Sitting of 21 March 1994

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Freight
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage freight. to be moved by rail rather than by road.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): From April, we are introducing an enhanced rail freight grant regime. This, together with privatisation, open access for new operators and substantial investment in the infrastructure, freight terminals and rolling stock for the channel tunnel service, amounting to some £450 million, will provide a significant boost for the rail freight industry.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. He may know that my constituents and I had the great good fortune to hear our right hon. Friend the Minister of State make an excellent speech covering the issue on Friday night. After that, I spent some time talking
    2
    to some of the senior management at Preston station. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me—and with them—that the opening of the channel tunnel will provide one of the great opportunities to put more freight on rail?
    Mr. MacGregor: Very much so. I think that it will be a big market opportunity, not least for the north-west. As my hon. Friend may know, the opening of the tunnel will greatly reduce the travelling times from, say, Manchester or Liverpool to places on the continent, particularly in Mediterranean areas; travel will also be much quicker than by road. I agree with my hon. Friend that the channel tunnel offers a big opportunity for switching freight from road to rail.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: How does the Secretary of State manage to keep a straight face while he says that? How can he seriously imagine that the imposition of astronomical charges on rolling stock and Railtrack can improve any form of transport, let alone encourage anyone to use it?
    Mr. MacGregor: I think the hon. Lady will find that Railtrack will seek commercial contracts for freight. As for passenger transport, as the hon. Lady knows, the passenger franchisees will receive a subsidy to meet the Railtrack costs. I am absolutely clear about this; I think that the opening of the channel tunnel offers a major marketing opportunity. If the hon. Lady examines the times involved in travelling from the north-west to major continental centres, she will see that, with the channel tunnel, carrying freight on rail gives just that hope.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: As my right hon. Friend knows, Castle Cement is in my constituency. It used to transport much of its freight by rail; now, unfortunately, it has switched to the roads, because they are more competitive. Will my right hon. Friend give the people of the Ribble valley some assurance that, when the new system is in operation in 1995, there will be greater incentives for firms such as Castle Cement to switch their freight transport back on to the railways?
    Mr. MacGregor: Indeed; in fact, there are some recent examples of freight going back on to rail. I believe that opportunities for open access, coupled with the rail freight

    3
    grant regime, which will allow the provision of subsidies to meet Railtrack costs where there is an environmental benefit to be gained—I might have made that point to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—will encourage the switch back to rail.
    Mr. Wilson: Will the Secretary of State convey our regret that Question 8, concerning the choice of rail privatisation, has been prudently withdrawn?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is pure nonsense to talk about benefits to Railfreight, or any other rail services, against the present background? From 1 April, railway subsidy will have to be doubled to maintain existing services, solely because of the artificially inflated access charges that the Treasury has forced on Railtrack. Does the Secretary of State accept—
    Mr. MacGregor: A third question?
    Mr. Wilson: Well, there are many things to accept before anyone can believe this nonsense.
    In the light of that settlement, the rate of subsidy may be doubled. The Government are seeking to create the impression of a highly subsidised railway—twice as highly subsidised after 1 April as before that date. Is not the scene being set for the rundown of our railways?
    Mr. MacGregor: I expressed surprise only because I understood that I was not expected to answer a large number of questions. I regret more than the hon. Gentleman that Question 8 is not to be asked. I was looking forward to it, and to demonstrating what privatisations have achieved. The hon. Gentleman, by his questions, showed that he does not understand how the new grant and access charging regimes will work.

    International Station, Stratford
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of Union Railways to discuss the case for an international station at Stratford.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and representatives of the Stratford promoter group on 24 March to discuss their revised proposals for a Stratford station.
    Mr. Banks: The Minister knows that the promoter group intends to make a bid for an intermediate international station at Stratford. Will he give a guarantee that no decision will be taken on the disposal of railway lines at Stratford that would prejudice the group's ability to make that bid to the Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman also explain the likely disposition of the lands around Stratford in terms of ownership after the channel tunnel fast rail link has been constructed?
    Mr. Freeman: It is important that the railway lands at Stratford—from the southern extremities, close to the existing Stratford station, all the way to Temple Mills—are retained in public sector ownership and available to help progress that great project.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: When my right hon. Friend meets Union Railways, will he bear in mind the possibility of an international railway station at Ebbsfleet in Kent, which would be very much more convenient?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I try to be tolerant, but the question relates to a station at Stratford.
    Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that it would contribute immeasurably to the economic regeneration of east London and the east London corridor if there were an international station on the channel tunnel link at Stratford? Does he further accept that it would add immeasurably to the value of crossrail if that project also had a connection with the channel tunnel link at Stratford?
    Mr. Freeman: We have not ruled out a connection between crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link—there are powerful arguments in favour. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State merely ruled out one particular intersection. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but my right hon. Friend's announcement was welcomed by Opposition Members representing the area ruled out, so that statement was helpful. As to the importance of a station at Stratford, there is a difference between an international station and a domestic station. I hope that the promoter group will argue the case for both.

    Mile End Road
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in improving traffic conditions along the Mile End road.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The proposed red route measures for Mile End road will bring improvements for all road users in traffic and environmental conditions.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for the progress of his excellent plans for the Mile End road, which is on the way to my constituency, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary should fight to retain the veto over Brussels bureaucracy, which might otherwise overrule my hon. Friend's excellent plans—as happened when Brussels introduced 44-tonne lorries to the United Kingdom? That caused enormous congestion throughout the country, as bridges had to be strengthened.
    Mr. Norris: I admit that I had not covered that part of my background briefing. In so far as I understood the portent of my hon. Friend's question, I am sure that she is right. If I did not understand it, I instantly withdraw that remark. More to the point, the measures being taken on the principal route to my hon. Friend's constituency will add considerably to her ability to reach it quickly.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: What is the point of making improvements to the Mile End road or any other in London, when the Minister intends to lift the current London lorry ban, which will allow 44-tonne lorries to use virtually any road in the capital?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Lady knows that the Government have no intention whatever of lifting the London lorry ban, but we have every intention of lifting the weight of GLC-inspired bureaucracy—the mountain of utterly needless and pointless paperwork that currently surrounds the ban—and in that respect we shall earn the gratitude of every business in London.

    Traffic Calming
    Mr. Legg: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has that traffic calming schemes have reduced accidents in urban areas.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Key): Preliminary research indications are that traffic calming reduces accidents by an average of 70 per cent. There have also been small reductions on surrounding roads. Such measures seem to be especially effective in reducing accidents to child pedestrians and child cyclists.
    Mr. Legg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. Has he any idea what the effect on road accidents would be if motorists in built-up areas voluntarily reduced their speed below 30 mph?
    Mr. Key: If average speeds were voluntarily reduced below about 20 mph in appropriate residential streets, it is likely that we would save some 500 lives a year.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that, although traffic calming measures have been extremely successful—certainly in Tameside and Stockport in my constituency—the key is to reduce the number of cars on the road? Does he accept that, particularly in Greater Manchester, the decision to take staff off the stations has frightened a large number of passengers away from those stations? Would not it be far better to ensure that public transport was effective in the area?
    Mr. Key: Public transport already receives 40 per cent. of the Department's budget for only 10 per cent. of the journeys, and the massive investment in the Manchester metro has been widely welcomed. More significant than the number of cars on the road is the number of journeys that they make. That is something which local authorities have the power to influence through the traffic calming schemes that have been described.

    Roads (Planning)
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to speed up the planning process for new and improved roads.
    Mr. MacGregor: We are making good progress with the package of measures that I announced last summer. We are setting up the new Highways Agency in April and I hope to make an announcement about the review of the road programme soon. We are also consulting on changes to the inquiry rule; and two trial planning conferences have been held.
    Mr. Shaw: May I express the grateful thanks of my constituents for the fantastic new road—the A20—which is dual carriageway all the way between Dover mid Perth? It has been of tremendous benefit to those working at the port, on the ferries and in the hovercraft industry. As that road has been so good to Dover, could not we speed up the process of making the A2 a dual carriageway as well?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the A20 and the effect of the A20, the M20 and the motorways thereafter, which benefit not only Dover, through its port, but businesses and individuals throughout the country. As to the A2, my hon. Friend may have in mind the Lydden to Dover improvement. The public consultation plan for 1993 was delayed, as the
    6
    traffic and engineering issues proved more complex than anticipated. Consultants are continuing their work to identify a scheme that is acceptable in acceptable in environmental, engineering and economic terms.
    Mr. Flynn: Has the Secretary of State seen the reports that there are 10,000 deaths every year from a previously unidentified source—particulate emission, known as PM10, from motor vehicle exhausts? That is in addition to the suffering caused by asthma and other health problems. Is not the insane rush for new roads being paid for by our children in premature deaths?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no insane rush for new roads. There is a determination to ensure that our road network enables businesses to be fully competitive and individuals to exercise their choice in sensible ways. One of the ways that is not sensible is for traffic to be constantly congested and almost at a halt, which is certainly environmentally unattractive. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing everything that we can to improve emissions from vehicles to offset any adverse effects.

    Road Building
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of road building in England.
    Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend intends to announce the results of his review of the road programme shortly.
    Mr. Burns: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has given such joy and pleasure to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), will my hon. Friend the Minister give equal joy to my constituents? Will he ensure that a statement is made before we rise for Easter so that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) can discover whether the unloved—indeed, the hated—proposed M12 from the M25 to Chelmsford will be ditched, thus ending the uncertainty and the blight of the green belt around that area?
    Mr. Key: It is not surprising that my hon. Friend is so much loved in his constituency given that he makes such powerful representations. I must not pre-empt the outcome of the review by commenting on individual schemes. I hope that we shall be able to announce the result of the review before Easter.
    Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for the Environment that we cannot continue to see the number of motor cars increasing so that life becomes dominated by them? Does he agree also that the car should be our servant and not our master? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that building roads leads to increased traffic? Will he introduce a comprehensive White Paper on all aspects of transport policy and use it as the foundation for a concerted transport policy?
    Mr. Key: It goes without saying that there is not a chink of light between us on these issues. That was demonstrated last week by our announcement in planning policy guidance note 13. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The problems lie not with the stock of cars but with the journeys that they make, the times of day when those journeys are made, their purpose and the

    7
    standards of emissions. Those are the important matters. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Transport Report of 1994, which was published 10 days ago, he will learn that there is no need for us to publish yet another paper to make that point.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is an urgent need to clarify whether an outer orbital road leading west from the Al20 through Essex and Hertfordshire will be built as there is considerable apprehension in villages in my constituency and others in west Essex and Hertfordshire about the destruction that such a road could cause?
    Mr. Key: Yes, I do.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister say now what proportion of the present road building plans will be abandoned and how many will be deferred?
    Mr. Key: No. I cannot pre-empt the review that my right hon. Friend will seek to conclude before Easter.

    Road Crashes
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will repeat the research into the comparative contributions to injury road crashes of the road environment, road user behaviour and vehicle condition.
    Mr. Key: No. There is no reason to believe that such a project would produce significantly different results from the earlier research. It would not, therefore, be the most effective use of road safety research funds.
    Mr. Bottomley: I would not dispute that, but if we have managed virtually to halve the number of fatalities on our roads over the years, it would surely be worth while moving on to consider the interrelationship between the vehicle, the road environment and the road user. Will we continue to undertake detailed research to assertain what further measures can be taken that will have a practical effect? One reason why we have done so well is that we have based various measures on research findings.
    Mr. Key: Yes. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done over many years on road safety. He is right to stress that what matters is solid research and the basing of policies on the statistical evidence that is provided. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there could be some merit in further research, especially on vehicle standards, in which substantial improvements have taken place over the past 20 years. We might expect those improvements to be reflected in the percentage of accidents that are due to vehicle defects. That is why my Department will continue to spend a substantial sum on road research.
    Mr. Barnes: Could such research tell us which are the responsibilities of the European Union and which are those of the United Kingdom? Transport obviously goes throughout Europe and we need clearly determined divisions. Such research could be disseminated throughout Europe. The results of research undertaken in other parts of Europe could be made available to us so that we know what action needs to be taken.
    Mr. Key: Only last Thursday, I opened a conference in the Methodist central hall in London on access to European research by more than 200 British research institutes,
    8
    university departments and private sector researchers as well as local authorities. There is no difficulty in defining what is European and what is British in many areas of research. The issue is straightforward. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know more about that, I am sure that I could help him.
    Mr. Mans: In answer to Question 4 on traffic calming, my hon. Friend said that calming measures have substantially reduced pedestrian and cyclist deaths. Will he consider again the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) that further research be undertaken to ascertain whether specific sums could be allocated to schemes that have clearly been successful in the past and would be more successful in future if there were more of them?
    Mr. Key: It was my hon. Friend's Bill that brought in traffic calming measures, so we all have a great deal for which to thank him. I give my hon. Friend my word that there is a substantial amount of ongoing research in these areas which will continue to be undertaken. By the expenditure of modest sums, many lives can be saved—that is a fact we cannot ignore.
    Ms Walley: If the Minister is telling the House that research is so important, why can we not have a real commitment to independent research? Why is he going ahead with the proposal to privatise the Transport Research Laboratory in Crowthorne? Will he tell us that he will do exactly what he has done with the Vehicle Inspectorate? Do we not owe it to all those families who have had people injured or killed in road accidents to do everything possible in terms of transport research?
    Mr. Key: Yes, but it is a matter not just of research but of driver behaviour. That is why we are undertaking a whole range of measures which will ensure that there are safer drivers on our roads. Those measures include the theory test, the engineering of better roads and the manufacture of safer cars. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it quite clear what he is minded to do about the future of that excellent organisation, the Transport Research Laboratory, and he will be announcing the way forward shortly.
    Sir Anthony Grant: As most motor vehicle accidents are caused by the lunatic practice of vehicles driving too close to each other, and as research in other countries has shown that technologically it is perfectly possible to put a stop to that practice, what are the Government doing about this matter?
    Mr. Key: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as an acknowledged member of the Guild of Experienced Motorists. Such research has been done not only overseas but in this country at the Transport Research Laboratory as a joint European research project. I have been in vehicles at the research laboratory and it is perfectly possible to do as my hon. Friend suggests, but it is quite expensive and the research is in its early stages. That does not mean that we should stop now, and we will not stop. We will continue the research because it can save lives and lead to better management of traffic, which means better use of the roads that we have.

    Station Staffing
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many stations within the Network SouthEast operating region are unstaffed after 6 pm and at weekends; and if he will provide comparable figures for 1979.
    Mr. Freeman: There are approximately 1,000 stations in the Network SouthEast operational area. British Rail management informs me that approximately 80 per cent. of Network SouthEast stations are unstaffed after 6 pm, approximately 30 per cent. are unstaffed on Saturdays, and 50 per cent. are unstaffed on Sundays.
    Mrs. Prentice: Is not it an absolute disgrace that four out of five of our stations are unstaffed after 6 o'clock in the evening, given that, as the Minister must be aware, at least two assaults take place every day on Network SouthEast stations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at stations such as Lee in my constituency, women are frightened to travel on trains because there are no station staff and that British Rail is losing money because there are no staff in the booking halls either?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady is right. I think that British Rail is losing revenue because of the perception of fear. That is the situation in the public sector. Once we begin to franchise railway services, matters will improve because there will be more commercial activity at the stations and because private sector operators will want to see more passengers using the trains and will be likely to have more staff and use the existing staff more flexibly.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister stop trying to run away from his responsibility? After being in power for 15 years—during which time they have run down the staffing of so many stations—why do the Government not now accept their responsibility in this area and get the staff back to ensure that the public are safe and can pay their fares, that Network SouthEast can increase its revenue and that we can have a better rail service now?
    Mr. Freeman: That will happen if the hon. Gentleman and his supporters back the principle of passenger rail franchising.

    Natural Gas Vehicles
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has carried out into the effectiveness as a form of transport of vehicles powered by natural gas.
    Mr. Key: Two studies are already in hand. I am announcing a third study today, involving trials of natural gas and other popular alternative fuels.
    Mr. Lidington: I am grateful for that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that gas-powered vehicles produce far fewer noxious emissions than vehicles powered by internal combustion engines? Will he talk with his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury to see whether the present excessively high rates of duty on natural gas as a vehicle fuel could be reduced to allow those environmentally friendly vehicles to gain in popularity?
    Mr. Key: Rates of fuel duty are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, Customs and Excise is considering a fresh
    10
    approach by which duty would relate to weight rather than to volume and to unleaded rather than leaded petrol. That would provide a simple and equitable taxation framework as the energy content of compressed natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas are similar when related to weight.

    Heavy Lorries
    Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the relative friendliness to the environment of 44-tonne lorries and 38-tonne lorries.
    Mr. MacGregor: I see a positive advantage to the use of 44-tonne lorries for combined road-rail transport. That means fewer lorries, it transfers freight from road to rail and so benefits the environment.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend realise that my constituents are concerned about the increasing size of lorries, and are particularly concerned about the way in which lorries use side streets as short cuts? Should not we be doing more about encouraging rail-road routes?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is precisely what the increase to 44 tonnes for combined road-rail transport will do. It is also important to underline that that does not actually mean larger lorries. Those lorries will, in themselves, get more freight back on to rail and, in so doing, assist the process. However, in themselves, they do not mean larger lorries.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Secretary of State agree that the history of increases in lorry weight and size is one not of a reduced number of lorries, but of an increase in larger lorries on our roads? Although the increase to 44 tonnes may not involve much greater external dimensions, will not it mean potentially greater axle weights and more damage to our roads? Does not the Secretary of State realise that, if we do not want those juggernauts going to every nook and corner of our country, we must keep a right of veto in the Common Market because this is about standardisation of lorry weights throughout the Common Market and has nothing to do with the advantage of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MacGregor: The decision about 44-tonne combined road-rail transport, which was entirely mine, was taken to encourage more freight on to rail. With regard to road wear, a 44-tonne vehicle on six axles has the same effect on a road as a 38-tonne vehicle on five axles. We are insisting that 44-tonne vehicles have six axles.

    Lower Thames Crossing
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the lower Thames crossing study.
    Mr. Key: Consultants were appointed in May 1992 for a two-year study of the need for, and feasibility of, a lower Thames crossing downstream of Dartford. They are making good progress and their final report is expected this summer.
    Dr. Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. The A130 Canvey Island link dualling and the Saddlers Farm roundabout improvements form part of the lower Thames crossing consideration. Is my hon. Friend

    11
    aware that the Lib-Lab pact in Essex county council has recently suspended all design work on those two important schemes? Is not that shameful?
    Mr. Key: I am surprised in one sense because I know that the A130 was a contender for transport supplementary grant. That means that it will not be available later. On the other hand, I am not surprised because I happen to have two newspaper headlines from different ends of the country, one of which refers to the Liberals describing a bypass as an "environmental obscenity" and the other which states:
    "Liberals back call for a motorway."
    There we are.

    Airport Privatisations
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it is his policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports.
    Mr. Norris: Yes. It is indeed our policy to encourage local authorities to privatise their airports.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that Manchester airport has been a great success story? Does he further agree that perhaps if Manchester airport were privatised, it would be an even greater success story?
    Mr. Norris: I am delighted to see my hon. Friend here this afternoon and I confirm that I agreed with absolutely every word he said. There is a benefit there measured literally in hundreds of millions of pounds available to the hard-pressed charge payers in Manchester.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the reality with Manchester airport is that the local authorities in the area have been prepared to invest in that airport over many years? There is no information, or anything else, to show that that success will not best continue in the public sector. In view of that, would not privatisation be absolute nonsense?
    Mr. Norris: One has only to look at the success of the British Airports Authority to see how wrong is the hon. Gentleman. However well Manchester airport is doing in the public sector, it will do a damn sight better for all concerned in the private sector.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that if Manchester airport is to continue its successful expansion, it has no place whatever in the local authority sector?
    Mr. Norris: It is a general proposition that private operators are better at operating companies such as Manchester airport than local authorities, which are sensibly constituted for a different purpose. On that basis, my hon. Friend is entirely right. The great thing is that it would be very much in the interests of the people of the region not only that the airport flourishes but that the proceeds are devoted more appropriately to the many pressing needs in that area.
    Mr. Gunnell: Is not it the height of hypocrisy for Tory Members, including the Prime Minister, last week to slag off Manchester city council because of its capital debt and then to take measures to get rid of one of the council's major assets, which has achieved its quality because of the superb work done in Manchester? Why do not the
    12
    Government end the hypocrisy and show that they are willing to pay tribute to local authority enterprise, which has given us the positive airport in Manchester that exists there?
    Mr. Norris: I shall quietly tell the hon. Gentleman later what the link is between slagging off Manchester for its large public debt and the sale of an asset that could reduce that debt. I should have thought that that was obvious to most people. Certainly, in this case, if the council were serious about running its financial affairs prudently, it would welcome and, indeed, promote the sale of Manchester airport as a valuable asset.

