point undesirable activity".
He added that the antics of the Artful Dodger in "Oliver" could come into this category, whereas one would not want to stop children seeing a film version of Oliver Twist.
I recall that when comprehensive education was introduced and more young people were taking O-level English in my former constituency a mother complained to me that the left-wing education authority was making her child read books which were undesirable. She was referring to the O-level Shakespearean play for the year; she thought undesirable ideas were being shoved down her child's throat. That is a very subjective valuation. For that reason the Home Secretary said that we cannot have this.
There is also the question of the likelihood of a work causing psychological harm to a child. The noble Earl mentioned that aspect. The Home Secretary said that it is not difficult to imagine lengthy and detailed argument about whether a scene, even in a work of high artistic merit, which frightens a child could be said to cause him or her psychological harm. I can recall children watching the most innocuous of television films in the home and hiding behind the settee because they were frightened. That does not do great psychological harm. I have not noticed that in those I was responsible for bringing up or in my grandchildren.
There is also the important issue of private use. Does that refer to viewing in the home or display other than on a commercial basis? In addition, what is meant by,
"any place to which children under the age of eighteen are admitted"?
Does it mean that the works in question can only be shown in premises to which children are never admitted? There are many other such difficulties. The Home Secretary went on to say that that would be a major departure with significant implications for the freedom of adults to watch what they choose in the privacy of their own homes. There is undoubtedly public concern—which I share—about violence on video. However, 70 per cent. of homes in the country have no dependent children. The amendments would
1598
affect those homes. On those grounds the Home Secretary said that he could not support the Alton amendment.
At the same time, on behalf of the Video Standards Council, which took legal advice, I wrote to noble Lords and Members of another place pointing out the weaknesses in the Alton amendment. At the end of the day, in my view the matter was summed up clearly by Mr. Tony Blair—and one should not read into that other than that he said it—who declared:
"By imposing a statutory obligation on the board to take the care and protection of children into account but leaving; them with legitimate boundaries of discretion intact, we can meet the public concern while avoiding the pitfalls. That is a sensible way to proceed".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/94; col. 140.]
Lord Elton: I believe that I am right in saying that it is the custom in this Chamber to quote Ministers in another place but not Members of another place in extenso.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: I am very sorry about that. In that case perhaps, as the best way of approaching the matter, I may use the words of somebody else. I do not know who said them. I believe that it would be very sensible to say that by imposing a statutory obligation on the board to take the care and protection of children into account but leaving legitimate boundaries of discretion intact, we can meet the public concern while avoiding the pitfalls. That is a sensible way to proceed. I believe that the Government are proceeding sensibly. That is what the Government are attempting to do. That is the basis on which to proceed, and the basis of the new clause. We can add a proper amendment to the Bill. The amendment has been improved.
We took legal advice. Mr. Geoffrey Robertson, whose field this is, raised the question of the word "harm". That word is still in the proposed new clause. He said that it sets a very severe test which would enable the BBFC to justify films containing violence. A film, may shock, disturb or cause nightmares but would not be causing harm. The effect on the viewer would have to be more than transient. The film would have to change someone for the worse. It was put to us that the words:
"to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers"
should be amended to read,
"to any harm that may be caused to a significant number of potential viewers".
The amendment refers to the word "society". It does not attempt, nor could it for reasons which the noble Earl put to us, to establish a link between the viewing of a video work and harm to society. Our adviser believed that the words,
"by the manner in which the work deals with",
should be replaced by,
"by the manner in which the work encourages, incites or causes".
Mr. Robertson indicated that it would appear that the "potential viewer" could be almost anybody. He suggested that the words,
"if a classification certificate or a classification certificate of a particular description were issued"
were superfluous. It would seem that the words are intended to restrict the definition. The words "potential viewer" would enable the court to give the words the widest possible definition. That definition would mean

1599
that the fact that some parents allow their child to watch a restricted video title and that child molesters use videos to seduce children could be taken into account. A potential viewer could be almost anyone.
I now come to the amendments which the noble Earl has spoken to. I should like to ask the noble Earl that the words appearing in Section 4A(1),
"to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers"
be changed to:
"any harm that may be caused to a significant number of potential views".
The wording of the definition of "potential viewer" gives cause for serious concern. Our adviser suggests that "potential viewer" means any person (including a child or young person) who is reasonably likely to view the video work in question if a classification certificate or a classification certificate of a particular description were issued upon the basis that it is supplied and viewed in accordance with its classification.
I do not raise the issue just for the sake of it. The video industry has to police the matter itself. Thousands of shops sell videos. The assistants have to be instructed. The managers of the shops and owners of the firms are concerned about the issue. They need to be much more certain what the words mean. While I agree with the Government and support the Home Secretary with regard to the new clause which replaces the Alton clause—I believe that he has done well on that— nevertheless I hope that the Minister will consider these suggestions before the next stage of the Bill.
On the penalty side, what is being done about some of the stuff received via terrestrial or satellite television? It is precious little. Perhaps precious little can be done because the material comes by satellite. But we ought to concern ourselves with that issue.
The Government have done well. I have made those qualifications which I hope the noble Earl will consider. I hope that when the issue goes back to another place, given the great feeling on the subject there, it will be seen that the Government have done a reasonable job and that the intentions of Mr. David Alton have been carried out in a way which will enable the industry, trading standards officers, and, on some occasions under the Obscene Publications Act, the police to carry out their job properly.
Lord Renton: I do not know the answer to the many questions and doubts raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. However, although his speech was so very long, I believe that he has done a service to the Committee in raising some of the issues. In particular, I shall be interested to hear from my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the two somewhat separate points that the noble Lord raised about the showing of videos on television including satellite television.
I wish to challenge the noble Lord on one point. He feels that there is uncertainty of meaning about the word "harm". I do not feel that. I think that many others will believe that in the circumstances in which we pass this legislation it is a very suitable word to use. Surely we must leave some matters for interpretation by the courts. If we start to go into the application of a particular word to every conceivable hypothetical circumstance our
1600
legislation will become even more long, detailed and incomprehensible than it sometimes is. I suggest that we leave the word "harm" where it is and do not attempt to interpret it.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I have checked my notes. One of the reasons why I suggest that the word "harm" should be altered is that our wording is the wording of the Obscene Publications Act; the wording used by the Home Office is not. Since both pieces of legislation will operate, there will be different wording in each piece of legislation.
Lord Renton: With great respect, although it may be said that it is a fine distinction, there is a distinction between the aims that we and the Government have in controlling video recordings and the much broader concept of the Obscene Publications Act. I have some recollection of the issue because in 1959 when I held the kind of position that my noble friend now holds I had to express the government view on the Obscene Publications Act of that year which broke new ground.
I congratulate the Government on Amendment No. 142D. I believe that they have got it just about right. There is no doubt that there is great anxiety not only among parents but among the public at large as to the potential harm done by videos, whether or not shown on TV. I have no suggestion for improving that amendment. I believe that it is excellent.
However, I am puzzled by Amendment No. 173A. It deals with time limits for prosecution. The general rule of our law is that although in civil actions there is always a time limit of some sort or another, with statutes of limitations and so on, for criminal prosecutions we do not have time limits—nullum tempus occurit regi, if a Latin tag would not be too bold. I do not see the point of a time limit in this context. It could be a way of getting round the law in the way that the amendment is drafted. I may be wrong about it. I would not expect my noble friend to give an immediate answer today. However, I hope that when today's proceedings are over, he will invite his advisers, including parliamentary counsel, to consider the effect of the time limit in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 173A which amends the 1984 Act.
I have this fear. Let us suppose that someone produces a video. Perhaps it has been put on sale and has therefore become public. A police officer, someone from the Video Standards Council or a private individual finds that it is in clear breach of what the Government put forward in Amendment No. 142D. Once that has taken place, there has to be a prosecution either within three years or one year from the date of the discovery of the commission of the offence by the prosecutor. If there is no prosecution, but the offence has been committed, under Amendment No. 173A it appears that after the expiry of that limitation period the video could be produced and published. That would be a simple way of getting around the law: one just has to wait, in the one case for only a year. That would be absolutely ridiculous. I hope that my noble friend will ask his advisers to consider the matter.

1601
Having said that, I believe that the Government have done a great service with these amendments.
Lord Elton: I add my congratulations to the Government on getting out of a very difficult position in the right direction. They have been subject to advice, apparently well qualified, both to the effect that videos have an effect and that they do not. I understand from my noble friend's speech that the police report surprisingly said that videos did not have an effect. However, the Government have undertaken a reform of the law which will receive the justified support of Members of another place, a matter drawn to the attention of your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, in his presidential address. One can be sure that their constituents will support them. In a matter of three weeks 100,000 signatures were collected for a petition against the broadcasting and availability of material unsuitable for home entertainment. It was against that bandwagon that the Government wisely reacted.
Many of us were much heartened by the publication of a report on Video Violence and the Protection of Children by Elizabeth Newson in March this year, to which my noble friend did not refer. As the professor of developmental psychology at the University of Nottingham, supported by signatures of no less than 25 equally distinguished academics and practitioners, she concluded that videos have an effect, that we were naive in thinking that they did not, and that legislation was required to protect children from unsuitable material when parents failed to do so.
I refer to that report only briefly. It included an admission that no one is too clear about the causation of violence in children, or the causation of offending generally in children, and that there should be government-funded serious research into the issue as a matter of urgency to save a great deal of money in the future. I support that for all manner of reasons.
I have only two matters to raise, one narrow and one rather broader. The narrow matter relates to the list in Amendment No. 142D which my noble friend Lord Renton has just formidably endorsed. The list has a characteristic which worries me slightly: it shadows the provisions in Section 2 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 for which I was the Minister responsible in this House. The list is couched in slightly different terms, but there is a specific subsection; namely, subsection (2) (c), which states:
"human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions".
It is a matter of great distaste and surprise to discover that there are a number of videos in circulation which are aimed at people who are interested in the latter two functions as a means of abusing children in a particularly nasty way.
I wonder whether my noble friend would repeat to me the reasons which I received in correspondence for not extending the list to include those functions. I know that It can be said at first blush that they are caught up by the other human sexual activity which is in the list in Amendment No. 142D under subsection (1) (e). However, from a letter which I received from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I understand that
1602
none of those subjects constitutes human sexual activity. Therefore, they will simply fall into the catch-all of other matters.
I should like some reliable assurance from my noble friend —I am not sure that he is in a position to give it —that those matters will definitely be caught up in the definition by the video licensing authority, when it comes to consider the matter. I am not at all sure that we should not have an extension of the list for that purpose and I shall listen to my noble friend's answer with great interest.
The other point is a much wider and more difficult issue, which was touched on to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. I had rather more sympathy with that part of his address than with other parts. This country is already flooded with video material to a greater extent than, I believe, any other country in the world and certainly in Europe. The greater part of it is totally uncontrolled, circulating from hand to hand or car boot to car boot. Nevertheless, it seems to me that some fairly dreadful things have been identified and ought in some way to be caught—for example, the video recordings referred to by my noble friend in his address which both appeared to have a close bearing on two recent dreadful murders. I realise the difficulty of retrospection and that once something is on the market with a certificate one cannot change it. One can prohibit its further reproduction for commercial purposes, I dare say, but I hope that my noble friend will consider that. I believe that the public would expect to be protected from the effects of "Child's Play 3" after our work this day, since that is what precipitated the amendments in the first place.
As to enforcement, I am now in complete sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. I have an interest to declare as vice-president of the Institute of Trading Standards Administration. Aside from that interest, I urge the Government to increase the number of trading standards officers able to invigilate the application of the legislation, even though they have reduced their burden by allowing the bypass provisions to carry out prosecutions in other authorities.
I do not think that I need say more, except that I believe that the Government have done well to go in the direction in which the honourable Member, Mr. David Alton, led in another place. I support them in any method of refining the provisions in the two directions which I suggested.
4 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ikon: I am pleased to see Amendment No. 142C which will, I hope, be written into the Bill. I should also like to congratulate David Alton, the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, for all his work and powers of persuasion in getting something done about the horrible videos. I sat through some nasty videos which were shown by Scotland Yard in your Lordships' House some years ago. They were the most degrading, violent and awful things I have ever had to watch. I put them to the back of my mind, but I still shudder if I think about them.
As regards subsection (5) of Amendment No. 142C, are the Government satisfied that the nasty videos will

1603
not leak into circulation from licensed sex shops? Are they satisfied that the penalties are sufficient to deter people from selling them? These videos which I maintain are violent can be damaging to people of any age who have a tendency to be disturbed. I should like to see them all banned for ever everywhere. They are dangerous, disgusting and debase our society. I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, but I should like to see it made stronger.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to make a brief intervention. I wish to support the Government without qualification on Amendment No. 142C, the trial either way and the custodial sentence. I wish to support the Government, again without qualification, even having listened to the informed speech of the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, with his experience as a former Home Office Secretary of State. Even after having listened to that speech I cannot accept that there is a substantial way in which the Government's provisions could be improved by amendment.
I particularly wish to support the new criteria for suitability and the time limits provision in Amendment No. 173A. As to that, I believe it is possible that my noble friend Lord Renton may have been under a misapprehension. The provision in Amendment No. 142D does not create any offence. It merely involves:
"criteria for suitability to which special regard must be had".
Those provisions are in addition to the one criterion which exists in, I think, Section 4(1) (a) of the 1984 Act as to whether there is a likelihood of home viewing. That extension of the mandatory criteria is of the greatest possible value.
The offences, as the Committee may know, since we are dealing with offences and time limits, are provided for under other sections—Sections 8 to 12 of the Act which deal with the supply of videos of unclassified work, possession of videos of unclassified work, supplying and, under Section 12, the old sex shop provisions. Those are the offences. The proposed amendment does not involve the commission of an offence.
Lord Renton: If my noble friend will allow me to intervene, it is important to get this right. If he looks at Amendment No. 173A, subsection (3) amends the Video Recordings Act 1984. In place of Section 15 of the 1984 Act there is to be a new Section 15, the opening words of which are:
"No prosecution for an offence under this Act".
That means any offence under the Act.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I quite agree, but I do not think there should be any distinction between us. Amendment No. 142D cannot create an offence; and there cannot be a prosecution without an offence. All that the amendment does is to expand upon the mandatory criteria as to suitability to which the designating authority has to have regard for the purpose of issuing a certificate under Section 7. I do not want to argue the matter in this Chamber. I am either right or wrong about it.
The other matter is that I am grateful to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for withdrawing her amendment.
1604
But it contains the seed of what could be a certain improvement to the Bill. I am particularly grateful that the amendment, which came from another place, does not and will not find favour with the Committee. Apart from other things, it introduces a system of censorship by certificate which would conflict with the general intent of the Bill. In this context one only has to look at Section 7(2) (c) and Section 12 (the sex shop provision) to appreciate that. But there is merit in this amendment —although it would have to be considerably redrafted.
If we take subsections (1) and (2) and marry them in one context, that part of the amendment contains the proposition that we should create a new offence of permitting children under the age stated in the certificate —as the Committee knows, that age need not necessarily be 18; it can be a lower age—issued under Section 7(2) (b) of the Act as it stands to view the video. It should be an offence of permitting children under the age stated to view the video at any place, which includes their home.
I regard this matter, as does the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, as one that we cannot conceivably debate today. It is a difficult subject, and one which involves invasion of privacy. But on the other hand, it involves the protection of children from irresponsible or sadistic parents. There is not time to consider the issue, but I merely put it forward as something that we might extract from the jettisoned amendment and consider at some other time.
There are many other things that I wanted to say, but I shall not say them. I do not want to take the time of the Committee. By and large, subject to the reservations that I have stated, which are very few, I think that on this matter the Government have done an excellent job and I support them up to the hilt.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: I, too, should like to pay tribute to my honourable friend Mr. David Alton in another place, who pursued this issue with such persistence that eventually the Government have brought forward these proposals at this late stage. I welcome the proposals, although I have to express a feeling of sadness that yet another imprisonable offence is now being created to add to the many others that have been created during the course of the passage of this Bill—which is liable to give rise to increasing pressure upon the prison population. I accept, however, that there are reasons for doing so in this case.
I have only two comments. First, there is, I believe, scope for legitimate, well-informed and well researched argument and discussion as to what harm and what degree of harm can be caused by videos displaying the various types of behaviour set out in the new clause in Amendment 142D. There can be legitimate discussion of that issue. But what is perfectly clear is that there are no conceivable circumstances in which portrayal of the kind of behaviour that is set out in that clause can have any beneficial effects. We have gone a long way past the days—10 or 20 years ago—when in obscene literature cases self-imposed experts would come forward and argue that the more outrageously obscene literature was, the less likely it was to corrupt and deprave, and indeed

1605
the more likely it was to have positive, beneficial, constructive effects on certain types of individuals. Arguments of that kind gave rise to a number of totally unwarranted acquittals in various cases at that time. We have gone past that day. I do not believe that anybody would now seriously argue that behaviour of that sort, when shown on video, can possibly have any beneficial effect.
I shall make only one other comment. It is of course quite conceivable that in a film there can be a fleeting moment of hard porn or outrageous horror which passes us by so quickly that it perhaps has very little effect on the viewer. But with videos the situation now is somewhat different. Although those of us who are grandparents may find ourselves quite incapable of operating the various devices that control the machines, our grandchildren all know perfectly well how easy it is when they come across any such moment to stop the video, play it over and over again, and play it in slow motion and at varying speeds to produce a totally different effect from the one that it might have if it were simply played straight through at the normal speed once and once only in a cinema or on television in the ordinary way. I believe that legislation of this kind is necessary. I approve of it in principle and I support it.
Viscount Cross: I should like to speak very briefly to Amendments Nos. 142C and 142D. There are unfortunately many handicapped people in this country who see violent videos, think they are real life and act accordingly. And then, what about the rest of us? What do violent videos do for beauty, truth and goodness? What do they do for the rule of law, "back to basics" and family life? Not very much, I think.
I understand that the President of the United States has requested the makers of violent videos not to make them. May I with great respect suggest that Her Majesty's Government should do the same? I believe that violent videos are evil.
Lord McIntoshof Haringey: I should say first that this is not an issue on which my noble friends would be whipped. This is an issue of personal conscience and Members on these Benches speak for themselves. Having made that point, what I shall say, speaking for myself, is constrained in two ways. First of all, I recognise the part which my honourable friend Mr. Tony Blair played in the formulation of these amendments. He and Mr. James Ferman, of the British Board of Film Classification, played a considerable and active part in the discussions that took place prior to the formulation of these amendments. Therefore I think it would be fair to say that the amendments would have his support when they go back to another place.
I am, however, constrained by the fact that it is on the record that I opposed the Video Recordings Act 1984 quite persistently. There were only three of us who did so—I include my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Jenkins of Putney—but we kept the House up late trying to persuade your Lordships, with no success whatever, that to intervene in what people do, read or look at in their own homes is an infringement
1606
of human liberty. I would be seeking to deceive the Committee if I pretended that my views on that matter had changed.
We are a revising Chamber and therefore we must look at these clauses in some detail. Indeed, we have done so for the last hour and my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees, who claimed that he was supporting the amendments, then subjected them to the most devastating criticism. But I think we also ought to look very briefly at the background. The Conservative manifesto of 1992 claimed that we have the strictest video censorship in the world, and the Home Secretary repeated that claim earlier this year. I think it is true. We have a censorship system which criminalises not merely the supply of disapproved-of video recordings but also the possession of such recordings. We have a censorship' system which controls not merely obscene publications but also indecent publications.
We have a system which provides, for example, that when pornographic films of young people are issued the burden of proof of the age of the person photographed falls not, as normal, on the prosecution but on the defence. We have the possibility, which is increased in Clause 80 which we have already agreed, of arrest without warrant and of police raids on people's homes to investigate what they possess in the privacy of their own homes. In other words, we have gone a good deal of the way towards the powers of George Orwell's "thought police" and a good way towards the kind of censorship described in "Fahrenheit 451". We have to ask ourselves why, with the extreme video censorship system which we have in this country, it is thought necessary to seek these new amendments.
I share the views which have been expressed particularly by my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, about the undesirability of creating large numbers of new offences, and not only new offences but new imprisonable offences. That is my fundamental objection to Amendment No. 142C. So far as Amendment 142D is concerned, tributes have been paid to the Government for the way in which they have avoided the pitfalls of the Alton amendment; but I suggest that there are a considerable number of pitfalls left in the amendment. The proposed new clause refers to "potential viewers" when surely it should be referring to "a significant number of potential viewers". My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees made that point, on advice, and I am sure he is right about that.
In new Clause 4A(1) (a) and (c) the reference is to "behaviour or incidents". If that were to be "acts" rather than "behaviour or incidents" it would exclude the prohibition on words and it would be a great deal more precise and more effective than it is now.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think, with respect to him, that he was wrong when in saying that the amendments create new offences. I do not think, with respect, that they do. What they do is to up the sentence —there is custodial sentence and trial either way. I do not think that any new offence is created. Those in existence stand.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I may have been imprecise in my wording, in which case I apologise.

1607
What I meant was new imprisonable offences, and I thought I had made that point. Then again we have in new Clause 4A(1) (c) the reference to "violent behaviour or incidents". Violent behaviour takes place in boxing matches and rugby matches. Are these to be included in the scope of the video recordings legislation? Worst of all, so far as new Clause 4A(1) is concerned, it equates, by including them in the same list, human sexual activity with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour and so on. I suggest to your Lordships that human sexual activity is a good thing. It is a desirable thing. We are all here because of it, and it ought not to be lumped in with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs and horrific behaviour or incidents as something which could fall foul of the law. My noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees—
Lord Avebury: Will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening? It is not human sexual activity perse which is dealt with in this clause but the manner in which the work deals with human sexual activity. In the vast majority of cases the amendment is not going to apply; it is only if the activity is dealt with in a manner which is objectionable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not want to engage in dialogue with the noble Lord, but what is there about the depiction of human sexual activity and in what manner can you deal with such activity as to cause harm? If somebody says "rape", rape is violence. It is not the same thing as human sexual activity as such. This is human sexual activity which is by definition, I suppose, not violent, horrific or criminal, because those are covered in the other parts of the new clause.
Lord Elton: May I just invite the noble Lord to read what I said in my brief intervention about human genitalia, defecation and urinary functions? Those are not violent but they are the cause of considerable abuse of children.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said. I was not proposing to comment on it. If there is anything that needs to be commented on later, I will certainly do so.
Again, my noble friend Lord Merlyn-Rees has criticised the definition of "potential viewer" as being very wide indeed. Is it merely meant to include any person; for example, a person who is already mentally disturbed? Can we really run a censorship law in such a way as to deny access to videos to all people on the ground that they might have a deleterious effect on those who are mentally disturbed? Then again, who is likely to view the video? I am sure my noble friend will agree that at least the word "reasonably" should be included because the supplier is going to be in an impossible position. How is a supplier to know, if he sells a video work to an adult, whether the adult has a child in the household? Is it the supplier's responsibility to check whether the adult has sufficient control over the child to see that they do not view undesirable works?
I am sorry but I do not find these amendments satisfactory. I think they go far too far towards meeting a point which I do not fundamentally believe to be
1608
justified and they go far too far in the direction of interfering with what we do in the privacy of our own homes. Personally, not on behalf of my party, I regret them.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I think the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, stands alone in his disapproval of the amendments, but of course he is entitled to have his view. This has been a very difficult area indeed in which to try and legislate. Mr. Alton had a shot at it in another place. The Government considered his proposals and we have now come up with our proposals. I am delighted that so many of your Lordships should have approved of them. My noble friend Lord Elton congratulated the Government on getting themselves out of an awkward position and in the right direction. I think he put it very well, if I might say so, because it is an awkward position when you are trying to legislate on this kind of subject. My noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Renton approved, as indeed in general did the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, also approved, even if he said he found it difficult to work his video. I understand that. He said that his grandchildren can do it quite easily; it just shows where the intelligence of his grandchildren comes from. I have difficulty myself because I find that people will unplug the wretched thing in order to put the Hoover in, which of course completely throws the video; and then you have to lie on the floor for half an hour in order to readjust it. So I do have a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, from that point of view.
I also agree with my noble friend Lord Cross when he said, in a short but pithy intervention, that the President of the United States had asked people not to make these kinds of videos. I have a great deal of sympathy with that. I just wonder what it is that makes people want to make horrible, terrible and destructive videos. I have sometimes wondered whether it is not possible to stop them doing such things, but how can you stop people creating what to somebody may be acceptable? You then walk straight into the areas of censorship. That, of course, is difficult for governments, or for anyone else, to do.
The answer is that nobody knows the answer to this problem. Plenty of research has been done and I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Elton for referring to research carried out by Professor Newson, who said that there is evidence that people are affected by videos. That is an interesting piece of research. The fact is that nobody knows exactly how people are affected. I have always taken the view that you are only affected by three things in life: by what you see, by what you read and by what you hear. Very few other things actually alter people's opinions. That is why, when you are sent to school, you are given good books to read in order to edify the mind. Of course, the converse must be applicable: if you are given bad books they sully the mind.
Why do people spend so many millions of pounds on advertising on television? They do so because they know that when people see something that attracts them, they are attracted into receiving the message and

1609
carrying it out. I just find it unbelievable to think that what people see on videos and films does not affect them in some way or another. You can never quantify how that is achieved, or what is achieved; but it is a fact that what people see and hear affects their attitudes, their behaviour and what they think. I was only surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, thought he has heard something hilariously funny; that is, what surprised me was the fact that he said it had been cut out of a video that was on an aeroplane, which he watched. I just wonder what kind of video it was: it must have been pretty hot to have cut out the hilariously funny remark. However, he seems to indicate that it was not very hot. I only hope that we may perhaps have the advantage of hearing more details on some other occasion of what the passengers in the aircraft had been denied.
I am grateful to your Lordships for the views put forward today because these are very important matters and it is not possible to have any form of censorship. But one has to try to draw the line somewhere. People expect the line to be drawn somewhere, and as I said earlier on, we shall certainly consider all that your Lordships have said this afternoon to see whether any improvements can be made.
My noble friend Lord Renton said that he did not like the time limit in Amendment No. 173A. That merely replicates existing law. The three-year time limit is currently to be found in the Video Recordings Act 1993.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, made a number of very important comments. He was courteous enough to write to me on behalf of the Video Standards Council with two proposals to which he referred. Those were that the British Board of Film Classification should only have to consider harm which may be caused to a significant number of potential viewers, and that potential viewers should only include those viewing in accordance with the legal classification.
The first of those proposals would mean that the British Board of Film Classification need not take into account the possible harm that could be caused to a very small number of viewers if the great majority of viewers would not be affected. The second would mean that the British Board of Film Classification need not consider the possible effect on under age children of a video which was placed in an age restricted classification but which children were in fact likely to see. One immediately thinks of the position of a video which is perfectly suitable for an adult to have which he takes into his home and which the child then subsequently sees. It is very difficult to allow for legislative action to be taken. In the end, that is a matter of parental responsibility and over this issue parental responsibility is enormously important.
The difference between the Government's approach and the approach taken in another place by Mr. Alton is that the British Board of Film Classification will not be compelled to ban on video meritorious films which might have a harmful effect on a very small minority or on young children who would not be watching and who should not be watching. Under our proposals the British Board of Film Classification must consider any possible harmful effect of a video and then it has to make up its mind how or whether to classify, using its discretion.
1610
That is different from the position in the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which prohibits, for example, the publication of articles which have a tendency to deprave and corrupt those who are likely to see them and where it therefore makes sense to rule, as the courts have done, that this must mean a significant number of those likely to see the articles—and not just one exceptionally corruptible viewer. I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that it is difficult to get into the minutiae of these things. It is difficult also to equate what we are trying to do over video recordings with the Obscene Publications Act. They all have a part to play in the general panorama of the problem of what affects people, but it is difficult to equate the two exactly.
It would be illogical to exclude the consideration of certain types of harm, or certain types of viewer in the case of the video criteria, especially as the statutory criteria are not exhaustive and the British Board of Film Classification would therefore remain free to take them into account in any case. Everyone agrees that the British Board of Film Classification should be able to carry on classifying good films for video even if they may be unsuitable for children or for a minority of other viewers. Our amendment ensures that it can do that. It is then up to the parents to make sure that their children do not get hold of that which they should not get hold of.
My noble friend Lord Elton wrote to my right honourable friend to inform him that he wanted to make two points about the Government's video classification criteria. His first point was that the proposed classification criteria do not cover exactly the same ground as the existing criteria in Section 2 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 for determining whether or not a video work is exempt from controls. That section provides that a work which is prima facie exempt forfeits its exemption if it depicts to any significant extent human genital organs or human urinary or excretory functions. My right honourable friend explained in his reply to my noble friend that it is true that the list of matters which the British Board of Film Classification is to consider does not contain a directly equivalent category. But that is because of the entirely different functions of the exemption criteria and the classification criteria.
The proposed classification criteria in fact go very much wider than do the exemption criteria. The exemption criteria determine for the purposes of the criminal law whether a given work is to be exempt from classification. There is no discretion about exemption. Either a work is, as a matter of law, exempt, or it is not exempt. That is a matter to be determined ultimately by the criminal courts. It was therefore thought necessary to provide explicitly that videos which show human genitalia, urination or defecation are not exempt from controls. Strictly speaking, none of those subjects would have been subsumed under a broad category such as human sexual activity.
The classification criteria, on the other hand, indicate broad areas which the British Board of Film Classification will be required to look at in order to consider whether the way in which they are depicted in a given video work might have a harmful effect on

1611
potential viewers or on society. These criteria will not be exhaustive and the British Board of Film Classification will remain free to take other matters into account. The classification criteria have no repercussions in the criminal law. Therefore they have therefore been drafted in broad and in general terms. It is our view that it was not necessary to refer explicitly to the depiction of human nudity in this context, or more specifically to genitalia, urination or defecation, as that is not a broad subject area and is covered by the discretion with which the British Board of Film Classification will have to consider any other matters.
My noble friend also asked that the Government should think again about making the classification criteria operate retrospectively, at least in certain cases. My right honourable friend has considerable sympathy with that point of view. He has considered the matter very carefully and takes the view that a system involving retrospection simply cannot be made to work very well.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, asked whether there would be an additional age-12 category for video. I understand that there has been discussion between the British Board of Film Classification and the industry about an age-12 category. But that is not a matter for the Government. I understand that such a category already exists for cinema films.
The noble Lord was also concerned about the video of "Morse" and the effect that it might have on an under-age child. The offences in the Video Recordings Act relate to the supply of videos for gain. No one commits an offence if he shows a video in his home to an under-age child.
He also put to me a number of questions about the resources available for trading standards departments to enforce the new legislation. That point was of concern to my noble friend Lord Elton. It is a matter for local authorities. They have to determine the priority to be attached to those duties. I have no doubt that those authorities are well aware of the wide public concern about these matters when they decide on the allocation of their resources. The decision will be up to them.
Reference was made by the noble Lord to the problems of controlling material which is broadcast by terrestrial and satellite television. The control of material broadcast by television is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I shall ensure that the noble Lord's comments are brought to his attention, although I understand that he has already had discussions on these matters with the broadcasters.
I apologise for having made a rather more protracted speech than might have been desirable at the end of this debate. It is a very difficult and sensitive area. I felt it right to try to explain what the Government had in mind. I repeat that we do not have a monopoly of wisdom in these matters. We tried to accommodate the views of Mr. Alton in another place, but they were views which we thought on consideration would involve measures which would be too draconian and would not work. I
1612
like to think that these proposals are better and more appropriate. I hope that the Committee will approve them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 142D:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
Video recordings: criteria for suitability to which special regard is to be had
("After section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Criteria for suitability to which special regard to be had.

4A.—(1) The designated authority shall, in making any determination as to the suitability of a video work, have special regard (among the other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with—

(a) criminal behaviour;

(b) illegal drugs;

(c) violent behaviour or incidents;

(d) horrific behaviour or incidents; or

(e) human sexual activity.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

"potential viewer" means any person (including a child or young person) who is likely to view the video work in question if a classification certificate or a classification certificate of a particular description were issued;
"suitability" means suitability for the issue of a classification certificate or suitability for the issue of a certificate of a particular description;
"violent behaviour" includes any act inflicting or
likely to result in the infliction of injury;
and any behaviour or activity referred to in subsection (1) (a) to (e) above shall be taken to include behaviour or activity likely to stimulate or encourage it." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 143:
After Clause 82, insert the following new clause:
("Sexual offences against children outside United Kingdom

.—(1) Any sexual offence committed in any jurisdiction outside the United Kingdom, including the aiding, abetting, counselling or procurement of the commission of such an offence, shall be triable and punishable as if it had been so committed in the United Kingdom if—

(a) the act in question is punishable according to the law of
the jurisdiction where it occurred; and

(b)the act in question is punishable according to the law of
the relevant jurisdiction in the United Kingdom; and

(c) the act in question is committed against a child; and

(d) the perpetrator of the act in question is a citizen of the
United Kingdom or ordinarily resident in the United
Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of this section, "a child" shall be defined
as any human being below the age of 18 years.

(3) In this section, "sexual offence" has the meaning given by
section 31(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the legal principle of
double jeopardy.").

The noble and learned Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who was kind enough to add his name to this amendment and who stayed in the Chamber last week until a very late hour in order to participate in the debate, has asked me to express his regrets that perforce he cannot be in attendance today. To those Members of the Committee who are not familiar with the background, the proposal may appear surprising. It proposes to confer on the criminal courts of England and

1613
Wales and those of Scotland jurisdiction to try and to punish certain offences committed abroad by United Kingdom citizens.
Normally, this country has been content to leave offences committed in other countries to the courts of those countries, although there are exceptions: Section 9 of the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 provides that homicide committed by a British subject abroad may be tried in the courts of this country; and Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes a similar provision in respect of torture by a British subject wherever committed.
Notwithstanding those precedents, I should not make a proposal of this kind had there not been a situation so compelling that it requires a remedy proportionate to the evil which has evoked it. A few years ago it became apparent that in some cities, notoriously in parts of Asia and particularly in Bangkok, child prostitution had reached such proportions that it had become a major industry.
Children make their way to the city in a variety of ways, all of which arise from poverty in the surrounding countryside. Some children are turned adrift by their families who cannot afford to keep them. Some are sold by their families to people who simply deal in children. Some are handed over on the assurance that there are those who are prepared to adopt them and give them a better life. Some are orphaned and make their way to the city in the hope of finding food and shelter. Some are simply kidnapped.
On their arrival in the city, those children who are in the control of an adult are simply sold. Those children who are not are rounded up by people known locally as the "fishermen". Then the children are sorted out. Some are sold into slavery—I nearly said virtual slavery—to some of the surrounding industries. The attractive ones are taken to brothels where they stay until they die either from disease or simply exhaustion. The brothels are not there to satisfy a local need. They are a tourist attraction. Paedophiles from the industrial world come to spend a holiday in the child brothels. There are tour operators in western countries who advertise scarcely disguised and sometimes not at all disguised holidays for that purpose.
Some years ago some people in Thailand formed a group whose aim was to make the situation known. It quickly became clear that not all the authorities were likely to apply themselves to stamping out what was in fact a source of foreign money. The foul tourist trade needed to be tackled at its source and the place to campaign was not in Thailand but in the West. An organisation was formed which was called End Child Prostitution in Asian Tourism, which, in the fashion of our day, is now known by its initials—ECPAT. That group addressed itself to the international community and particularly to Western governments. The international community was horrified by what it heard and the response has now assumed the proportions of a crusade. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations in 1989 and ratified by the United Kingdom, includes an undertaking by states party to it to protect children from sexual abuse— Article 19; to take all appropriate methods to end the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other
1614
unlawful sexual practices—Article 34; and to take all appropriate measures to end the traffic in children— Article 35.
In 1991 the United Nations Human Rights Commission appointed a special rapporteur, Professor Muntharbhorn, who recommended, among other measures, that the criminal jurisdiction of the countries of origin of the tourists should be extended to cover the acts committed abroad by their nationals. Incidentally, he also suggested the stationing of police personnel in countries where there is a known threat to children. That suggestion was adopted by Sweden in Bangkok and Manila. But that is not part of the proposal which is before the Committee this afternoon.
In 1992 the United Nations adopted a programme of action to combat the sexual exploitation of children, specifically providing that:
"special attention should be paid to the problems of sex tourism. Legislative and other measures should be taken to prevent and combat sex tourism, both in the countries from which the tourists come and those to which they go".
That initiative is also supported by UNICEF.
In 1991 the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation on trafficking in children which included the recommendation that states should adopt extraterritorial jurisdiction. On 31st May this year-only a fortnight ago—the International Labour Organisation issued a statement to the effect that Its Committee of Experts had endorsed that recommendation. I understand that the proposal was welcomed by a spokesman from the Thailand Government.
So the measure is being strongly urged by virtually all the relevant inter-governmental agencies. In fairness, some of the larger and more reputable tourist agencies are themselves taking action. The German travel agency, TUI, has now told its agents in Sri Lanka that it will cancel all contracts with hotels which permit the sexual abuse of children. And as so often in matters of human rights, much of the initiative has come from the non-governmental organisations. The concern is escalating week by week.
Last year, Anti-Slavery International awarded its annual award for a contribution to the fight against slavery to ECPAT. Now Anti-Slavery International, CAFOD, Christian Aid, the Jubilee Campaign, and the United Kingdom section of Save the Children Fund, have formed a coalition on child prostitution and tourism to co-ordinate the campaign. It is right that I should also acknowledge the information that I have received from the Action for Children Campaign and from the Josephine Butler Society.
Last September, the National Council of Women adopted a resolution to the same effect. The noble and learned Lord may know that only last week, following a resolution last year by the World Federation of Methodist Women, a massive petition from the methodist connection in this country was presented to the Government. The noble and learned Lord will of course have in mind that in another place an Early Day Motion containing the same proposal has received nearly 300 signatures.
Already Sweden and Germany have legislated to this effect and similar legislation has been introduced into the parliaments of France and Australia. That legislation

1615
was the subject of a Question for Written Answer on 3rd May by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In reply the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the Government had no current plans to extend the jurisdiction of British courts.
The Government's thinking on the subject appears in a letter written by the Minister of State, Mr. Maclean, to Sir Cranley Onslow, dated 7th February this year. He points out, first, that in Thailand there is no prescribed age of consent. It is taken as puberty, so some activities which would be unlawful in Britain are not unlawful in Thailand. This amendment takes account of that. It seeks to render an act punishable in Britain only if it would be punishable in the jurisdiction where it occurred.
Then he emphasises that, for constitutional reasons, Germany, which has been the subject of a previous reference, has no extradition laws comparable with our own. He argues that since Britain makes provision for extradition, it is better to deal with offences in that way because it is easier to gather evidence and call witnesses in the country where the offence takes place.
I have no quarrel with that if the authorities where the offence took place actually request extradition and if they are in a position effectively to enforce their own laws. But I believe that there are three answers to that argument. The first is to be found in the Minister of State's own letter. Earlier in that letter he writes:
"There are considerable difficulties because of the entrenched interest involved, including those of a number of corrupt police and other officials".
That appears to be confirmed by an article which appeared in the Evening Standard on 7th March which begins:
"Britons accused of seeking sex with children in Thailand have been able to buy themselves out of gaol with £10,000 bribes in a scandal which has left youngsters of only 10 available as prey for charter-flight tourists".
The article goes on to allege that certain Britons who were awaiting trial had in effect been bailed in consequence of making unlawful payments, and had been permitted to leave the country with no intention of returning to stand trial.
The second answer to the argument of the Minister of State is that the Thai Government themselves appear to recognise the problem because in a recent statement, as I mentioned a moment ago, their spokesman said that they supported the arguments for extra-territorial jurisdiction in the countries from which the tourists come. It seems clear that there are those within the Thai Government who are very troubled over the situation, but they are under too many constraints to enforce the law effectively.
The third answer is that Thailand is not the only country where this form of tourism is to be found. It exists, for example, in the Philippines, and unless I am mistaken—the noble and learned Lord may assist me on this—this country has no extradition arrangements with the Philippines. It exists too in Sri Lanka, in parts of Latin America and Africa.
I understand that it will not always be easy to obtain evidence of offences, but there will be cases where evidence can be made available. It may be that this
1616
country may think it right to station a police officer in certain capitals in the same way as we station officials, for example, to control the drugs trade. Most particularly, the amendment proposes to make aiding abetting, counselling or procuring the offence, punishable here and so it would no longer be possible for tour operators and those with whom they are associated, to operate openly either here or abroad.
I would be surprised if there were any controversy in this debate as to the objective which the amendment seeks to achieve, and certainly not, I believe, from the noble and learned Lord, unless I have totally misjudged him. I accept that the Home Office has been exercising its customary caution as to the efficacy of the remedy which is proposed. The fact that the proposal has massive support throughout the international commun-ity is of course not conclusive. The Home Office requires to be persuaded. But the voices crying in the wilderness are no longer those who are proposing this measure, but the diminishing number who are resisting it.
Two hundred years ago this country led the world in the campaign to abolish the African slave trade and it still retains great respect in the international community as regards human rights. It would be a tragedy if in this campaign to end one of the cruelest and most foul forms of contemporary slavery, this country was ranged on the side of the Levite. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I was a little hesitant when I was first approached by ECPAT, the organisation which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has mentioned, took the lead in the campaign against sexual tourism. My hesitation was on grounds which he may find rather peculiar. I was hopeful that it would not be necessary to extend the jurisdiction of our law into acts committed by British citizens in foreign countries even though that may seem to be an argument which appeals to a lawyer rather than to a layman. It struck me that it would be a better course of action for us to assist the foreign governments which were doing their best to stamp out sexual tourism locally with whatever technical assistance we could, rather than to try to extend our jurisdiction into their countries.
I was finally convinced, not only by the arguments put to me personally by ECPAT, but by everything which I have read about this disgusting trade, that firmer measures had to be taken within our own law and that we are justified in doing that by some of the precedents for the extension of our jurisdiction which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has mentioned. To that I add not just the commission of torture by British subjects but now, as he has probably observed, the torture of British subjects by foreigners. There has been a very recent and important case in the courts where it has been decided that there is jurisdiction. There was the case of a man who alleged that he had been tortured in Kuwait. The courts declared that there was a case to answer on the ground that torture was an international offence and could be dealt with in the jurisdiction of any country. If one takes that view, the

1617
sexual exploitation of children which, in my opinion, is as nasty and vicious as torture, ought equally to be subject to extra-territorial jurisdiction of this kind.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has by no means exaggerated the extent of that vicious trade. He mentioned that hundreds of Westerners are flocking to Sri Lanka to take part in the activities of sex tourism because they know that they will be immune from the law there. Although the Thai and Sri Lankan Governments have expressed their determination to strengthen their legal provisions against the exploitation of children in their countries, they are up against enormous vested interests, such as the tourist trade itself and, in the case of Thailand, corrupt local police who can be bought off by the managers of child brothels. That is why very few prosecutions are successful locally. I believe that one German tourist was convicted in Sri Lanka of very blatant activities with young children in a hotel somewhere down in the south. He was let off with a small fine and was allowed to leave the country. That was for an offence for which the maximum is a heavy custodial sentence. Again, the reason was that the courts did not wish to deter other people from visiting that country because of what they might read in their newspapers about the likelihood of such heavy sentences being imposed. Of course, the vast majority of Western tourists who visit Sri Lanka or Thailand do not engage in illegal activities.
Another aspect of this trade should be mentioned. I refer to the particularly despicable sale of Burmese refugee children across the border into Thailand. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, probably knows about this. It has been dealt with by ECPAT. Refugees who are absolutely desperate to survive sell their children into slavery. In many cases the children find themselves in the brothels of Bangkok where they are lost for ever to their families.
It has recently been brought to my notice also that there is an unpleasant practice in Hong Kong to which the Committee's attention should be drawn. Children are brought across the border from mainland China to take part in sexual activities. When the brothel owners are caught they are not imprisoned, but the children are. In a recent case two children were kept in an adult prison in Hong Kong because they were required as potential witnesses in a case against the brothel owner. I could not believe that when I heard it. I could not believe that there could be a provision in the law of a British dependency which allowed children to be detained in an adult prison because they were required as material witnesses to an offence. I received a fairly long letter this morning from Mr. Alastair Goodlad, which I have not had a chance to study as yet, in which he makes out a justification for that law on the grounds that if those provisions were not in the statute there would be a flood of people coming across from mainland China. He said that the provisions were needed as a deterrent. I am sure that deterrents are necessary, but can we not provide them within the rules of natural justice and prevent witnesses from being detained in remand prisons simply because they may be required to give evidence in a later case?
1618
However, Hong Kong is not the main centre for the sex tourism about which we are speaking. The two countries which are principally concerned are Thailand and Sri Lanka, both of which are making every effort to stamp out this horrible trade. The Government have said that we should assist them in every way that we can in their own law instead of extending our jurisdiction in the way recommended in the amendment. I should like to ask whether further consideration might be given to my suggestion, made in correspondence with Ministers, that we should loan police officers to the forces of those countries. The places where such offences occur are well known locally. You do not need to look around very hard to find the particular hotels or beach resorts where child sex is available. Therefore, if police officers from Western Europe—from Britain or Germany— were stationed in those places, helping the local police with their inquiries among tourists, that might provide a substantial deterrent and help to close some of the brothels that indulge in this filthy trade.
We should also offer technical assistance, given what is known by the British police about the activities of paedophiles in the United Kingdom. Ministers have stated in correspondence that they are perfectly ready to do that if the countries concerned required it; in other words, if those countries took the first step by asking the British police for help we would be prepared to consider providing it. I am not sure whether that has been made known sufficiently firmly to the governments concerned. Given the expressed willingness of the Thai and Sri Lankan authorities to combat the trade, I believe that they would like to have such expertise available. We should make the offer without waiting to be asked.
In the meanwhile, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, has given us an opportunity to do something which many other countries have already achieved. He referred to Germany in particular. I should like to mention Australia. I have recently sent to the Minister who deals with South-East Asia a letter that I received from my friend and colleague, Garrie Gibson, who is a Member of the Federal Houses of Parliament in Australia. He enclosed a copy of the Bill that was recently introduced there. If such a provision, which is in accordance with our legal traditions, can be introduced in Australia, it is possible to do the same here. I hope that the opportunity given to us this afternoon will be taken to extend our law and combat a disgusting and pernicious trade.
Lord Wilberforce: I strongly support the amendment that has been moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. He made a very strong case. His reputation in connection with preventing the exploitation of vulnerable people and with their defence is well known both in this House and in the House of Commons. He deserves our support.
One has to ask two questions in this connection. The first is whether there is a need for an extra remedy above that which is already available under the law. As to the facts, I need not expand on them because the noble and learned Lord explained them and gave details of a very convincing character. ECPAT, the body which he mentioned, has been in existence for, I believe, three