    Rail Services (Competition)
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what effect he expects the introduction of competition to have on improvements in rail services.
    Mr. Freeman: We expect the introduction of competition to result in increased frequencies of service in response to more extensive marketing, and lower fares for certain services.
    Mr. Robinson: Once again, my right hon. Friend is talking about getting more passengers back on to the track. Will he join me in condemning the scare stories that are being put about, especially by the Liberal Democrats in towns such as Frome and Bruton, that stations are to close on 1 April, when we have improved the procedures and made it more difficult to close stations?
    Mr. Freeman: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Liberal Democrats in the south-west of England are deliberately engendering fears in the minds of passengers by forecasting station closures that will not happen.
    Mr. Olner: In these days of increased competition, is the Minister aware of the disastrous route on the west coast main line? Today, literally thousands of passengers from early in the morning until early this afternoon have been delayed, yet again, by signalling problems? How does he think competition will assist that line without the Government putting money into the infrastructure?
    Mr. Freeman: We confidently expect resignalling work on the west coast main line, to be done by a consortium of private sector companies, to begin next summer, and that the work will be done faster than the public sector would have been able to do it.

    Transatlantic Air Routes
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made towards liberalisation of transatlantic air routes.
    Mr. MacGregor: Now that the United States Secretary of Transportation has renewed the BA-USAir code sharing—a move which I welcome—I hope that we can resume the talks on liberalisation.
    Mr. Robertson: In view of the substantial liberalisation package that the United Kingdom has tabled, which includes the opening of all regional airports including Aberdeen in the north-east of Scotland, is not it totally unreasonable for the United States Government, who purport to support liberalisation, to refuse further to negotiate in order to achieve it?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that we tabled proposals that took liberalisation substantially further than anything that we had previously offered. He is right to draw attention to the fact that we proposed immediately completely to open up regional airports everywhere, and also offered further improvements at Heathrow and Gatwick. I greatly regretted that the United States called off the talks. I have been trying to get them going again. Now that the United States has given the 12-months continuation of the BA-USAir code sharing, I hope that we can take up the cudgels and try to reach agreement.

    British Rail Maintenance Depot, Eastleigh
    Mr. Denham: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to maximise orders for the British Rail maintenance depot in Eastleigh.
    Mr. Freeman: The Government's plans for transferring British Rail Maintenance Ltd. to the private sector offer the best prospects for the future of the Eastleigh depot. A privately owned company will be free to bid for railway rolling stock maintenance throughout the railway industry and for other business.
    Mr. Denham: Is not the Minister aware that yet another 180 jobs were lost at BRML in Eastleigh last week and that many jobs at BRML could be secured if work that has been done there in the past continued to be allocated to Eastleigh? Does he accept that he has never given any instructions to the British Rail board to maximise the work that is being done at Eastleigh depot? Are not those workers, that community and my constituents suffering from the Government's dogma, which insists on pushing work out to other companies rather than continuing to be done at BRML?
    Mr. Freeman: It would be highly improper for the Government to issue instructions to British Rail to place contracts anywhere. That is what the Opposition would do, and look at the problems that they faced in the 1970s.
    I invite the hon. Gentleman to agree that the reason for the reduced work load at Eastleigh and at other BRML depots is that modern technology in building railway rolling stock means that less heavy maintenance is needed halfway through their lives. Why does not the hon. Gentleman adopt a positive rather than negative attitude to the future of the Eastleigh depot?

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions in the past 10 years his Department has issued to the courts a variation of the standard form public interest immunity certificates.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): No record has been kept of the number of public interest immunity certificates signed by a Law Officer over the last 10 years. Any certificate would have been specifically drafted for the particular case.
    Mr. Rooker: If that is the case, and as it appears that certificates are made up as we go along and that there is no standard form, how can some Ministers stand up in public
    14
    and say that they had no discretion but to sign what was put in front of them while other Ministers are allowed to write their own certificates? Surely that is an abuse of power which the Attorney-General has failed to bring to heel. Does not the evidence that has been published and put before the Scott inquiry this morning condemn the right hon. and learned Gentleman for negligence in that respect?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that any one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman on the subject is correct. I am to give evidence to the Scott inquiry on Thursday and I look forward to doing so.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the purpose of public interest immunity certificates is simply to put the facts before the judge and that it is for the judge to decide whether those should be disclosed to the defence?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a balance is to be struck—unless it is in a clear case—it is to be struck not by a Minister, but by the judge.
    Mr. Fraser: Can the Attorney-General say whether the President of the Board of Trade was correct when he said that the attention of the judge and the defence would be drawn to his specially abbreviated form of public interest immunity certificate?
    The Attorney-General: As the hon. Gentleman knows well, those matters are being investigated by Lord Justice Scott.

    Prosecutions (Victims' Interests)
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Attorney-General whether the interests of victims are taken into account by the Crown Prosecution Service when deciding whether to prosecute.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): When the Crown Prosecution Service is deciding whether to continue proceedings the interests of the victim are an important factor in determining the balance of the public interest.
    Mr. Coombs: My hon. and learned Friend will be well aware of the strong public feeling on the recent Roberts case in Plymouth. Is he absolutely satisfied that the interests of the families of people such as Jonathan Roberts are sufficiently taken into consideration by the judicial system?
    The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has already called for the papers in that case and in another case in which the same judge sentenced the following day. My right hon. and learned Friend will receive advice from Treasury Counsel and will then make up his mind whether the sentences were unduly lenient. If he comes to that conclusion, he will refer the cases to the Court of Appeal for review.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Solicitor-General agree that many of the problems could be resolved if, from time to time, the Court of Appeal reviewed tariffs in general?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will agree that that is one of the functions that the Court of Appeal carries out from time to time when my right hon. and

    15
    learned Friend the Attorney-General refers sentences to it as unduly lenient. It also does that in other appropriate circumstances, as it sees fit.
    Mr. Nicholls: Is not it a fact that even where a tariff exists, the judge still has the ultimate responsibility to set a sentence between the minimum and maximum prescribed by law? Ultimately, it is his job to make that decision and to stand by it.
    The Solicitor-General: The judiciary is independent of political influence. Anyone who has had any experience as a judge in court knows that sentencing requires sense and sensibility. It is one thing to sentence as a paper exercise and another to do it when one can see the whites of the defendant's eyes.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Solicitor-General aware of the concern throughout Britain about the rarity of the preferring of charges of manslaughter where death has been caused by careless or dangerous driving? Will he look into the exceptional circumstances that are deemed to be necessary to bring such charges? Will he have some discussion about the matter with the Crown Prosecution Service?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times. Recently, we increased the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving and other similar offences from five to 10 years. In any event, in the case of Seymour, a House of Lords decision made plain what are the appropriate circumstances for preferring a charge of manslaughter.

    Bail Objections
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Attorney-General what matters are taken into account by the Crown Prosecution Service when deciding whether to object to bail.
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown Prosecution Service takes into account the considerations and exceptions to bail set out in the Bail Act 1976 and any other relevant information available to it, including material from the police, the probation service and other sources.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the widespread public concern about the number of people who re-offend while out on bail? Is not that a dangerous loophole, which law-abiding people throughout Britain have a right to see closed as soon as possible?
    The Solicitor-General: It is, and we are closing it. The first measure that we have taken is already on the statute book. The Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), will give the prosecution the right of appeal against the decision of a magistrates court to grant bail. Also, two provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, if enacted, will remove the presumption of bail for defendants charged with indictable and either-way offences and refuse bail in cases of persons charged with homicide or rape, if they have previously been convicted of either offence.

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what re-assessment he is making of the operation of public interest immunity certificates.
    The Attorney-General: Public interest immunity certificates are one of the subjects under investigation by Lord Justice Scott. The Government will give careful consideration to any conclusions and recommendations in his report.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Attorney-General realise that in asking the House to believe what he told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) earlier—that the Department has not kept records of the number of people who signed the certificates in the past 10 years—he must be guilty of either a cover-up or incompetence? When the President of the Board of Trade refused to sign the certificate, did not it cross the Attorney-General's mind that he should have told those people who were heading for the court that it was wrong for them to be sent to gaol when he was bending the law on their behalf?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman would do well to wait for my evidence on Thursday.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend turn his mind to the best guidance on the use of public interest immunity certificates, which is contained in footnotes in a law book in print so small that most people commenting on that, whether in the House or in the press, have not been able to read it? Will he consider whether an enlarged version of what is in the law book could be made available to everyone?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right that the footnotes to the "Supreme Court Practice" are in print suitable for a prayer book. An enlarging photocopier might be of considerable assistance.

    War Crimes
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to bring prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991.
    The Attorney-General: The Metropolitan police war crimes unit is still actively pursuing its inquiries under the War Crimes Act 1991. Those inquiries are not yet complete and the question of a possible prosecution or prosecutions cannot be considered until they are concluded.
    Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that when that legislation came before the House, many Conservative Members voted against it, including Cabinet Ministers? Does he appreciate that it is costing millions of pounds? About 10 detectives are being employed pursuing it, and would not they be much better employed seeking serious villains in Greater London?
    The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's point of view, but the House passed the Bill by a large majority and it is now being followed through.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Population Initiative
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the Overseas Development Administration since 1991 in implementing its population initiative.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Forty-five new bilateral projects have now been funded, involving commitments of £37.5 million. A further £54.6 million of additional multilateral aid has been committed.
    Sir David Knox: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress that has been made. What steps are being taken to encourage other countries, especially those in the European Union, to give further assistance to population initiatives?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, we promote population initiatives wherever we can. We must press the idea more on the European Community. The ODA helped to plan and present a population seminar in Brussels on 28 February, which was attended by a large number of senior EC officials. We are also helping the Commission to plan new programmes in Egypt and in Kenya.

    Aid Criteria
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes he proposes to the criteria for the choice of countries to receive overseas aid from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We continue to give aid in the light of need and to promote economic and social development.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is not Dr. Mahathir's letter to the Financial Times confirmation of the damage done by the persistently negative character of our media, aided and abetted by Her Majesty's official Opposition, who are, with cavalier disregard, prepared to put, in the one case, proprietorial profit and, in the other, partisan political advantage, ahead of British people's jobs? Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the money for the Pergau dam was in the form of a loan, that that loan, with a British project, would have gone towards paying a British company and that, in the world we live in, such assistance makes every kind of sense?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can confirm that it was in the form of a loan on concessional terms. Of course we are proud of the fact that we have a free press in Britain, but I have to agree with my hon. Friend that some newspapers have written nonsense and made some serious inaccuracies. As for the role of the Opposition in that, I can conclude only that they somehow seem to believe that there is good politics in destroying British jobs.
    Sir David Steel: Will the Minister consider the example of the Governments of Japan, of the Netherlands, of Denmark and of other countries, all of whom make the spending of the recipient country on military matters one of the criteria for deciding their aid budget? If they decide that Indonesia is rich enough to spend vast sums on armaments, why do we alone decide that it should receive large quantities of aid?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to allege that Indonesia is spending such a high percentage of its gross domestic product on armaments. It is spending less than 2 per cent. of its gross domestic product on armaments. Indonesia is a fine example of a country with a sound record of economic management. In 1970, about 60 per cent. of the population was living below the poverty line; by 1990, only 15 per cent. were. When we speak about what other countries are doing, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that 5 per cent. of the British aid budget is for aid and trade provision projects such as Pergau, compared with the 14 per cent. of the German aid budget and the 28 per cent. of the Austrian aid budget spent in that way.
    Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend include in the criteria that he is developing countries whose economies have been ruined by policies pursued by the European Community—for example, the banana protocol and banana GATT arrangements, which will undoubtedly undermine the Caribbean banana industry?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We shall consider in any part of the world countries with the right criteria—those with a per capita income of less than $700 a year—for ATP projects that would benefit the country, the aid programme, British industry and British jobs.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that the Opposition will always support projects that are developmentally sound? If so, I trust that he will dismiss the views of Sir Timothy Lankester, which have been disowned by the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). On the allocation of limited aid funds, does the Minister accept that some countries are absolutely crippled by debt? For instance, a third of Uganda's revenue is being used to service debt at the expense of health, education, pure water and other important needs. Will he therefore encourage the International Monetary Fund and the World bank to take a more reasonable view of those appalling problems than that taken by some Conservative Members?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the ATP programme, because it was invented by the last Labour Government. I am glad to say that the Pergau project will be worth 29,000 man years for British workers and that 110 British subcontractors and suppliers will gain business from it. The hon. Gentleman knows that Britain has led the way in debt relief. In 1990, we launched the Trinidad terms—18 countries, 13 of which are in Africa, have benefited so far from that—and we have relieved developing countries of more than £1 billion of the aid debt burden.

    Environmental Sustainability
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Overseas Development Administration takes to ensure that all aid projects are assessed for their environmental sustainability.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All projects are subject to environmental assessment according to the guidelines and procedures set out in the ODA manual of environmental appraisal.
    Mr. Deva: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that environmental concerns in developing

    19
    countries will be further strengthened by the recent signing of the global environmental facility? Will he elaborate on how that might help?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. Following the recent negotiations in Geneva, I am delighted to report that the GEF was successfully restructured and replenished. Britain pledged £89.5 million worth of support. The global environmental facility will help to alleviate global environmental threats. The agreement must be good news for the implementation of the climate change and biodiversity conventions.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Pergau dam proposal was first put to the ODA, did not it fail the appraisal procedure to which the Minister referred? On the so-called "loan" given to the Malaysians, who is paying the difference between the rate at which the Malaysians received the money and the cost of borrowing the money in the United Kingdom? Is not the difference paid by British taxpayers?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The environmental and social impacts of the Pergau project are negligible compared with other dam schemes. The review of environmental information concluded that there were no environmental issues that would prejudice funding. The project has incurred minimal adverse impact on primary rain forest and rare wildlife species. Obviously, taxpayers, through the aid budget, fund the concessional nature of the loan.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Are not the various projects funded by Britain in the tropical rain forests in Brazil precise examples of the fact that our aid programme is devoted to environmental sustainability?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: A great deal of care is taken to ensure that all projects are appraised for environmental
    20
    impact. The ODA has an environmental appraisal manual, which was first published in 1989. Some 1,800 copies have been distributed, all staff are trained in using the manual and training is on-going.

    Pergau Dam
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration has been given to withdrawing from the Pergau dam project.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None. Construction is on schedule for completion in 1996.
    Ms Eagle: Given that it is now clear that the ODA contribution to the Pergau dam project has been used to facilitate the accumulation of massive profits from privatisation for a few rich Malaysian individuals, will the Minister consider asking the Malaysian Government whether they believe that overseas aid is being abused?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Some £4 billion worth of British exports have been assisted by the aid and trade provision. I have set out the benefits that have derived from the Pergau contract. Ministers have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that most people are amazed at the Opposition's campaign against a project that has resulted in the trebling of British exports to Malaysia and that they regard the campaign against the project as stupid and inane? The campaign is putting at risk tens of thousands of jobs in this country. The Opposition should, instead, be commending the Government for helping British industry.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As I have said, Malaysia provides a prime example of a Government who have pulled themselves out of poverty as a result of some measure of project aid.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, under Standing Order 127, the Select Committee on European Legislation has a duty to report to the House when there arise matters of legal and political importance with regard to documents that have been laid before the Council of Ministers. The Standing Order refers also to documents laid by one institution of the Community with another. You will be aware also that, unlike the treaty on European Union, which was signed at Maastricht, the negotiations between the Union and membership applicants are a matter not for intergovernmental negotiations but for decision by the institutions of the Community and its Council within its own treaties. Documents relating to the blocking minority figures 23 and 27 have been laid before the Council and, indeed, were discussed last week and will be discussed tomorrow.
Are you, Madam Speaker, aware that no report relating to the matters placed before the Select Committee on European Legislation has been made by memorandum? As hon. Members are under the impression that the resolution of the House of 24 October 1990 requires Ministers not to take decisions before such scrutiny has taken place, are not the Government beholden to report by memorandum and by placing those documents before the House so that hon. Members may have an opportunity to debate their merits and, indeed, their importance before a Minister indicates accession or agreement? Will you, Madam Speaker, so rule?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. I can only repeat to him and to the House what I have already said to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash): that no text relevant to the issue he wishes to debate is available for scrutiny by the Select Committee on European Legislation. The chapter entitled "Institutions" in the document that has been made available is not yet agreed, but the document itself relates to a process that is actually taking place between national Governments. National Parliaments are not, therefore, yet involved, and nothing has happened that involves the responsibility of the Chair of this House. I regret that at this stage I am unable to help the hon. Gentleman further.
Mr. Spearing: I am much obliged to you, Madam Speaker, for your ruling relating to that resolution. Will you please confirm that, whereas the Government may have—indeed, have—laid before the House documents
22
concerning legislation relating to tobacco advertising, to the social matters that are to be debated this Wednesday and to harmonisation of postal services, and whereas the House may debate those, the Government will not be required to take this action unless the resolution is changed? But nor does the resolution debar the Government from placing the documents if they so wish.
Madam Speaker: I think that my statement is absolutely clear, if the hon. Gentleman will look at it.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise with you the important subject of the accountability of Ministers to this House. Information from the evidence of Mr. Alan Moses to the Scott inquiry became available to hon. Members only this morning. The subject was raised during questions to the Attorney-General and he brushed aside questions by saying that the House will have to wait until Thursday, when he gives his evidence to the Scott inquiry.
Although the Attorney-General has a duty to give evidence to the Scott inquiry, surely he has a more important duty to give evidence to this House. Will you, Madam Speaker, rule that the accountability of Law Officers to this House is supreme and indivisible?
Madam Speaker: Ministers are of course free to reply to questions in their own way; it is not for the Speaker to put words into their mouths. But if Members are not satisfied, they can seek to pursue issues by way of debate. They cannot, however, insist on being given information in the form that they would like at Question Time. It is up to a Minister to answer as he thinks fit at Question Time.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and I, at business questions last Thursday, raised the issue of the treatment of asylum seekers by the Home Office, and the fact that more than 100 people are on hunger strike. I understand that they have been dispersed to prisons throughout the country—their only crime, seeking asylum in this country.
May I ask whether the Home Secretary has given you any intimation of his intention to hold a meeting with hon. Members who have written to him asking for such a meeting, or of his intention to come to the House to make a statement on the appalling travesty of justice that is taking place in this country?
Madam Speaker: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's first question—I do not know the intentions of the Home Secretary—but I can tell him that I have not been. informed that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that issue.

Orders of the Day

  Insolvency (No. 2) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is short but it is technical. Although I shall need to be precise in some areas, I hope that I shall be able to address the broad issues without becoming enmeshed in too much detail.
  First, I should outline the circumstances in which we have found it necessary to introduce this Bill. The Insolvency Act 1986 contains two measures, administration and administrative receivership—the latter is known in Scotland simply as receivership—which are used frequently to rescue financially troubled companies or to save viable parts of their businesses. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer simply to receivers and receivership, but the reference will be to administrative receiver and administrative receivership in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and receiver and receivership in Scotland.
  Putting together a rescue package and seeing it through to a conclusion often takes several months—if not longer. During this time the business has to be kept going and the administrator or receiver will need to keep on at least part of the work force. The legislation, however, gives him a period of grace of only 14 days before he has to decide whether to adopt their contracts of employment. In the case of administration, the effect of adoption is that in practice the obligations under the contracts of employment become expenses of the proceedings. In an administrative receivership, however, in addition to the company's continuing liability the receiver also becomes personally liable under the contract.
  Fourteen days is not a long time. It will rarely be long enough to effect a rescue or conclude a sale. Administrators and administrative receivers were clearly concerned about the implications of adopting contracts of employment right from the time the legislation came into force at the end of 1986. As early as February 1987 the receivers, in the case of Specialised Mouldings, obtained directions from the High Court that it was possible to avoid adopting such contracts but to continue to employ the employees.
  From this there developed a practice whereby receivers would send letters to employees whom they wished to retain saying in essence that they were not adopting their contracts and that they accepted no personal liability, but that they would continue to pay wages, salaries and pension contributions as before. In due course this seems to have become standard practice in cases of administration too, although the legislation does not provide for an administrator to have personal liability.
  On this basis, matters proceeded—apparently satisfactorily—for more than six years. However, in July 1993 a decision of the High Court in the case of Paramount Airways Ltd (No. 3) cast doubt on the effectiveness of the disclaimer—if I may call it that—which by then was being routinely used. There was an appeal to the Court of Appeal
  24
  in February this year which upheld the decision of the High Court. Moreover, although it was an administration case, the judgment also raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of the disclaimer in receivership cases. Since then, the general perception has been that it is no longer safe to place any reliance on the use of disclaimers, with the result that if employees are not dismissed within the 14-day grace period their contracts will be held to have been impliedly adopted.
  The consequence of the Paramount judgment is that the contractual rights arising from the termination by administrators of contracts of employment that they had adopted, even unwittingly, constitute a priority charge on the company's assets. Insolvency practitioners concluded that the effect of that might be so to encumber the company that there would be no substance left upon which to base an effective rescue package. Understandably, they were even more alarmed at the prospect, in receiverships, of incurring substantial personal liability. The result was likely to be that they would resort to wholesale dismissal of employees unless the business could be sold within 14 days. That would not have been good for business, employment or the economy.
  Right hon. and hon Members will recall that on 14 March my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement to the House on the issue. He said that he intended to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity which would enable an administrator or a receiver to adopt a contract of employment with more restricted effects than at present. That commitment is now honoured in the Bill. The aim is to discourage administrators and receivers from dismissing employees simply because of the fear of the extensive liabilities which may be incurred—in the case of receivers, extensive personal liabilities—as a result of the adoption of the contracts. Under the proposals, only qualifying liabilities, which I shall shortly describe, would be incurred.
  In the case of administration, that aim would be achieved by the amendments to section 19 of the Insolvency Act 1986 contained in clause 1 of the Bill. Those amendments provide that only qualifying liabilities would in future be covered by the statutory priority charge over a company's assets. Qualifying liabilities are defined broadly as wages or salary or contributions to an occupational pension scheme in respect of services rendered after the adoption of the contract. That would also cover rights to holiday pay and sickness pay arising after adoption.
  In the case of administrative receiverships, the aim is achieved by amendments to section 44 of the Act, which are contained in clause 2 of the Bill. Those amendments also restrict the receiver's personal liability—and consequently his statutory right of indemnity from the company's assets—to only qualifying liabilities as I have just described them.
  Clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for amendment of section 57 of the Act. It introduces the limited personal liability of the new scheme into the Scottish system of receivership. Clause 4 and schedule 1 provide for the Bill's effects to be brought about in Northern Ireland by amendment of the relevant provisions of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
  There will be, of course, entirely understandable concern that the proposed amendments should not disadvantage employees whose contract is terminated by an administrator or receiver. They do not.

  25
  Liabilities, other than qualifying liabilities, arising from a contract of employment will remain, but they will be treated as an unsecured claim against the company. Moreover, the proposals will not affect the employee's position under employment law.
  This measure is not intended to overturn the decision in the Paramount Airways case, which may go to appeal. It would apply only to contracts that are adopted on or after 15 March 1994. Any contract adopted before then will not be affected by the changes.
  It is hoped, of course, that the proposals will be adopted and that as a result it will prove possible more often to return companies to viability or to sell their businesses as going concerns. In that way, employees will keep their jobs. They would not be affected by the proposals because their contracts of employment would not have been terminated.
  That brings me back to the concerns that have caused us to act so quickly to resolve the difficulty. Those concerns are recognised on both sides of the House. In that context, I should like to thank the Opposition for their constructive approach in facilitating the measure. It cannot be in anyone's interests for administrators or receivers to feel constrained to close businesses and dismiss employees because they cannot risk an otherwise viable rescue plan being subverted by the burden of rights that arise when they find it necessary to terminate a contract of employment that they have adopted, or because they would be personally liable for those costs.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Bill is very narrow and I suppose that it will remain so. As I am suspicious about what the Government might do, however, and as I have read in the newspapers that many Tory Members of Parliament are heading for bankruptcy, can the Minister assure us that this narrow Bill will not be amended here or in another place to ensure that they are rescued from bankruptcy? He says that he does not believe in intervening in the market, so will he give us an assurance that, in the life of this Parliament, no Tory Members who have got up to their necks in debt with Lloyd's will be rescued by the Government, which means by the taxpayer?
  Mr. Hamilton: Like the hon. Gentleman, I wear my badge of poverty with some pride. I am not one of those people who have ever been a part of Lloyd's or a party to any other investment in which I stood to lose any substantial sum. I cannot foretell the circumstances in which the House or another place might amend the Bill. As a general rule, Ministers are not too keen on their legislation being amended. I do not propose to amend the Bill and my proposals are before the House. I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requests, but it is not for me to foretell the future.
  It cannot be in anyone's interests for businesses that might otherwise be saved to be closed down as a result of the adventitious circumstances that gave rise to the need for us to legislate in this form today.
  The statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 14 March was welcomed on both sides of the House. The Bill will give effect to his proposals, and on that basis I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members.
  3.46 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for his short and technical introduction to our Second Reading debate on what he describes as the broad issues. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) brought to the attention of the House one of those issues by mentioning one of the great difficulties that may lie ahead for the Government. They may find that they are forced into different streams and torrents, and that they have to distort the meaning of the Bill.
  When the President of the Board of Trade, who is not here today, made his statement last week, he reminded me of the opening of the first motorway in Lancashire. Harold Macmillan, who was then Prime Minister, opened it, but two weeks later it was closed for repairs. At the time, Harold Wilson said that it was a pity that the Prime Minister had been invited to the opening but not to the closure.
  We cannot lay the blame for the Insolvency Act 1986 at the door of the President of the Board of Trade. He was on a short trek through the wilderness at that time and was writing such lively and entertaining books as, "Where There's A Will" and showing us what a real interventionist in the economy can do. However, the right hon. Gentleman had to tell the House about the difficulties that resulted from the 1986 Act.
  The Under-Secretary of State took us a little way through the variety of legal circuits that have had to be followed. The Bill came about because of a court ruling in the case of Nicoll v. Cutts, followed by that in the case of Specialised Mouldings Ltd. on 13 February 1987. The latter judgment was never properly reported, which is astonishing. There was no report or transcript of the judgment, no note of the reasons why Mr. Justice Harman reached his conclusions and no details of the facts of the case were given. No helpful authority was given for the judgment; and that is not merely my view, but that of the Court of Appeal.
  Since 1987, the Government and practitioners of insolvency law have known that they had little authority for allowing receivers to escape their liabilities by sending a letter saying that they had not adopted the contracts of employment. Everyone knew that that was bad and unsafe law, yet the Government did nothing about it. That says a lot about the Executive; it also says something about our legislature.
  The legislation had its Committee stage, and experts served on the Committee. Time and again, Tories with expertise and knowledge are metaphorically bound and gagged in Committee: they are not allowed to say a single word that might delay the proceedings. Notwithstanding all that was said by insolvency practitioners at the time, the Bill reached the statute book—with a hidden timebomb ticking away under every insolvency practitioner in the country.
  On 14 March, on the Floor of the House, the President of the Board of Trade promised this legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has said, Opposition Members are concerned about the public interest, and will facilitate the Bill's passage; nevertheless, we are anxious about certain omissions. One such omission—with which we may deal

  27
  later, in Committee—relates to law-of-property receivers who are sent in, on behalf of banks and building societies, to recover big single assets such as hotels and office blocks.
  The Minister and his Department may well have accepted that hotels and office blocks do not necessarily employ staff, and that contracts of employment will not be involved in such cases; if they are not involved, they should not be included in the legislation. As has been said, however, when staff are involved they may need to remain involved. That suggests that an appropriate amendment should be tabled to cover the provisions of section 37 of the 1986 Act.
  I listened with interest to the Minister's clarification of the Government's position on retrospection. He said that the Bill would not be retrospective but would take effect from 15 March. In 1964, we had a Labour Government, whose first act was to pass retrospective legislation in respect of Burmah Oil, to reverse a decision of the Law Lords in the national interest. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade is somewhat exercised by the question whether to start from the position of 14 or 15 March, or whether to go back to 1987: he said last week that there was a question of retrospection, and I believe that he was thinking very deeply about that.
  The Bill raises a serious issue. The Minister seemed to be saying that he did not wish to overrule the decision of the Court of Appeal. However, he is doing what should have been done years ago—rectifying an error that turned up in the Insolvency Act 1986. I fear—as do insolvency practitioners—that a number of law suits may result from the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned Lloyd's of London; but professional indemnity insurers, who may have to pick up the tab, must be worried about the possibility of consequential claims on the insurance market. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), with his knowledge of insolvency matters, may wish to help us in that regard.
  Perhaps the Minister will give us a fuller explanation in Committee, but I am not entirely sure that it is wise to make the Bill retrospective only to 15 March, rather than taking the retrospection back to 1987. The former date may create uncertainty among lawyers, insolvency practitioners and those who have lost their jobs in the past few years, and who may suddenly feel that they have a claim that can be honoured.
  Let me deal with some of the points made last week. The Minister has rightly said that this is a narrow, technical Bill. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) are still concerned about a matter that they raised then—the £205 redundancy money. That is not a huge sum in this day and age; it is certainly less than the average industrial wage. We feel that statutory redundancy money should be increased to bring it into line with that average.
  As we are amending the 1986 Act, we should ask how that Act came to be such a disappointment. Was it overwhelmed by the number of insolvencies and bankruptcies that occurred in a recession that lasted three years? Was it overwhelmed by the number of firms that went into administration and receivership, or was the Bill simply flawed? Do those flaws still confront the House and insolvency practitioners?
  28
  We are pleased that the number of insolvencies is reducing, from the high of 5,734 appointments in administration and receivership in 1991 and 3,266 in 1992, but the target of 2,000 in 1994 hardly gives the impression that the economy is thriving.
  More than 4,000 firms were wound up and more than 6,000 individuals were declared bankrupt in 1992–93 as a result of actions brought by Government Departments. Those figures came from the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. Many of those actions were taken by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. I fully accept that they must both look after taxpayers' interests, but these may be equally served by keeping men and women in work and businesses viable and solvent.
  Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue specialised units involved in debt recovery take into account a variety of factors, such as the company's tax history, the need to ensure future compliance and expectations if a business continues to trade. Perhaps we will learn later today, or after publication of the Government's consultation paper on the future of insolvency law, whether the United Kingdom will go to the lengths of Australia, Denmark and Canada in reducing the preferential status of the taxman.
  Mr. Derek Enright: I share the suspicions of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Has my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) considered the case of Unicorn Heritage plc, which took £200,000 from the Government and subsequently went bankrupt? That put many other firms into bankruptcy, yet Unicorn Heritage's investors were again awarded money direct from the Government in tax returns. People employed by that company, and also those who were on its board and who played a leading part, are still able to conduct other profitable businesses and have important jobs in the Treasury. Should not that scandal be put right in future, if not by the Bill?
  Mr. Bell: I entirely agree. We have expressed concern on many occasions about phoenix companies that go into liquidation but whose directors rise from the ashes, whereas the work force pay a heavy penalty—which is aggravated by statutory redundancy money not being as much as it should be.
  We will extend as much co-operation as we can to the Minister in the preparation of a proper insolvency Bill that can be appropriately debated at every stage. We want to identify how, out of the morass of insolvency, there may be more management and worker buy-outs and employee share ownership schemes, and how those could be developed as a first option for any company in difficulty. Employees who have invested their working lives in a company should enjoy a return by having some say in the company's survival and future.
  We are looking, not for a technical Bill that modifies a weakness in the law that was perceived way back in 1987, but for a comprehensive review of insolvency law, to make it easier and cheaper to obtain an administration order, to abolish the law of distress, encouraging creditors and Government Departments to use accountants to look at alternatives before closing a business, and looking more closely at the moratorium aspects of business debts. We must move away from the concept of closing down viable businesses. We must establish a culture in which troubled companies, professional advisers, creditors and

  29
  Government are committed to ensuring that troubled businesses, when essentially sound, survive periods of economic downturn.
  As we said earlier, in the public interest and that of workers, management and business who may be uncertain, we are happy to give the Bill latitude in the House after it has been given due debate on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. Nevertheless, the matter should have been brought to the House and the weakness in the law rectified a long time ago. We welcome the fact that the Government have now brought it to our attention.
  4 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: The hon. Member for Middlesborough (Mr. Bell) referred to my background as an accountant. I remind the House that I served on the Committee that considered the Insolvency Bill in 1985. The hon. Gentleman referred to, perhaps, the too hasty passage of that Bill. It was anything but hasty. It was an epic occasion, as I remember it, with more than 1,000 amendments tabled in the House. The debate went on for weeks and months. The Bill came out in a somewhat better form than many of us who served on the Committee thought likely as there had been so many amendments.
  It might be helpful if I explain some of the background to the situation that we now face. It was nearly 10 years before the matter came before the court; in fact it came before the court shortly after the 1986 Act came into force on a case involving Specialised Mouldings Ltd. That case did not have the full hearing that the recent Paramount Airways case did. The receiver went to the judge and said, "I am faced with a difficult decision here. This is what I think I ought to do, but will you tell me whether I am right?" The judge told him that he was right and upheld the situation that had previously prevailed for employee claims up until that time. That decision does not seem to have counted in the way that it might have, because. as I understand it, no transcript was made of the proceedings as has been done in the Paramount Airways case.
  It was on the basis of the Specialised Mouldings decision that the rescue operations for thousands of companies have taken place in the past few years. It is the doubt over the situation in those rescued companies—or cases where attempts were made to rescue companies—that gives me most concern tonight. I congratulate my hon. Friends on their speedy action in putting the situation right for the future in the light of the Paramount Airways decision. I know that there are cases throughout the country, such as the one mentioned recently in my local paper, where an attempt to save a firm will get a boost from the action now being taken. But for that action being taken, I believe that we would have seen the end of recovery situations, which is the principal aim of the insolvency legislation—to try to rescue companies and preserve jobs. We are right in putting the Bill through speedily tonight to remove the doubt and uncertainty that there would otherwise be.
  The Paramount case may well go to the Lords on appeal, but we do not know what the outcome of that would be. Three learned judges in the Court of Appeal have decided as they have. I am not sure whether they had the benefit of a full explanation of the thinking m the House during the Report stage of the Insolvency Bill when the matter came up for consideration. If one reads
  30
  Hansard, one sees that it is quite clear that the aim was not as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the recent case. It was to
  "catch the case where a receiver knowingly allows an employee to contribute his services and says nothing to him for more than 14 days about payment for those services."—[Official Report, 18 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 544.]
  The consequences of that would have been that an individual could have been employed by a receiver and never paid for being employed by him. The section was supposed to deal with that situation. No intention was ever outlined in Committee to bring about the consequences that the judges in the Paramount Airways case have held to be the law.
  I believe that the Government are right in what they are seeking to do today, but I have grave doubts about what will happen if the need to clear up the situation for the intervening years from 1985–86 to now is not tackled. The seriousness of the situation must be stressed. Many companies are involved and, potentially, many claims could be made on the basis of the interpretation of the law in the Paramount Airways judgment, which was completely different from what the law used to be before the 1986 Act, from what was said to be the intention that lay behind that measure, from the interpretation that was applied in Specialised Mouldings and from what everyone thought the position to be in the interim, including the Department of Employment, which confirmed recently that it believes that the decision in Specialised Mouldings to be the right one and will continue to apply it.
  I am supportive of the amendment that, technically, has been tabled at the last moment. If it had not been that I was on the train travelling down from Tynemouth, I would have signed it. We should give great consideration to the need to correct the situation back to 1985–86.
  Similarly, I would have been happy to support the amendment that would bring section 37 of the 1986 Act within the proposed provision if I had been able to do so. Why should the receivers who are covered by section 37 be treated differently from other receivers? We are talking of receivers or managers who are appointed under powers that are contained in an instrument for certain contracts. They have always been treated in exactly the same way as other receivers in respect of the priority of debts. I can see no reason why that should not be the position now. I am happy to support the relevant amendment.
  The aim of all insolvency legislation is to preserve jobs. The action that we are taking—I have suggested previously that we should take it—will be helpful in preserving jobs in future. Without it, rescue operations will not be mounted. It is in all our interests that they should take place wherever possible, and those involved should be given every assistance to ensure that the operations are successful and preserve jobs for the future.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: There is more or less unanimity in the Chamber this afternoon. Anyone who recognises the positive role that receivers have played in company rescues in the years since the Insolvency Act 1986 will welcome the Bill and appreciate that the major disruption in the work of receivers that has been caused by the recent judgment warrants an immediate response. We have before us an attempt to restore what was perceived to be the position before the Paramount Airways judgment.