1619
years and has collected a mass of totally convincing detail. It came to the notice of Anti-Slavery International, of which I have the honour to be a joint president. We decided to give our award of the year for 1993 to ECPAT for its work. That award is not given lightly. It is given only where the work has clearly been meritorious. Incidentally, the award was presented on behalf of our society by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, thereby giving additional validation to the case made. The facts are not capable of dispute, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, added to them.
One must also question whether the existing law can deal with the situation. I suggest that the answer is, certainly not. The acts that are referred to in the amendment are committed abroad—in Thailand, the Philippines, Sri Lanka or wherever—and, naturally, prosecutions would be expected to take place in those countries. However, there are strong vested interests against attacking a trade which is lucrative and brings in tourism. Anybody who has had any connection with human rights legislation or with anti-slavery legislation knows that it is one thing to get legislation passed in a foreign country and quite a different thing to get that legislation enforced. A fortiori that is likely to be the case in this context.
Moreover, by the nature of things the offence is committed by a foreigner who is likely to have left the country by the time the wheels of justice have begun to move. Therefore, one is thrown back onto the possibility of extradition which, as the noble and learned Lord explained, may not be available. In any case, extradition takes a long time and is subject to difficulties. So much for the practical possibilities of prosecution in the country of the offence.
As regards prosecution in this country under the existing law, Members of the Committee will be aware that in order for it to take place some essential ingredient of the crime must have been committed here. If the whole crime took place abroad then, in the absence of special legislation, it cannot be prosecuted here. In many cases that would enable the production of advertisements or counselling to be dealt with here under a charge of conspiracy or something of that kind. That might be available but it would not attack the actual commission of acts in the country concerned by people who have gone there in order to engage in this horrible trade. Therefore, there are serious weaknesses at both ends; that is, in the country in which the crime is committed and in this country.
The second question is whether it is appropriate to make this type of crime an international crime. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, gave instances of cases in which it is thought proper to make a crime capable of prosecution though committed extra-territorially. He mentioned the case of homicide with which Members of the Committee recently had contact in the case of war crimes. He also mentioned torture and some sexual offences. One might add as perhaps relevant that since 1873 offences in connection with the slave trade have been capable of prosecution though committed extra-territorially. A number of acts of a sexual character are capable of being dealt with under an
1620
Act of 1978. They include abduction, child stealing, rape and so forth. They are capable of being dealt with under the European Convention Against Terrorism but only as between countries which are parties to that convention, which are basically European countries. That is a pointer to the way forward; it is an analogy which can be drawn on. Other cases can be found in the books showing that in a suitable case a crime can be treated as a universal crime, dealt with by any country which has jurisdiction over its own nationals or persons resident in that country.
As the noble and learned Lord mentioned—it was added to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—a number of countries have announced measures to deal with the situation by legislation or otherwise. I would add to their list Canada and Japan, which have also announced measures, bringing to six the number of countries taking or planning action. We should be at the head of them. I have no hesitation in suggesting that it would be totally appropriate and right that we take measures as proposed to make this action generally an extra-territorial crime. I do not wish to enter into the details of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. It seems appropriate, if perhaps a little widely drawn, but that can be considered later.
To sum up, the amendment focuses on this evil, which is undoubted, widespread and probably increasing, and suggests a remedy which is appropriate to the nature of the case and perfectly consistent with the traditions of this country. I am happy to support it. I hope that the Government will take it on board.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has raised what everyone will agree is a most important matter. He has spoken of a form of trade and exploitation which is vile. I am sure that all Members of the Committee accept that that is so. The noble and learned Lord has proposed a particular remedy and, with his experience and knowledge, drawn from his contacts with various organisations, has painted in the background against which he makes that proposal.
He has, of course, recognised—as have other Members of the Committee—that the proposal is exceptional in that it is not in accordance with the usual provisions of United Kingdom law to provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction. That is not to say that there are not cases in which it has been provided for. Again, the noble and learned Lord has indicated a number of such cases and we have heard a full additional exposition from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I accept that where in the past there has been an offence of such international dimension it has been recognised to be appropriate to breach the usual principle on extra-territorial matters and to provide for jurisdiction in such cases.
It is, therefore, not so much the issue of principle which has concerned the Government in this matter. We have reached the view, of which the noble and learned Lord is aware and to which he referred, that it would not be appropriate to make the extension here. That view was not reached simply on the basis of any general

1621
principle. The principle exists and one must examine the circumstances in which it is breached. Nonetheless, it is not on that matter that the Government have placed most weight.
We start from the position that where possible it is best that crimes committed in an overseas country are dealt with by the authorities and the courts of that country. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not dispute that position for one moment. It is almost a corollary that usually it is difficult for us to enforce law where the relevant events occur in a foreign country, in particular if it is a country such as Thailand or Sri Lanka. It must be remembered that our police and our courts do not have powers there and that usually the witnesses concerned do not speak English and so forth. Therefore, it is difficult for us to enforce laws where events take place overseas.
In that situation, what has been the Government's reaction to this undoubted problem? Of course, we have worked hard in international bodies, in particular in the UN General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, to combat the real evil of child prostitution. In 1992, for example, we supported the adoption by the commission of a programme of action for the prevention of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. We have urged all countries to implement the measures that it contains. We have frequently raised the issue of child prostitution with the authorities of the countries where it occurs, in particular with the authorities in Thailand. We are a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, referred, and we support the work of the Committee on the Rights of the Child in monitoring states' compliance with the provisions of the convention. Therefore, there is no lack of sympathy with what lies behind the amendment. However, the question is: what is the best way forward?
Reference has been made to extradition. But, the heart of the argument, described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, is that often the authorities in the countries where the problem arises are, shall I say, not enthusiastic in prosecuting the offences or in dealing with them. That lies at the heart of the matter. But that is a difficulty which really must be dealt with in those countries. We must use all our powers and arguments to bring home to those countries—be they independent countries with their own governments and so on—that it is their responsibility to clean up that filthy trade in their own countries. We must not allow any illusion to develop that by introducing the proposed provision, we should in any sense put an end to that filthy trade. That will be disposed of only when the authorities in those countries are really prepared to crack down on it. Therefore, in no sense must we get away from the position that it is for the authorities in those countries to act.
If they are prepared to act then, as has been said, the United Kingdom is prepared to extradite its own nationals for trial in those countries. Of course, that is a different position from certain other countries; for example, Germany, which, for its own historic reasons, does not do so. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, at present there is no extradition treaty
1622
with the Philippines and I can confirm that. But the main countries that we are considering at present are Sri Lanka and Thailand. The trade is at its worst in those countries. We contend that where the authorities are active, then extradition is the better and more workable option because a local trial is likely to be much more successful.
Equally, we are prepared to co-operate with the authorities of the countries concerned where they believe that a British holidaymaker has committed offences while there. For example, we are able to arrange for assistance to be given in terms of the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 and we can take witness statements and further the investigations. Our police authorities give information about known paedophiles to the police of other countries. For example, the obscene publications branch warned the authorities in Thailand when a British paedophile was believed to be travelling to that country. Therefore, the Government and the authorities have been active.
But if the provisions of the proposed amendment were brought into effect in this country, what would be the practical results? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, stressed, for the first time it would give jurisdiction to the courts of this country in that sphere. That would be the first step. But before a prosecution could be brought in this country, we should still need to have available the evidence necessary for a prosecution here. As Members of the Committee will be aware, we do not work, as some other countries do, partly by means of written procedures. On the whole, we have to have the witnesses present in this country or have some way of obtaining their oral evidence.
We are dealing with people who, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, explained, are often completely unwilling for their own reasons to co-operate. If they would not co-operate with a prosecution in their own country, they certainly would not be willing to co-operate with a prosecution in this country. There would be all the problems of language and so on. In other words, the practical difficulties of actually prosecuting in this country would be enormous and the Government believe that in practice, it would be unworkable.
Reference was made to the fact that certain other countries have introduced that legislation; and that is correct. But, for example, that legislation is in place in Germany and so far there have been three prosecutions under it. They all concerned sex offences committed by German nationals against children in Thailand. Every single one of those prosecutions failed due to lack of adequate evidence. That highlights the difficulties. The Government do not believe that the position would be any different in this country. If anything, it may be worse because of the form of our court procedures.
Members of the Committee have referred to the Australian legislation, but equally I know that some people have expressed doubts as to whether or not that legislation would prove to be of any real material use. For those reasons, the Government do not believe that the approach embodied in the amendment would assist materially in bringing to an end that vile trade. If

1623
anything, it would create an illusion of practical action which would only be an illusion. It would not really reach the heart of that particular abuse.
For that reason, the Government believe that the amendment is not acceptable. Of course, we shall continue to monitor what is achieved by the legislation in other countries. If it appears that something is being achieved, the Government will be prepared to reconsider the matter in the light of that information. But as advised at present, we do not believe that that is the way forward. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he deal with the question that I asked with regard to a positive offer of help on the part of the British police? Instead of waiting for the Thai police or the Sri Lankan police to ask for help, will the Government consider making a positive offer to station British police officers in those countries in the places where those offences occur so that they could help their Thai or Sri Lankan counterparts?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I should have referred to that matter. Although such matters seem simple in the abstract, one must remember that one is dealing with independent countries with their own authorities. We cannot give police assistance if it is not wanted. One must always bear in mind sensitivities in relation to such matters. I shall write more fully to the noble Lord on that matter and in regard to Hong Kong, about which the noble Lord also asked.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I may raise two points. I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said. It seems to me that the argument put forward for leaving the law as it is would apply with equal force to those crimes which—I use a phrase of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce—are international crimes; for example, trafficking in slavery or certain forms of international terrorism.
Is it not the case that one powerful argument for extending jurisdiction in this case is that it would have a certain deterrent effect on British people who indulge in that filthy trade because they would know that they stand some risk of being brought to book in the criminal courts of this country, even if they can go scot-free elsewhere?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As I said in reply, I accept that there are certain international crimes which may occur in various places and which perhaps occur often in no particular jurisdiction—that is, the high seas or wherever it may be—where international jurisdiction is appropriate. I accept that. However, for the reasons that I have explained, we do not believe that it is appropriate in this case.
I accept that if there were a realistic prospect of prosecution and conviction, that may have the deterrent effect to which the noble Lord referred. However, for the reason that I have given, the Government do not
1624
believe that that would be so. Therefore, one would be at risk of putting on the statute book something which was really just a paper provision and nothing more.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I support the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell. It seems to me that nothing has been said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that deals with any of the points that have been raised. The noble and learned Lord asserts that in principle the Government would favour stamping out—indeed, he said it on a number of occasions—"this filthy trade". However, in the next breath he indicated that governments locally, whether in the Philippines, Thailand or Sri Lanka, are not particularly interested in stamping out the trade for various ignoble reasons.
Every one of the arguments marshalled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is entirely apt to do away with the catalogue of offences which was accurately read out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. However, there has been no answer of any quality of satisfaction to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The mere existence of a criminal sanction has an extremely important deterrent effect. The Government are urging Members of the Committee to say that, under the legal jurisdiction which we apply extra-territorially, adult slaves must have a greater protection than those properly and accurately described by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer as child slaves. That seems an extraordinary conclusion for any government to be urging upon the Committee.
If the amendment is passed, it will not end the trade overnight. The position that I am respectfully putting forward is that it would be a start upon a very long journey. However, without that start, nothing will be done.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I find that I cannot remain wholly silent on the issue, but I hope to be very brief. I was totally convinced by the answer given by my noble and learned friend to the understandable feeling behind the support for the amendment. I should like it to be fully understood that not one word that I say diminishes in any way my disgust and horror at the existence of the appalling misuse of humanity which has been described and which has, naturally, excited the sympathy of Members of the Committee. However, I cannot see the smallest possibility of the amendment having the slightest beneficial effect whatever upon the putting down at any stage of such an appalling trade.
Admittedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, there are cases where we accept extra-territorial jurisdiction for certain types of offence, including the more relevant one of slavery. The reason why that has passed through into our legislation is that, occasionally, there is the possibility of getting a witness into this country who will give evidence for the prosecution in such a case. That is particularly so in the case of slavery due to the fact that, very often, slavery takes the form of

1625
kidnapping people from one country and moving them over into another. Of course, the country from which such people are kidnapped is likely to co-operate.
Where the evil, as described, against a child takes place inside a country, you will not get the child over here in any circumstances. The only person to come here would be an officer of the police force of countries which are actively engaged in putting down such activities. The right course, if countries are sincere, is extradition. I should heartily support such a proposal.
However, the argument put on the other side is that in countries where such things take place either the authorities will not co-operate, in which case the whole situation would fail, or the police forces or persons who could give effective evidence for the prosecution are corrupt and would take bribes. If they are likely to take bribes where they are, they are not likely to come to this country and give evidence for the prosecution. We must use a little common sense. I support wholeheartedly the Government's attitude, although I detest the subject and its criminality as much as any Member of the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Paradoxically, the noble and learned Lord is arguing against his own Front Bench case. He is saying that we cannot rely on extradition as the alternative to what is proposed by my noble and learned friend's amendment. However, the Government are relying almost entirely on extradition.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The noble Lord misrepresents what I said. Of course, we can rely on extradition from countries where the authorities co-operate. But the argument put for the amendment is that either the government of the foreign country will not co-operate, in which case extradition is impossible, or the police officer who would be the only available witness to convict a man in this country would take a bribe so that he would not give evidence in the country where he is. Therefore, he would not come over to this country.
What I said was not against the Government's argument; it was in support of the Government's argument. The extradition option is in fact impracticable for the very reasons which the supporters of the amendment have put forward. For that reason, prosecution in this country is not an option either because the same considerations apply here.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I believe that the issue of whether the countries where this trade takes place are capable and willing to prosecute is a matter of fact. It has been well established by ECPAT that in most of the countries—certainly the most important ones— where the trade takes place, they are either unwilling or unable to prosecute effectively. Therefore, extradition from the country, which is what the Government relied on as their alternative, would not work.
The noble and learned Lord made a further point; namely, that if the governments of those countries are unwilling or unable to prosecute effectively, then, presumably, the police force is capable of being bribed and that its members would not come over to this
1626
country to give evidence. However, surely there are other people who would do so. It does not require the evidence of a Thai or a Sri Lankan police officer. There may be a number of people who could give evidence in this country. I repeat my conclusion that the noble and learned Lord is attacking the Government's case rather than that of my noble and learned friend.
Lord Archer of Sand well: Unusually, in the course of our debates on the Bill, I have to say that the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate disappointed me. I had genuinely hoped that the Government's consideration of such matters had developed a little as it went along, as so often happens in Home Office matters. I accept that the Government unreservedly support the objective behind the amendment. I also accept that the Government have not been idle in international deliberations on the matter. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said, the question is twofold: first, are the existing arrangements sufficient; and, secondly, would there be an addition to their effect if the amendment were passed into legislation?
As I understand it, the noble and learned Lord said that if we were to take extra-territorial jurisdiction it might weaken the resolve and the incentive of the governments in the countries where such acts take place to try to deal with them there. I do not follow that argument. For the life of me, I do not see why it should weaken their incentive; in fact, it might actually stiffen their resolution if they thought that other countries were sufficiently concerned to do something about it. In any event, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and by my noble friend Lord Williams, if one looks at the examples given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that argument would apply equally to any of those examples. There would never be any attempt to address offences with an international dimension. I find myself totally unconvinced by that argument.
The second argument was that there would be difficulties in obtaining evidence. That was the argument addressed a moment ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, whose views on this, of course, I take with great seriousness. First, it would not always be the case that evidence from the authorities abroad on acts which had taken place abroad would not be available in this country because we know that the Thailand authorities are not homogeneous on this. There are some authorities who want to address this foul traffic and I believe they would welcome it if we gave them this opportunity.
However, there are two other arguments, which I believe I mentioned at an earlier stage and which, if I may say so with respect, the noble and learned Lord did not take on board. The first is that much of this traffic originates with tour operators in this country—people who procure and counsel these offences. Although they sometimes carry out these offences by means of agents abroad, I believe there would be no difficulty as regards both them and their agents facing prosecution and punishment in this country.
My second point, which I understand might require some consideration, is that some countries, Sweden in

1627
particular, have stationed their agents abroad. That is not an expensive operation. It does not involve putting agents thickly on the ground in every city in the world. We know the cities where this trade goes on. We would need only one or two agents in each of these cities. That is exactly what we do now in relation to international drug trafficking. I have professional experience of people who have been convicted in this country through evidence obtained by our agents in cities where drug trafficking goes on. The Home Office might have thought about—
Lord Wilberforce: Will the noble and learned Lord add to that argument the presence in all these countries of non-governmental organisations and their representatives; for example, representatives of ECPAT and other people who work under the United Nations? One is not only confined to police or people stationed by, say, the Swedish Government. There are also many voluntary organisations who are vigilant and anxious to co-operate.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That is, of course, true and one can think of other kinds of offences —for example, environmental offences—where the evidence obtained abroad by non-governmental organisations has made prosecutions possible elsewhere. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that we must use our common sense because I thought that was what we were trying to do. We are trying to add to effective control of this trade. Virtually the whole of the international community, the whole of the United Nations family, the Council of Europe and non-governmental organisations that have addressed this matter believe that they are using common sense. If they are all flying in the face of common sense, all I can say is that there is a large majority against common sense.
I have considered whether this might be an occasion on which it might be better to have second thoughts if we all undertook to read what has been said so weightily by so many Members of the Committee. But, on reflection, this appears to be a debate where, if I may say so with great respect, noble Lords have listened attentively and I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 143) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Airedale, L.

Chapple, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.[Teller.]

Clanwilliam, E.

Ardwick, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Avebury, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Beloff, L.

Craigavon, V.

Blackstone, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

David, B.

Brightman, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Desai, L.

1628

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Northbourne, L.

Foot, L.

Peston, L.

Glasgow, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Redesdale, L.

[Teller.]

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Halsbury, E.

Seear, B.

Haskel, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sempill, Ly.

HolmPatrick, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooson, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Jay, L.

Strafford, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Judd, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kennet, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mayhew, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Milverton, L.

5.52 p.m.
[Amendment No. 144 not moved.]
Clauses 83 and 84 agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 144A:
After Clause 84, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of Sexual Offences Act 1956
—(1) For section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (rape) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Rape.
1.—(1) It is an offence for a man to rape a woman.
(2) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has sexual intercourse with a woman who at the
time of the intercourse does not consent to it; and

(b) at the time he knows she does not consent to the
intercourse or is reckless as to whether she
consents to it.

(3) A man who induces a married woman to have sexual
intercourse with him by impersonating her husband
commits rape.
(4) Subsection (2) above applies for the purpose of any
enactment."
(2) In section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956
(procuration of women to have unlawful sexual intercourse) the
word "unlawful" shall be omitted.
(3) Section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act
1976 (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have
effect.").
The noble Lord said: This is a modest amendment. It is so modest that I cannot imagine that it will give rise to much debate or controversy.
In 1991 the Appellate Committee of this House decided that in modern times the supposed marital exception in rape formed no part of the law of England. In January 1992 the Law Commission, chaired by Mr. Justice Peter Gibson, as he then was, published a report on Rape within Marriage endorsing that decision by the Law Lords and recommending that the offence of rape should be redefined by omitting the word "unlawful" from the relevant provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. Before the Law Lords' decision the term "unlawful" had been interpreted to mean sexual intercourse only outside marriage.
The report is one of some 30 Law Commission reports, designed to cure anomalies and make the law simpler, which have yet to be implemented. The amendment is designed to give effect to the Law Commission's clear and convincing report. The Law Commission recommended that it was undesirable to
1630
leave on the statute book a provision that had been interpreted as mere surplusage and yet was a matter of real public importance. It wrote that it considered that to leave the statute book in this state would perpetrate on the face of the statute an unnecessary element of uncertainty about the meaning of the word "unlawful" in relation to other sections of the 1956 Act.
If the amendment were carried, subsection (1) would replace Section 1 of the 1956 Act with a new section taking in, except for the omission of the word "unlawfully", the substance of Section 1 (1) of the 1976 Act, which would be repealed by subsection (3). Subsection (2) would repeal the word "unlawful" in Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the 1956 Act.
I have deliberately not included any of the other proposals of the Law Commission in this area lest they be regarded as controversial—too controversial to be acceptable to the Committee. If that is an excess of moderation then I plead guilty to moderation. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, prefaced his remarks by saying that he could not see how there could possibly be any argument against his amendment. I could not help thinking of the number of times that I have heard noble Lords say in starry-eyed anticipation that their amendment would be accepted, only to find a catalogue of reasons presented by the hapless Minister to show that the amendment was not all that acceptable.
As the noble Lord said, this particular amendment deals with rape in marriage. For obvious reasons the Government have not been able to include within the Bill, despite its ever-increasing size, every worthy proposal for reform. We have consciously tried to avoid straying into the immensely controversial and difficult area of sexual offences laws.
The noble Lord has ventured into that terrain, with success and simplicity. In essence, as the noble Lord pointed out, the amendment merely confirms in statute what is already in law. It is an important declaration of Parliament's belief that a man who rapes his wife can expect no special treatment under the law.
It is open to question whether Hale's pronouncement that a man could not be guilty of raping his wife ever reflected the broad opinion of the general public. But it is beyond doubt that the relatively recent decision of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House on this matter encapsulated the modern day attitude of society.
The amendment will not change the law's practical effect, but it will represent an unequivocal statement of the value which Parliament places on a woman's right to be protected against the dreadful crime of rape. I am happy to recommend that the Committee should accept the amendment. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on having proposed such a firm, just and fair amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I feel like a character in a Bateman cartoon: "The opposition Peer whose amendment was accepted by the Government". I am extremely gratified. It will not at all swell my conceit to think that I have contributed to the law of England for the first time as a greenhorn in this Chamber by

1631
removing one word from the statute book. I very much hope that the amendment will have the support of the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 144B and 144C had been with-drawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 144D:
Before Clause 85, insert the following new clause:
("Accommodation in prisons
.—(1) No prison establishment shall hold a greater number of prisoners than is the certified normal accommodation, subject to subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) A prison establishment may hold a greater number of
prisoners than is the certified normal accommodation where—

(a) the additional number of prisoners in that prison is not
greater than 3 per cent. of the certified normal
accommodation; and

(b) the certified normal accommodation of that prison is not
exceeded for more than a period of seven consecutive
days in any three month period.