  31
  Will the Minister confirm that it was the Government's intention when they introduced the 1986 Act—I think that that happened in 1984–85—to make the law as it will become when the changes that are set out in the Bill take effect? That is a key question. Our response to other issues, including those raised by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) in relation to past receiverships, will perhaps hinge on the Minister's answer. Given the speed of the Government's reaction, it seems that a serious drafting error was made in the past. There should not be such major ambiguity in company law.
  The error was not so transparent that it became quickly obvious, otherwise the present practice would not have continued for so long. It cannot be certain, therefore, that the Paramount Airways judgment will survive following appeal to the House of Lords. The Government are right not to wait to find out what will happen there, assuming that the matter goes to the House of Lords, but I would think that the receivers will insist that it does.
  Am I right in thinking that confusion hangs on the meaning of "adoption" as used in present legislation? Is it possible that the word is interpreted differently in English and Northern Ireland law from Scottish law? Why is there no definition of "adoption"? It reappears in the Bill, and the provision of a definition would bring an end to any confusion. Presumably, those who drafted the Bill considered the meaning to be so well known that a definition was not required. In that case, I think it might be helpful to practitioners if, in his summing up, the Minister would define very clearly what is meant by the word "adoption". Should a receiver or an administrative receiver adopt the contracts of employees if he is not necessarily aware of them at the time? For example, at the time that a contract is dealt with there may be employees on extended sick leave or maternity leave who are not on the payroll. Despite this fact, are those employees "adopted" in the sense of the Act? I think it is important for people to know what the Act means in this regard.
  I raised the question about on-going receiverships in the discussion which followed the announcement by the President of the Board of Trade and I accepted his explanation that he could not introduce retrospective legislation. As hon. Members know, that news has cost jobs already. A company called Michael Mayes—I think the Minister will know of it—is trading at Thurnscoe in south Yorkshire in the Dearne valley and its chances of survival beyond the next day or two are now remote. We were given a ruling that this legislation could not be retrospective and, therefore, the receiver had to act within 14 days. However, it was not possible for him to do so, which is a tragedy because that company may have survived. There is a real shortage of jobs in the Deane valley, as the Minister will know, and it is far easier to lose jobs than find them. The loss of that company is significant and we are all sad about it.
  The key to the way in which we deal with the past—the hon. Member for Tynemouth said correctly that he hoped that the Minister had some constructive thoughts about this matter—lies in my original question: did the Government always intend the law to operate as it has operated for the past seven years? If that is so, I think some account must be taken of what I would call the fallout from the
  32
  Paramount judgment. That fallout is the implications for those who have been conducting receiverships for the past seven years.
  As has been said already, there have been thousands of receiverships and hundreds of administration orders. Businesses have been kept going and workers kept in their jobs as a result of reliance on the court judgment already referred to—the 1987 case of Specialised Mouldings Ltd. Reasons have been given why the present judgment supersedes the 1987 judgment. Many jobs have been saved in that time. In some companies it has not been possible to save all jobs and in other companies a receiver has traded for far more than 14 days, taking on the contracts of employees on the assumption that they would not fall on himself, but has found it impossible to maintain the company in the long run. Therefore, receivers face considerable debts if the Paramount judgment is not reversed.
  In those circumstances, is it reasonable that receivers should be liable for the contracts of all those people who have lost their jobs, despite the fact that it was the receivers' intention to keep them in their jobs if possible? Neither the receiver nor the employees concerned were under any illusions about who was picking up the bill—neither expected that the bill would finally pass to the receiver.
  Press speculation suggests that the debt for receivers could run into millions of pounds. It seems obvious to me—I hope that the Minister will confirm this point—that this was never intended to happen. Receivers did not believe that they were liable and employees were never led to believe that the receivers would be liable. I understand that the Government will await the result of an appeal to the House of Lords, on the pretty certain assumption that there will be one. However, I very much hope that constructive thinking is taking place at the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of how to deal with a potentially messy situation should the need arise. After all, to a certain extent, the more constructive the receiver has been in his attempt to save jobs and to rescue companies, perhaps the greater is his possible exposure. That surely cannot be right.
  It is regrettable that the timing of the Paramount judgment, and this House's correction of it, catch some companies which are in the middle of a constructive receivership and companies which, like RFS Doncaster, are trading well. Will the Minister be able to say anything in the debate about possible additional intentions if the need for those should arise? The Minister might be able to say something about the Government giving the matter constructive thought and that might help to keep running businesses which are on the edge at the moment only because of what has happened through the Paramount judgment.
  Ironically, the seven-year time scale of the operation of what seems now to be unclear drafting, which must have taken place in the DTI, could well threaten our most experienced receivers and mean that they end up in receivership themselves.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: As Members in all parts of the House have welcomed the Bill, I hope that the Government will accept that the comments have been made in the spirit of ensuring that an amendment to an Act made necessary by a court hearing is passed quickly and

  33
  correctly. That is why amendments have been tabled which have been signed by myself, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). Although the hon. Member for Tynemouth has had to leave the Chamber, I am grateful to him for saying that the amendments have all-party support. The amendments have been tabled in a spirit of helping the Government to ensure that we pass a Bill that meets the needs raised by the court case about which we are concerned.
  There is no doubt that we need a rescue culture in this country. That means not a culture which seeks to put good money after bad when a business encounters difficulties, but a culture that recognises that with careful management, a fresh approach and some reorganisation, companies which get into difficulties can be rescued and continue, albeit in a remodelled format, to generate income and to employ people.
  The core of this legislation and of the problem relates to the continuation of jobs and employment. That is the single reason why there is such cross-party support for the Bill. It has been said that if a Leyland DAF situation had arisen subsequent to the Paramount Airways Ltd. case, and before this Bill had become law, a rescue operation could not have been mounted successfully and would not have been mounted. The consequences of that to the United Kingdom would have been catastrophic.
  When we recall the speeches of the President of the Board of Trade at the Dispatch Box during the debates on Leyland DAF, it is clear that he must recognise that this Bill is designed to ensure that there is time for a rescue operation to be determined on proper business grounds where the Government can stand back and allow it to happen without being placed under undue pressure to intervene when that might not be the most appropriate thing to do. I hope to persuade the Minister that if he is not prepared to accept the point he may run the risk of finding himself or his boss back at the Dispatch Box in future to deal with a potentially serious situation.
  The hon. Member for Tynemouth advised me that one of the reasons why he has had to leave the Chamber is that he has to meet a Minister about Swan Hunter. The Swan Hunter receivership has been a long and ongoing problem which would have been threatened by the Paramount judgment. The Independent today reported that, according to Howard Davies of the Confederation of British Industry, the CBI is concerned that the uncertainty which the ruling has created in relation to outstanding claims and possible new claims threatens claims of up to £1 billion and could result in the bankruptcy of many medium-sized accountancy firms, with the consequential loss of a substantial number of jobs in the future. The Minister will recognise that that is only one person's opinion, but if it has any basis in substance it needs to be addressed.
  Reference has been made to the fact that there may be an appeal to the House of Lords. I understand that Touche Ross has not yet decided whether to submit an appeal to the House of Lords. Even if an appeal is made, and is successful, however, it would be many months before it was finally processed and in the meantime a whole queue of similar claims may be made. That is a further reason why it is necessary to have a debate on the issues. The Minister must make the Government's position clear and the issues need to be addressed, not least because the courts are not only entitled but are required to look behind the
  34
  Bill, and presumably the Act that it seeks to amend, to see what was the objective and the intention of both the Government and the House of Lords at the time.
  The hon. Member for Tynemouth made it clear that the 1987 case—the Specialised Mouldings case—was decided soon after the Insolvency Bill became law. It was not a published ruling but clear guidance which until now was accepted by everyone as the definitive practice on which normal receiverships and administrations could be modelled. There is no doubt, therefore, that the judge thought at the time that he was clarifying the clear intention of Parliament. This Bill shows that that was the clear intention of Parliament and Parliament is passing amending legislation as a direct result of the judge's ruling to make that clear. One hopes that the courts will take the ruling into account when any further appeals are presented to them.
  I hope that the Minister will address the issue because the fact that the courts should take the ruling into account at present does not remove the immediate uncertainty. It has been reported, for example, that claims of up to £10 million are being lodged in the case of Olympia and York—the Canary Wharf development—and it has been suggested that some of the Maxwell companies may lodge similar claims. In a sense, I can see both sides of the situation. Having a former Maxwell company in my constituency, which is now British International Helicopters, I can understand employees wanting to take advantage of a ruling that might give them some benefit. One can hardly blame them for taking advantage of the ruling that the court has made available to them.
  The trouble is that the consequence of the ruling going through, and the uncertainty that it creates, will inevitably lead to a situation where receivers will simply say that they do not intend to put themselves at risk in mounting a rescue operation, that 14 days is much too short a time for them to determine whether a company can be rescued and the liability to which they could be laying themselves open is much too great, so they will simply sell off the assets and completely liquidate the company, and the rescue will be abandoned. It would be for the greater good to ensure that that does not happen. We must get clear guidance and a clear ruling as quickly and as early as possible.
  It is perhaps a little surprising that Mr. Justice Harman could have said that a practice that had been established for seven years, of issuing a letter saying that a contract will not be adopted, was only so much wind. That was a somewhat dismissive ruling by a judge on something which was clearly an accepted practice and which clearly reflected the wishes of Parliament.
  There are amendments tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough which are tacitly and openly supported by the hon. Member for Tynemouth and on which we may have an opportunity to address the specific points in a little more detail. I shall therefore not detain the House any further, except to say that the Government have responded extremely quickly and it is appreciated that they needed to do so. It is understood that the consequence of that quick response is that there was little time to prepare the legislation—from a statement on Monday to publication of the Bill on Friday and debating it the following Monday. In those circumstances, I hope that the Government will approach the amendments and the comments that are being made in a constructive spirit and recognise that we are trying to ensure that the

  35
  legislation, when it goes through both the Houses of Parliament, delivers the goods, meets the intention of the House and avoids any further misunderstanding.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) in welcoming the fact that legislation has been introduced in such a short time to deal with the particularly knotty problem which has been caused by the judgment.
  Although I understand the reasons for the speed with which the legislation was drafted and brought to the House, it is perhaps a missed opportunity. There are areas of insolvency legislation which give cause for concern and, where opportunities exist, they are often not fully exploited. I would like to use the opportunity of the Second Reading debate to flag up some of the issues based on my experience as a Member of Parliament dealing with constituency problems.
  The first issue which concerns me—it is directly connected with the Bill—is employee rights during the period of insolvency. I am aware that, for example, there are a number of unfair dismissal claims which are outstanding and are waiting to go before tribunals which have arisen out of the lack of clarity about the rights of an employee in that situation vis a vis the administrative receiver or, if it moves on, the liquidator.
  As a result of the legislation, those rights—that is, to be able to go to a tribunal and to claim unfair dismissal—must be looked into further. The case law on the matter—Leyland DAF, which has been referred to, and the case of Bowden v. Bowden—adds up to an area where there is concern which needs to be clarified further. It is a pity that we have not taken the opportunity to try to clear up that concern now.
  My main point is the issue of what have been referred to as phoenix situations, where either the work force, the management or some part of the structure of an existing company—it may even be some of the directors—decides to try to rescue something out of a company which is in liquidation.
  Let me state my experience briefly. For a fair part of the early to mid 1980s, prior to coming to the House, I was employed first by an organisation called CDS Training in Liverpool, and secondly by the Wales Co-operative Centre, which was set up by the Wales TUC. The main purpose of my employment during that period was to try to promote and set up plans for work-owned enterprises.
  We were not prescriptive about it. We were involved with worker co-operatives, although often there might be just a partnership. In some cases, there was an employee share ownership plan, otherwise known as an ESOP. During that period, I was probably involved with attempts—in many cases succesful attempts—to set up 40 to 50 firms. Those mostly arose out of industrial closures and cases where the company was already in receivership.
  I have some experience, and I realise the difficulties that the people in those situations are up against. However, I want to concentrate on my more recent experiences as a Member of Parliament. The Minister is familiar with at least one of the cases which I am about to mention.
  In 1988, I think—so hurried has the process been, I have not had the opportunity to check everything—there was a
  36
  company in my constituency called Greenberg. It employed about 95 people and was a long-established firm which made glass products such as patio and industrial windows. Largely through bad investment in new buildings—it was a time of high interest rates—the firm could not carry on servicing its debt and went into receivership.
  I, the work force and various people advising me, including the local authority, worked for about six weeks to set up an employee share ownership plan. We raised the finance from the work force, from loans and from grants from the Department of Trade and Industry. We set up the business. It was a difficult time for the people running the business. It was badly under-capitalised, as many business start-ups find themselves, but after about a year, despite all the difficulties, it was still going, although it still had financial problems. It was taken over by another firm. It has been a success.
  About 25 to 30 people now work for the firm. That is considerably fewer than in the first instance, when the company was Greenberg. Nevertheless, we managed to save something out of the company. We had difficulties confronting the receivers and making them understand what was involved and in convincing everyone else that there was a business worth saving.
  The second example occurred in 1993. A company in my constituency in Kirkby which had been known as Lyons Maid and at the time was known as Clarke Foods went into receivership. Sixty seven employees worked at the factory. The administrative receiver, Robson Rhodes, dismissed the work force almost immediately. The receivers managed to sell most of the Lyons Maid operation to Nestlé. There followed a period during which we tried to convince Nestlé to keep the factory in Kirkby going. We failed in that. However, at an early stage, Nestle told us that the plant and equipment at the factory could be passed on to the work force. So we had that assurance, but that was about all.
  I had Adjournment debates in the House on the matter and tabled early-day motions. I negotiated directly with the shop stewards and Nestlé and the receivers to see what we could retrieve. After many months of work, we succeeded. I pay tribute, above all to the work force, but also to Knowsley council and the Transport and General Workers Union. The Department of Trade and Industry Minister also had a direct hand in the matter. We succeeded in saving more than 30 jobs.
  We were defeated in the space of about six months not by the insolvency legislation but, first, by a rather bad summer last year. The firm makes ice cream products and the grim summer did not help to sell ice cream products. However, that was not all the story. The second difficulty was Walls's virtual monopoly on freezer cabinets, which makes it difficult for any other company to break into the market. That monopoly is currently the subject of a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. The monopoly stopped us promoting the products of Pendletons, as it had become known. At that time, I became—on an unpaid basis, I hasten to add—the chairman of that company.
  Thirdly, we were defeated by the tight margins that the supermarket chains can extract from manufacturers. Although we were able to supply notably the Co-op, we were in hot competition with people who had more resources than us. Those were the difficulties that we had once trading, but we also had difficulties in negotiating and

  37
  obtaining any useful assurance or decision about the future of the company from first the receivers, Robson Rhodes, and latterly the liquidators, Arthur Andersen.
  I will tell you how we did it, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it was not necessarily the recommended course of action. Early in the dispute the work force occupied the factory. They were taken to court and a writ was served on them to vacate the premises. They did so and then set up a picket line on the gate.
  The only thing that we had going for us in all those negotiations was that Arthur Andersen & Co. knew that if we did not reach some accommodation a picket would immediately have been mounted on the gate. That is not necessarily the best way to deal with matters, but if a group of workers who feel that they can take over the company are reduced to that, inevitably they will take such action. It should not be like that. Let me explain what I think should happen.
  For the benefit of the people who work for the company, whether they are managers or employees, and for the benefit of the economy, there should be a duty to try to achieve employee ownership or management ownership, or a combination of ownership, which may involve direct investment from entrepreneurs, before other options are considered.
  I move on to my third example. After the experience with Pendletons, otherwise known at various times as Lyons Maid and Clarke Foods, I made an attempt, with two Conservative councillors, to do a rescue operation concerning a firm called J. De Roma. It was a short-lived attempt. After a couple of weeks, it drifted into sand. The first thing that happened was that, after a few weeks, the receiver sold off the blueprint for the product—a chill cabinet in which the National Blood Transfusion Service used to store blood—to a company in Warwickshire, so that there was no product left. All that that company had to do was to employ one of the engineers who knew the manufacturing process of the cabinets, and he bought the business. I think that that was grossly negligent on the part of the receiver. The whole business, complete with the work force and their skills, could have been sold if more time had been given. It may even have been bought by the work force. Yet all the receiver did was to sell off the blueprints, fairly cheaply. The purchasing company simply recruited one engineer and had a going concern.
  There is much potential for legislation instructing receivers first to attempt to get something going on the basis of the existing business, or part of that business, involving the local management and employees. Perhaps a quarter of the 2,000 companies that go into receivership could be saved by such means. At the moment, I doubt that 1 per cent. are saved by those means. For the good of the economy, and of people who work in companies who find themselves in such a position, there is a strong case for an amendment to the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and I tried to table a new clause to the Bill, which would have succeeded in putting that duty into the Bill. Having consulted the Clerks, I realise that the scope of the Bill is perhaps too narrow for that new clause to have been accepted. However, I hope that in the near future—even perhaps as a result of a conversion today—the Minister will seriously consider my arguments. I have good cause for believing that the economy as a whole—never mind
  38
  those who work in firms that go into liquidation—could benefit from reorientation of the way in which receivers function.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Bell: With the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful for the opportunity to sum up some of the points that have been made for the Minister and to follow up on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). My hon. Friend argued, from his own experience, the importance and significance of employee share ownership schemes and schemes of that nature, in which the worker in the place of work participates in addition to drawing a salary.
  It has always been the policy of the Opposition to extend protection and participation for workers in their place of work. We thought years ago that that protection and participation would come through nationalisation, which was perceived to be the simplest route to common ownership. One takes over an industry and, once it belongs to the state, the workers obtain the protection and participation that they had sought for years. Tomorrow we shall sit down and privatise, or go through the final stages of, the privatisation of our coal mines. We shall see the consequences of 14 years of Conservative Government on nationalised industry and the fact that a new Labour Government will have to find new concepts of common ownership. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North for drawing the House's attention to that matter.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) was useful in that he had served on the Committee that discussed the previous Insolvency Bill. I should point out that Mr. Justice Harman's judgment was considered to be obiter dicta only before the court. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Committee proceedings of the House, but those have no status in law and a judge in a court of law could not rely on them.
  Great play has been made of the question of an appeal to the House of Lords against a Court of Appeal judgment. I noticed that the Minister was careful to say "may" appeal because the Court of Appeal has refused leave of appeal to the House of Lords and it is a question whether the matter can be included in another motion elsewhere. It is not entirely clear that an appeal to the House of Lords is possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) referred to RSF Doncaster, which was helpful. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred to Leyland DAF. The case of Swan Hunter is dear to my heart; so I see the significance in pushing the Bill through quickly tonight. We have discussed the consequences of it not being retrospective. In the Paramount case alone, some £600,000 may fall on the receivers' shoulders if the law or its interpretation is not changed tonight. Other cases may be lined up, depending on the statute of limitations, whether it tolls and whether the facts are different in those cases. Nevertheless, because there will be a great deal of uncertainty throughout the profession of insolvency practitioners, we shall return to that matter in Committee.
  Some of the points that have been made show that we need a proper overhaul of the Insolvency Act 1986 and this may be a first shot at that. Although we wish the Bill well, we shall not leave the subject of insolvency to lie on the table, as it has done for so long. Obviously, the Minister is

  39

  aware of his Department's consultation paper and the fact that the consultation process comes to an end on 31 March. At that time, we shall seek some rapid conclusions from his Department.
  4.42 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: It would have been easy for Opposition Members to turn this into a general debate on the state of the economy as reflected in the problems of insolvent companies. I congratulate them on resisting the temptation to trivialise the issue so that we can concentrate on the serious points in the Bill.
  Many points have been raised by the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who is, at this moment, meeting people who have come to lobby Parliament about Swan Hunter, which is important to his constituency. Most of the points have concentrated on retrospection, with which we shall deal shortly in Committee. I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal with those points in that context rather than repeat myself.
  Various points were made about phoenix companies. I appreciate the public concern about the phoenix problem but we must act in a way that reflects due process. It is far from being the case that all collapses involve a degree of moral turpitude on the part of company directors. That matter was dealt with in detail during the passage of what became the Insolvency Bill 1986, when the approach, which is often enjoined upon me, of seeking to prevent company directors from going back into business after their companies have collapsed was decisively rejected by the House. Such an approach would be a slur on the vast majority of company directors whose companies fail not for reasons of design on their part. Were we to prevent company directors from continuing in business because they had been involved in a company that had unfortunately failed through no fault of theirs, it would be not only a significant injustice towards those individuals but no good for the economy in general.
  Nevertheless, some draconian powers are available to us under current company and insolvency legislation, which enables us to fasten on those who are guilty of misfeasance. Naturally, we must prove to the satisfaction of a court that they have acted in a way of which the law disapproves. Those matters are often difficult to prove and suspicions remain, which gives rise to the public's feeling of resentment that certain individuals can take advantage of what are regarded as loopholes in the law. I do not regard them as loopholes, although I hope that we shall always catch wrongdoers and punish them for their acts. We all know that, in the nature of things, it is impossible to do that in every case, hard as we try. We must ensure that the business environment precludes such activities. Where they take place none the less, we must ensure that we have the means of bringing them to book if possible. We must beware of throwing the baby out with the bath water. To get at one problem, we may create many others.
  The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South asked about the meaning of adoption. I shall put my view on record so that he can read it in due course. If he then still has questions, I shall be pleased to try to deal with them.
  40
  Adoption of a contract means that a person procures the performance of a contract. In effect, therefore, the person refrains from repudiating it. In such circumstances, the person can be said to adopt the contract. A contract may be adopted by words—"express" adoption—or by conduct—"implied" adoption. The conduct constituting the adoption may be payment of wages, for example. It is impossible to be exhaustive and I do not wish to go into the full ramifications of the meaning of a term that might fall to be decided by a court in an individual case. I hope that my statement will help the hon. Gentleman.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough was rather hard on me and my Department in respect of the length of time that we have taken to deal with this difficulty, which became acute only with the Court of Appeal's decision a short time ago. It is not true to say that the situation was identified back in 1987. It was addressed by the High Court in February 1987 in the Specialised Mouldings case. The result of the court's consideration seemed to provide a practical solution, if there was a problem at all. The problem with which we are dealing today is that the Court of Appeal took a different view. Hence, we are seeing a development of the law, which is why we are dealing with the problems in the Bill today.
  I hope that I have dealt with the points that will not arise again in Committee. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties for facilitating the passage of the Bill. I almost forgot the point made by the hon. Member for Knowsley, North. The one person whom he did not congratulate on the insolvencies in his constituency was himself. I know how hard he and the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who is also present, have worked in the interests of their constituents, especially in the Pendletons case in which I was invited to participate. I am sorry that, in the event, it was not possible to save the jobs that they worked so hard to save.
  The argument about special treatment for employee share ownership schemes is not wholly open and shut. Although it is not relevant for the purposes of this Bill, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked me to give serious consideration to the argument. He knows that I shall always consider seriously any points that are put forward in good faith and schemes that might save companies that would otherwise fail. Particularly as the Minister with responsibility for the north-west and as the representative of a constituency not far from that of the hon. Gentleman, I am as interested as he is in saving jobs in the region and in facilitating improvement of the local economy. Thus, I shall be very happy to consider any points that the hon. Gentleman cares to raise in another context. As he accepted, it would not be appropriate, in the context of the Bill, to go too far down that avenue.
  I am grateful to hon. Members on all sides for facilitating the speedy passage of the Bill and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Conway.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.