(3) The Secretary of State may, in exceptional circumstances,
issue a certificate to a prison for a specified number of places,
such that this section shall not have effect for a period of three
months; and copies of any such certificate must be laid before
both Houses of Parliament at the time of issuance and renewal, or
as soon as possible thereafter.").
The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 144DI should like to speak also to Amendment No. 144HA, which deals with the related subject of detention in police stations. The amendment deals with an issue of enormous importance because we consider the prison service part of the Bill. It concerns the fundamental issue of accommodation in prisons. As the Committee will know, there is a system of certified normal accommodation. The number of prisoners allowed in any prison is well established, not simply from the point of view of the number of beds which can be crammed in, but from the point of view of providing a civilised regime in prisons. I do not now talk about any of the other issues of discipline. The difference between myself calling a regime civilised and the Home Secretary calling it austere is not the subject of the amendment.
However, the amendment concerns the overcrowding in prison which is the biggest single threat to improvement in the regime in our prisons. The Woolf Report in 1990 and the debate on overcrowding in prisons, which took place in this House on 2nd February, pointed to the enormous risks if overcrowding in prisons continues, and continues to increase. The report pointed out the extent to which such overcrowding has increased. Although there have been additions to prison accommodation, in the past 16 months the prison population in this country has increased from 40,000 to 49,000. If the increase were to continue at that rate, it means that a new prison would have to be opened virtually every two weeks in this country. At the end of March of this year 500 prisoners were in police cells. That is a tragic failure if we remember that the objective of successive governments has been to eliminate the number of prisoners in police cells. That objective had been achieved: we got rid of prisoners in police cells only a short time ago. But now,
1632
because of the increase in the overall number of prisoners, we have slipped back to using police cells as emergency accommodation for prisoners.
It is not as though it is not possible in some parts of the prison service to prohibit overcrowding. The privatised prisons—in the Wolds for remand prisoners, in Blakenhurst for convicted prisoners—have provisions in their contracts which prohibit overcrowding. One might argue perversely that if the Government were to achieve their objective of privatising all prisons, and were to do so on the contracts which have been awarded in the Wolds and Blakenhurst, there could be no overcrowding in our prisons. I do not know whether that is the Government's objective; and, if so, in how many years they think that they might achieve it.
However, two factors are particularly disturbing about the current trend. The first is the increase in numbers. It is no good Ministers saying, as they do when it is suggested that this is a matter for the Home Secretary, that it is the courts which send people to prison not the Home Secretary. Of course, it is formally the courts which send people to prison. But it is conspicuous that the courts do so more readily when they are encouraged by the politicians. After the Home Secretary had made his notorious remark at the last Conservative Party Conference that prison works, the increase in the number of convicted people being sent to prison in the following weeks was quite remarkable.
It is a political responsibility on all of us, whatever the formalities may be, to ensure that the number of people sent to prison decreases. That is why throughout the consideration of the Bill, I and others have been arguing against the increase in the number of imprisonable offences, in the sure knowledge that if one has imprisonable offences someone will take advantage of the power to send people to prison, and will do so. That is the first issue: the increase in numbers, which has to be restrained.
The second issue relates to the quality of the prison regime when there is the overcrowding which now exists. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, is not able to be present this afternoon. However, the Woolf Report was absolutely explicit on that point. Lord Justice Woolf (as he then was) said that it is clear from the evidence that the conditions which exist at present in our prisons cause a substantial number of prisoners to leave prison more embittered and hostile to society than when they arrive. They leave prison in a state of mind in which they are more likely to reoffend. The real cost of overcrowding is an increase in crime. Any government which claim to be defending law and order and fighting crime cannot do so on the basis of a prison policy which does nothing effective to deal with the overcrowding in our prisons.
Lord Justice Woolf cited many factors which contributed to the riots of 1990 which he investigated. Nearly all of those stemmed largely, although not entirely, from overcrowding in prisons. Overcrowding means that officers have less time to deal with prisoners; workshop space is developed for use as accommodation instead of being used for workshops and for rehabilitation; and prisoners spend less time out of their cells. The result is resentment and anger among

1633
prisoners; and the result of that is an increasing inability of prison officers, many of whom really wish to get away from the oppressive regime of the past, to control the problems with which they are faced except on a day-to-day emergency basis.
I do not say that without evidence. If we consider the number of assaults on staff—it is the sharp end of what I describe—between 1990 and 1992 assaults on prison staff increased in our prisons by 56 per cent. The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Stephen Tumim, made a speech to the Royal Society of Arts last week in which he stated that the law and order debate is driven by rhetoric and by prejudice. He criticised the Home Secretary's plans for more austere regimes by stating:
"Ultimately the belief that if you make prisons bad enough, men will not commit crimes, must be exposed as historically untrue".
It is the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that we do not continue to make our prisons worse, more ineffective and more likely to encourage prisoners to commit crime. The most effective way in which we can do that is by outlawing overcrowding in our prisons.
One recognises that that cannot be done overnight. One recognises that such a fundamental change in penal policy as we call for in the amendment is not capable of immediate remedy, unless we have, as some countries have, widescale amnesties for certain offences. Perhaps that would not be such a bad idea. For example, we might have an amnesty for those who are imprisoned as fine defaulters. However, leaving that aside, we recognise that outlawing overcrowding in prisons cannot be achieved immediately. Subsection (3) of Amendment No. 144D provides that,
"The Secretary of State may, in exceptional circumstances, issue a certificate to a prison for a specified number of places",
in excess of the certified normal accommodation. We provide that the section should not have effect for a period of more than three months; and that notification to Parliament should be required at the time of issuance, renewal, or as soon as possible thereafter.
It is not an extreme amendment. The amendment calls for a stop to what has become an extreme deterioration in our prison service. I suggest that it is an amendment which the Committee ought to support. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: There is not a great deal to add to the arguments against overcrowding that we have just heard. Everyone knows them. They have been put again and again. I believe that 25 years is long enough and I wish to quote a sentence from remarks that I made in your Lordships' House in 1969:
"There is a prerequisite for any prison reform, and that is to get rid of overcrowding".
Eighteen years later I made a further reference when I said:
"I believe that conditions in our prisons have deteriorated steadily and dangerously … There is one basic cause for this trouble; namely, prolonged overcrowding".
On that date seven years ago, there were 393 prisoners in police cells. Now there are 500.
The story has been the same over the whole 25 years. There has been no coherent effort to deal with overcrowding and the reason is simple. There is only one way of dealing with it: with money. Unless we
1634
leave prisoners lying about for whatever period it is, we must spend the money in various ways, the most important of which is in staff. The worst effect of overcrowding is, as the noble Lord suggested, that with an overcrowded prison the facilities that are meant to make it, first, tolerable and secondly, useful, disappear and crumble. One way or another, the position becomes steadily worse.
When I said money, it does not necessarily mean building many new prisons. That has been done and has not produced the answer we wanted. I think we must go on building prisons because, on the whole, the existing ones tend to become unsuitable. The basic point is that we must have prisons correctly furnished, correctly built and correctly staffed. Only that will provide a satisfactory situation for the people in our prisons.
To have enough prisons will cost a great deal and I do not think we shall get the necessary finance. But let no one think that the problem will be cured in any other way. This is not the occasion to go into all the different things that could be done, but without proper spending, first, in relation to staff and, secondly, in relation to furnishing, buildings and providing facilities, matters will continue to become slightly worse, as they have for the past 25 years.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am sure that the Committee agrees with the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Donaldson, that overcrowding of prisons is undesirable and to be avoided if possible. However, I stress the words "if possible". If the courts go on sending more and more people to prison, those people must be accommodated. Frankly, the amendment is a counsel of perfection, but it may be impossible for it to work. It allows the normal certified accommodation to be exceeded in certain circumstances, but to a very limited extent. Subsection (2) (a) refers to:
"not greater than 3 per cent. [more than] the certified normal accommodation".
That could be a small percentage. Subsection (2) (b) is even tougher:
"the certified normal accommodation … is not exceeded for more than a period of seven consecutive days".
If that had been the reality of the situation over the past 30 years or more we would not have been able to keep in prison the people whom the courts sent there.
I well remember that for quite a long time, under the Home Secretary, I had responsibility for prisons. We were worried by the fact that too many men were sleeping three to a cell which was built for one man. We had the biggest prison building programme in the early 1960s that there had been for 100 years. When my noble friend Lord Whitelaw became Home Secretary he found that the position was chronic and went into an even bigger prison building programme. I do not see how the Government can accept the amendment. I am sorry to have to say so, because I think it is well intentioned.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord is right that prison overcrowding will continue as long as courts send people to prison. My noble friend Lord Donaldson is right in saying that if that is the position then only more spending will do anything about it. But surely the whole

1635
point is that two years ago we began to reduce the number of people going to prison. That is the way in which we wish to go. We thought that the Government had had a conversion on the matter and the numbers dropped quite dramatically. We should encourage the policy of courts not to send people to prison but to use the alternative methods of punishment which have been outlined again and again. In addition, we should take more positive action to see that people do not offend. There are a number of ways, with which the Committee are familiar, to encourage people who come out of prison not to re-offend. That can be through training, help with placing them in jobs and so on. After all, recidivism is one of the biggest causes of overcrowding in prisons and if we cut recidivism the problem will be much less. I support the amendment because it forces those concerned to look again at why there are so many people in prison. If the courts had to comply with the requirements of the amendment they would consider the two important ways of reducing numbers, using other methods of punishment and taking far more positive and active steps to stop recidivism.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I agree with her that the extra non-custodial sentences which Parliament has permitted to be used since the early 1970s have helped a great deal. The courts make pretty free use of them. But there are still many cases with which the courts feel they cannot deal properly and adequately without sending people to prison. So long as that is so, it is useless trying to impose conditions on the number of prisoners because we shall simply be interfering with the work of the courts in a way which would not be feasible.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord says that the courts feel that they cannot do certain things, but that is a product of the climate of opinion which is created by Parliament and the Secretary of State. The Committee must recognise that there will be overcrowding, which will become worse. More police cells will have to be used for the accommodation of prisoners as a result of the attitude and the pronouncements of the present Home Secretary and of people like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. They always harp on the few instances of persons released on bail who commit further criminal offences. The only way in which we shall stop that—as I tried to point out when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked questions about it—is not to grant bail at all. Then no one can commit an offence while he is on bail.
In the relatively relaxed climate a couple of years ago, when bail was being granted freely by the courts, the number of prisoners on remand in prisons was much less than now. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, but we see from the figures that the increase which has resulted in the present situation of so many prisoners in police cells—500 has been mentioned—is largely on the remand side, not people serving sentences.
Thus, although my noble friend is perfectly right that measures to counter recidivism are important and Parliament should concentrate on them, they will not have the fundamental effect on the prison population
1636
that we should like to see if overcrowding is to be altogether prevented. I am afraid that I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in one sense. We are talking in the amendment about something which is impossible to achieve unless the courts change their sentencing policy and unless the number of people held on remand is diminished. We must put people somewhere. It is the product of the cumulative decisions made by the courts throughout the country and the prison population has to be accommodated in the prison accommodation that is available.
We face, and have faced, a difficulty, as my noble friend Lord Donaldson pointed out. I can remember even further back than he mentioned, when the prison rules were first introduced in their present form. We talked in Rule No. 1 about enabling prisoners to lead a good and useful life. That was supposed to be the main purpose of incarcerating them. That of course meant, as everybody will concede, that the accommodation in which they were to be confined should be reasonably civilised. It never has been. We have never arrived at the point where there has been sufficient reasonably modern accommodation to satisfy the whole of the prison population.
The point that I was about to make is this. The fluctuations in sentencing policy and attitudes, for example, to the long-term imprisonment of people who commit serious offences alter with every successive Home Secretary and every successive government, so that the amount of accommodation that is needed to satisfy what the courts do goes up and down almost like a yo-yo. I do not mean quite so frequently as that, but since prison building essentially calls for a long-term capital investment programme, you cannot suddenly change course and increase or decrease the amount of accommodation to satisfy the changes of direction in the courts, which are in turn the product of the policy of the current Home Secretary or his Administration. Unless one is willing to spend an enormous amount on over-capacity to meet the maximum that any future Home Secretary may indirectly decree to be the prison population, we shall never get to the position where we can lay down, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggests in this amendment, a fixed percentage by which the accommodation cannot be exceeded.
If we were to pass this amendment—much as I would like to do so—we should be deluding ourselves and the public into thinking that there is a simple solution to what is an immensely complex and unwieldy problem. It is a problem that has been made far worse by the current Home Secretary in his policies of long imprisonment for certain offences, a reduction in the amount of bail and hitting very hard a variety of offenders. We are making the situation worse in the current Bill by adding to the categories of conduct which have hitherto been dealt with by the civil courts, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, reminded us, but which are now to be covered by the criminal law. Unless we address all those other problems, I am afraid there is no use in our declaring piously that we want to limit the amount of overcrowding in our prisons.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was good enough to refer to the fact that I have on occasion raised in this Chamber the question of the release of prisoners during times of sentence. The noble Lord is quite right in drawing attention to that. I have to admit that I have been concerned, and am concerned, that one undermines the deterrent effect of prison sentences if it becomes generally known among those who are sentenced, or are liable to be sentenced, that they are in fact likely to be released by a kindly Home Office and will not serve the sentence which the judge has imposed upon them.
The noble Lord has raised a very serious point. If he is going to say, "We haven't enough room in our prisons for prisoners actually to serve the sentences that the courts have imposed on them", then we really are abandoning a great deal of the deterrent effect of the prison system. I suggest to the noble Lord that it is a most dangerous argument to say, "It doesn't matter, because you may be sentenced to five years' imprisonment but you will be released after a few months", and therefore there will not be the congestion. It is a most dangerous argument. If we have to choose between sabotaging—for that is the right expression —the effect of a prison sentence, or overcrowding in prisons, then unpleasant and disagreeable as overcrowding in prisons is, I think it is the lesser evil.
It is certainly the fact that some prisons have been overcrowded and are likely to be so for years to come. But one of the reasons is that prison sentences have lost a good deal of their deterrent effect because of all the releases that have taken place. Therefore, paradoxically, a good deal of the additional pressure on space in prisons results from increased knowledge among the criminal classes that sentences are not likely to be served in full. That is the problem which the noble Lord, far from facing, appears to run away from.
I agree that it is a pity that prisons become overcrowded. It is very hard on good prison staffs if they have to operate under those conditions. On the other hand, I commend very much the efforts that the Government have made to increase the availability of prison accommodation. It is certainly necessary to do that, highly expensive though I am afraid it is. It is no use complaining of the high expenditure and, as a result, high taxation. One has to accept that creating additional prisons is very expensive.
I am afraid that the answer must be that we have little option but to continue as at present. We should very firmly reject the idea of the frequent and easy release of persons who are sent to prison. They no doubt expect it; they are no doubt therefore more likely to commit offences because the deterrent effect will be less. Simply to release them is too easy a way out. This sounds a brutal thing to say, but I think that it is true: if it becomes known that prisons are uncomfortably overcrowded, in an odd sort of way that will increase rather than decrease the deterrent effect of prison sentences. That is probably the direction in which the solution to this problem lies.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: Perhaps I may make just one remark. Overcrowding produces a better
1638
prison for the bad prisoner, in that he gets his drugs and the rest of it. It is impossible to run a prison properly when it is overcrowded. The idea that he is frightened and is sure that he will not get out is not relevant.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I do not accept that it makes it easier for a prisoner to get his drugs. It does mean that the prison staff have to exercise greater firmness and austerity in controlling the admission of drugs. That, I am afraid, we must ask them to do.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Before intervening in this debate I declare an interest in that I act as an adviser to the Prison Officers' Association. I do not wish to get too involved with the details of sentencing, which is obviously extremely relevant to the discussion, and particularly in respect of people who are on remand. The fact that 70 per cent. of women on remand and 50 per cent. of men do not subsequently get a custodial sentence has little to do with any deterrent but has much more to do with the sentencing within individual courts.
We have also seen during the passage of this Bill that there will be an increase in the number of people liable to receive custodial sentences. When we relate that to the growing number of fine defaulters in prison, there is bound to be an increase in the prison population. That makes me wonder whether the projected figures for the prison population by the turn of the century are somewhat overestimated. The Home Office estimates that there will be 55,000 people in prison in 1997. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, during the debate in February, said that there would be 56,600 prisoners—a very precise figure—by the year 2001.
This new clause is important because it goes some way, and only some way, to implementing the fundamental recommendation made by the Woolf inquiry. It is a very flexible amendment. It is not over-restrictive, as has been suggested. However, it requires the limits on capacity to be maintained. Limits are in fact laid down but they are not kept. Such limits should be reviewed constantly.
The Government say that they are committed to reducing overcrowding. The prison service states that the concepts of fairness, justice and respect to individuals to which it works are particularly relevant to the physical environment in which prisoners are held and the way their needs are met. Those are fine words. Unfortunately, owing to overcrowding and the dramatic increase in the prison population it will not become a reality. That is a great pity. It could have been possible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, there has been a change of direction in the management of the prison population within the past two years and a change of attitude by the Home Secretary.
During the debate in February, I referred to Leeds prison, which has a capacity of 814 prisoners. In February the prison population there was 1,129. Now the figure is 1,155, which represents 42 per cent. overcrowding. At the end of March this year 11 local prisons were overcrowded by 40 per cent. We have seen a growth—we were promised that it would not happen —and not a reduction in the number of prisoners sharing

1639
a cell designed for one person. In February the figure was 7,300; it is now over 8,500. There are no guarantees at all that the numbers will not continue to rise.
The Woolf Report also stated that one of the key causes of the prison riots of 1990 was the fact that dangerous prisoners, because of overcrowding, were being placed in accommodation of a lower category than was merited. It may be that some Members may prefer overcrowded prisons to releasing such people from prison. In fact, that very bad combination of overcrowding and dangerous prisoners means, as has been said so often before, that prisons become schools for crime.
Those sentiments were echoed at the annual conference of the Prison Governors' Association, which called for the introduction of a legal limit on gaol overcrowding. It was felt that that would go some way to averting the risk of further riots in the face of the explosion in prison numbers.
Another very important factor, mentioned by my noble friend Lord McIntosh, concerns assaults on prison officers. The more overcrowded the prison, the more chance there is of assaults on prison staff. Between May 1990 and May 1992, such assaults increased by 50 per cent. Surely nobody can feel that that is acceptable.
Against the backdrop of an increasing prison population, there has been a reduction in the number of prison officers by 4,000. It may be that the prison officers will have to do their job a little better, as has been suggested, but a reduction in their numbers makes that extremely difficult to do.
I believe that if the Government accept this clause it will show that they have not only listened to people working in the field but that they have listened to the prison governors and the prison officers; that they have considered the views of the current director-general and the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the recommendations of the Woolf inquiry; and that they are genuinely committed to removing the horror of overcrowding in our prisons and its consequences.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: Overcrowding in prisons is an evil which should be tackled. Overcrowding does not act as a deterrent, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter would wish. If it did, we would have seen a dramatic reduction in the prison population a long time ago. As the noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber said, it leads to the greater availability of drugs, despite the best efforts of prison officers, whatever their strength. It leads not only to demoralisation but to riots and destruction of prison property and to an increase in crowding. However, the amendment is not the way to tackle the problem.
Frequent and easy release, referred to by my noble friend, is perhaps not the best description of what goes on. Remission is not used as a means of reducing the prison population. It is used as a means of encouraging good behaviour among prisoners, without which it would be impossible to control their behaviour. Parole is not a means of reducing the prison population. It is a means of introducing prisoners to a life at liberty, so that
1640
if they are not fit for it they can be brought back in. If it were to be abandoned, serious and violent offenders would be released cold into the community with much more damaging results. Licence is used on very few occasions to end a life sentence when it no longer serves any detectably useful purpose.
There are two ways of reducing the prison population, both within the reach of the present administration at, I believe, no great cost. One way is prevention; the other is a change in the particular sentence. The preventive way is a simple one which I have brought to this Chamber's notice on a number of occasions. It means engaging young people in constructive, useful, disciplined and educative things to do-young people who otherwise would have no such things to do and whose vital spark of enthusiasm, energy and inquiry which God has given to each of us would be turned to destructive purposes, thus adding to the very large number of young people in our prison population. It is a tragedy which could be stopped by a greater involvement of the voluntary sector in particular in providing for them. I welcome the beginnings of a policy in the Home Office in the form of the Care in the Community partnership. But that needs to be multiplied tenfold. It costs an invisible fraction of the amount of money that custody costs. And custody is the alternative.
The other matter is more controversial. I have raised it in the Chamber previously. I bring it back and again draw it to the notice of my noble friend. At present it is an imprisonable offence triable either way to handle goods-that is, to shoplift goods-of a value of under £100. It appears that about 10 per cent of Crown Court time is taken up with hearing that kind of trivial case before a jury. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right to say that the real problem is in the remand wings. It is there because the courts are chock-full with business, some of which in my view is not necessary. Because the courts are full of such business, remand prisoners cannot be taken out of the remand wings to be tried and released or put into the rest of the prison. Remand prisoners throw a far greater burden on the prison staff than convicted prisoners because they have many more privileges, do not wear prison uniform and have visits and mail in quantities which are not available to the rest of the prison population.
If the courts could be relieved of 10 per cent. of their business, it would have a dramatic effect on the remand wings. It would have a dramatic effect on the ratio between prisoners and prison staff. I believe it would have a dramatic effect on the morale within the prison service and could lead to a reduction of the instability that exists within it.
What is the price we pay? It means that the person who is charged with this offence should not have the right to go before a jury except on appeal-at least not a right to go to the Crown Court but to be heard by the magistrates. The principal objection to that is the possibility of error. I once walked out of a shop without paying for something, realised what I had done 50 yards later, went back and paid for it. I see that it is possible for things to be taken in error. I trust a magistrate to be able to judge whether or not I had done it with malice

1641
aforethought, if I had been apprehended. However, it is said that the risk of the loss of one's character by being put in prison for such an offence is such that there must be a right to jury trial.
The simple answer to that is to make this relatively trivial offence not imprisonable on the first offence, and tried only one way. That would cost nothing, and I believe it would save a great deal of congestion in the remand wings and would do a great deal for our prison service. The big issue, to my mind, is getting our young children and grandchildren out of situations where they have nothing with which to employ their divine energy and to turn that to constructive use. That is something on which adult volunteers can be gladly and profitably used up and down the country. That is not a subject for legislation, but it would be far more effective than this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: These two amendments of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, have really stimulated quite a debate on prisons and the prison establishment. That has been of interest. I shall refrain from following my noble friend Lord Elton down the path of saying that there should be alternative methods of dealing with certain offences in court. I know this is something he feels strongly about and he is quite right to take the opportunity of mentioning it, even if it is a little far removed from the amendments we are discussing.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, told us that he wants to prevent the overcrowding of prisons, and so did the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. My noble friend Lord Elton also agreed with them. The trouble is that the amendment put down by the noble Lord would actually restrict the prison service in its task of keeping in custody those who have been committed by the courts. It would create a risk that more prisoners would be locked into police cells. It would impose extra operational burdens on remand centres and local prisons, which receive prisoners directly from court. Obviously, we do not want to use police cells for prisoners: nobody does. Conditions in the police cells are not in some cases as good as those in prisons, and the use of police cells by the prison service is expensive. It also distracts the police from their proper duties.
Most training prisons operate at or below their certified normal accommodation. On these prisons, the suggested new clause would therefore have little effect. Most of the overcrowding in prisons happens in local prisons and fluctuations in their populations depend very much on the decisions of the courts. In many cases, prisoners cannot be moved away from these prisons because of the need to hold them close to the courts at which they have to appear.
As well as the certified normal accommodation, each establishment has an operational capacity. This is the number of prisoners which an establishment can hold without rendering itself liable to serious risk to good order, security and the proper running of the planned regime. In the case of many local prisons the operational
1642
capacity is higher than the certified normal accommodation; and that is authorised by the appropriate prison service area manager.
The noble Lord's amendment would allow occupancy of up to 3 per cent. above the certified normal accommodation, as he has explained. However, this would be considerably lower than the operational capacity in many local prisons and the amendment would therefore reduce the amount of prison accommodation which is available. It would not of course have any effect on the number of prisoners who have to be accommodated somewhere, who would then of course have to be sent to police stations. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said there were 500 prisoners in police cells. I am sure he did not mean to be misleading, and of course there is no reason why he should know the actual figure. But the actual figure today is only 121. The extraordinary part is that the noble Lord wants to see fewer prisoners in police cells, but promptly puts down an amendment which would have precisely the reverse effect and which would actually increase the number of prisoners in police cells.
If the local prisons were allowed to exceed their certified normal accommodation by no more than 3 per cent., as suggested, the capacity of local prisons would drop by 3,600 on present operational capacity. Where would those people go? They would go into police cells. If the operational capacity had been held at 3 per cent. above the certified normal accommodation, as suggested by the amendment, on 13th May there would have been 2,700 prisoners in excess of capacity who would have been at risk of being held in police cells. So when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says, "We want to have fewer people in police cells: let us agree to this amendment", all I can say is that if the Committee were to agree to this amendment, the effect would be precisely opposite to that which the noble Lord intended.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to prison overcrowding, and I think he tried to lay the blame on the Government. He said, "We must outlaw overcrowding". The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said that 18 years ago he had said that we must get rid of overcrowding. He also said, "There is no coherent effort; there is only one way to do this and that is to spend money". Those are the noble Lord's words. Since 1984, 20 new prisons have been built, with another one due to open this month. This has been the biggest increase in the provision of prison building since Victorian times. It has provided over 11,000 new places at a cost of £12,000 million, and some 8,000 new places have also been built at existing prison establishments since 1979.
When the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, says "Spend more money", all I can say to him is, "We have". In addition to these prisons, the Home Secretary has announced plans to build six more prisons. The first two of them are planned to open in 1997–98 and will provide a further 1,200 places. The other four will provide 2,400 more places; by the year 2000. There will also be at least 2,000 more places built at existing establishments. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, it does not

1643
do simply to say that we must spend more money. We have actually spent more money and we have done a very great deal towards helping the situation.
Of course it is undesirable to send people to prison if it is not necessary; and much is done through community service to enable people to serve their penalties within the community. That has been a very important part of the regime for dealing with offenders in the recent past. But prisons have to be a proper option, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton that they have to be there when the courts want to send people to prison. They must be able to send people to prison when it seems to them necessary.
I am bound to say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Many people are in fact fed up with courts who refuse to use the powers available to them and who, in their view, keep letting people off with inadequate penalties. People have to be allowed to go to prison if they have offended. There is no point in saying "In order not to have so many people in prison, let us not put into prison those who ought to be in prison". Crime has to be dealt with.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he really has not dealt at all with the point that I made. Two or three years ago, following a previous White Paper, there was a big drop in the number of people being sent to prison. That was the policy that was then advocated. What has not been explained is why that has gone into reverse. The only explanation that some of us can find is that since then we have had a change of Home Secretary. If that is not the reason, why is it that, having reduced the numbers in prison following a government policy so to do, they have now gone up again?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Baroness knows only too well that whether people are sent to prison or are given any other form of penalty is a matter for the courts. What Parliament has done is to make available certain options for the courts to use. If the number of people in prison has gone down, there may be a variety of factors to explain that. What the courts have described as being the correct penalty may be one of them. The types of offences which have occurred may be another one. However, it is wrong to say or to insinuate that the Home Secretary has the ability to ensure that people go to prison. He does not.
Lord Avebury: But the Home Secretary has the power to determine the length of time that a person remains in prison because he has the power and duty to determine the tariff. In every case he is increasing the tariff. I know of two cases. In one he is doubling the tariff from 10 to 20 years. Ten years was the tariff suggested by the trial judge. Twenty years is the amount laid down by the Home Secretary. In the other case, 15 years was the tariff set by the trial judge. Twenty-five years is the amount laid down by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary is enormously lengthening the time
1644
that people spend in prison although he does not have any effect on whether or not they go there in the first place.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is referring to those few cases which are life sentence cases and ones in which my right honourable friend has by law a strict involvement. But no one-not even the noble Lord, Lord Avebury-would say that those cases are the cause of overcrowding in prison. Where crime has increased —and it has increased over the past years even though it may have been decreasing more recently-it is a matter of great anxiety, and Parliament and the Government have to make provision for it. What we have done is to make provision in extra building and extra prisons.
One of the reasons for that is the point that has been expressed for ages that the prison estate was not big enough and the conditions were not good enough. Those problems have been addressed. All I am trying to say, in distinction from what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, is that there are plenty of people in this country who are fed up with criminals and fed up with being burgled, mugged and so on. They expect the courts to send those people to prison and not to allow them to have community service. Whether the courts do or not is a matter for them, but the fact is that those establishments have to be made available.
After that complete diversion from the facts of the amendment, all I am saying to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is that if the Committee were to accept his amendment, it would result in precisely the reverse effect of what he wishes to do. It would result in more prisoners in police cells.
I would find difficulty with Amendment No. 144HA. This is only a technicality but the noble Lord referred to a section of the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 which expired in 1992. From that section he seeks to remove words which were never actually part of it, even when it was in force. So even if the new clause were enacted, it would mean nothing and have no effect whatever. I congratulate the noble Lord on having devised such a curious and obtuse amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: A brilliant answer in the last sentence. In everything else the Minister is almost entirely wrong. The conclusion I am coming to is that the Prison Department of the Home Office should be merged with the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport, when it sees traffic congestion, has only one solution-to increase road capacity. The years of experience showing that increasing road capacity only increases traffic demand and simply transfers congestion elsewhere-and indeed increases congestion-has never sunk in at the Department of Transport. It still does not have the idea that one has to deal with traffic congestion directly rather than increase capacity.
That seems to be the attitude of the Home Office towards prison capacity. It can see that there are too many people in prison; it can see that the prisons are overcrowded; it can see that because the prisons are overcrowded, they are not doing the job that they should
1645
be doing. It is told so by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, by its own Director General of Prisons and by everyone who knows anything about prisons, including the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Yet it persists in the view that the only solution is to build more prisons.
I suggest that the Government's response to this amendment is faulty in three major respects. First, it is faulty in arguing that it is not the business of government to determine how many people go to prison. I quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on 2nd February:
"As a result of a change of climate, the importance of avoiding custody when it is appropriate to do so has been forgotten. A factor which has undoubtedly contributed to this change of climate is that the Government, who give a lead in these matters, have abandoned preaching the need for restraint in the use of prisons. The message which is being received loud and clear by all those involved, in particular magistrates throughout the country, is that it is necessary to get tough with crime. It is that policy which is resulting in the bulk of the increase in the population of our long-suffering local prisons".—[Official Report, 2/2/94; col. 1276.]
I insist in my view, which has been supported by a number of noble Lords, that it is within the power of the Government to do something about the prison population.
The second argument which the Government use, and which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, have used, is that the problem is the expense of the alternative. Again I quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. He said that imprisonment is an immensely expensive process and,
"should be reserved for those, and only those, for whom it is appropriate. It needs to be reiterated repeatedly"—
that is tautology—
"that if prison is used when it is not necessary, then it is frustrating, not furthering, the objectives of the criminal justice system. It is an expensive way of making the criminal justice system less effective".—[Official Report, 2/2/94; col. 1277.]
All the evidence we have is that the expense of putting more and more people into prison is not the expense of building new prisons but the expense of having people in prison who should not be there.
The third way the Government argue that my amendment is unsatisfactory is in the Minister's accusation that its effect would be to put more people in police cells. The amendment is quite explicit. It says, as the Minister recognised, that the control should be that prisons, including local prisons, should not hold more than 3 per cent. above the certified normal accommodation. But it provides in subsection (3):
"The Secretary of State may, in exceptional circumstances, issue a certificate to a prison for a specified number of places, such that this section shall not have effect for a period of three months; and copies of any such certificate must be laid before both Houses of Parliament".
The effect would be not that there would be an immediate drop in the prison population. We clearly cannot expect that. The effect would be that the excess prison population would be drawn constantly to the attention of Parliament, and it would be the Home Secretary's responsibility to do so. I suggest that the amendment, which puts that duty on the Home Secretary and brings the fundamental issue of overcrowding in prison before Parliament on every
1646
occasion when it becomes necessary, is a valuable addition and does not have the effect that the Minister suggests. I wish to take the opinion of the Committee.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord made an astonishing statement. He said that if the amendment were to go through, it would draw Parliament's attention to the overcrowding in prisons. Yet at the same time he has castigated the Government for building more prisons. What is the point of drawing to the attention of Parliament the condition of overcrowding if when we provide more prisons the noble Lord says that we are wrong to do so? The noble Lord said that the only reason why prisons are full is. that the Government have to get tough on crime. He may have forgotten that Mr. Blair said, "Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime". Does the noble Lord disagree with that?
7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to have the Minister taking part in the Labour Party political process. He knows very well that I agree with Mr. Blair on that. What I am objecting to as regards the Government's policy is their proposition that only an increase in the number of prisons can solve the problem. That is the situation in which they are finding themselves because they have reversed the beneficent trend of the past three years whereby there has been a deliberate attempt, following the Woolf Report, to decrease overcrowding in prisons and to decrease the prison population. Because they have moved away from that as recently as within the last nine months, they believe that the only solution now is to build more prisons. I suggest to the Committee that the solution both from the point of view of expense and of the effectiveness of the penal system in this country, is that we should make another deliberate attempt, as we did three or four years ago, to reduce the prison population. Although that cannot be done at a stroke, what can be done is to impose an obligation on the Home Secretary to bring this matter before Parliament on every occasion when he seeks to breach civilised standards of prison accommodation.
7.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 144D) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Airedale, L.

Chapple, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.[Teller.]

Clanwilliam, E.

Ardwick, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Avebury, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Beloff, L.

Craigavon, V.

Blackstone, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

David, B.

Brightman, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Desai, L.

1628

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mottistone, L.

Eatwell, L.

Mulley, L.

Ennals, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Northbourne, L.

Foot, L.

Peston, L.

Glasgow, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Redesdale, L.

[Teller.]

Richard, L.

Grey, E.

Russell, E.

Halsbury, E.

Seear, B.

Haskel, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sempill, Ly.

HolmPatrick, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hooson, L.

Slynn of Hadley, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Jay, L.

Strafford, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Judd, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kennet, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Weatherill, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mayhew, L.

White, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Milverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Elton, L.

Aldington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Alport, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Annaly, L.

Gisborough, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Arran, E.

Goold, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Goschen, V.

Astor, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Balfour, E.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Birdwood, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Blake, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Blatch, B.

Harrowby, E.

Boardman, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hemphill, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hertford, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hothfield, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Howe, E.

Butterworth, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Cadman, L.

Kenyon, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Kintore, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Leigh, L.

Colwyn, L.

Limerick, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Long, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas, L.

Courtown, E.

Lyell, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Marlesford, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Merrivale. L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mersey, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Middleton, L.

Devonport, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Donegall, M.

Mountgarret, V.

Dormer, L.

Moyne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Munster, E.

Elibank, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

1629

Norrie, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Orkney, E.

St. Davids, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strange, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

[Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Teviot, L.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rees, L.

Torrington, V.

Renton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Vivian, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Selborne, E.

Wakeham, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Shannon, E.

Wise, L.

Sharpies. B.

Wynford, L.

Simon V.

Young, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Grey, E.

Airedale, L.

Hollis of Heigharn, B

Avebury, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kagan, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Eatwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Glenamara, L.

McNair, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Monkswell, L.

[Teller]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mulley, L.

[Teller.]

Nicol, B.

1647

Peston, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L.

Redesdale, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Seear, B.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hemphill, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Henley, L.

Alport, L.

Hertford, M.

Annaly, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Arran, E.

Howe, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Inchyra, L.

Astor, V.

Kenyon, L.

Balfour, E.

Kimball, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Leigh, L.

Blake, L.

Limerick, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Lothian, M.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Marlesford, L.

Burton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Byron, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Clark of Kempston, L

Munster, E.

Colwyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Courtown, E.

Nelson, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cranborne, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Prior, L.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Reay, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Savile, L.

Donegall, M.

Seccombe, B.

Dormer, L.

Selborne, E.

Elibank, L.

Sharples, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elles, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Ferrers, E.

[Teller]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Teviot, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gisborough, L.

Trumpington, B.

Glenarthur. L.

Tugendhat, L.

Goschen, V.

Ullswater, V. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Vivian, L.

Gridley, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Wakeham, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hanson, L.

Wise, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wynford, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Young, B.

Harrowby, E.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

7.9 p.m.
Clause 85 [Arrangements for the provision of prisoner escorts]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 144E:
Page 73, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) After that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(3A) All escorts of prisoners under subsection (1) above, where the prisoner is either

(a) a category 'A' prisoner,

(b) a category 'B' prisoner, or

(c) a remand prisoner who is likely to be a category 'A' or 'B' on conviction;

shall be carried out in a secure cellular vehicle.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and, if I may, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 144F, 144G, 144M and 144N, together with Amendments Nos. 153B and 153C. Amendment No. 144E has its counterparts in Amendment No. 144M relating to Scotland and Amendment No. 153B relating to Northern Ireland. These amendments are perfectly simple and straightforward. I am sure that they fall into the category described by the Minister earlier as the sort of amendment against which it is impossible to marshal a sensible argument.
Amendment No. 144E relates entirely to the question of the escort of prisoners. It is intended to provide a statutory obligation that all prisoner escorts for Category A prisoners, Category B prisoners and remand prisoners who, if convicted, would be categories A or B, shall be carried out in a secure cellular vehicle. As is well known, at the moment secure cellular vehicles are not in sufficient supply to deal with the whole range of Category B prisoners or remand prisoners as earlier described. Quite often, dangerous prisoners or potentially dangerous remand prisoners are carried in taxis or coaches which are insecure. They are possibly dangerous to the public and are certainly likely to be dangerous to prison staff.
It seems to me that the case for Category A prisoners speaks for itself. No Category A prisoner should be moved by escort other than in a secure cellular vehicle because his designation as a Category A prisoner ought to put him into that high risk category. Category B is different. However, it includes murderers, rapists and people who have committed quite serious offences of violence. They often serve long sentences but are frequently transported in coaches and taxis on escort occasions. Perhaps I may give one example. Earlier this year, two prisoners were being transported in a coach, non-secure. Both were Category B. One of them had murdered a police officer and the other had battered a taxi driver to death. They were not properly searched and one produced a knife to a police officer's throat and threatened to kill him. Both men escaped. That would not be possible if the amendment were to be accepted.
There are too few cellular vehicles. There are only 24 in the whole of the prison service. Amendment No. 144E and the related amendments for Scotland and Northern Ireland are perfectly simple. Their purpose is perfectly plain. It is to bring an end to the use of

1649
non-secure escort vehicles for Category A, Category B prisoners and for remand prisoners who would be categories A or B on conviction.
As the common theme of the amendments is the escort of prisoners perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 144F. It would bring into existence a statutory obligation that all escorts of Category A and Category B prisoners or remand prisoners who are likely to be A or B on conviction would have to include at least one officer with first aid training to the level of St. John Ambulance first aid at work or its general equivalent. The purpose therefore is to ensure that private escorts would have at least one officer with a reasonable knowledge of medicine and with some degree of medical training. Prison service staff already have expertise of that nature and quality. Again, perhaps an example may be helpful. Last year, a prisoner, Ernest Hogg, died. He was a remand prisoner who was in the custody of Group 4 Security. His death was the first death of a prisoner on escort for a very long time.
The number of incidents which cause alarm to the public and certainly to prison staff is increasing. It is perhaps helpful to bear in mind that the training manual for Group 4 Security personnel provides for only 270 hours of training, of which only eight hours—that is, one day—is set down for medical training. That is far too little for anyone who has to deal with prisoners who may offer difficult and sometimes dangerous behaviour. Prison officers, on the other hand, do not have one day's training; they have one week's training in medical care and attention out of their total of 13 weeks. In his admirable report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, regarded 13 weeks' training as barely enough and wished it to be extended. Again, the purpose of the amendment is perfectly plain. It is to secure the provision on a statutory basis of a certain minimum level of expertise for those involved in escort work.
Amendment No. 144G is intended to delete a provision of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which allows the contracting out of escort services. It is a matter of pure principle. Our belief is that escort services should not be contracted out where the level of service is likely to be less than that provided by the prison service. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, recommended in his report that there should be a separate prisoner escort service. We agree. It should be part of the prison service. It should not be contracted out.
Some comparisons may be helpful. In the three and a half years before the privatisation of some parts of the prison regime, Moorlands young offenders' institute near Doncaster provided 17,000 escorts. There was no escape over those three and a half years. In the first four weeks of the contract being awarded to Group 4 Security, three prisoners were lost. Driffield town council in East Yorkshire found it necessary to write to the Home Secretary at the end of last year when four prisoners escaped in December from an escort conducted by Group 4 Security. Having escaped, one prisoner went to a local junior school and terrorised the children. Fortunately, he was recaptured without any other harm coming to the children.
We believe that such incidents are intolerable and are likely to continue unless there is a separate prison escort
1650
service which is properly and fully trained. It is perhaps worth bearing in mind that most escapes are not from prison custody but from escort custody. The purpose of tabling these amendments is to draw attention to that serious problem. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I fully support the amendment. I do not think that there is anything to add to it. Implementing it will cost a certain amount of money, but so will everything that has to be done if we are to put the prison service right. I believe that if the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that there should be a separate escort service, which should be part of the prison service and which should not be privatised, were adopted, we should get more of what we want. I believe that the amendments as moved are, without exception, satisfactory and should be carried.
Lord Mottistone: I have a friend, a taxi driver, who is frequently invited to take prisoners from one place to another. He has been doing it for 10 years to my certain knowledge and has had no trouble at all. It is easy to find examples, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, did, of where things have gone wrong. On the whole, I think that the arrangements are working satisfactorily.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether his friend who is a taxi driver was carrying Category A or Category B prisoners at the time.
Lord Mottistone: He specifically never asked what sort of prisoners they were and he would not have been told if he had. In view of the fact that I come from the Isle of Wight, I think we can expect that some will be of the categories described.
Earl Ferrers: All of the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred, deal with matters of escort in various ways. Amendment No. 144E and Amendment No. 144M refer to high security prisoners being carried in cellular vehicles. I do not think that it would be advisable to lay down in statute, as the amendments propose, a requirement that all prisoners in the highest security categories should invariably be carried by prison custody officers in cellular vehicles. After all, that would include all remand prisoners who would be treated as if they were Category B prisoners.
Where escorts are undertaken by the police or prison service, prisoners are transported in a variety of different types of vehicle including, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, taxis. They are also sometimes transported in police cars, in vans with parallel seats, sometimes in conventional minibuses, sometimes in coaches, and sometimes in cellular vehicles.
When prison custody officers in England and Wales are undertaking the escort of prisoners in the higher security categories it is normal for cellular vehicles to be used. I would be reluctant to see that become a statutory requirement. There are circumstances in which it would be inappropriate; for example, when carrying pregnant women or prisoners who are unwell. A higher level of staffing is of course required where cellular vehicles are

1651
not used. I believe, in the light of experience, that these matters would be better regulated and adjusted by contract. These arguments hold good in respect of Amendments Nos. 144E, 144M and 153B.
The amendment which the noble Lord has proposed in respect of first—aid training requires that a prison custody officer on each escort duty should be fully trained in first aid. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that there must be a minimum level of training in first aid. That is perfectly true. In England and Wales, before the prison custody officers are certified to undertake escort duties they have to undertake extensive training, including 32 hours of training in first—aid principles and techniques. Every officer on the escort—and not just one—will have undergone that kind of training. The contracts that have already been let for court escort and custody work provide for first—aid training either to be approved by the Health and Safety Executive, in accordance with the Health and Safety Regulations 1981, or to lead to St. John's Ambulance or Red Cross certificates. It is likely that any contract for escort duties in Scotland and Northern Ireland will have similar provisions.
I do not believe that it would be right to have such a requirement in primary legislation. Should different types of first—aid training be thought to be more appropriate in future it would then be impossible to make changes without amending the legislation by means of a further Bill. That would not be the right thing to do. As it is, Schedule 10 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 already requires that prison custody officers shall not be certified by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary until the applicants have received training to such standard as he may consider appropriate for the performances of those functions. Therefore, there is a standard guarantee.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to Amendment No. 144G, which, in effect, prevents further contracting out. He said quite honestly and openly that this was a matter of principle and he criticised Group 4 and what happened during the first few weeks of its operation. That is understandable. I suppose that if I were arguing his case I should have done the same. But it was slightly hard because, obviously, when one starts a new enterprise—and the contracting out of these duties was a new enterprise —there are bound to be teething troubles and there were. However, most of those troubles have been overcome.
Contrary to what appeared in the press, the court escort and custody service in the East Midlands and Humberside region, which is operated by Group 4, is a distinct success. A recent survey confirmed that Group 4 was doing well. It showed that 86 per cent. of Crown Court centres, magistrates' courts, the police, prisons and lay observers in the area were all either satisfied or very satisfied with the company's performance. More than 90 per cent. of court staff rated it as better or as good as the service that went before.
Group 4's record on escapes is also much better than some people would believe. In 1993–94 the company carried out 100,656 prisoner movements and it had 26 escapes, excluding the 17 who were immediately
1652
recaptured. That is, of course, 26 escapes more than we would wish but it still compares well. In the year preceding Group 4's operation, 11 prisoners under escort or at court escaped from the custody of the prison service. During the first year under Group 4, there were only three escapes in similar circumstances.
That is comparing like with like. A great deal of escort and custody work which was previously carried out by the police is now carried out by Group 4. Not all forces kept records of escapes, but there is no reason to doubt that Group 4 has achieved a similar improvement in its secure handling of such prisoners. While I understand the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, not liking the idea as a matter of principle, I hope that he will accept from me that the result of what Group 4 has done compares favourably with —indeed, is better than—that which went before.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the explanations that the Minister has sought to put forward. I am bound to say that if in December 1993 I were the parent of a child and four prisoners escaped, one of whom came to terrorise my child at school and I heard a Home Office Minister—whoever he or she might be—say, "These are teething troubles", I should have been distinctly unimpressed.
I must say, I hope with a degree of courtesy, that the Minister's response to the issue of cellular vehicles is not satisfactory. He suggested that prisoners who are ill or pregnant might be unsuitable for carriage in those vehicles. I cannot see the reason for that if one has properly qualified medical escorts. In any event, those categories are minuscule compared with the numbers of seriously dangerous prisoners who are being carried in insecure vehicles.
However, I am most obliged for the full answer that was given. I must confess that, amazingly, I was not convinced by it, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 144F and 144G not moved.]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Powers and duties of prisoner custody officers acting in pursuance of such arrangements]:
[Amendment No. 144H not moved.]
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 144HA not moved.]
Clause 88 [Contracted out parts of prisons, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 144J not moved.]
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clauses 89, 90 and 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Provision of prisons by contractors]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 144K:
Page 77, leave out lines 5 to 7.
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 144L. A few years ago we heard from an earlier version of this Conservative Government the phrase "back to Victorian values". We do not hear much