Clause 1

  ADMINISTRATORS: PRIORITY OF LIABILITIES UNDER ADOPTED CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
  4.51 pm
  Mr. Bell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 26, leave our '15th March 1994' and insert '31st December 1986'.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 16, leave out '15th March 1994' and insert '31st December 1986'.
  No. 3, in clause 3, page 4, line 11, leave out '15th March 1994' and insert '31st December 1986'.
  No. 4, in schedule 1, page 6, line 31, leave out '15th March 1994 and insert '31st December 1986'.
  Mr. Bell: These are probing amendments. We wish to elicit from the Minister a further and more detailed response based upon the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade on 14 March, which set out his own concern, and the concerns set out today by the Minister. We have had some clarification of the Minister's thinking. My understanding of what he told the House is that there is no wish on the part of the Executive to overturn the decision of the Law Lords—a matter to which I have referred briefly. At present, there is no provision to allow an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal to be sent to the Law Lords.
  It emerged from a short exchange with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) during the Select Committee's transactions that there was some concern among Committee members as to the wording—which ended up being included in the Bill—of contracts of employment. The Minister—quite rightly, in his view—took me to task slightly on the question of whether the Government had known about this interpretation difficulty. In the analysis contained in "Halsbury's Laws of England" the interpretive note contains this clear statement:
  "There is room for some legislative revision here."
  The point is that it was clear to practitioners and to lawyers that there was something askance in that interpretation. The hon. Member for Tynemouth, with his knowledge of the specific subject, seemed to confirm that if there were a weakness that could lead to difficulties in a court of law, that fact would be sufficient to justify making the clause retrospective to 31 December 1986. We have shown the mischief of the law. It is not a question of interpretation of judgments from either the High Court or the Court of Appeal, which, in my view, delivered sound judgments on the facts before them. The misfortune arises in the terms of the law.
  That was pointed out to the Government when they were looking at the decision in the case of Nicoll v. Cutts, concerning payment of workers by the administrative receiver. Section 44(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986 was then proposed. The petitioners tried to persuade the Government not to go along that line as it was clearly a case of taking a cannon to shoot a mouse. It was not necessary to modify the entire law of the land on the basis of one judgment.
  As to Mr. Justice Harman's interpretive decision concerning the meaning of the law, administrative
  42
  receivers took the matter to him. For an analysis under section 35 of the Insolvency Act 1986, they went to court and asked for clarification. It is clear that at that time the law required clarification. It is clear that the intention of the legislation had not been realised. It was argued that, whatever may or may not have been the intention of the legislator, the wording in the Insolvency Act 1986 constituted no change in the existing law. Therefore, it was clear to the practitioners that the 1986 Act was supposed simply to embody what had already come about in the practice of the profession. Since the passage of the 1986 Act, we have seen the receivers' letter—approved by Mr. Justice Harman—to the work force simply washing their hands of the employment contract and not adopting it.
  In an entirely non-partisan spirit, we say that the law contained something that needed to be rectified. We are simply trying to amend the law in the light of decisions by the High Court and of the Court of Appeal. Our view is that the defect lies at the heart of the 1986 Act and that there should therefore be retrospection. The power that makes the House of Commons sovereign is its ability to pass retrospective legislation. It would certainly be wrong to pass retrospective legislation of a political nature, but this is not a political matter. That being the case, I submit that the Government should accept the amendment.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I was moved to table the amendment in conjunction with the hon. Members for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) partly by something that I read in The Independent this morning and a consequential telephone call I made to the Confederation of British Industry. I was also prompted by a question that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) put to the President of the Board of Trade following the right hon. Gentleman's statement last Monday. The relevant remarks may be found in column 618 of Hansard. The President referred to the clear problem that the Paramount Airways decision raised in relation to all the cases of the past seven years. The amendment would eliminate that problem by making it clear from the outset that the practice established in the Specialised Mouldings case was the intention of the law and that that was the practice that would be the test of any disputes that might subsequently arise.
  As the situation stands at the moment, there is clear concern. Howard Davies of the Confederation of British Industry says that, in his view, accountancy firms could face claims of up to £1 billion, even allowing for the Bill going through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament within the next two days. That is a substantial figure for claims for which, as things stand, the legislation does not appear to provide a solution. It is not surprising that Mr. Davies says that amendments such as the one that we are proposing would deal with the problem in a fairly straightforward way.
  I should like to make it clear that we are all gravely concerned about retrospective legislation. Other members of my party and I have often railed against Governments who have attempted such legislation. It is not something to be done lightly. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that this was a probing amendment, but I hope that the Minister realises that an important point is at issue here, and one that needs dealing with.
  The difference between the Bill and contentious retrospective legislation is that this does not present us with serious practical problems. If the amendment were

  43
  incorporated, that would be as much as to say that the practice adopted by the professionals as a result of the Specialised Mouldings ruling has in effect been the state of the law since that case—in which case, all claims that might arise as a result of the Paramount Airways decision would fall, and no one would waste time making them.
  5 pm
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who knows more about these matters than I do, has already said that the avenue of going to the House of Lords may not be open in this case, although it is being referred to as a possibility. Even if it is opened up, it may not solve the problem. It will leave great uncertainty lingering over the profession for many months to come.
  The problem cannot be shrugged off. Although the Minister has been clearly told that we do not intend to push the amendment, I hope that he will recognise that the issue is a live one. I am reliably advised that it will also be raised in another place, probably by Lord Reay. Everyone dealing with the matter is looking for a clear statement.
  One of the problems appears to be that the Paramount Airways ruling, relating as it did to what seemed an acceptable practice, has been deemed a sham: it is being ignored. Unless an administrator or receiver dismisses the work force and then re-employs them on new contracts within 14 days, he can be held liable for all previous contractual commitments, and 14 days is often far too short a time to make such a decision.
  If the Court of Appeal ruling in the case of Paramount Airways is correct, that implies that there was something wrong with the law in the first place. An amendment such as this would effectively deal with that problem by admitting that the law was badly drafted, but that the intention and practice have been clear until the latest ruling. We should now be able to put that to rest. The House has now made it abundantly clear how it wants such matters to be conducted in future and how they should have been conducted in the past. Thereupon £1 billion in claims, and all the uncertainty and threats of liquidation that go with them, can be put to one side.
  I do not envy the Minister his task. I know that any statement that he may make in response to a debate such as this cannot of itself resolve the issue. Nevertheless, I hope that he will recognise the fact that people want clear guidance.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is true that the Court of Appeal, in the case of Paramount Airways, has refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, but it is always possible for the House of Lords, of its own motion, to allow an appeal. I have no idea whether there will be an appeal in, this case; it therefore remains possible that the House of Lords will take a view different from the Court of Appeal's. It would be wrong to speculate on the outcome, and I do not propose to do so.
  I understand that these are serious issues, and I assure Opposition Members who have spoken that I appreciate their arguments. I have not yet had the chance to read the article in The Independent to which the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) referred, as I have been working all day and have had little chance to catch up with the news—but I shall certainly read it and give more thought to the arguments in it.
  44
  I have always been a strident critic of retrospective legislation. On more than one occasion, in fact, I have made common cause with the Liberal party in this respect, not least in Finance Bill Committees, where the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) may even have supported me once in opposing retrospective tax legislation—before I joined the Government, of course.
  This argument has always interested me. As hon. Members have said, the point came up during questions following the statement by my right hon. Friend the President last Monday. The hon. Member for Gordon referred to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). There is a distinction that can be drawn between retrospective legislation and the impact of decisions in the courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet asked my right hon. Friend whether he agreed that one of the problems with judge-made law was that it is retrospective. Now, constitutional purists will say that judge-made law is not retrospective because judges are only declaring a position as it has always been, even though the question has not been tested before.
  In a sense, that is what we are dealing with today. It is likely that, following the Specialised Mouldings case of seven years ago, matters remained open to argument. The fact is that that case was on application for directions from the courts, so it was not speculating on the legal position in a way that could give rise to a precedent on which practitioners could then rely. Consequently, if there has been any doubt in the minds of practitioners, it has been because the law has not been authoritatively declared before. That in turn is qualitatively different from changing the law to give it an effect different from the one it has always been held to have.
  In this legislation we are asked—I invite the House—to change the law for the future from that which the judges have now declared it to be, subject to an appeal to the House of Lords. My right hon. Friend clearly said, in answer to a number of interrogators last Monday, that we were not seeking to change the law retrospectively.
  To the best of my recollection, when the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) spoke on Monday, he implied that he would oppose the retrospective application of this Bill, because he raised the case of the Paramount workers themselves. Although he did not explicitly state why he had done so, I took his meaning to be that he did not want us to change the law retrospectively in such a way as to disadvantage those who might otherwise have claims. I may have misunderstood him; perhaps this is another ambiguity which has been introduced into our proceedings and which needs to be resolved. Perhaps the hon. Member for Middlesbrough can resolve it.
  We must recognise the fact that if we change the law with retrospective effect, we will change the rights and obligations of certain individuals. Some will benefit, others will be disadvantaged. It is a difficult balance to strike. My own prejudice is against retrospection in legislation on constitutional grounds, which, I am sure, will appeal to the hon. Member for Gordon.
  In general, I do not think it would be right retrospectively to affect entitlements acquired before 15 March, the day after the President's statement last week, so each case will have to be considered by receivers on the facts. That is not to say that I do not recognise the genuine fears expressed by Opposition Members in respect of claims that might arise for closures during the period 1986 to 1994. It is obvious that there must be some risk of

  45
  claims, although it is difficult to say how many, and for how much. But we must recognise that many businesses were saved, with the result that employees continued with re-emerging businesses. It is unlikely that claims will arise from those cases, although there are some spectacular claims in this morning's newspapers, as the hon. Member for Gordon said. Those cases will have to be dealt with on the facts, and it would be wrong of me to speculate about them.
  One always has to walk a tightrope in such cases. One appreciates that those who might be disadvantaged as a result of changing the law with retrospective effect will be just as loud in their protestations as those inviting, us to make the retrospective changes. One cannot decide what is the right thing to do simply by counting how much money is involved on each side and favouring those who have the greater claim. No one would accept that that would be a sensible way to proceed. All I can do this afternoon is to seek refuge in the forceful argument that every time we introduce retrospective legislation, and therefore disturb the relationship that the courts have declared exists between parties, we make it easier the next time that we are invited or tempted to introduce it. But we should do it sparingly.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) referred to the Burmah Oil case. I well remember it from my constitutional law lectures many years ago. It resulted in the War Damage Act 1965. To its shame, the Conservative party, which was then in opposition, did not vote against or oppose the Act, although some hon. Members—among whom I would have been counted had I been here in those days—voted against the Bill, which was a pernicious measure. It disturbed the rights of individuals as declared, not by the Court of Appeal, but by the House of Lords, so there was no prospect of appeal. I imagine that the Act was passed principally at the behest of the Treasury, which otherwise would have had substantial claims laid at its door.
  Although I am a great believer in constraining public expenditure, such constraint is not tolerable if it causes injustice to individuals, particularly if that injustice arises in circumstances that could not be foreseen.
  The Burmah Oil case is not an inspiring example to justify retrospective legislation. I recognise that there is an argument for retrospection. I do not claim that there is is an open-and-shut or a black-and-white case. Ultimately, we should decide on the basis of the balance of advantage. So far, I am not persuaded that the arguments are overwhelming. It is always easy, on the basis of speculative articles in newspapers, to conjure demons that are not there or to exaggerate their importance.
  Inevitably, as no one can be sure what the position is, we are dealing with speculative matters. If it appears that there is a serious problem, in this case or any other, the Government—being flexible and open to reasoned argument, as I am in particular—are prepared to consider it. I am not yet persuaded that there is a case to answer, but I shall always listen to those who feel that I am wrong.
  As the hon. Member for Gordon said, the matter may be discussed again in another place. I have not yet been translated to that place, so I shall not participate in that debate. I am grateful for the presence of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, although it is intimidating to have noticed him only at this stage. I am sure that all hon. Members present would like to congratulate him on the celebration of his birthday today.
  46
  I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Members that it would not be right at this moment to apply the Bill's provision retrospectively because we could not be certain who might benefit and who might be disadvantaged. Unless we could decide that with some precision, it would not be correct for us to apply the legislation retrospectively.
  5.15pm
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a greater in-depth insight into the thinking of the Ministry than we had during the Second Reading debate. That is understandable because he knew that the Bill would be going into Committee.
  I am grateful to him for reminding me of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on 14 March, in column 616 of Hansard. He was putting a specific question to the President of the Board of Trade on the legal rights of Paramount Airways employees, who were the subject of the Court of Appeal decision. He sought an assurance that others who had benefited from receivership would not see those benefits diminish. That clarifies my hon. Friend's position. We tabled a probing amendment to elicit a response from the Minister, which we have had.
  In his comments on Burmah Oil, the Minister showed his free-market thinking. As he and I know, since we were probably studying at the same time, in 1964 the Government had a majority of four. Notwithstanding that majority, the House reversed the Law Lords decision on Burmah Oil. That decision shows that the House felt that a clear public interest was involved, but things have moved on since then.
  The Minister told us—this is my interpretation—that the Court of Appeal decision is not a retrospective judgment, but one that is effective from the time that it was made. It is not retrospective or retroactive. Therefore, the size of claims that are being touted—I say that in the friendliest sense—in today's newspapers are not likely to occur. In any event, the decision in each case will depend on the facts of that case and on the statute of limitations' tolling. Dean Inge said many years ago:
  "I have had a great many problems, most of which never happened".
  With that in mind, I shall not move amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  ADMINISTRATORS: PRIORITY OF LIABILITIES UNDER ADOPTED CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Gunnell: I have a question on clause 1(6), which inserts new subsections in section 19 of the 1986 Act. Subsection 7(b) defines a qualifying liability as
  "in respect of services rendered wholly or partly after the adoption of the contract."
  Why are the words "or partly" included? What would be the effect of that section if those words were not present? New subsection (8) relates to qualifying liability. Clause 2 inserts subsection (2B) into section 44 of the Act and clause 3 amends section 57 of the Act by inserting a new subsection (2B). There seem to be differences in the wording used in lines 24 and 35 and in the new subsection

  47
  (2B). Does the Minister have any explanation for the differences, given that all the clauses are designed to do the same thing?
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman lost me at the end of his remarks. Could he repeat his final point?
  Mr. Gunnell: Compare page 2, line 8 of the Bill with line 30 in clause 2(2). The wording is different. Technical practitioners want to know whether there is any significance in the difference in wording in respect of the qualifying liability and its extent. There is a difference, which technicians do not quite understand. I thought that the Minister might be able to put them right.
  Mr. Hamilton: I think that it is not only the technicians who do not understand. I am afraid that I am not able, off the top of my head, to answer the hon. Gentleman's latter point, although there does not appear to be a discrepancy in the meaning of the words in clause 1(8),
  "so much of any qualifying liability"
  and the words in clause 2 (2),
  "to the extent of any qualifying liability".
  I shall certainly take advice from my lawyers and I will write to the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the matter is put beyond doubt.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about subsection (6)(b), and the words
  "in respect of services rendered wholly or partly after the adoption of the contract."
  I do not think that there is any ambiguity or difficulty in that wording. The new section 19(7) of the amended Act defines a qualifying liability as
  "a liability to pay … wages or salary",
  or pension contribution, in respect of services rendered by the employee, whether
  "wholly or partly after the adoption of the contract."
  Accordingly, any liabilities arising under a contract of employment that do not fall within that description will rank as unsecured claims against the company. The provision is included simply for purposes of completeness: part performance of a contract in itself gives rise to a liability, and the drafting of the legislation must reflect that.
  Employees may well be employed for only part of a period of receivership, rather than the whole period. The wording would aptly cover those circumstances as well.
  I hope that I have been able to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. If not—ah, I have been handed a piece of paper: the seventh cavalry has arrived. I am told that there is no difference in substance between the new section 19(8) and the new section 44(2B), although they are cast in slightly different terms for technical reasons. I shall ask what those technical reasons are, and whether there is any justification for them; and I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman is informed of the result of my inquiries.
  Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Minister. I shall ensure that the technicians read his answer; if they are not satisfied, I shall write to him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

  LIABILITY OF CONTRACTS
  `(1) Section 37 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (personal liability of receiver or manager appointed under powers contained in an instrument for certain contracts) shall be amended as provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) below.
  (2) In sub-section (1)(a) (liability for contracts of employment adopted by him in performance of his functions) after "provides) and" there shall be inserted ", to the extent of any qualifying liability,".
  (3) After sub-section (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) for the purposes of sub-section (1)(a), a liability under a contract of employment is a qualifying liability if—

  (a) it is a liability to pay a sum by way of wages or salary or contribution to an occupational pension scheme,

  (b) it is incurred while the receiver or manager is in office, and

  (c) it is in respect of services rendered wholly or partly after the adoption of the contract.

  (2B) Where a sum is payable in respect of a liability which is a qualifying liability for the purposes of sub-section (1)(a) is payable in respect of services rendered partly before and partly after the adoption of the contract, liability under sub-section (1)(a) shall only extend to so much of the sum as is payable in respect of services rendered after the adoption of the contract.
  (2C) For the purposes of sub-section (2A) and (2B)—

  (a) Wages or salary payable in respect of the period of holiday or absence from work through sickness or other good cause are deemed to be wages or (as the case may be) salary in respect of services rendered in that period, and

  (b) A sum payable in lieu of holidays is deemed to be wages (or as the case may be) salary in respect of services rendered in the period by reference to which the holiday entitlement arose.