1653
about it now—and for obvious reasons. What is proposed here is not a return to Victorian values but to Dickensian values. Members of the Committee will remember Dickens' description of the Hulks, which was given in Great Expectations. It was not a very attractive description and they were not very attractive things.
When a few years ago the Government sought to revive the Hulks—the prison ships—they did not have a very happy experience. They tried to use the "Earl William", which was moored near Harwich, in which to keep the Tamil immigration detainees. They did not use it as a proper prison but as a detention centre; there was no legal possibility of using ships for prisons. Unfortunately, apart from the unpleasantness of having a prison ship off Harwich—unpleasant for the people of Harwich—the vessel was a revamped car ferry that was torn from its moorings in the autumn of 1987 and ran aground. Despite the fact that fears about the safety of this detainment ship were expressed beforehand, the Government dismissed them.
Deliberately to bring back the possibility of prison ships into our penal system as an item of policy, even as an item of contingent policy which I am sure the Government will claim it to be, would be a real step backwards. I am not merely making the emotional Dickensian point. A ship is not suitable for use as a prison. Inevitably, it is extremely confined and it would be difficult to sustain a proper regime on a prison ship which would provide the exercise and constructive activities necessary.
I have no doubt that Ministers will say that there is still the "Queen Mary" at Long Beach. She could be brought back. She served a useful purpose as a tourist hotel for many years. But I do not believe that that is what is proposed. We are in danger of having the same revamped car ferries, or the equivalent, and they would not make good prisons. That would be an act of desperation on the Government's part. I hope that they do not mean it, and if they do not mean it they should take away the possibility from the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: In the eyes of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the poor old Government cannot ever do anything right, can they? We have to make provision to deal with those prisoners who are sent into custody by the courts. A little earlier the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said how terrible it was that those people should be put into police cells and he tabled an amendment to prevent that. In fact, the amendment that he tabled would have resulted in more people being held in police cells. He was seeking to prevent too many people being held in prison. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, castigated the Government about the fact that there are so many people being held in prison and she said that they should not be there. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, castigated the Government for building prisons.
Here we are merely saying that if the worst comes to the worst, we shall have to use boats. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says that we must not put people there. I do not know where he wants to put them. Perhaps he
1654
does not want the courts to imprison them at all, but that is a matter for the courts. We are merely trying to make reasonable provision.
The noble Lord complains when people are in police cells and complains when the prisons are overcrowded. Therefore, the Government have brought forward another measure and the noble Lord, yet again, opposes that. The noble Lord must address himself to the facts of the matter.
In the past, the prison service has considered using maritime detention facilities—that is a delightful expression to indicate the use of a hulk or a boat—in order to cope with the surges in prison population. And whatever the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, may say, that is nothing to do with the Government. It is to do with what the courts decide.
At present there is some doubt as to whether the Prison Act 1952 allows the use of detention facilities which are not land—based. I should make it quite plain that there are no definite plans to introduce maritime detention facilities; but it is the duty of the prison service to prepare for possible contingencies and if pressure on the prison population were to become too great the use of maritime detention facilities could well be more humane than having overcrowded prisons. Their use would be considerably cheaper than using police cells. They are likely to be more acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—if ever he could persuade himself that they would be more acceptable. They would be more secure than some alternatives; namely, army camps. We are merely trying to make quite certain that if those facilities are required, they could be used. There is nothing more sinister than that.
Lord Mottistone: I have served on several warships in my time which would make very good prisons. Most of them have been broken up now. Of course, to choose the sort of ship which is unsuitable is an extremely good critical point but I can think of many ships, not just warships, which would make very good prisons on a temporary basis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister says that I seem to disagree with everything that the poor old Government do. It is a poor old Government—is it not? —because 47 per cent. of those voting last week preferred a Labour Government and only 28 per cent. preferred this Government. Therefore, when I am castigated by the Minister, I am comforted by the thought that I am not alone. A certain number of people even voted Liberal Democrat.
I am totally reassured. What I had thought was a hulk or a prison ship is now a maritime detention facility. Now that I know that it is a maritime detention facility, everything is all right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. I44L not moved.]
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume. Perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Bill
7.36 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Donaldson of Lymington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Alport) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Salvage Convention, 1989 to have force of law]:
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert:
("(7) A draft of an Order in Council proposed to be made by virtue of subsection (3) above shall not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 1 (1) of the Bill brings the Salvage Convention into force as part of domestic law in its present form. But subsection (3) enables the law to be revised by Order in Council to take account of any agreed revisions of the convention.
As I indicated on Second Reading, by inadvertence no provision was made for parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of that revising power. That was pointed out by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in its report dated 24th May. This amendment remedies that omission. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment which he has proposed. I agree that it represents a valuable addition to the Bill.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Amendments as to powers of implementation]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("section") to ("shall") and insert:

("(a) may make provision corresponding to the provision authorised for an Order by paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (4) of this section; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: This is the first of several technical amendments which aim to correct the drafting of the Bill without altering its substance. The
1656
amendment would amend Clause 3 to ensure that the clause meets its objective; namely, to simplify the procedure for the domestic implementation of technical amendments to the international conventions governing the safety of life at sea—SOLAS—and the prevention of pollution from ships—MARPOL. I beg to move.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Prevention of pollution from ships: further power to implement international agreements]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:
("and provision authorising the making of regulations authorises the amendment or revocation of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (e) of the said subsection (3).").
Lord Clinton—Davis Lord Clinton—Davis moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 22, at end insert:

("(c) specifying the type and capacity of facilities in individual ports for handling waste oil, garbage and sewage; and

(d) relating to the formulae used to calculate port dues and harbour fees for the purposes of incorporating an appropriate charge for using reception facilities").

The noble Lord said: My speech for the above amendment may just be a little longer than the others. MARPOL seeks to eliminate the intentional discharge of oil into the sea. It is a very valuable convention. The deliberate dumping of fuel oil and oily bilge water constitutes the most significant source of pollution of the sea from shipping. Of course, the greatest source of pollution of the sea is from the land. The issue was dealt with very comprehensively in Section 3 of the Donaldson Report and, in particular, in the statistics given on page 21. We must recognise that intentional discharge is frequently necessary, especially so far as concerns long ocean trips because of the inadequacy or sometimes the total absence of reception facilities.
Charges which are rendered for the use of port reception facilities—which, in my view, are by no means unreasonable—nonetheless operate as a disincentive for the less reputable operators who should use such facilities but who use the latter as an argument for not so doing. Moreover, even when facilities are available, some (indeed, many masters and owners) decline to use them because they argue that delay in port represents an additional cost item. Again, that matter is dealt with in the Donaldson Report, in paragraphs 9.41 and 9.42.
Therefore, the question that arises is how, so as to implement the MARPOL convention, ships may be given some incentive to use reception facilities for the discharge of unwanted oil. How do we go about doing it? Well, to achieve that aim ports must make such facilities both convenient for use and cost effective. Therefore, the idea of providing a single, integrated fee so as to remove the disincentive of paying additional charges to dispose of waste oil arises.
In the light of the proposition that I just advanced, can the Minister say whether he has any plans to integrate harbour fees and charges for port reception facilities into a single fee which, as the Donaldson Report recommends, would remove such disincentive as there is and to which I have already referred?
I turn next to the provision of adequate port reception facilities. Under MARPOL there is an obligation on the Government to provide adequate waste oil and garbage facilities which do not cause undue delay for ships. The Prevention of Pollution (Reception Facilities) Order 1984 and the Prevention of Pollution (Reception Facilities for Garbage) Order 1988 provide those powers. But, as the Donaldson Report asserts—in paragraphs 9.39 and 9.40—based on studies by Liverpool University, that does not always happen in terms of providing adequate facilities for handling oily wastes.
Intertanko (which represents something like 80 per cent. of the owners of oil tankers throughout the world) is, as the Minister will know, deeply concerned to ensure that there are no lacunae in the provision of adequate reception facilities for chemical and other wastes so as to deter unnecessary discharges from happening. In that respect, can the Minister say what steps he will take to ensure that each United Kingdom port provides adequate facilities so as to conform to the MARPOL requirements? Is the Minister prepared to give an undertaking that a full audit will be undertaken of United Kingdom port reception facilities before the next North Sea ministerial conference?
If the Minister argues—as I suspect he might—that unilateral action on the part of the UK to remove disincentives as regards using reception facilities will not solve the problem unless corresponding action is taken by other governments who are parties to the North Sea conferences, I would respectfully say that it is the United Kingdom which has the obligation that is important so far as concerns this Chamber under the MARPOL convention. It is true that others have similar obligations, but we are concerned with the obligations which have to be carried out by this Government.
I would argue that the United Kingdom should be in the lead on the matter when the North Sea conference takes place. I believe that the Government should urge the case for improved port reception facilities in all North Sea ports and for actually providing incentives to encourage ships to use such facilities. The best way of providing such a lead would be to set the example in this country. Can the Minister give any undertakings to that effect? I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord for moving the amendment. I do not believe that there is any disagreement between us. I entirely agree that the adequate provision of waste reception facilities in port is an essential tool in the fight against marine pollution. As the noble Lord rightly said, if we want to prevent the washing out of tanks at sea, the dumping of garbage overboard and anything else of that nature, the only way to do it is to ensure that there are facilities in the ports for vessels to use and, thereby,
1658
dispose of the waste material in port and not at sea. I suspect—indeed, he so indicated in his speech—that when he was tabling the amendment, the noble Lord had in mind certain recommendations of the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
I hope that the noble Lord will understand that it is a little early for us to come to final conclusions about those recommendations. At present, we are working on all the recommendations, including those regarding the provision of reception facilities. I believe that I told the noble Lord on Second Reading that we were concerned about the findings of the inquiry of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in that area regarding the lack of reception facilities. We have asked the Maritime Safety Agency to investigate as a matter of urgency. I can tell the noble Lord that the agency is in the process of evaluating the responses received to a questionnaire sent to 350 ports, terminals and marinas.
WRC (formerly the Water Research Council) has also been commissioned to carry out an independent study of the quality of facilities in UK ports, with the results being available in September. I believe that that will mean that we shall have such information to hand well before the North Sea Conference in the spring of 1995. Taken together, those studies should provide the factual basis on which we can develop our future strategy.
The power that the noble Lord proposes in his amendment would not enhance the Government's ability to direct port authorities and terminal operators to improve waste reception facilities. The new power would simply duplicate those which already exist in the domestic regulations implementing the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The proposed paragraph (c) in the amendment is, therefore, unnecessary.
I turn now to the proposed paragraph (d) which would allow the Government to direct harbour authorities to finance reception facilities out of general port dues. As I am sure Members of the Committee will appreciate, that would be contrary to the strict interpretation of the polluter pays principle. If, after study, we need to adopt that approach, we should only do so after careful study of all the possible courses of action. I believe that the aim of the amendment is to encourage ship operators to make better use of waste reception facilities and, therefore, reduce marine pollution. Of course, I fully agree with that aim. However, I believe that we need to give further practical consideration to the implications of such a change, in consultation with the ports industry and with our European partners, in order to see whether that is the best option available.
We would like to see the eventual eradication of all harmful and polluting discharges of waste from ships in the seas around the UK. The provision of adequate waste reception facilities in ports, not just in the UK but in the rest of Europe, is one useful weapon in our armoury. However, changes in the way reception facilities are provided, or charged for, raise significant issues and should only be taken forward when there is an agreed factual foundation for discussion. That foundation is not yet in place but will be provided by the

1659
studies that I have already mentioned. I hope that with those assurances of our intentions with regard to port facilities, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that reply. It was helpful to have this little debate because it enabled the Minister to set out his views on a matter which is of considerable importance. Of course he will be relieved to know that I am not proposing to divide the Committee tonight on this issue. I was glad to hear of the work being undertaken by the Maritime Safety Agency and indeed the independent study is also important. I was particularly pleased to note that the results of this work will be available in time for the North Sea Conference and that will be extremely important. I am not entirely happy about the other matters in relation to Amendment No. 4. I do not feel that it duplicates the powers of the Minister. However, I shall reflect on what the Minister has had to say in that regard.
As regards the port dues, the Minister observed that those would be in conflict with the polluter pays principle. However, polluters do not always pay; polluters are sometimes quite difficult to find, and sometimes they do not have the resources to pay. Therefore there may be some merit in providing facilities and then recovering payment from the polluter if that is possible. Of course the Minister will know that under the Maastricht Treaty where the court has power to fine a member state for breach of a Community regulation or directive, it is not the polluter but the taxpayer who pays. Therefore there are plenty of precedents of legislation where the polluter does not have to pay. However, I shall certainly not press the point. Perhaps we can reflect again on that point, too, in due course, but not, I hasten to add, during the course of this Bill.
I think that what the Minister has had to say tonight about the North Sea Conference and the signposts that he has referred to as regards that has well merited the purpose of tabling these amendments for debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Liability and compensation for oil pollution damage: 1992 Protocols]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8:
Page 3, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("1992") in line 42 and insert:
("(a) the word "1984" shall be omitted from the section 4A(1) of the 1974 Act and the paragraph 4(a) and (d) constituting Schedule 1 to the 1974 Act as respectively inserted and substituted by Part II of Schedule 4 to the 1988 Act;".).
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("the said").
Page 3, line 46, at end insert ("and the entry for Schedule 4 to the 1988 Act shall be deemed not to have been included in Part
II of Schedule 5 to the 1993 Act (pre-consolidation repeals)").
Page 3, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to Her Majesty to be appropriate in connection with the implementation of any transitional provisions contained in the 1992 Protocols or the Conventions
1660
which they amend; and any such Order may in particular provide, in relation to occurrences of any description specified in the Order—

(a) for provisions of the 1971 Act or the 1974 Act to have effect—

(i) to such extent as is so specified, as if Schedule 4 to the 1988 Act were not in force, and

(ii) to such extent as is so specified, as if that Schedule were in force;

(b) for any such provisions to have effect (whether as amended by that Schedule or not) subject to such modifications as are so specified.").

The noble Lord said: I told the Chamber at Second Reading that the 1992 Protocols superseded the Protocols of 1984. The Merchant Shipping Act 1988 would have implemented the 1984 Protocols. Clause 5 of the Bill therefore uses the 1988 Act to implement the 1992 Protocols, in essence by removing references to the 1984 Protocols from the 1988 Act. As currently drafted, Clause 5 does this only incompletely. Amendment No. 5 would ensure that all references to the 1984 Protocols are eliminated from the 1988 Act. Amendment No. 6 is consequential. The use of the 1988 Act to implement the 1992 Protocols had not been foreseen when the Merchant Shipping (Registration, etc.) Act 1993 was drafted. That Act therefore provided for the repeal of provisions of the 1988 Act. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would ensure that this does not prevent implementation of the 1992 Protocols by Clause 5 of this Bill. I beg to move.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Extension of strict liability for oil pollution by ships]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 6, leave out from second ("in") to end of line 7 and insert ("on other ships liability for oil pollution corresponding to that imposed on tankers)").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 would remove an erroneous reference to "non—tankers" from Clause 6. Clause 6 extends to other ships the regime of strict liability which the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 applies to certain oil tankers. The clause currently gives the impression that the regime would be extended to non—tankers. This is not entirely accurate. Clause 6 will make all shipowners—including those tanker owners not previously covered—strictly liable for oil pollution. Amendment No. 9 therefore makes clear that Clause 6 would impose on other ships liability for oil pollution corresponding to that imposed on tankers by the 1971 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I wish to congratulate the Minister on his perspicacity for being able to observe the omission.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert:
("(4) Where the amendments of the 1971 Act made by Part II of Schedule 3 to this Act come into force after the 1971 Act has been amended by Part I of the said Schedule 3, Parts I and II of that Schedule shall have effect with the modifications specified in Part III of that Schedule").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 10, with the leave of the Committee I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 17 to 28 inclusive.
As the Minister has just informed the Committee, Clause 6 extends to other ships the regime of strict liability for oil pollution, which the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage imposes for oil tankers. Clause 6 does this by means of amendments to the UK Act implementing the convention, which are set out in Schedule 3.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 28 clarify that the amendments set out in Part II of Schedule 3 replace those set out in Part I. The amendments of Part I and Part II both achieve the same effect, but in different circumstances. The Part II amendments are therefore instead of, not in addition to, the Part I amendments. Amendments Nos. 10 and 28 would amend Clause 6 and Schedule 3 to make this clear. Amendments Nos. 17 to 27 inclusive correct oversights and improve the drafting of Schedule 3. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Just in case the noble and learned Lord might take offence, having congratulated the Minister on his perspicacity I want to mirror that remark as far as the noble and learned Lord is concerned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [International Convention on Salvage, 1989]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 12, line 32, leave out from ("involved") to end of line 34.
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to maintain the status quo as regards the right to a reward for salvage from an historic wreck, and to make clear that it is to be treated on the same statutory basis as all other salvage. I will briefly explain why it is necessary.
There is at present a single legal regime for all salvage including historic wreck, whether or not the wreck is specifically designated under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. This regime gives a right to reward and thus provides an incentive to salvors, both amateur and professional, to report their finds. In the case of historic wreck, it provides finders with an incentive not to be tempted to evade the obligation to report finds which may be of great archaeological importance. This right to reward is a long established principle of salvage law and it is an equitable right. The Government see no reason at present to change this position.
In 1989, at the time of the negotiations concerning the Salvage Convention which is being put into law by this Bill, it was agreed that any signatory state could make a reservation in respect of,
"maritime cultural property of prehistoric, archaeological or historic interest on the seabed".
The Government said at the time, and have repeated since, their intention to make that reservation when ratifying the convention. We intend to do so. This will leave open the possibility of altering the legal regime in
1662
respect of such maritime cultural property, if at some future date that should be thought desirable, without breaching the convention.
When the Bill was first in the course of preparation it was supposed that a reservation ought to be reflected in the implementing legislation. Consequently, paragraph 2(1) (c) of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Bill would have excluded maritime cultural property on the sea bed from the scope of the convention as implemented in the UK.
By excluding the salvage of maritime cultural property on the sea bed from the scope of the convention at the same time as repealing Section 546 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 the Bill would have removed the statutory right of a finder of maritime cultural property on the sea bed to claim a reward in respect of wreck from the property owner, where one could be identified. Other rights to reward such as unclaimed property reported to the Receiver of Wrecks would not be affected.
Amendment No. 11 therefore takes out of the Bill the clause that would have excluded such maritime cultural property on the sea bed. In doing so it restores the full statutory right to salvage rewards in respect of any finds from historic wrecks on the same basis as all other salvage. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am a little puzzled. I am always delighted to see the noble Baroness in the Chamber and at the Dispatch Box, but I cannot understand why she is there this evening. Is it the case that this is a matter for the Department for National Heritage rather than the Department of Transport? Or is it that she felt that the transport Minister is in need of her help and sustenance tonight? Or is it a combination of the two? Having said that, I do not in any way want to disparage her appearance in the Chamber. I am merely intrigued.
Baroness Trumpington: Apart from the fact that I am an ancient wreck, I am representing the excellent Department of National Heritage, whose concern this is.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Salvage: Consequential and Related Amendments]:
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 16:
Page 14, line 25, after ("1947") insert ("for the words "the provisions of this Act" there shall be substituted the words "section 29 (so far as consistent with the International Convention on Salvage, 1989 as set out in Schedule 1 to the Merchant Shipping (Salvage and Pollution) Act 1994)" and").
Page 15, line 26, leave out ("or").
Page 15, line 27, at end insert ("or
(iii) in the nature of salvage not falling within (i) or
(ii) above;").
Page 16, line 4, leave out ("or"). Page 16, line 5, at end insert ("or
(iii) in the nature of salvage not falling within (i) or (ii) above;").
The noble and learned Lord said: I wish to move Amendments Nos. 12 to 16 en bloc and to speak also to Amendment No. 29. These are amendments to Schedules 2 and 4.
At Second Reading I informed the House that I was concerned that the Bill should not restrict the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court. In saying that I was replying to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Byron. After consultations, I am now glad to propose amendments which I believe should meet with the approval of all parties, including the noble Lord.
Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 would amend Schedule 2 to ensure that the Admiralty Court—both in the sense in which we normally use the term; namely the High Court in Admiralty, and in the county court in so far as it has an admiralty jurisdiction—has jurisdiction to hear any claim under the salvage convention, any claim in relation to a salvage contract and any other claim (and I use those words almost in quotes as they were used in the original Supreme Court Act) in the nature of salvage. This in no way represents a derogation from the salvage convention. When there is a conflict between the convention and the common law the convention, if its terms apply, will take precedence. The amendments merely ensure that the competent court will be able to rule on any dispute.
I have also proposed amendments to make minor changes to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 which are consequential upon the implementation of the salvage convention. Those are Amendments Nos. 12 and 29. I beg to move.
Lord Byron: Having raised the matter at Second Reading perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his assistance, and indeed persistence, in bringing forward the amendment. It is an important amendment retaining the historic jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court in relation to claims in the nature of salvage.
I should also like to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench and his department, as I understand that he will accept the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank my noble friend Lord Byron for those remarks. He is quite right. We are happy to accept the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord to the jurisdictional provisions of Schedule 2. I am slightly relieved that such an eminent legal person as the noble and learned Lord moved the amendments because even if I do not totally understand the matter I am sure that he does.
The amendments are fairly technical. Our main concern regarding the use in the Bill of references to claims in the nature of salvage has been that such wording might be understood as sanctioning the continuance of some types of claim which might otherwise be inconsistent with the convention as given the force of law in the United Kingdom by the Bill. The sanctioning of such claims by the Bill would mean derogating from the convention. As I stated at Second Reading, we cannot do that.
I accept, however, that Amendments Nos. 13 to 16, properly understood, relate only to jurisdiction and do
1664
not affect the substantive law. Therefore, if, for example, the giving of a salvage reward for so—called engaged services is inconsistent with the terms of the convention, then the amendments that we are considering now will not have the effect of derogating from the convention or of enabling a court or arbiter to make a salvage award inconsistent with the provisions of the convention.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill provides that the convention as set out in Schedule 1 is to have the force of law in the United Kingdom. It follows that no rule of law relating to salvage can continue in force if that rule is inconsistent with the convention. The law in the convention will supersede any existing rule of salvage law where there is any inconsistency. That principle is not diminished by the jurisdictional provisions contained in Amendments Nos. 13 to 16.
On that basis I welcome the amendments and support them.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Extension of strict liability for oil pollution by ships]:
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 16, line 28, after second ("any") insert ("persistent").
Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 28:
Page 16, line 44, after ("threat") insert ("of damage being").
Page 16, line 45, leave out from ("by") to ("a") in line 46 and insert ("the contamination which might result if there were").
Page 16, line 46, after ("of) insert ("persistent").
Page 17, line 28, at end insert ("persistent").
Page 17, line 44, after ("any") insert ("persistent").
Page 18, line 35, at end insert:
(" . In section 20(2) (interpretation of references to the owner of a ship)—

(a) after the words "in a ship" there shall be inserted the words ", or from a relevant threat of contamination,"; and

(b) at the end, there shall be inserted the words "or (as the case may be) in the threat of contamination".").

Page 18, line 38, at beginning insert:
(" . In section 1(2) of the 1971 Act (liability for threat of oil pollution), for the words "contamination resulting from" there shall be substituted the words "the contamination which might result if there were"").
Page 19, line 4, after ("damage") insert ("being").
Page 19, line 6, leave out ("contamination resulting from") and insert ("the contamination which might result if there were").
Page 19, line 46, at end insert:
(" . In section 13 (jurisdiction of United Kingdom courts, etc.)—

(a) in subsection (2) (b), for the words from "damage" to the end there shall be substituted the words "such damage in the area of the United Kingdom"; and

(b) in subsection (2A) (b), for the words from "damage" to the end there shall be substituted the words "such damage in the area of another Convention country".").

Page 20, line 2, at end insert:
("PART III
MODIFICATIONS OF PARTS I AND II

1.The section 1A inserted by Part II shall be substituted for the section 1A inserted by Part I.

2. The section 2A inserted by Part I shall cease to have effect.

3. The section 3A inserted by Part I shall cease to have effect.

4. The reference to section 1A inserted in section 9 and in section 15 shall be construed as referring to the section 1A

substituted by Part II for the section 1A inserted by Part I, and the omission in section 15 of subsection (1) by Part II shall be treated as effected by the corresponding omission by Part I.").

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 20, line 13, at end insert:

("1947 c.44.

Crown Proceedings Act 1947.

In section 30(1), the words "and the limitation of actions in respect of salvage services".").

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.10 p.m. to 8.35 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 94 [Arrangements for the provision of prisoner escorts]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 144M:
Page 79, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) All escorts of prisoners where the prisoner is either—

(a) a category 'A' prisoner;

(b) a category 'B' prisoner; or

(c) a remand prisoner who is likely to be a category 'A' prisoner

or category 'B' prisoner on conviction; shall be carried out in a secure cellular vehicle.").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may formally move the amendment. It is a probing amendment which seeks the view of the Government. It is an amendment to ensure that there is proper security in the prison service. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My understanding of the matter was that, although Amendment No. 144M required to be formally moved, it was indeed part of the grouping with Amendment No. 144E. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that some consideration was given to the matter. On reading Hansard, I hope that it will be appreciated that the Government have prepared an answer.
While I recognise the thinking underlying the amendment, I hope the noble Lord will be assured that the proposal, far from bringing about a proper security for those moved in cellular vehicles, would in certain circumstances be possibly disadvantageous. For example, for Category B prisoners to be moved in the fashion proposed might be seriously damaging. If a Category B prisoner were unwell the proposal would mean that he had to be moved in a cellular vehicle rather than in an ambulance. I am sure that while the noble Lord wishes to be reassured on the issues of security, there may be exceptional circumstances. It would be
1666
clearly undesirable if, say, a prisoner who suffered a heart attack were taken to hospital in a cellular vehicle rather than an ambulance.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer which I am sure will be looked at closely by those concerned with the transport of prisoners. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 144N:
Page 79, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) All escorts of prisoners shall include at least one officer who has first aid training to the level of St. John Ambulance 'First aid at work', or equivalent.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment may have been discussed before. I apologise to the Minister for not having been here earlier; I have just arrived from the north. There is an obvious reason behind the amendment, and I am sure the Minister will take it in the spirit in which it is put before the Committee. I look forward with interest to hearing what he has to say about it. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Again, I understand that the issue was discussed in a previous group of amendments. I doubt whether it is helpful to include this kind of requirement in primary legislation. Should different types of first aid training be thought to be more appropriate in future, it would be impossible to make changes without amendment to the legislation.
The point that the noble Lord wishes to make is perfectly well understood. The desirability of individuals involved in this work having a clear understanding of first aid is obvious. However, to be as prescriptive as the amendment suggests is, in the longer term, undesirable. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. No doubt the matter will be considered by those responsible for the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Powers and duties of prisoner custody officers performing escort functions]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 144P:
Page 80, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in this section shall entitle a prison custody officer to read any file or papers obtained under a search which are protected by legal privilege.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is quite important because it raises constitutional questions. Difficulties have arisen about access to prison by solicitors and legal advisers to prisoners, sometimes for perfectly justifiable security reasons. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of the various instances which have caused great anxiety. Sometimes there is right on both sides and wrong on both sides and it is to be hoped that the amendment will do something to focus attention on the problem where a solicitor or counsel or both

1667
arrive at a prison to consult their client or arrive at a court in Scotland. Where there is a security problem, it often happens that access either to the court or to the prison may be limited for security reasons and a search is necessary.
The amendment raises the question of confidentiality between the client and the solicitor and counsel acting on his behalf. It is meant sharply to focus on the problem, as I hope it does, where the legal adviser or advisers have in their possession papers which are, to say the least, sensitive, relating perhaps to a murder trial or a prevention of terrorism trial. It is necessary for the legal advisers to carry those papers with them for the purpose of consultation. On the other hand, it is necessary for the protection of society that the search should take place to ensure that nothing is taken into the prison by the advocate or the solicitor.
In my view, no one is immune from that type of search. But the amendment is meant to focus on the issue that there is a question of confidentiality. It is meant to focus on the point that a prison officer carrying out a search of a solicitor's or an advocate's case is not allowed to read the papers nor to examine documents. The officer's position should be no different from that of a person searching Members of your Lordships' House going through an airport. In other words, you hand the people at the desk your newspapers, whatever they may be, and your brief case. They flick through them and if there is nothing in the papers that is detrimental to safety, you are allowed to go through.
The difficulty is that if the rule is not laid down firmly to the prison authorities, a prison officer is not bound by confidentiality between the client and his advisers. The hypothetical situation is that a prison officer may search the papers, read them and find sensitive documents which may reveal a crime—whether or not it is the one under investigation is by the way—but the officer has no duty of confidentiality. He may well report it to his senior officer and up the line to the higher echelons in the Crown Office, leading to further charges against the individual concerned.
The amendment is put down to focus the issue and to evoke a response from the Government. We would not expect a reply immediately, but it is a matter for consideration and instruction to the prison authorities that they must not interfere with the due process of law and the confidentiality which exists between a client and his legal advisers in any crime, no matter how heinous it may be. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Perhaps I may add to what my noble friend said on the reading of correspondence. I do not think the noble and learned Lord was in the Government at the time but many years ago I had a problem with Glenochil. Who has not? I checked the matter very carefully. One or two officers were reading out letters from prison inmates at the morning breakfast break. The case which I raised is all in the files of the Scottish Office. It was of a highly intelligent, well educated girl who wrote to her brother. He was in Glenochil. It was not just one letter: several were read out at breakfast to the whole table.
1668
We want that cleared up, but it is vitally important that we reinforce the point. An intimate letter was sent from a girl to her brother. They were separated by only two years in age and were very close. That intimate letter was read out by a prison officer. That was cruel. I mention the matter now to enable the Government and the Minister to make clear that such things are not allowed to happen in any prison, and particularly in regard to younger people in Glenochil.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: What the noble Lord describes as "cruel" is not only cruel but disgraceful. I would consider that disciplinary action was appropriate for any prison officer who engaged in such activity.
I appreciate the anxiety of the Opposition to range wider than the clause but it may be helpful to say that it relates to searches by prisoner custody officers on escorting duties. In the clause we are not dealing with the broader issue of the examination of correspondence within a prison. Nevertheless, having said that, I understand the anxieties that where there is correspondence between a prisoner and his legal advisers, safeguards should be in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is a distinguished lawyer and will understand that in terms of his amendment those matters which are protected—to adopt his terminology—by "legal privilege" embrace quite a wide range of communications. They may have nothing to do with the criminal charges that the prisoner faces but may relate to communications not only between the prisoner as a client in consistorial matters but also to communications between the prisoner and his wife or spouse who would enjoy certain privileges in those circumstances.
I am sure that the noble Lord, will appreciate that it is essential for security purposes that the prisoner custody officers and prison officers presently undertaking escort duties should have the power to search all items for prohibited articles such as knives or drugs. It is clearly not impossible that such items may be concealed in papers or in correspondence.
However, subsection (6) of the clause includes provision to the effect that prison rules may be made in relation to the power of search. The 1952 rules were amended last year to include new provisions relating to correspondence between a prisoner and his legal adviser —and not only his legal adviser, but also in relation to any court. That, as we all know, includes European courts. All such correspondence may be opened only where there is cause to believe that it contains a prohibited article. Correspondence with a legal adviser may be read only in those exceptional circumstances where the governor has reasonable cause to believe that the contents of the letter endanger the security of the prison or the safety of any person, or relate to a criminal activity. Correspondence between a prisoner and a court may not be read even if it has been opened.
It would be our intention to apply these rules to the escorting of prisoners by prisoner custody officers, although clearly it is unlikely that there will be much need of that compared to the situation in any prison. On the basis of the explanation that I have offered to the Committee I hope that it will be accepted that the thrust

1669
of their concern is indeed met, but the blanket provision of the amendment that they have suggested could in very limited and exceptional circumstances prejudice security. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I know from our long association that he is a man of great humanity and that he understands the problems that exist between prisoners and advisers, the courts, and so on.
There is one matter on which I have some concern. The Minister accepted the terrible situation which my noble friend Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove spoke about. For that to happen is quite unconscionable. It is a terrible event to happen to anybody in the Prison Service. I am glad that he has taken note of what happened, as I would expect him to do, and I hope that he will make sure that instructions go out in relation to that matter. If that horrific practice still exists, none of us would condone it on either side of this Committee.
I am anxious to emphasise the difference between correspondence and confidentiality between the solicitor, or the legal adviser, and the client. What a prisoner cares to write to his wife or his partner is a matter for the prisoner. What the European courts may make of prison officers opening correspondence, and so on, and censoring it, so to speak, is another matter. A warning shot has been fired across the Government's bows that that must not be done and that people must be free to correspond with each other, subject to questions of security.
What this amendment is really concerned with—I go back to focus it—is that legal advisers to prisoners in prison should have free access to the prison, subject to the normal searching routine, and nothing that is in the papers should be read by anyone in any official position in the prison who is under no obligation of confidentiality and who might be in a position to reveal the content of the papers to higher authorities. That is the purpose behind the amendment. But having heard what the noble and learned Lord said—
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I cannot give the noble Lord that undertaking. There may be circumstances which are exceptional when that correspondence would be read. I do not think that it is desirable or is a practice that should happen on regular occasions, but it has to be reserved if the governor should have reasonable ground to believe that the security of the prison might be prejudiced in some way.
I certainly accept the point that the noble Lord makes that where such an intervention is made it is not to be undertaken for the purposes of revealing a defence to the prosecutor.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. What he has said is in keeping with what I hope is the friendly nature of this discussion. I hope that what we have said will be taken note of in the appropriate places and that, if it is necessary, instructions will be sent out from the Scottish Office to the Prisons Department to emphasise what has been said in the course of this debate. That
1670
would be so much the better. I leave it to the Minister to formulate any instructions or advice that might be. sent out to the prison authorities. With that reservation I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Contracting out of prisons]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 81, line 26, after ("him") insert (", or (if the contract so provides) by sub-contractors of his,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 145 I shall speak also to a large additional number of amendments: Amendments Nos. 146 to 153. I am more than happy to go through these amendments with Members of the Committee if that is desired, but it is my view that these amendments are of a technical nature. They relate to the restriction in the clauses which would not allow for any sub-contracting within the type of arrangement that might be contemplated. We would like to allow for that; hence the amendment.
If there were to be any such arrangements, including sub-contracting, they would be spelt out in detail in the contract between the Secretary of State and the main contractor, and they would be allowed only with the approval of the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 146 to 153 are consequential amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 146 and 147:
Page 81, line 40, leave out ("and").
Page 81, line 42, leave out ("to run it") and insert:
("with the Secretary of State for the running of it; and "sub-contractor", in relation to a contracted out prison, means a person who has contracted with the contractor for the running of it or any part of it.").
9 p.m.
Clause 99 [Officers of contracted out prisons]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 148 and 149:
Page 82, line 32, leave out ("shall") and insert ("and any sub-contractor of his shall each").
Page 82, line 37, after ("contractor") insert ("or, if the contract provides for the running of the prison by a sub-contractor, by the sub-contractor").
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 100 to 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Intervention by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 150 and 151:
Page 84, line 27, leave out ("shall") and insert ("and any sub-contractor of his shall each").
Page 84, line 40, after ("contractor,") insert ("any sub-contractor of his,").
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 104 to 106 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 107 and 108 agreed to.
Clause 109 [Interpretation of Chapter II]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 152 and 153:
Page 87, line 45, leave out ("and").
Page 88, line 2, at end insert ("; and "sub-contractor" has the meaning given by section 98(2) above.").
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Arrangements for the provision of prisoner escorts]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 88, line 37, at end insert ("other than in the case where a prisoner is a terrorist or suspected terrorist").
The noble Lord said: This is a short but important amendment. The rubric for Chapter III, the first clause of which is Clause 110, is "Northern Ireland". The amendment therefore relates only to the affairs of Northern Ireland. Its purpose is to remove the possibility in Northern Ireland of privatised prisoner escort companies carrying prisoners who are terrorists or suspected terrorists. We adopt the position that it would be grossly irresponsible to allow the carriage of prisoners who are terrorists or suspected terrorists by privatised companies in Northern Ireland.
The whole experience of Northern Ireland over the past 25 years at least points very powerfully to the opposite conclusion. In another place the Home Office Minister, Mr. Maclean, said:
"I do not want to rule out the idea altogether and say no to the proposition that terrorist prisoners may be thus conveyed".
That is to say, conveyed by privatised security companies. The purpose of this amendment is to rule that out entirely. The circumstances are quite plain. First, the lesson of history is there to be learnt. Secondly, many Group 4 staff or staff in other similar companies are recruited on the basis of no previous experience whatsoever. That is in very strong contrast to the enormous experience and expertise of those who labour in the prison service in Northern Ireland and in particular members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They have the expertise and the knowledge, and they know how to deal with transporting terrorists or suspected terrorists who, by absolute definition, are likely to be high risk prisoners.
One should not forget that since 1979 no fewer than 29 prison officers in Northern Ireland have lost their lives; and in this Chamber we know all too well how many RUC officers have been murdered. Our objections therefore are those of principle, of practice and of recent history. That is the purpose of the amendment. It needs no further commendation. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: I should like to support the amendment fully. I have some knowledge of Northern Ireland behind me.
Lord Monson: I hope that the Government have not decided in advance automatically to oppose all amendments moved from the Opposition Benches. This amendment seems to be eminently commonsensical and wholly devoid of any party political connotations. Therefore I think it worthy of support by the Committee as a whole, irrespective of party affiliations.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: There is no attitude of automaticity in that any amendment proposed from the Opposition Front Benches should be rejected. Indeed, with regard to the type of case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I doubt that there is a cigarette paper between us in terms of its importance. It may be politically incorrect these days to say that; but I am sure that the noble Lord understands what I mean.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, clearly it is highly unlikely that in the foreseeable future there would ever be any circumstances in which high risk terrorists would be escorted in that way. The basis of my resistance to the amendment is not that the Government do not understand the very grave risks attached to the escort of such terrorist prisoners; it is that the amendment wrongly assumes that all terrorist prisoners within Northern Ireland are the same and that they all pose an equal threat to good order. There have been several occasions on which the police and the courts have accepted that a person charged with a scheduled or terrorist offence—the way to appreciate the matter in Northern Ireland is to understand that rather than terrorism being defined there are a number of scheduled offences—has been on the periphery of the terrorist organisation or that his role in the offence has been very minor. That is probably best demonstrated by the fact that in some circumstances such people may even be granted bail. But at the other end of the scale a person may be accused of pulling the trigger in a shooting incident and being a committed terrorist. Under the legislation, in both cases the person would be, in a sense, classified as a terrorist; but they hardly pose the same risk or threat.
Similarly, those prisoners who are already serving a sentence for terrorist offences pose different risks and threats. For example—it is not a hypothetical one—a prisoner who has shown remorse and renounced violence or is coming to the end of his sentence is clearly less of a risk than a prisoner who seeks to justify his outrageous actions, shows no remorse and still has a substantial part of his sentence to serve.
I would suggest to your Lordships, therefore, that it would be wrong to rule out the possibility of some lower—risk terrorist prisoners being escorted by the private sector at some time in the future. I hope that, given a clear understanding on the part of the Government that there are high—risk terrorists who need to be regarded in a clear and separate category, the noble Lord will appreciate that this amendment can be withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry to say so, but this simply is not good enough. I have the honour and privilege to speak for our party on Northern Ireland affairs, and it is something that one approaches, I hope, with a decent respect and humility. We are talking about

1673
terrorists. I recognise that some terrorists may be more dangerous than others, but, for my part, I would find it impossible to speak to a prison officer in Northern Ireland or a member of the RUC or of the security forces and to say to him in respect of someone who had been apprehended, very often as a result of inquiries which involve the police and the security forces in danger and which put prison officers in certain danger—not only when they are at work but in their own domestic circumstances, as we know too well—"Ah, these were minor terrorists we have contracted out". I could not find it in my heart to stand there and look at them.
The support that I have received has been extremely moderate in its tone and content. This is not a party political matter: it is much too important. Perhaps I may trespass on your Lordships' patience for a moment. The Minister rightly describes a terrorist as someone who may be the object of a scheduled offence. That means that he is a particular creature in our criminal law. He is the object of special legislation. He is the object of special trials without a jury. He is the subject of confiscation orders, which are not applicable in ordinary criminal cases except perhaps in drug trafficking. He is capable of being the subject of adverse inferences from his silence. There are gradations, but I put no terrorist or suspected terrorist in any category other than that of a potential grave risk to the people who have to deal with them.
Let us look at one or two further points which have been brought to my attention by those who do public service in Northern Ireland in circumstances that we can hardly begin to understand. The Minister speaks of a prisoner who may have repented of terrorism—true, some do but very few, as it happens. However, those who do so are likely to be the object of their former terrorist colleagues wanting to kill them, wanting to free them from custody, to torture them, to do them harm, to abuse them and to find out what information they may have conveyed. These are not alarmist scenarios: they are the common currency of daily life for prison officers and RUC members in Northern Ireland. If there is danger to prisoners in those circumstances, self—evidently there is danger to staff. The staff must be properly trained. They must be part of an ordered, disciplined service: namely, the RUC or the Prison Service.
I am very sorry to say this. The Minister said that there was hardly a cigarette paper between him and me, and I am always attracted by that Rizla school of jurisprudence and legislation. But I have to say that I doubt whether the Minister convinced himself. I equally deeply doubt whether he convinced anyone else in your Lordships' Chamber. I shall withdraw this amendment with your Lordships' leave on this occasion, but I intend to return to it because this is much too serious a matter to be dealt with by such a thinly—attended Committee at this time of night.
I point out, I hope without undue pomposity, that we have duties which we must discharge in this Chamber to those who are in the front line. I do not think that we do them justice or decency by allowing these things to go
1674
through at this time of night in this way. With your Lordships' leave, I shall withdraw my amendment tonight, but I shall return to it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before the noble Lord sits down, I am sorry if he does not like my cigarette paper metaphor—I will try to think of another one before we return to this matter in the future. However, given his great knowledge of these matters, I hope he will reflect on this before we return to it. As he will appreciate, those offences which fall within the schedule, if they happen to be unrelated to terrorism, require to be de—scheduled. It may be that in certain circumstances we could make unnecessary difficulties for those who are not terrorists, and it may be that some months may occur before such a de—scheduling decision is taken. I do not ask the noble Lord to respond to me at this time. It may be something that we can return to at a later stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am happy to respond. As a devoted life—time non—smoker, I have no particular objection to any particular cigarette paper. I want to avoid pomposity, but we have a duty not only to this House but to people who are at the frontline. If the Minister is suggesting that a form of words may be available or that a distinct indication of government policy may be available, I would be more than happy to go along that path with him, as I am sure the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Donaldson, would be as well. However, this seems to be a classic illustration of what we should be doing in this House; namely, assisting the passage of fruitful legislation. As I said earlier, I shall withdraw the amendment on this occasion but intend to return to the matter. I very much hope that before the next stage I will receive a letter from the Minister indicating a sensible, appropriate and workable arrangement. Since I am not only a lifelong non—smoker but a lifelong optimist, I shall sit down.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 153B and 153C not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 153D:
Page 89, line 7, leave out ("for committal, a warrant for") and insert ("of commitment, a warrant of).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to correct a drafting error in the definition of a warrant. I beg to move.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 111 to 114 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clauses 115 to 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [Service in England and Wales and Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 153E had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Turner of Caniden Baroness Turner of Caniden moved Amendment No. 153EA:
Page 92, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("subsection") in line 24.
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord McIntosh, I rise to move this amendment and to speak to Amendment No. 153F. Both amendments are concerned with industrial relations in the Prison Service. They are slightly different, but they have been grouped.
The objective of the first amendment is to ensure that prison officers who took industrial action before the enactment of the Bill cannot be taken to court on the grounds that at the time the prison officers did not have the right to take such action. As I understand it, Clause 118 gives the Prison Officers' Association trade union status retrospectively, although the wording is in my view rather obscure.
The Government have argued that the clause gives prison officers new rights. The Home Secretary apparently contends that he is giving prison officers back the rights that were brought into question following a recent court hearing. Your Lordships may perhaps be aware of a recent court decision that prison officers are constables and therefore were not covered by the relevant employment legislation. But this trade union status does not extend to ever having had the right to take any form of industrial action; in other words, to breach Clause 119(1) of the Bill.
The net effect of the wording that we are seeking to delete with the amendment would be to render prison officers liable in respect of past industrial action and that opens up the prospect that they could find themselves facing action in court for something that was taken in good faith at the time and some years ago. It was assumed by everyone in those days, including the Government, that the action was not illegal. It would be ludicrous to insist that someone could be open to prosecution in respect of action taken perhaps 10 years ago when everyone thought it was quite legal.
If the Government are serious about statements made —for example, by Ministers in another place where I understand it was indicated that it was not the Government's intention to rake over old coals—why do we have this clause in the Bill? How is anyone meant to obey the law retrospectively? There seems to be no logical argument for the clause in the Bill and our amendment seeks to delete it. I trust therefore that the Minister will clarify the situation.
I pass on to Amendment No. 153F, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 153EA. The intention of this amendment is to protect the right of prison officers to protest—by dispute action if necessary—in instances where their health and safety could be at risk. The Government have taken away one part of the industrial relations machinery and, as I understand it, nothing has replaced it. Prison officers will have no bargaining power and no way in which they can force prison managers to recognise a serious problem in a prison. The only way a prison officer could register an effective protest would be to resign. I believe that no one would regard that as a satisfactory solution either for the officer himself or for the prison service generally.
In my view this section of the Bill is in breach of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, which expressly provides for the right
1676
to take industrial action. It is also in breach of ILO conventions. The ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has held on a number of occasions that the right to take industrial action is implied and is a fundamental provision of the Convention on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.
The right to take industrial action is also implicit in Articles 20 and 23 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I understand that the Government regard themselves as bound by those conventions, to which they are signatories.
However, the Government contend that this Bill puts industrial relations in the prison service on a proper footing. But what the Government regard as a proper footing is a removal of the basic right of industrial action and its replacement with absolutely nothing that I can see in the Bill. Prison officers are therefore left with no means of effectively making management take note of the serious anxieties of officers who are themselves at the sharp end and have a responsibility for the safety not only of themselves and their colleagues but also of the prisoners in their charge.
Prison officers and staff have real anxieties and fears, particularly since the recent rise in the prison population caused, I believe, at least in part by the Government's penal policies. Taking away the right to voice those fears effectively will not reduce the problems, but simply mask them for the time being with possibly greater problems later on. There should be a mechanism for the protection of staff and to ensure that there is a means of making their voices heard.
The Home Office Minister said in Standing Committee in another place that it is no part of the Government's policy to deny members of the prison service the right to be represented by independent, effective and responsible unions, yet this clause in the Bill takes away that right, as the final sanction of industrial action is removed.
The amendment is designed to allow prison officers the right to withdraw labour or commit a breach of discipline where their health or safety is threatened. For example, it would allow a prison officer to withdraw his labour if a governor ordered him to manage an entire wing of a prison, unlocked, on his own. That is not hypothetical. My information is that that is precisely what some prison officers are now facing. The clause in the Bill is drafted in very strong terms and leaves no room even for the narrow liberty of industrial action normally available to most trade unions under existing labour law.
The removal of the right to take industrial action and of the right to negotiate on pay and conditions will lead to a breakdown of morale and discipline within the prison service, as the only safety valve for prison officers to highlight dangerous and degrading conditions would disappear. It would appear that the health and safety of prison officers and of the prisoners themselves is under threat. We have heard in the debate this evening about the prison population explosion. There has been a large increase in the number of