  (2D) In sub-section (2C)(a), the reference to wages or salary payable in respect of a period of holiday includes any sums which, if they had been paid, would have been treated for the purposes of the enactments relating to social security as earnings in respect of that period.".
  (4) This section shall have effect in relation to contracts of employment adopted on or after the 15th March 1994.'—[Mr. Malcolm Bruce.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The new clause is couched in exactly the terms of the Bill and has a simple but important purpose—to extend the terms of the Bill to receiverships and the terms of the Law of Property Act 1925. I would not describe this as a probing amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it, or at least accept that it deals with an omission which can and should be readily dealt with.
  As I understand it, the Government's current thinking is that property receiverships of this kind do not require the legislation. However, I have been told in the past few days that they do require it, and that if they are excluded the problems applying to general receiverships and administrations will also apply to them. That will leave not just a gap, but a gap to which attention has been specifically drawn.
  We are talking of receiverships in which the issue in question is a single piece of property. I suppose that it might be argued that a single piece of property is not a business, but it does not take much reflection for hon. Members to recognise that if that single piece of property is a hotel, a block of flats or an office block, its subsequent valuation in any sale will depend on its continuing to function as such a building. That continued function will require the retention of staff. Selling a hotel that is closed,

  49
  vacant and empty of staff will clearly lower its valuation; the same applies to an office block which requires servicing and management, a block of flats, or similar properties.
  This morning, I trawled around a number of receiverships dealing in property. I was told that all respondents claimed to have at least two cases currently on their books which would fall foul of the law if the new clause was not accepted. The Paramount ruling would apply and the net effect would be that what is currently operated as a receivership to rescue not just a building, but a building to which a business is attached, could fail. That would lead to an accelerated liquidation, and the loss of jobs, assets and a continuing business.
  On Second Reading, I told the Minister that I appreciated the speed with which the Government had acted and we accept that, as a consequence, it has not been possible to consult as widely as might otherwise have been possible. I am assured that the new clause is sought by specialist practitioners—including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which is extremely concerned about the omission of such a measure, which it assumed was simply a technical oversight caused by the pressure to get the Bill through.
  The new clause has been carefully drafted to accord with the Bill's current form, and I hope that it is therefore technically acceptable. Its acceptance would resolve the current problem. If the Minister does not wish to accept it, however, I hope that he will not slam the door, but will recognise the genuine lacuna which exists and could widen. I am led to believe that the matter will be raised in another place; I hope that that is so.
  I ask the Minister to recognise that the new clause has been tabled in good faith—not by me as an expert, but on behalf of people who know more about the matter, and who have explained clearly to me that the consequences of its omission could be serious for a significant number of active current receiverships. If the Minister cannot accept the new clause, I hope that he will at least indicate his willingness to examine it again. Perhaps the Government will consider retabling it in their own terms.
  I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. This is a simple, direct matter: the Bill contains an omission that can be readily remedied and the new clause will achieve that.
  Mr. Bell: I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). The Minister likes flexibility. Here we are dealing with property—hotels, for instance—lumps of bricks and mortar, but nevertheless important. Work forces may be involved, or may be required to be involved; they may find themselves in the same situation as others, with contracts of employment that may or may not be adopted.
  I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) recognised, the Bill was introduced quickly to remove any impediment to the rescue of businesses by administrative receivers and administrators. There is a difference between the capacities of such people and those of receivers or managers, to whom section 37 of the 1986 Act applies.
  An administrative receiver is a receiver or manager of the whole, or substantially the whole, of a company's
  50
  property, appointed by the holder of a charge which, as created, was a floating charge. A receiver or manager includes receiverships over part of the assets: that can include those appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925, to which the hon. Member for Gordon referred. But it is not simply a question of Law of Property Act receiverships; it goes much wider. Law of Property Act receiverships can involve the giving of a power to manage in the mortgage document, but will not necessarily control all the assets of a company. That situation is substantially different from that which is the subject of the Bill.
  The Committee ought to be aware of a number of important distinctions. In particular, a receiver or manager does not have to be a licensed insolvency practitioner or to have any qualifications, so receivers and managers do not have the same powers and duties as administrative receivers. Extending the wide range of circumstances in which receivers or managers can be appointed needs careful consideration. Before opening a Pandora's box, we ought to be fully aware of the consequences of such a significant change.
  5.30 pm
  I shall be happy to consider the arguments for the provision that the hon. Member for Gordon advocates, but that would be better done in a wider review of the law relating to company rescues. The Bill is not the appropriate place to consider the wider change that the hon. Gentleman proposes. His proposal goes far beyond the Bill's narrow purpose. It would be better to consider the arguments for such a change in a more reflective mood than the time available today makes possible. If the hon. Members for Gordon and for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), and any other hon. Member who feels that such a change would improve the Bill, would like to pursue the matter with me, I shall be happy to discuss the issues. However, in the context of the Bill, I am not disposed to accept a change of which the ramifications may be far greater than hon. Members suspect.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I thank the Minister for his constructive reply. When legislation of a specialised nature is rushed through the House, hon. Members are somewhat dependent on outside advice. I appreciate the Minister's concern that the new clause could have wider ramifications, but his reply indicated that he acknowledges the genuine worry among surveyors that they have in effect been left exposed by the Bill. The Minister's perhaps justifiable non-acceptance of the new clause may create for surveyors a problem that requires urgent if not immediate attention.
  I did not expect the Minister to accept the new clause. In fact, it was indicated that the Government would resist it. I am glad, however, that the Minister will consider the matter further. We are dealing with legislation that is moving fast and counter arguments may be presented to the Government, if not to the Minister, within 24 hours. It may be possible to consider the point further in another place. I am not qualified to take issue with the Minister's explanation—he probably hoped that I would say that—but I am concerned that the exclusion from this legislation of a significant group of people could leave them severely exposed.
  I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that he will consider the matter further, if not in the context of the Bill

  51
  then as part of a wider review. I hope that the Government will keep an open mind so long as the Bill is on the Table in either House. To that extent, I will not press the matter.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Bell: It is of the utmost importance that there be certainty in the law in relation to employers, employees, receivers and administrative receivers. In the public interest, we co-operated fully with the Government, with a view to rectifying what may have been a doubtful and uncertain position. I am grateful to the Minister for his co-operation and for the full explanations of matters raised on Second Reading and in Committee. We have no reason to detain the House further.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.35 pm
  The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is required to ensure that the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 is not inadvertently reduced in England and Wales from 1 April by virtue of the Railways Act 1993.
  I am grateful to a number of individuals and organisations—among them, Lord Harris of Greenwich, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), the chief constable of the British Transport police and the British Transport Police Federation—for drawing the issue to the Government's attention. I am also grateful to the police committee for providing helpful advice in recent weeks, and to the Opposition for facilitating thus far the passage of the Bill, which I hope will reach the statute book as quickly as possible.
  The Government are committed to the British Transport police. We fully acknowledge their vital work in policing the rail network and ensuring the safety of the travelling public. The House will be particularly aware of the BTP's major role in anti-terrorist activities.
  In the restructured railway regime, the BTP will continue, as a unified public force, to police Britain's rail network, performing the same range of duties as now—including providing services to the London underground and the docklands light railway. The core police services that the BTP provides will be laid down by the police committee. Those are the services undertaken by BTP so as to maintain law and order. They include services relating to safety; anti-terrorism; the prevention and detection of crime; keeping the peace; bringing offenders to justice; and rendering support to victims of crime. Railtrack and all licensed train, station and light maintenance depot operators will be obliged by the terms of their licences to use and to pay for core police services provided by the BTP.
  The Bill is an indication of our commitment. We are concerned that there should be no reduction in British Transport police jurisdiction. The BTP's current powers in policing the railway should not be circumscribed, preventing it from continuing to be an effective public police force.
  The Government are introducing the Bill because we recognise that the effect of the Railways Act 1993 on statutory provisions establishing the jurisdiction of BTP constables is inadvertently to reduce that jurisdiction from 1 April. Under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 and the Railways Act 1993—in so far as they apply to England and Wales—the BTP will have jurisdiction in, on and in the vicinity of the premises of British Rail, Railtrack and certain other railway operators, but will have jurisdiction to act elsewhere only in matters connected with or affecting the board and not in matters connected with or affecting Railtrack and other operators.
  The defect does not arise in Scotland, which, since 1980, has had different provisions that are apposite to Scotland, where there is a different legal system. The Bill remedies the defect for England and Wales. It will enable

  53
  the British Transport police to act elsewhere than in the vicinity of railway premises in matters connected with or affecting Railtrack and other operators that are police service users to the full extent of the agreements made between them and the board. In addition, it enables the British Transport police to act in, on and in the vicinity of premises of any subsidiary of the board, and elsewhere in matters connected with or affecting any of the subsidiaries.
  Mr. Brian Wilson: Just for clarity and perhaps to truncate this part of the discussion, will the Minister spell out the principal rail operators that will not be under a statutory requirement to be licensed users of British Transport police services?
  Mr. Freeman: The principal and indeed only example that I can give—if there are others, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman—will be the preserved railways. I refer to those running steam trains wholly outwith the provision of a public service to passengers—in other words, running only on their own tracks and run by their own members for the benefit of those members. If a preserved railway wishes to offer a public service, it must be licensed. I hope that that example gives the hon. Gentleman the flavour.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful for the flavour, but now let us get to the taste. By way of clarification, will the Minister assure me that there will be a statutory obligation on, for example, the Heathrow Express and European passenger services to enter into agreements and licensing that will involve the use of the British Transport police?
  Mr. Freeman: The Heathrow Express will require a licence to run—I am fairly certain, but will check during the course of the debate—on existing track between Paddington and the point where there is a departure from the main railway lines. The hon. Gentleman asked about European services. I can give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance that the writ of the British Transport police will run for services from Waterloo and, in due course, other railway stations, down to the channel tunnel. There is no question of any ambiguity about the powers of the British Transport police in that regard.
  The Bill thus ensures that the existing jurisdiction of the British Transport police will extend to all police services users—to all those who are party to a transport police services agreement with the British Railways Board. I have already made it clear that all licence holders in the restructured railway will be required by their licences at all times to be a party to an agreement to use and pay for the services of the British Transport police. The general authority to the regulator will ensure that the regulator may not issue a licence without such a condition. A licence will provide that the police services agreement ' must be approved by the Secretary of State, and the services to be provided under the agreement are those specified as "core police services" by the police committee.
  I can assure the House that a crucial factor in the Secretary of State's decision to approve an agreement for the provision of police services will be to ensure consistency in agreements. In particular, he will seek to ensure that provisions in the agreement that might affect the jurisdiction of constables are consistent so that British Transport police constables can have a clear and unambiguous understanding of their jurisdiction.
  54
  Moreover, the police committee will ensure that the core police services are such as to ensure law and order on the railway.
  The employer of the British Transport police, which is and will continue to be the British Railways Board until there is a change in the law, will be fully responsible for funding the British Transport police and will be responsible for collecting charges from operators. Operators will therefore pay policing charges to the employer of the British Transport police, not to the BTP itself. I can assure the House that there is no question that any failure of an operator to pay the employer would affect the ability of the British Transport police to police the railway.
  Hon. Members will realise that, despite the simplicity of what the Bill sets out to achieve, it is a detailed measure that reflects the complicated and much-amended status of the legislation.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, including his remark that the Bill is a complicated and detailed measure. Will he tell us why, if that is the case, it is necessary and appropriate for the Government to get the measure through the House in 24 hours—later today? Why could not the proceedings at least have been split up to allow the Committee stage to be taken another day? I recognise the urgency of the matter, but it is a sham and a disgrace to Parliament that the Bill is being railroaded through in one afternoon. That is totally unacceptable.
  Mr. Freeman: The handling of parliamentary business is not a matter for me. The only comment that I would make is that there is universal agreement that we should seek to amend the law by the end of the month. The timetabling of the Bill and its various stages must be a matter for the business managers and representatives of the various parties involved.
  Clause 1, in its application to England and Wales, amends section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 with respect to the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. It extends their jurisdiction to enable them to act elsewhere than in, on and in the vicinity of premises of the board or a police services user in matters connected with or affecting a police services user. In addition, it enables them to act in, on and in the vicinity of premises of any subsidiary—whether wholly owned or not—of the board, and in matters connected with or affecting such subsidiaries.
  Clause 2 and the schedule specify the citation and commencement of the Act, the enactments that it repeals and its extent. It is intended that, when passed, the Bill will come into force on 1 April 1994 to ensure that the jurisdiction is maintained when Railtrack takes over from British Rail the ownership and management of the network.
  I have written on the above lines today to the police committee. Following a meeting with it this morning, Sir Bob Reid has replied in the following terms on its behalf:
  "Thank you for your letter of 21 March to David Rayner"—
  the chairman of the police committee—
  "about the Transport Police 'Jurisdiction' Bill, which is most helpful and welcomed by the Police Committee.
  We shall now be putting in place work, in the light of your letter, to define model agreements for police services which are acceptable to the Chief Constable and the Police Committee. Any

  55
  substantial modification which may arise to such model agreements will need to be evaluated and endorsed by the Police Committee as they arise."
  The Bill restores the powers of jurisdiction of the BIT inadvertently affected by the Railways Act 1993. I commend it to the House.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I welcome the Bill; as we suggested it to the Government, it would be rather churlish of me not to welcome it. As the Minister has explained, as a result of slovenly errors on the part of the Government, the jurisdiction of the British Transport police was reduced by the Railways Act 1993. Apparently, the Government have become so committed to deregulation that they now even do it by accident.
  Nothing could better illustrate the importance that the Government attach to the need to tackle crime than their error in reducing the jurisdiction of the British Transport police and their apparent unwillingness subsequently to do anything urgently to put the matter right. There was a possibility therefore that, from 1 April, the staff of the British Transport police would not be able to investigate crimes or arrest people elsewhere than on, or immediately adjacent to, the property of Railtrack or any privatised railway company. That was clearly bad from the point of view of combating crime, and particularly bad from the point of view of continuing the fight against terrorism.
  British Transport police is currently responsible for policing the whole railway system. It is vital that it stays that way, particularly because of terrorist threats. We either have a fully comprehensive system—as we have now—or it is broken up, loses its effectiveness and makes passengers and staff vulnerable. Last year, British Transport police received more than 1,130 bomb threats on British Rail and London Underground. It vetted them carefully and advised the closure of stations on just 33 occasions. Of those 33, only nine turned out to be bombs; all were dealt with successfully. No one was killed and no one was injured. There were no bombs involved in the 1,100 instances where the BTP exercised their judgment and advised that stations did not need to be closed. I am sure that all would agree that that was a remarkable achievement—a credit to the BTP, to the effectiveness of their communications and assessment system and to the judgment exercised daily by their senior officers. That judgment is based on confidence that they run a watertight system and that there are no gaps in their information. That is a major reason why there must be no railway organisation not covered by the BTP and no curtailment of their jurisdiction.
  If anything goes wrong with the present arrangements, two things could happen. First, some bomb threats might not be dealt with properly or promptly. As a result, people might be killed or injured. In that event, the terrorists would have succeeded. Alternatively, because those who had to exercise their judgment on the bomb threats no longer had confidence in their system, BTP could order far more station closures. Again, the terrorists would have succeeded. The public will be protected only if there are proper and comprehensive arrangements that are properly regulated.
  Given the Opposition's concern for the safety of passengers and their property, I did not believe it right to
  56
  leave the BTP for months after 1 April bereft of their proper powers, which they continued to operate. I suggested to the Government that they should introduce a one-clause Bill to put things right, and that they agreed to do. It almost goes without saying that the Bill that they introduced has not one clause but two and that it does not put things right. The Bill covers only England and Wales, presumably because the Government are satisfied that the law in Scotland is adequate. If that is so, surely it would be logical to apply that law in England and Wales. That would be simple and sensible—so the Government have done something else.
  The Government propose wording that introduces new uncertainties that do not apply in Scotland and should not apply in England and Wales in future. Another fine mess the Government have got themselves into. The Bill provides that a constable will be able to investigate or arrest on the premises or
  "on and in the vicinity"
  of privatised railway premises, or "elsewhere", providing that the agreement between the owner of the premises and the BTP permits the constable to do so.
  If privatisation proceeds as the Government claim, there could be more than 100 private owners of parts of the railway system. Each owner could have a different contract with the BTP. If that happens, BTP constables will need to carry a backpack of contract documents with them to ensure that what they are doing is covered by the appropriate agreement. If all the details are checked against the documents that the constable has with him, he will then presumably shout to the suspect, "You are nicked." Apparently the Government think that the suspect will be standing by waiting for the constable to finish his adjudication. That is preposterous.
  In their letter to the police committee of the BTP—this has now been made clear in the Chamber—the Government have said that they will assuage the BTP's concern. Obviously there was concern, which is why the Minister had to write. There was also concern in British Rail. The Government have said that they will check on all the agreements to ensure that they all say the same thing. If that is to happen, why have they put such a ludicrous requirement into the Bill? If all the agreements are the same, there is no need to confine the authority or the jurisdiction of the police to the terms of each individual agreement. At present, however, the Bill sets out that requirement. The Government could grant a general power or dispensation. That is what they have done in Scotland. Apparently that approach works properly in Scotland, and we believe that it should apply here.
  In the Minister's letter to the police committee, he seeks to quote three precedents. The only trouble is that they are not proper precedents. None of them refers to agreements that might be reached between the police and a private owner, with the private owner in the position of being able to decide what should be set out in the ageement.
  Two of the agreements to which the Minister refers in his letter are with publicly owned bodies, so they would be reasonably under control. The other example is subject to agreement by the police in the first place regarding the terms of the contract. In other words, these examples should carry no weight in our discussions. We are not impressed by the Government's effort to cover up yet another fumble in the process of privatising the railways. There are some who claim effortless superiority; the Government seem to go in for effortless incompetence.

  57
  We would like the Government to accept in Committee this evening that the law in England and Wales should be brought in line with the law in Scotland. The detail of the relevant amendment that we have tabled may not be satisfactory. I am only too aware of that because I drafted it myself. I know that my drafting is usually just about as inadequate as that prepared for the Minister. It is quite possible that the drafting is wrong in detail, but I am sure that it is right in principle. It cannot be right to have a different law in Scotland—a wider and more effective law—that is not constrained by private agreements.
  I remind the Minister of what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, said in Committee when we were considering what became the Railways Act 1993. He said:
  "Transport Police travel all over the country and that is why there is no territorial arrangement".— [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 March 1993; c. 878.]
  We know, of course, that other forces have those arrangements. We do not want a territorial arrangement for the BTP. We want all parts of the BTP to have the same powers throughout the country as they have at present in Scotland. The Minister must accept that in Scotland the BTP are not constrained by the contents of any agreement that they may have to reach with any private owners. If that is good enough for Scotland, it should be good enough for England and Wales.
  The Bill is before us because we suggested that change should be made as there was a danger that the powers of the BTP would not be sufficient from 1 April. In the spirit in which we have proposed that the law should be changed—we have not obstructed the Bill's passage, and we do not intend to do so this evening—the Minister owes it to us to ensure that our arguments are accepted. If he cannot accept them and agree to changes this evening, he should give an undertaking that the appropriate amendment will be made in another place.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being in my place at the start of the debate. I had not anticipated as accurately as some hon. Members that the preceding debate would end rather quickly.
  Like the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I welcome the Bill in principle but regret that it is necessary. Throughout the passage of what is now the Railways Act 1993, several of us objected repeatedly to the indecent haste with which some important measures were being put together.
  I well recall one morning in Committee when the Government turned up with a raft of amendments that had been tabled at the last possible moment. After the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) had advanced his arguments against them, they had to be withdrawn. The proceedings for the day were then scratched. I referred to that during the final stages of our consideration of the Bill. I meant to say that we were proceeding with the Government's amendments while the ink upon them was scarcely dry. Unfortunately, I said that the ink was scarcely wet. It was said by someone on the Bench behind mine that I had accidentally coined a new phrase but that in all the circumstances it was probably more accurate than the old one.
  58
  I am glad that the Government have recognised the deficiency of the legislation as we left it at the end of last year. Whatever arguments might be put to the contrary, the jurisdiction of the British Transport police was distinctly undermined in that they would be exceeding their jurisdiction if they attempted to stray beyond British Rail property when conducting their inquiries or trying to apprehend a suspect. One can imagine the public outcry if, after a mugging, theft or attempted rape, the British Transport police, in hot pursuit of a suspect, had to give up when the suspect leapt over a perimeter fence. The sorts of incidents that might arise during mass travel to football matches leave one very worried indeed.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have attempted to address the problem, but, like Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, I voice some concerns about the Bill. I, too, am unable to understand why England and Wales are to have a regime that is different from that in Scotland. If the situation in Scotland is deemed to be adequate, that would seem an ideal model for England and Wales.
  I am slightly concerned that commercial interests might be involved. After the railway network has been broken up and privatisation has smashed it into many different pieces, if different elements of the railway negotiate their own different agreements, there could be a real mess. It is essential that one form of jurisdiction should apply across the whole railway network. That is the crucial aim of the Bill, regardless of how it is attained.
  I regret that I missed an earlier exchange between the Minister and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), when I think the question of exemptions from the licensing requirements of the Railways Act 1993 were dealt with. It is essential that the question of exemptions be dealt with. If the elements of the railways that are exempt from holding a licence were also to be exempt from a police services agreement, different regulations would apply to different parts of the railways. I also seek clarification about railway maintenance depots, leasing depots and freight depots.
  Nowhere does the Bill mention people who are approaching the vicinity of the railways. We have conducted the argument only in terms of people leaving the vicinity. What about people who are approaching the railways with crime in mind? This matter must be addressed. On an everyday level, a train driver may come on duty having drunk excessive amounts of alcohol. If that were known about, the transport police must be able to enter the depot from which the driver is to start his work and deal with the situation in a preventative way rather than waiting until he reached the main network.
  There are problems with this legislation, but I will not pursue the specifics any further tonight. The objective should be a universal system of jurisdiction throughout the railways by whatever means that that can be brought about. There should be no question of different commercial operations having different regulations with no one being clearly accountable for the whole.
  6.4 pm>
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In case I omit to make my position clear, I state first that I fully support the passing of the Bill. It is desperately needed by the British Transport police if they are to continue their much-valued