1677
prisoners and also in the number of violent prisoners. That has made prisons even more dangerous places to work in than they used to be.
During the past five years the prison system within the United Kingdom has experienced approximately 30,000 assaults by prisoners on staff and on other prisoners. Assaults on staff rose by 33 per cent. in the past year and they are expected to continue to rise at alarming levels. The past five years have also seen 13,000 drug finds. Again, evidence shows that the level of drug abuse is continuing to rise and, as everybody knows, over the past five years there have been riots and acts of vandalism in prisons which have resulted in the taxpayer having to foot a £1 billion bill for the damage done.
The Bill does not address the situation at prison landing level of how a prison officer, or a group of prison officers, will react in a volatile environment particularly when confronted by violent prisoners. Many disputes between governors and prison officers arise out of a sense of grievance about the way in which management decisions have impacted on the safety and security of prison officers at landing level.
I am sure that I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House who has felt it necessary to visit prisons in an attempt to find out exactly how the prison service runs. Whenever I have paid such visits, I have come away with a feeling of deep sadness. As a society, we are locking away our problems. Prison officers are doing work that is vitally necessary because violent and dangerous people cannot be permitted to threaten the lives and security of ordinary citizens. Prison officers therefore act for us, doing work which many of us would not want to do. We have an obligation to ensure that they have good conditions; that their views, since they are closer to the problems than anyone else, are taken into account; and, in particular, that they are not exposed to health and safety hazards that could be avoided. They must be afforded the right to protest and to employ the ultimate sanction if they feel that their welfare is being ignored. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has spoken to two amendments which are rather different in nature, but which have been grouped together. In the group of clauses, Clauses 118 to 120, I should be surprised if the Opposition opposed Clause 118 because of the case last year which highlighted the fact that prison officers in England and Wales have the privileges and powers of constables, from which the conclusion was drawn that they were not "workers" within the terms of the trade union legislation. Clause 118 gives prison officers and their unions the rights that they would have expected to have if they had not had the status of constable. That is always subject to the provisions of Clause 119 which is, I think, the clause to which the noble Baroness objects. That clause makes it quite clear that it will be a contravention of the provisions if somebody induces a prison officer to withhold his services as an officer or to commit a breach of discipline. The purpose of that provision is to prevent the disruption of the prison service.
In that connection, the noble Baroness refers to a number of conventions. Under the European Convention on Human Rights, it is clear that the right to take industrial action can be restricted in the case of the police or of those who are involved,
"in the administration of the State",
which includes those of the status of prison officer. There is no question here of any breach of the European Convention on Human Rights; nor is there any question of a breach of the International Labour Convention which contains an exception in the case of essential workers, such as prison officers. Therefore, there is no question of us being in breach of our international obligations. The purpose of Clause 119 is to make it clear that prison officers are not entitled to take industrial action. Clause 120 contains powers, by regulation, in appropriate situations, to make provisions. in connection with the rates of pay and terms and conditions of employment of prison officers. Obviously, that is the other side of the question.
The first amendment to which the noble Baroness spoke would have the effect of seeking to validate retrospectively something which was unlawful at the time that it occurred, unlawful as the law existed then and unlawful as the law will exist if and when this Bill becomes an Act. It would give extraordinary and completely anomalous status to these actions, which is neither justified by the former law nor by the law as it will be.
I agree that the Government have indicated that they have no intention of raking over old sores and so forth. Nonetheless, it would be wrong in principle to enact something retrospectively which would correspond neither to the legal position as it was then nor to the legal position as it will be in the future. For that reason, we cannot accept the proposed amendment.
The other proposed amendment is a little difficult to parse or to fit into the particular provision to which it is attached. Nonetheless, it deals with matters of health and safety and, without going into its detail, I am happy to take it on that basis. As I have said, the provisions of Clause 119(1) are precisely drafted and are intended to prevent industrial action by prison officers. I understand that somehow or other the amendment would introduce an exception in connection with, in broad terms, matters of health and safety. Into that wide maw, and on various occasions in the past, representatives of the Prison Officers Association have tried to sweep various matters such as manning levels and so forth. In connection with genuine and proper health and safety issues, the responsibility lies on the governor of the prison establishment concerned. That obligation is clearly settled in Standing Order No. 14 of the prison service. Nothing which is contained in Clause 119 in any way impacts upon or affects adversely the responsibility of the prison governor.
As Members of the Committee will know, health and safety in prisons is covered by the Health and Safety Act 1974 and other legislation in so far as it applies to the Crown. For example, it imposes obligations on the Home Office as employer and accordingly requires the governor to produce a local health and safety statement, to appoint local health and safety representatives, to

1679
conduct health and safety audits, to set up health and safety committees and to grant full access to inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive. Your Lordships will find that in the context of Standing Order No. 14, to which I have referred.
Therefore, there is a whole area of provisions which deals with the matter of health and safety in prisons. For that reason, we reject any idea that it would be in any way sensible—far less necessary—to include an exception of the kind which the noble Baroness would seek to introduce in her amendment.
There is nothing to prevent any prison officer drawing the attention of those in a position of authority or responsibility to any health and safety issue. But that cannot be used as a pretext to disrupt the running of prisons. There is a different regime for health and safety and prison officers must not be allowed to bring those issues into the context of industrial relations in order to disrupt the running of the prisons. The Bill proceeds on the basis that it is important that prisons should be run without interruption. In that context, the amendment is not acceptable. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am somewhat disappointed but not entirely surprised by the Minister's response. With regard to the first amendment, as I understand the situation, for many years it was taken for granted by the Government, by the Prison Officers' Association and indeed by everyone that prison officers had the same rights as any other trade unionists to take industrial action subject, of course, to the requirements of the legislation then in force. There was then a court decision which held that prison officers had always been constables and because of that automatically were not workers within the purview of employment legislation and therefore not entitled to the coverage provided by the appropriate employment legislation.
The Prison Officers' Association is now saying that it is all very well to say, as has been said in the other place, that the Government do not intend to rake over old coals. But the fact remains that people who took action some time ago are nevertheless vulnerable because it has now been said —indeed, the Minister said it this afternoon—that it was never lawful for them to take the action, although everybody at the time thought that it was lawful. I am sure that they would not have taken the action if they had thought it unlawful. Such people feel vulnerable and feel that action may be taken against them as a result of industrial action which they took some time ago.
I should have thought that it would be very much to the Government's advantage to assure prison officers in some way or other, if not through this amendment, that bygones are bygones and that there is no possibility that those cases will ever be reopened. After all, all those who took action in those circumstances thought that they were doing so quite lawfully.
At this time of the evening, I do not intend to press the issue to a Division. However, I earnestly ask the Government to think about the matter and to see whether there is not some way, either through this Bill
1680
or by putting something into Hansard, whereby assurance can be given that there will be no follow—up of cases in which people were involved some years ago.
As to the second amendment, again, as I understand it, the Prison Officers' Association—and I have a note from it here—seems to have accepted that with regard to the general right to industrial action its members are in a special and separate position. That is why the amendment it has asked me to put before the Committee this evening is concerned only with health and safety. Health and safety in prisons is a very dodgy and difficult issue, as I am sure your Lordships will understand following the submissions made on all sides of the Committee.
Prison officers are dealing with violent and unpredictable people. I recall when I was visiting prisons, going to Holloway where I was extremely anxious to see how women in prison were being dealt with. I was told by prison officers there that you could be very friendly with a prisoner on one day but the next day, and quite out of the blue—prisoners are entirely unpredictable—there could be an attack upon the prison officer with whom the prisoner had been very friendly the previous day. It is a very volatile, difficult and special situation.
In my view, it is not sufficient simply to say that the health and safety legislation which applies everywhere else will apply within the prison service; that that should be sufficient and that the governor has obligations under the health and safety legislation, and so on. As I said, it is a very volatile, difficult and special situation with which the staff are constantly faced. Sometimes it may be necessary to protest sharply and strongly, perhaps even involving a breach of discipline—in other words, a breach of the provisions in Clause 119. If that were to happen we want to ensure that the individuals concerned have some form of protection.
As I said earlier, it is not my intention this evening to press the amendments to a vote because we have a very thin presence in the Chamber. However, they involve very important and significant matters to which I believe we may have to return on Report when, perhaps, there will be more noble Lords present. At that time, we shall be able to mount our arguments in a different way and return with slightly different wording to the amendment. These are important and serious issues. Quite frankly, I do not think that the Government's response this evening adequately covers or deals with the concerns that have been voiced by prison staff, both to me and to others on this side of the Committee who have decided to take the briefing that such staff offered to us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Clause 119 [Inducements to withhold services or to indiscipline]:
[Amendment No. 153F not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 93, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("which") in line 14 and insert:

1681
("(3) Without prejudice to the right of the Secretary of State, by virtue of the preceding provisions of this section, to bring civil proceedings in respect of any apprehended contravention of subsection (1) above, any breach of the duty mentioned in subsection (2) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 154ZA. The two amendments are essentially put forward to clarify the position. Amendment No. 154 ensures that there can be no doubt as to the Secretary of State's ability in whatever jurisdiction—be it England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—to apply for an injunction (or, in Scotland, an interdict) to prevent an apprehended breach of the duty created by Clause 119 not to induce prison officers to take industrial action. It was thought that the clause as originally drafted achieved that aim, but some doubt has arisen as to whether it might be interpreted as requiring the Secretary of State to demonstrate that he would suffer loss or damage from the planned industrial action before he could obtain an injunction or interdict to restrain it. The purpose of the amendment is to remove any doubt and to show that the Secretary of State is entitled to that, even though he cannot demonstrate any potential loss or damage.
Amendment No. 154ZA relates to a very technical matter. Clause 120 is designed to deal with the remuneration of prison officers who are prison officers in the strict sense of the word. It is not intended to cover the remuneration of prison custody officers who would be employed by private operators. The amendment would ensure that prison custody officers and custody officers employed by the private sector —whether, in one case, in prisons and, in the other, in secure training centres—are excluded from the pay determination procedures which are provided, or may be provided, in regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clause 120.
For reasons—the details of which I shall spare Members of the Committee—regarding the precise drafting of certain sections of the Prison Act 1952 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991, there was thought to be a possible doubt about the matter. That doubt has been cured by the amendment. I beg to move.
Clause 120 [Pay and related conditions]:
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 154ZA:
Page 94, line 24, leave out from ("comprises") to end of line 32 and insert ("all the individuals who are prison officers within the meaning of section 119 above, apart from those who are custody officers within the meaning of Part I of this Act or prisoner custody officers within the meaning of Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or Chapter II or III of this Part.").
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 121 to 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 [Execution of warrants]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154ZB:
Page 100, line 28, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A) of this section,").
The noble and learned Lord said: After that spectacular progress in the Bill which must be unprecedented I have some reluctance in intervening with an amendment on behalf of the Government. In moving Amendment No. 154ZB I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 154ZC. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure the smooth operation of the provisions in this clause. As things stand, a person arrested in pursuance of a warrant under the terms of the present provisions could be taken only to a police station within the jurisdiction of the judicial authority who issued that warrant. However, there will be circumstances where, under normal circumstances, a warrant will direct that a person should be taken elsewhere, and the best example that I can give is directly to a prison. Clearly the clause should also expressly cater for such a case and by virtue of these amendments it will do so. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154ZC:
Page 100, line 30, at end insert:

("(4A) In the application of subsection (4) of this section to a person arrested in pursuance of—

(a) a warrant of commitment issued by a judicial authority in England, Wales or Northern Ireland; or

(b) a warrant for committal, or of detention and return of sentence, issued by a judicial authority in Scotland,
the reference to a police station within the jurisdiction of that authority shall be construed as including a reference to any other place to which he is committed by, or is to be conveyed under, the warrant.").

Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 [Cross-border powers of arrest etc.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154ZD:
Page 101, line 46, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 154ZD I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 154ZF, ZH and ZJ. These are technical amendments simply clarifying our intention that if an offence is being investigated in more than one police area, or a sheriffdom in Scotland, the person arrested or detained in connection with the offence can be taken to a police station in any of the police areas or the sheriffdoms where the offence is being investigated. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 154ZE:
Page 102, line 2, leave out ("to the nearest convenient Police Station in Scotland or").
The noble Lord said: I believe this amendment has been briefly touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, as regards what is to happen to people who are being taken into custody in cross-Border activity.
The purpose of the amendment is to take out the phrase:

1683
"to the nearest convenient police station in Scotland or"
in order to ensure that the person who has been arrested by a warrant, no doubt issued by a sheriff or magistrate in the area where the offence is to be tried, is taken to that locality.
There are real difficulties here. The Bill as it stands indicates that the person will be taken:
"to the nearest convenient police station in Scotland or to a police station within the sheriffdom in which the offence is being investigated".
That creates difficulties in the sparsely populated areas of Scotland. Does:
"the nearest convenient police station in Scotland"
mean that if someone has committed an offence in Inverness and is taken over the Border he can be dumped in Dumfries? I note that the noble and learned Lord is nodding his head. I hope that he is not agreeing with that, because what happens to the prisoner who is arrested in England or Wales under this cross-Border transference, to which no objection is made? Does it really mean that the person is to be taken over the Border and dumped in the nearest police station? So far as I can see there is nothing in the clause which makes provision for the receiving office to receive the prisoner.
Let us exaggerate the position and take the case of someone who is suspected of committing a murder in Inverness. He can be dumped at the police office in Dumfries. There is nothing in the Bill to require the police office in Dumfries to accept that person who has been arrested for a murder in Inverness. What happens if the officer who has arrested the prisoner in, say, Bermondsey, and having been with him for three or four days escorting him from Bermondsey to Inverness on reaching Dumfries, becomes a little fed up and says, "Under the Act I can just dump this chap here. I am off home, to play golf"—or whatever people do in the time off that they have earned as a result of having done escort duty?
I believe that the provision is rather slack in terms of the practicalities. It should be tightened up to make sure that where a warrant has been issued for the arrest of a person in England and Wales for an offence committed within a sheriffdom in Scotland there are clear and defined lines to make sure that the person is taken back to the place where he is likely to be tried. He should not be left in the custody of police officers in a station in Scotland who probably do not want to have the prisoner in the first place and under the Bill have no obligation to receive him. It is one thing to take and another to receive.
I should like to know from the Minister what obligation there is on the officers in whatever is meant by a "convenient police station" to receive the person. Can the arresting officer in England or Wales really hand over the prisoner with the warrant and say "All right, mate. I have arrested him in Bermondsey. He is wanted in Inverness. You are in Dumfries. This is the nearest convenient police station in Scotland. You can have him. Goodbye", and leave him there?
I can see that considerable difficulties will be created, unless I am completely misreading the clause. Of course, with his usual courtesy the Minister will tell me
1684
if that is the case. It may not be the first time. I hope that I am not misreading the situation. With those observations, I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It is my understanding that it is the Committee's wish that the amendment should be grouped with Amendment No. 154A and Amendment No. 154B.
The noble Lord moved the amendment with a proper regard to the best interests of someone who has been arrested or is a suspect. I hope to persuade him that what he seeks to introduce into the Bill, far from being helpful to that individual, may be detrimental to a person arrested in England and Wales who is taken over the Border into Scotland.
As matters stand, the arrested person may be taken to the nearest convenient police station in Scotland or to one within a sheriffdom, in which the offence is being investigated. By denying access to the nearest convenient police station, as the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do, the rights of an arrested person are not necessarily best served. We seek to get the person taken to the appropriate jurisdiction and to set the wheels of justice in motion without delay while observing the rights of the suspect. What is proposed would seem to have no benefits for the suspect. We share a view with the noble Lord that we should be safeguarding the rights of the suspect. Therefore we have proposed alternatives.
What we have proposed is not entirely novel, because at present a person arrested in one area of Scotland for a crime committed elsewhere in Scotland may be taken to the nearest police station. I see no good reason for changing that. The noble Lord will well appreciate that with regard to detention under the terms of Section 2 of the 1980 Act, rather than going all the way to, say, Grampian, it might be in the best interest of a suspect that the six hours should run from the time that he is taken to the nearest convenient police station over the Border rather than being taken many hours later to a police station in Aberdeen or elsewhere.
Similarly, the noble Lord's second amendment would defeat the existing requirements of the clause by creating the false impression that the arresting or detaining officers had up to 72 hours to take the suspect back to the appropriate jurisdiction.
As it stands, the clause clearly stipulates that the suspect must be returned to the appropriate jurisdiction as soon as reasonably practicable. We have no intention of allowing a suspect who has been arrested or detained in one part of the United Kingdom on suspicion of having committed an offence within another part of the United Kingdom to remain outwith the jurisdiction where he may eventually face trial for any longer than is reasonably necessary and certainly not in any circumstances of which I can at present conceive for up to 72 hours.
While I understand the noble Lord's intention that the period should not be unreasonably protracted, I suggest that the present test and requirement within the clause is a far greater safeguard than the provision that he proposes.

1685
I turn to his third amendment. It is right that the police should be able to account for how a person was dealt with, and I am pleased to be able to give my assurances that the existing legislation and police practices already amply cover that requirement.
In relation to detention by Scottish constables, the provisions attract the requirement of Section 2(4) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 to record the place and time of detention. Clause 121 enables the movement of a person under detention but also requires that fact to be recorded. That requirement will also apply when detention is across the Border.
It is a matter of practice for Scottish police officers to record in their notebook the fact and time of arrest. That practice will of course be equally applied when the person has been arrested outwith Scotland. Similarly, the location of arrest and associated information may be important features of a case, in particular in these circumstances. At present such information is likely to be covered in the report to the procurator fiscal, as the noble Lord will doubtless appreciate.
An officer from England or Wales who crosses the Border to make an arrest will keep the same records as he would when making an arrest in England or Wales. The arresting officer is already required, normally by force standing orders, to record in his notebook the circumstances of the arrest as soon as practicable after the arrest. The officer is required to take the arrested person to an appropriate police station as soon as practicable after the arrest. So his prime concern, after informing the person that he has been arrested and the reasons for that arrest, is to take the person to the police station. For practical reasons the record of arrest may be recorded in the officer's notebook after he has taken the person to the police station. I understand that similar arrangements are applied in Northern Ireland.
These amendments imply that some appreciable time will pass before the detained or arrested person is returned across the Border. With respect to the noble Lord, that is a mistaken assumption because where an arrest is involved the intention is to arrest and return the person as soon as practicable to the appropriate jurisdiction.
As regards detention, I have explained the provisions that enable this to be carried out sensibly with the minimum inconvenience to the person detained. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that while his amendments are well intentioned, they are unnecessary.
10 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I always hope that I act with the best intentions for the administration of justice within Scotland. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for the explanation he has given. The amendments do not seek to restrict the investigation of crime or of bringing criminals to justice. They are meant to focus on the rights of the individual who has been arrested and to bear in mind the presumption of innocence which applies.
What worries a few people is that the phrase,
"as soon as reasonably practicable".
1686
when a person is in the custody of the police, particularly on a serious charge, is a matter for consideration by the police. To exaggerate the issue, if a policeman arrests someone in Bermondsey, he could take him back to Dumfries via Liverpool or Manchester and just keep motoring the chap around the place. A policeman with perhaps evil intent, waiting for a confession, might just motor the chap around the country. When it comes to a trial he may say: "Well, that was the only reasonably practicable way of bringing this fellow from Bermondsey to Inverness. In the course of the journey from Bermondsey to Inverness, he said X, Y, Z.".
The difficulty perceived is the operation of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 with its detention provisions on cross-Border transference, of which we are all in favour. Perhaps we and the Government can get together to see whether we can work out a practical framework which safeguards the individual. After all, the person in the custody of the police, after being arrested, has very few rights. He cannot tell the policeman halfway up the M.6: "Would you mind stopping at the Little Chef? I'd like a cup of tea". That is perhaps a silly analogy, but that person is completely in the control of the police from that point on. The prisoner has no control over what is judged to be reasonably practicable.
The amendments are put down to focus the issue so that we may consider the detailed replies which the noble and learned Lord has given to the Committee. The keeping of a record is important as is the conduct of a case particularly given the existing climate. Perhaps in Scotland we have a certain smugness about wrongful conviction. We look at what has happened south of the Border and say, "That could never happen in Scotland". I am perhaps one of the few people in Scotland who says that some of those things could have happened in Scotland. Any Bill dealing with the rights of the citizen is concerned with those rights, the maintenance of the presumption of innocence and ensuring that the rights of the citizen are not undermined merely because he is in the custody of the police and a court has issued a warrant for his arrest.
If I understand the flavour of what the Minister said, he has accepted the amendments in the spirit in which they were put down, and I hope that we can get together with interested parties. Then perhaps we may have a discussion about the issues which the amendments raise and come up with a provision which is more tightly constructed than the present clause.
I apologise to the Minister and to the Committee for not having dealt with the other amendments. I arrived in very great haste from the North just before the House resumed, and I had not caught up with the grouping of the amendments. I hope that I have now dealt with the matters that are before the Committee.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say to him that I appreciate that the issue of what is reasonably practicable is always open to a degree of interpretation. But I am sure that the noble Lord will contemplate this point: whenever someone is arrested or detained as a suspect within

1687
England and Wales, it would clearly be reasonably practicable to get that individual across the Scottish Border, even on a day like tomorrow when there might be a rail strike, in less than 72 hours. While I understand the noble Lord's clear best intention to put a limit on this, I hope that he will appreciate that the test that is set in the clause is indeed a tighter one than the absolute limit that he has suggested.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I take the point that the noble and learned Lord makes. I can see that the period of 72 hours might be too tightly drawn. I can see the reasonable practicability of not having such a tight timescale. The 72 hours was chosen as a timescale within which to consider the operation of proposed cross-Border activity, taking into account the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1980. Having heard what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154ZF:
Page 102, line 3, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a").
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154ZG:
Page 102, line 11, leave out ("and Wales or in Northern Ireland") and insert ("or Wales").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment which removes an unnecessary and confusing reference to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154ZH:
Page 102, line 16, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a").
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154ZJ:
Page 102, line 18, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 154A and 154B not moved.]
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Clause 131 [Search powers available on arrests under sections 128 and 129]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154BA:
Page 104, line 12, leave out ("(2) or (3) or 129(1)") and insert ("(2) (b) or (3) (a) or 129(1) or (3)").
Clause 133 [Aid of one police force by another]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154BB:
Page 107, line 6, at end insert:
("(2A) The chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland may, on the application of the chief officer of police of a police force in England and Wales or the chief officer of a police force in Scotland, provide constables or other assistance for the purpose of enabling the English or Welsh force or the Scottish force to meet any special demand on its resources.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 154BB, perhaps I might also speak to Amendments Nos. 154BC to 154BF, 172A and 175FA.
This group of amendments is, again, technical and introduces no new policy. The amendments consolidate existing legislation on the aid of one police force to another by including provisions affecting Northern Ireland in Clause 133. This is a sensible amalgamation which makes the aid provisions consistent across the whole of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 154BC to 154BF:
Page 107, line 11, leave out ("or (2)") and insert (", (2) or (2A)").
Page 107, line 13, leave out ("or, as the case may be").
Page 107, line 14, after ("Scotland") insert ("or the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the case may be,").
Page 107, line 36, at end insert:
("( ) In this section "constable of a police force", in relation to Northern Ireland, means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Annaly: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  HIGHWAYS WORK: TENDERING COMPETITION
  HIGHWAYS WORK: TENDERING COMPETITION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES: CCT
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES: CCT
  COUNCILLORS' ALLOWANCES SYSTEM: PROPOSALS
  COUNCILLORS' ALLOWANCES SYSTEM: PROPOSALS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: SEVERANCE PAY PROPOSALS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: SEVERANCE PAY PROPOSALS
  CHILD MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS AND INCOME SUPPORT
  CHILD MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS AND INCOME SUPPORT