  59
  and brave work in promoting and protecting the best interests of the travelling public. I recognise that this legislation needs to reach the statute book before 1 April.
  I am extremely angry about the way in which this matter has been conducted by the Government and the way in which other people have acquiesced in procedures which I believe make a sham of parliamentary democracy. I am disappointed to have to speak in such terms, but I think that it needs to be said. Even though not many Members of Parliament are present, it needs to be made clear that the manner in which this important—I think the Minister referred to it as detailed—and complicated legislation is being dealt with is a total negation of proper scrutiny and parliamentary democracy.
  Of course, this is not the most important Bill ever to pass through the House but it is a measure which requires proper scrutiny. Because of their incompetence, the Government are trying to get through all stages of the Bill in one parliamentary day. That is almost unprecedented; it happens when people invade our shores and when the integrity of the United Kingdom is put at risk. Normally, one would expect that parliamentarians and other interested parties would have a reasonable opportunity to examine legislation and to prepare appropriate amendments in a considered manner, but I and other Members have been denied that opportunity in this case.
  I will explain why I think that the proceedings today are a charade. Since the last general election, the Minister for Public Transport and others on the Treasury Bench have been cautioned and counselled repeatedly about the need to safeguard the interests of the British Transport police. I can bear witness to that. On the British Coal and British Rail (Transfer Proposals) Act, I bored my colleagues almost silly going on about the need for the Minister to recognise their interests.
  The Minister then issued a document entitled "The Future Status of the British Transport Police" which was referred to on the Floor of the House on a number of occasions and in various Committees of the House. Hon. Members have raised a plethora of questions and early-day motions urging the Government to be mindful of the need for precision in legislation which will avoid putting in jeopardy the powers and interests of the British Transport police. But we have seen a combination of arrogance and incompetence from Ministers who, on every occasion, have said to hon. Members, "Don't worry, it is all on board". They have not said that just to hon. Members; they have said it also to the chief constable and the British Transport Police Federation.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he will at least concede that as long ago as September 1993 in correspondence with the British Transport Police Federation he acknowledged that there was a flaw in the legislation. So why is this legislation being railroaded through Parliament at the eleventh hour? There have been plenty of opportunities for the matter to come before Parliament. As recently as last week in another place it was conceded by the right hon. Earl Ferrers, Minister of State, Home Office, that legislation was needed in this area, but even then the Government did not come to the House of Commons and publish the Bill. An extra day would have given hon. Members the opportunity for greater scrutiny, consideration and understanding of the legislation, as well
  60
  as the opportunity to consult interested parties. It would also have allowed other parties, such as the chief constable and the British Transport Police Federation, to make representations.
  I am pleased that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has joined us. Unfortunately, he was unable to be here for the Minister's opening speech. That is a pity.
  Mr. Neville Trotter: I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister before the debate and explained that I had to take the receivers of Swan Hunter to see a Minister most urgently about the future of that company. I am sure that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will appreciate the extremely important nature of that constituency problem.
  Mr. Mackinlay: That is why I said that I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Tynemouth. It is good that he has arrived. No doubt he will give us the benefit of his views and information. I understand that he is the advisor to the British Transport Police Federation which is anxious that its views should be heard in this debate.
  I am a friend of the British Transport Police Federation. It should be stated on the Floor of the House that yesterday, on my own initiative, I faxed a copy of the Bill to the chairman of the federation who, prior to that, had not seen it. I blame the Government for that. How can it be right that the representative body in the police has not been allowed to see the Bill officially until today if, indeed, it has received a copy now? As of yesterday afternoon, that body had not received a copy of the Bill. It received a copy only when I sent one, on my own initiative, via my fax at home. That is an outrage and an insult to that representative body.
  The Minister had the audacity to thank various parties, including the hon. Member for Tynemouth, for drawing attention to the matter. The Minister also mentioned Lord Harris of Greenwich. I took the opportunity to examine Hansard from the other place and it is clear that Lord Harris of Greenwich believes that the Government have shown unprecedented incompetence in this matterm, so it was interesting that the Minister referred to Lord Harris. I understand that the Minister will be going to the British Transport Police Federation conference later this week. The federation should feel the Minister's collar and I hope that he receives a thoroughly good earbashing for his incompetence and that of his colleagues.
  We are considering this Bill because there has been an error. The matter goes to the heart of our proceedings in this place. No one can pretend that we give adequate scrutiny to legislation in this House, as has been demonstrated by the error which gave rise to the Bill. To some extent, all 651 Members of this place are to blame. In particular, the Government are to blame for pushing through the Railways Act 1993 in a very arrogant manner, regardless of the views of hon. Members. The Government guillotined the proceedings on that legislation, but when it reached the statute book they found that it contained an error. In other circumstances, people would be dismissed for such a costly and fundamental error, but that does not happen in the Government. There are two standards in this country, as has been shown yet again by the present scenario.
  The Government now want to rush this Bill through in one day and at the eleventh hour. If any hon. Member is confident that the Bill contains no errors, perhaps he will show his hand. It would be absurd and would make

  61
  nonsense of our proceedings if we found that the Bill contained an error after it had completed its passage, but there is a real danger of that as hon. Members have riot had an opportunity to study the Bill or to seek advice or counsel about what it means.
  The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) raised some interesting points to which he did not know the answers, while my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked some rhetorical questions. No doubt we shall receive answers from the Minister. Members should have an opportunity to explore what the Bill means before debating it in the Chamber. Apart from the Minister—and I am not too confident. about him—not one hon. Member fully understands the contents of the Bill. Yet we are expected to give it a Second Reading, allow it a Committee stage and then give it a Third Reading all in one day. That is wrong.
  Later on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will take the Chair as First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: My hon. Friend has said that hon. Members do not understand the Bill. Does he agree that that is because the Railways Act 1993 is of such labyrinthine absurdity in relation to the consequences of breaking up a national system into various parts, the number of which we do not know, and under agreements of which we do not have sight? It is not possible for us to know what kind of agreements are referred to in this Bill as they have yet to be drawn up among organisations which do not yet exist, in a degree and in numbers of which we are unaware.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That is the danger of this Bill, particularly with regard to the speed of its passage. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made a serious point. There will be a plethora of agreements, but there cannot be consistency in all of them. They will follow the same theme, but there will be variations on that theme. It will be most unsatisfactory for police officers or chief constables to have to operate in that way.
  If we had more time to deal with the Bill, we might understand the points, but it is an inescapable fact that none of us has had an opportunity to explore what the Bill involves or its implications. I assume that the motion will be passed and that the Bill will be considered in Committee, although I shall resist that and I shall be pleased to welcome any hon. Members who would support me in the Lobby to resist the Bill being considered by a Committee of the whole House today. This is a fundamental principle and one that I will not shirk. I am opposed to the way in which the Bill is proceeding because it is bad legislation and bad for Parliament.
  Assuming that the Bill passes to a Committee of the whole House, I shall wish to raise points of order with the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. I believe that amendments should be explored and examined. The hon. Member for North Devon made a valid point about people who are heading towards committing a crime or contemplating a crime. What powers exist in respect of such people?
  The Bill is entitled the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the graphic scenes on television a few months ago when there was a riot against the poll tax in Trafalgar square and a rioter threw a piece of scaffolding through the window of a police
  62
  car. It is a matter of fact that that police car was a British Transport police vehicle. As things stand, those officers had no power to intervene in crimes being committed in that vicinity other than the powers that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hold as ordinary citizens. I am also told—this also relates to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—that such a situation does not prevail in Scotland.
  We have an opportunity to remedy that situation and to clarify the jurisdiction of the BTP instead of fudging and confusing the issue. My objection to the details of the Bill, to the extent that I am able to understand them, is that far from clarifying the powers of the BTP, the Bill will cause confusion. I used the example that I did to demonstrate how, if my amendments were considered and accepted by the Committee of the whole House, we could clarify the powers of British Transport police officers outside of railway premises. The police officers who are at the sharp end would welcome clarification of their powers.
  I take a great interest in uniforms, regalia and cap badges. When I left St. Stephen's entrance recently I saw a British Transport police officer. To an ordinary member of the public he was simply a police officer. Most members of the public would have assumed that he was a member of the Metropolitan police. Had there been an incident outside St. Stephen's entrance, the public would not have paused to consider whether that officer was a Metropolitan police officer or a British Transport police officer. To Joe public, someone wearing a policeman's uniform is a police officer for 24 hours of the day and the public would have expected that officer to respond to an incident in that area. The way things are at present, however, that police officer would have been constrained from getting involved in any incident. Indeed, he would have put himself in jeopardy. He would have had to make a split-second decision whether to intervene, and if he had intervened he would have had only the same powers as ordinary citizens.
  I appeal to hon. Members to pause for a moment and consider whether we are doing justice to the police and to the institution of Parliament by treating such a serious matter in what I regard as a flip way in the manner in which the Bill is being pushed through. The Bill must be read a Second time and it must reach the statute book because it is much needed: it is inescapable that the powers must be restored to the British Transport police. But we could have an improved Bill—one which would bring credit rather than discredit to Parliament—if we concluded the Second Reading today and the Bill went into a Committee of the whole House on another occasion or, indeed, was referred to a Standing Committee. Hon. Members and people outside the House could then improve the Bill and, above all, understand its contents. For that reason, I support the Second Reading, but I hope that even at this stage Parliament can be persuaded to give the Bill the proper scrutiny that such an important matter deserves.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Neville Trotter: I am sorry if controversy has been brought into the Bill, which I thought would commend itself to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The British Transport police sets an excellent example to other forces. It is a force some 2,000 strong. It is noted for its efficiency and the calibre of its officers. In its

  63
  organisation, it was ahead of many of the reforms that are now being introduced by the Home Office forces. It is led by a well-respected chief constable.
  The British Transport police have a particular and serious problem in that they are dealing daily with a large number of terrorist threats and suspect parcels left on railway premises, amounting to something like 4,500 incidents each year. Every one of those incidents must be dealt with sensibly and correctly by the officers who respond to them. That is a considerable responsibility which descends at times on the shoulders of junior and young officers. There is more than one explosion every month on railway premises. Apart from their normal task of policing the railways and ensuring the safety and security of passengers and those who work on the railways, the BTP now face a very considerable added burden from terrorism.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on one thing at least—the need for the powers of the British Transport police to be extended, especially in circumstances in which BTP officers are the first to respond to a terrorist situation outside railway premises. At Bishopsgate, the first inspector to arrive on the scene was a British Transport police inspector. He did what had to be done but he did not in fact have the power to do it. He got by by using his common sense and his uniform. It is true that to the public the British Transport police are policemen, and all policemen are the same. The issue needs to be sorted out. If it cannot be sorted out in this Bill, which is making a remarkably rapid passage through the House so that it can become law before 31 March, I shall certainly return to it, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Thurrock will return to it as well.
  In the past 18 months, we have seen a great deal of uncertainty inevitably as a result of rail privatisation. During that time, my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have had numerous meetings with federation representatives. My right hon. Friend has always been fully supportive at those meetings. He made it clear from the start that he agreed that the force should remain as a national and unified force—there has been no suggestion that it should be split up and its role handed to local Home Office forces.
  It is regrettable that we need to spend time today debating the powers of the BTP in this way. It would have been much better if the whole issue had been decided when the Bill went through the House of Lords. However, so many political points were raised in the debates about privatisation that such sensible points were guillotined at the end of the day.
  Mr. Wilson: I find the hon. Gentleman's comments absolutely stunning. Is he suggesting that the issues that detained the House of Lords and threw the unwanted legislation into chaos were unimportant? Which issues does he think were unimportant—perhaps the concessionary travel for old age pensioners and the discounted through ticketing? Can he name the unimportant matters that detained both Houses of Parliament? Incidentally, will he declare his interest in the matter?
  Mr. Trotter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that, technically, I have not declared an interest, but it was referred to earlier. Hon. Members are
  64
  well aware that I represent the British Transport Police Federation. The delays to the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons were often on tedious and irrelevant points. If it had not been for delays on matters of no great moment, there would have been more time to debate the issues of substance.
  I shall return to the situation that the BTP face in the changed circumstances of privatisation. The essential factor is that there will be a stipulation that all of those who operate the railways in the future will be required to use the British Transport police force for their principal core police activities. That this stipulation will apply has been amply confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  I have no doubt whatever that the force will have the same important role to play in the future of the railways as it has had in the past. It will continue to police the railways, to ensure security and safety and to follow up crimes that are committed in connection with the railways. It is important for the BTP to have powers not only on railway premises but also to follow up offences related to the railways in areas outside railway premises. That is what the Bill seeks to do.
  In the future, Railtrack will have an important part to play in the organisation of the BTP. I took it upon myself recently to meet Robert Horton, the chairman of Railtrack. I asked him to put in writing what he told me, and it will be helpful to the House if I spell out what he said:

  "I am happy to be able to let you know my views on BTP and my resolve to make sure that they are properly funded and that this is not an 'optional extra' for the franchisees."
  Representatives of the federation will meet me and Mr. Horton in the near future.
  I have no doubt that the BTP will retain their present position as the national force policing the railway system. They will continue to fulfil excellently their vital role, and as a result of this Bill they will obtain the powers that they need to continue in the way that they should. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Bob Cryer: It is worth raising a few points about the Bill before it zips through the House. The Bill is before the House because of an error made by the Department of Transport, the relevant Ministers and the civil service advisers. We shall spend half a day in Parliament remedying an omission in previous legislation.
  The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who is a paid representative of the British Transport police, argued that we are debating this Bill because we spent time debating the rest of the privatisation legislation and issues, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, such as the through ticketing system which will be non-existent, the universal concessions to pensioners and other concessions, and the whole panoply of absurd right-wing extremism which the Bill represents. Two right-wing representatives of the Tories are present in the Chamber—the Minister for Public Transport and the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is grinning. He is a well-known right-wing extremist in the Tory party, and undoubtedly proud of it.
  The Bill is one of the consequences of rushing through legislation to break up a national service which is so complex in its application. It is not the fault of the House that the omission of the British Transport police was allowed to go through; it is the fact that we had to spend so much time getting explanations from the Minister as to

  65
  how the whole thing would work without bringing to a halt the railway service in one or more parts. I predicted then, and I predict now, that privatisation of the railway will do just that. It is not the House's fault; it is the Government's fault in producing such absurdly complex legislation, which will have the effect of producing a deteriorating standard of service.
  I want to raise some points in relation to the transport police. It is not only the serious and dramatic incidents of potential terrorist activity and the planting of bombs on the railway system which are of concern. The British Transport police must police 11,000 route miles, and it also polices the retention of the protection on both sides of the track, which makes 22,000 route miles of fencing.
  British Rail, unlike continental railways, was established not with open access, but with the requirement that people should be shielded from access to the railway by two lines of fencing. Therefore, the British Transport police have a duty and an obligation to try their level best—it is difficult in the present circumstances—to reduce the amount of vandalism, which can be sometimes encouraged by the lack of maintenance to fencing on either side of the track.
  The Government are the pillars of capitalism and they impose their philosophy on the public sector willy-nilly. They impose what they call efficiency, and their efficiency is sacking as many people as can be sacked. That is why 4 million people have been on the dole in about 10 of the 15 years that the Government have been in office. Vandalism has increased on the railways. Signal boxes have been closed, and stations are unstaffed.
  We heard earlier this afternoon at Question Time that 80 per cent. of the 1,000 stations in London are unstaffed after 6 o'clock. That means that, in winter, the stations are unstaffed after dark, and that is clearly an encouragement to vandalism. There are hundreds of thousands of people on the streets of our cities. Some of them are homeless because of the Government's housing policies, and some are wandering the streets because they are unemployed and have nothing to do because of the Government's wretched and wicked philosophies. Those philosophies are all about putting people out of work and imposing so-called efficiencies—which are really false efficiencies—on the public utilities and elsewhere. The British Transport police have an important and enormous day-to-day task in trying to preserve life and limb by ensuring that people cannot get on to the railways, which can represent an enormous danger.
  What about developments which have taken place? It is curious that the legislation, provides that a British Transport police constable can act as a constable only
  "to the extent that he is acting as a constable in pursuance of a transport police services agreement";
  and that
  "he shall … only so act in accordance with the terms of that agreement."
  One of the ways that British Rail has tried to reduce the financial burdens which have been placed upon it by the Government is to get rid of the obligations of maintenance of overhead bridges. If it can get rid of an overhead bridge by transferring it to either a private body, if it is an access bridge, or a public body such as a local authority, it does so. It has been encouraged by the Government to do just that. Maintenance will be carried out by the local authority under the terms and conditions which have been laid down by the civil engineer of British Rail.
  66
  What happens when somebody on a bridge is throwing obstacles at a train, either to encourage a derailment or simply to hit the driver? That is not unknown. That bridge, and the local authority which is maintaining it, presumably must be subject to an agreement for the British Transport police constable to have jurisdiction. If there is not a service agreement in existence, the constable will merely be able to stand to one side and say that he has no jurisdiction. Under the legislation, he will not be allowed to intervene as he is not a police constable in transport terms on the bridge. That bridge is owned by a private organisation because British Rail has sold it to get rid of the statutory obligations; and the Government want them to do that anyhow.
  A number of intriguing circumstances could arise. What about the miles of desert which have been created by all the clever people at the Department of Transport who love road transport so much and have denigrated and denuded a fine railway system? Freight depots and marshalling yards have been closed, and British Rail has been encouraged to sell them off. It has relied on the selling of assets for a significant percentage of its revenue.
  All those assets must now be subject to an agreement if British Transport police officers are to have jurisdiction over those assets in relation to the track which runs alongside, between or through them. If there is to be comprehensive policing alongside the 11,000 route miles—over and above the 11,000 route miles where trains run—it is possible that we will need a large number of service agreements to make sure that constables have adequate jurisdiction where railways have some access and where sections of land have been sold off as a result of pressure from the Government.
  My hon. Friends have raised an important matter which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides—except, curiously enough, the hon. Member for Tynemouth, who is a representative of the British Transport Police Federation. The hon. Gentleman simply accepted the legislation, and did not think anything about it. He believed that the House should rubber-stamp the Bill and pass it, in spite of the difficulties which will be created by the legislation for the operation of the powers of the British Transport police.
  We should debate the matter so that the Minister can give us a comprehensive answer. There are other areas in which the British Transport police operate well away from operating lines, and there is the question of vandalism by children where a special duty of care applies to keep people off the railway tracks.
  When the franchise holders take over, will Railtrack be encouraged to contract out such requirements as the statutory obligation for the maintenance of fencing? Will that create a greater burden on the transport police through children having access to tracks and creating difficulties for drivers? The Minister knows that British Rail has to run what are called Q trains to catch trespassers and warn them of the dangers. Trespassing can result in rapid injury and death because of the pace of trains, particularly the electrified trains which are much quieter than their steam and diesel predecessors.
  Lastly, I want to raise the question of sections of former British Rail property which are well away from the railways. For example, if a preserved viaduct is taken over by a preservation society, it can at the moment be supervised and guarded against vandalism by the BTP. What happens if there is an agreement, as there is in one

  67
  case, about a viaduct which has been refurbished and preserved? The example to which I refer is a grade 2 listed monument in Cumbria.
  What happens when a structure such as that is taken over by a trust to look after it and to give people the opportunity of looking at a great architectural structure? Does there have to be a separate agreement for the BTP to operate in an area where a private organisation is involved in the maintenance and operation of the viaduct, albeit a public trust? The trust is dedicated not to profit but to the retention of the viaduct for public access in conjunction with a nature reserve.
  The more one thinks about it, the greater the potential for these agreements to be combined into one huge volume. A transport constable will look at a situation, and he will have to turn to page 1,035 to check whether the area is subject to an agreement before he can take action. By the time he has looked up the relevant page and clause, the people will have disappeared. So the constable will not be so effective.
  I regret to say that the paid representative of the British Transport Police Federation has departed the Chamber—[Interruption.]—and has returned perhaps to take part in the debate, having arrived late in any case. I wonder whether the British Transport Police Federation thinks that it is getting value for money. I can say with confidence that, if there is a cause for anxiety, Opposition Members will take it up without being paid to do so.
  I hope that the Minister will give us some answers. I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). He asked why the Bill was being pushed through in such a short time. The Minister is surely a little trusting to present to the House the notion that the business managers alone determine the way in which business is conducted. Do not Ministers have some comment to make when a proposal is made? Do not they say, for example, that they would like longer or that the amount of time is all right because a measure will go through on the nod?
  Surely Ministers are not so completely remote from the business managers that they cannot say, "We have made one terrible error already. This legislation is the result of that error. Should not we linger over it a little longer to allow more time for amendments to be tabled so that we do not make any errors the second time round?" I do not believe that the Minister could not make such representations or that the Leader of the House would ignore them if he did. So I believe that the Minister is content at his own risk to push the Bill through in the most rapid time that he regards as convenient. The House is not here to be convenient for the Executive. The longer that we take over examination of the Bill, the more likely it is that it will be better legislation.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: We have been far too beastly to the Minister. We should thank him for giving us the opportunity to debate a subject rarely debated in the House—policing outside the Home Department police forces. Perhaps that was his motive. Perhaps he wanted to give us that opportunity.
  I did not serve on the Committee that considered what became the Railways Act 1993, section 132 of which says:
  68
  "The Secretary of State may make a scheme".
  When I read that, I wondered what it reminded me of. It occurred to me that it was obvious. Yesterday I had the privilege of attending a rally in Birmingham that was led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It was hosted by Tony Robinson, who plays the part of Baldrick in "Blackadder", who always says something like, "I have a scheme" or, "I have a cunning plan." The element of farce in the Bill is obvious.
  This is the time for apologies. I must apologise to the Minister for missing his speech. He has apologised for missing the British Transport police. As I am deeply interested in history, I looked up the history of the British Transport police force. I found that it went back to the 1830s and the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company. The officers appointed had constabulary powers. One would have thought that the 160 years or so since the origins of the British Transport police would have allowed our scintillating civil servants, known to be the best in the world, the opportunity to learn about the powers of those officers. If the civil servants were not aware of the powers of the transport police in England, they could have looked more closely at the powers of the transport police in Scotland or other non-Home Department police forces. Therefore, the error was inexcusable.
  That error illustrates the contempt of the Executive for the legislature. The Executive say, "It does not really matter. We can make legislation swiftly, the legislature is not up to it. After all, half the Committee will be placemen from our side. All they are interested in doing is their correspondence or their crosswords. As for the Opposition, they are not smart enough to spot our errors." In many ways, the House has been reduced to the level of the old eastern European rubber-stamp legislatures.
  The Government's reputation for political competence is in tatters. Their reputation, if they have any left, for administrative competence is even more shredded. This little error has been exposed not as a result of internal examination but by people on the outside saying that the Government have got it wrong. If the error had not been corrected, the transport police would have been in a bizarre position after 1 April. A couple of British Rail transport policemen running to apprehend an alleged criminal who was leaving British Rail premises would have panted to each other, "Do we have the power to pursue? Yes, we have the powers of the ordinary citizen." While they were debating their constitutional position, the hood would have made his exit. Perhaps 1 April has an element of farce about it.
  We are having to debate the Bill rather swiftly. On Friday only a photocopied Bill was available to us. It is rather embarrassing and humiliating that the House of Commons, given two or three days to investigate a failure of drafting, is sent a photocopy and has to wait until the day of the debate to have a proper copy made available to Members.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Has my hon. Friend thought that the last Bill that went through this place at exactly this speed was the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, which is not exactly noted for being the most beautifully crafted piece of legislation that the House of Commons has ever accepted?
  Mr. George: Those who are aggrieved by the Opposition's guerilla warfare in protest at the contempt

  69
  with which the Executive has treated the House—not only the Opposition—must accept that the Bill is further evidence of the need to bring it to the attention of the Government that they must treat the House with rather more respect than they have shown so far. We have an opportunity now briefly to discuss policing outside our Home Office police forces.
  What has happened with the Bill has shown elements of farce and a lack of political and administrative competence. It is an example—this is my crucial point—of the indifference bordering on contempt that the Government have shown not just to the House but to the non-Home Department police forces. We forget about them. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that people did not know the difference between transport policemen and other police officers. They look alike and they dress alike. Their vehicles are similar. They have somewhat similar powers. They are trained in exactly the same way. They have, at least until the Bill is passed, more or less analogous powers and they are exceedingly competent.
  Non-Home Department police forces are suffering because some of their responsibilities have been eliminated as a result of the collapse of industry and because the Government are intent on privatisation. The Government's mania for privatisation is manifest in industry, but they have had to develop a more cunning plan to deal with the health service—witness trusts. They have had greater difficulty in dealing with the military, but they are privatising in the best way that they can.
  The Government are privatising police forces. That process will continue. The Home Office is defining core police functions. I am sure that they will be the responsibility of the police and everything else will be up for grabs by the private sector, which will muscle in. What is more, that will be an unregulated private sector.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Has my hon. Friend noticed that it is intended that as from 1 April the British Transport police will be vested in Railtrack and that the Government have announced their not medium-term intention that Railtrack should be privatised? Is not that a matter for grave concern to the British Transport police and other non-Home Office forces who are threatened by the Government with privatisation?
  Mr. George: One of the advantages of the absurd timing is that I am able to give some publicity for a conference that I am organising in Committee Room 14 on Monday, which will consider the future of policing, public and private. It is fortuitous that one of the speakers will be the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police, who will speak about the future of the non-Home Department police forces. I do not know what he will say; I am only the organiser of the conference. The content will be entirely his. However, in my opinion, the future of the non-Home Department forces—if the Bill is anything to go by—is uncertain, at least during the next two or three years. It is uncertain because the Government cannot even draft the legislation properly when they deal with it, and they are privatising where they can.
  There is an even greater threat to the Ministry of Defence police. As a result of the Blelloch report, they will apparently be replaced by redundant service men. It seems patently bizarre—I know that I use that word frequently
  70
  —if, to deal with redundancy in one sector of the Ministry of Defence, one creates redundancy in another sector, but that is an example.
  The Government do not like the non-Home Department police forces. I am worried about the transport police. There may not be a direct threat to them now, but I know exactly what will happen once privatisation takes hold. The privatised entities will say to the Minister, probably unofficially, "This is very expensive. After all, we are paying full policing rates for these guys. They are going through so much training. Surely we can train them less effectively than the training college that the fools have to go through to become as competent as police officers. It is much too costly. Minister, can't we find a way to reduce our costs?"
  Obviously the Government are intent on doing that. It has happened in the Ministry of Defence with the royal ordnance factories, and the sidelining of the Ministry of Defence police in many areas. It is a continuation of the mania for cheap policing, but cheap policing is poor policing. One may appear to gain, looking at a balance sheet, but I can say, with some experience, that one will not gain if policing and security personnel are not trained to a level that is commensurate with the growing threat from the criminal and from terrorism. The international situation will deteriorate so that there will be more targets, static and mobile, requiring better, not deteriorating, policing.
  I believe that there should be a future for the transport police. They should not have to look behind them to see whether private companies are muscling in on the work that they do. There is an enormous vacuum in the Home Office's knowledge of policing and it appears to be indifferent to the way in which the contract security industry is evolving. There is no regulatory system for guarding, for private investigators, for retail security. That requires investigation, as does the way in which the Home Department police forces, including the transport police, operate.
  I hope that, as a result of receiving this little slap across the wrist from the legislature, the Minister will take the transport police more seriously than his Department has done hitherto, and his colleagues will take the non-Home Department police forces more seriously. Morale is a subject that we must all, including the Executive, tackle. What will be the future of those forces? Is there a real future for them? Is their future merely to await the time when the private sector is able to move in and take over? We know exactly what will happen unless that private sector operates under a system of regulation. Standards will deteriorate and standards of security will diminish even further.
  If British Rail or what succeeds it moves as swiftly as the Government have moved with this legislation, we should see trains moving far more swiftly. I hope that the Minister will be mindful of the criticism to which he has been subjected and that the drafting process will be improved. I hope that hon. Members will develop the enthusiasm to challenge the Executive and to provide a better system of scrutiny.
  If one thing emerges from this farce, it is that Parliament's capacity to scrutinise is woefully weak. Should that continue, we shall be replacing the old Supreme Soviet in the legislatures of eastern Europe as the superfluous Parliament in the western world.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Tonight we must learn the lesson that when Governments legislate in an autocratic and hasty way, they soon regret it. Few Bills have been more deeply unpopular than that which became the Railways Act 1993. It was condemned by the Transport Select Committee unanimously, by members of all parties, and many Members of the House have the right to claim that we were wise before the event.
  So unpopular was the Bill that at one time the Transport Select Committee sought from extremist organisations, such as the right-wing think tanks, support for the Government's intention. The Committee went so far as to take the unique step of advertising in the press for anyone who was willing to support the Government's plans, and no one came forward to support them. Throughout the long hours on that Committee, the only people who said anything in the Bill's favour were those who had a vested interest in its outcome.
  The 1993 Act is an atrocious piece of legislation. We all remember the comments that were made in the House when the Act went through. The resistance from the other place and this House was deep and serious. The Government chose to ignore it and behaved like an elective dictatorship.
  Another argument is going on at the moment about decisions taken by another organisation that is a union of countries—the European Union. The Government are pressing for a blocking motion on that by 27 members or 23 members, which amounts to 34 per cent. of the membership of that organisation. I have asked the Prime Minister, in my usual helpful, constructive way, whether he would support in the House a blocking measure on Bills if it were supported by 34 per cent. of Members of the House. His answer, which I have just received, was disappointingly brief and consisted of one word, which was no.
  As a democracy, we are in serious trouble because if there were such a blocking motion in the House as the Government are demanding in the other union of nations, the European Union, we would have far better legislation. The Government would have to persuade the Members of the House of the wisdom of their policies. We would not have had the Railways Act. We would not have had the poll tax. We would not have had all the other damaging pieces of legislation. We have a Government who have managed to be popular for a few days every five years, following which their popularity disappears rapidly for a long period.
  We have had two Bills recently that apply to my country, Wales—and Wales only. Eighty-four per cent. of the elected Members for Wales have opposed those Bills, yet they have passed through the House, pushed through by elected Members from other parts of the United Kingdom, who have no interest in those Bills, who do not understand them and whose constituents will not be affected.
  We are here tonight to mark a major error by the Government. Although I apologise for not being here to hear the Minister's statement, unfortunately I would not have missed an apology by the Government. They should apologise to the House for that major error.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Brian Wilson: We are discussing a rushed piece of legislation, introduced with 10 days to go before the unwanted fragmentation of our railways, to avoid leaving the British Transport police virtually bereft of powers. The sole reason for that state of affairs is the Government's failure to deal with the issue during the progress of that demented and discredited piece of legislation, the Railways Act 1993, which poses such a threat to the future of our rail network.
  I put that statement of fact on the record because, listening to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), one might have had to suspend disbelief. He appears to regard it as an irksome necessity to drop in occasionally to earn his consultancy fees. First, he objected to this matter being treated as controversial. He expected us to turn up, vote the Bill through and go home. Ten days before the unwanted upheaval in the British railways system, no legislation is on the statute book to give the British Transport police, which the hon. Gentleman is supposed to represent in this House, the powers which they need. We have before us tonight a Bill with which the British Transport police are not happy and the hon. Gentleman wonders why we must waste more than 20 minutes discussing it. He wants us simply to wave it through and go to dinner. I hope that the British Transport police read the transcript of these proceedings.
  The hon. Member for Tynemouth then suggested that we need not be here at all. The matter could have been dealt with months ago, had not all the footling other matters for which he is not the paid consultant had to be dealt with in this House and the other place.
  I invite the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to the issues that took the Government to the wire on the Railways Act. I do not know whether he has received letters from railway pensioners or whether he has railway pensioners in his constituency, but my hon. Friends and I and many Tory Members who are missing from those Benches have received hundreds of letters expressing genuine concern that the Government are seeking to use the mask of rail privatisation to get the Treasury's hands on the railway pension fund. That issue exercised the House night after night and encouraged Members on both sides of the House of Lords to try to force Ministers, until the last possible moment, to rescind their policy and accept railway pensioners' rights. A few short months later, the hon. Member for Tynemouth has the cheek to make a brief appearance in the Chamber and say that this matter could have been dismissed lightly for his convenience and that of the Minister.
  Only one set of people is responsible for the fact that we are back here tonight. Those same people are responsible for this legislation in the first place and for trying to perpetrate that dreadful act against railway pensioners—the Government, represented tonight by the Minister for Public Transport. I do not recall the hon. Member for Tynemouth, in defence of the interests of the British Transport police, British Rail pensioners or those of our rail network, questioning or voting against a dot or comma of the Railways Act. For him to complain that it is the fault of anyone but the Government that we are in this position is offensive. With his throw-away remarks that we are wasting our time here and could have rubber-stamped the substance of tonight's Bill months ago, he has introduced an element of controversy into tonight's debate.

  73
  Many serious questions must be asked about the Bill. Most of them centre around the phrase in line 29 of clause 1, "transport police services agreement". The hon. Member for Tynemouth probably thinks that it is a wonderful idea that, instead of one integrated British Transport police serving every element of the network, it should be like catering contracts put out to Macdonalds with the transport police obliged to seek service agreements. Each component part of our fragmented rail network will have to make those agreements with the British Transport police.
  Opposition Members and the British Transport police are concerned about the word "agreement". Will the Minister explain much more clearly whether that implies that two parties must agree on something, or whether it is an obligation? Is there an obligation to have an agreement and accept what is in that agreement? Is there a fixed set of terms within that agreement or is it literally a case of bargaining in each specific case until an agreement is reached? The only guidance which we have from the Minister is in his letter of 21 March—today's date—to David Rayner, chairman of the British Transport police. But it does not resolve the ambiguity, because it says:
  "Since all licence holders referred to above must have an agreement approved by the Secretary of State for the provision of core police services determined by the Police Committee, you have my assurance that the Secretary of State will ensure consistency of agreements. In particular, he will seek to ensure that provisions in the agreements, which might affect the jurisdiction of constables, are consistent so that British Transport Police constables can have a clear and unambiguous understanding of their jurisdiction."
  So many questions are raised by those two sentences that I might have expected the paid advisor of the transport police to ask some of them but, as he did not, it has been left for my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and others to ask them.
  The Minister is aware of the difference between precise and imprecise language. What does "consistency of agreements" mean? Will agreements all be the same? Will they be a matter of negotiation? The Minister's letter says that he will "seek" to ensure that provisions in the agreement are consistent. What does "seek" mean? To anyone who uses the English language normally, it means that he will have a go and try to encourage the parties to come to an agreement. But if the parties say that they do not want that agreement, the search might be in vain and me Minister may have to seek again next year or the year after. The language is imprecise about whether there will be an element of compunction within those agreements or whether they will be negotiable.
  What the Minister has told us tonight and the transport police in that letter does not answer the question but opens up new questions. Either there is an obligation on licence holders—the companies that will be established by the Railways Act—to enter into obligations to use the British Transport police on certain terms, or there is not. If there is no such obligation, there will be massive uncertainties and precisely the situation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras referred will arise. Depending on which fragmented element of the railway the British Transport police are working for at any time, they will have to check the handbook to see whether the terms of that agreement are what they understand them to be. If that is what the Minister is offering the House, it is inadequate. He must understand that as well as any Opposition Members, but will he admit it?
  74
  Will the Minister clarify the term, "licence holders"? This is an exploratory question and I might be going up the wrong alleyway. To what extent is the term cross-referrable with the Railways (Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions) Order 1994, which has not yet been agreed to on the Floor of the House or in Committee? It contains a large number of exemptions from the requirement to hold a licence. Many are perfectly understandable, such as exemptions for steam railways and certain maintenance depots. Even within the context that we are discussing tonight, some exemptions would be understandable. But is an exemption from the requirement to hold a licence under the Railways Act translatable as being not subject to the provisions of this Bill? If a company is not a licence holder, must it still use the British Transport police?
  The Minister will understand that my concern about that matter is strengthened by the repeated use of the phrase "licence holders" in his letter to David Rayner.
  I reserve the right to return to this question, but an intervention from the Minister would be very welcome. The hon. Gentleman could bring the debate to a conclusion right now. If licence holders are the only operators or companies to be covered by the legislation, the Minister may—totally inadvertently—have been a little misleading in replies to questions that I put to him earlier. He may wish to clarify his thinking, especially in respect of the channel tunnel and the Heathrow express. At this stage, what we need is clarification—very important clarification, I suggest.
  We are dealing with a world that will begin to develop only on 1 April. I hope that it will not go very far, but it may go a little further than I should like. Some very undesirable operators may be brought on to the scene. Mr. James Sherwood, the man who bought and sold Sealink and British Transport Hotels, is on record as having said that the last thing he wants to do is employ the British Transport police. We are not dealing here with something hypothetical; we are dealing with Mr. Sherwood and, I believe, with other operators, one of whose early aims is to get rid of the British Transport police and employ private security firms. Thus we must know how strong are the guarantees concerning retention of the services of that force.
  We must know also who will determine how much has to be paid for those services and how the money will be collected. Once again, is it a matter for negotiation, or is it a question of somebody—I shall come in a moment to the question of which somebody—being able to lay down the charges and then, in effect, precept the companies, saying, "These are the charges, and you will pay them as a condition of continuing to operate services or any other function of the railway"? Who will lay down the charges, what rights of enforcement will there be, and what will happen to a franchisee who fails to pay up? It is very important that these questions be answered.
  I should like to deal now with the question of jurisdiction. If everyone thinks that the way in which things work in Scotland is right, that there is no need for new legislation for Scotland, where the British Transport police have the right to pursue and investigate in a more liberal way than in the rest of Britain, why in heaven's name should not we use the opportunity of this legislation to create uniformity throughout the country?
  In his letter to David Rayner, the Minister says:
  "It was never intended that the Bill would do other than address the defect in the Railways Act 1993. Jurisdiction in

  75
  respect of non-railway activities is a separate issue, which is not the subject of this legislation."
  Fair enough, but why? When next will the House of Commons deal with legislation dealing specifically with the British Transport police? If we agree that there is a better legislative model in operation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, why should not we incorporate it in the Bill? I hope that in the course of tonight's debate the Minister will look sympathetically at that argument. There is no case against uniformity.
  On a specific point of detail, it has been suggested to me that I should ask the Minister who is on the police committee and how future membership will be determined.
  Mr. Mackinlay: As I am confused, I should like to underline my hon. Friend's request. We need to be told, not only for our own sake but for the sake of officers of the British Transport police, whether it is the intention that, on a day-to-day basis, this body will be under the control and stewardship of Railtrack—I believe that to be the position—or at arm's length from Railtrack.
  I should like to return to a point that I flagged earlier: the Government's expressed intention to privatise Railtrack. Whether or not the British Transport police are to be under the control of Railtrack from 1 April, what would be the position if the Government were given an opportunity to put privatisation legislation through the House? The threat of privatisation, either in whole or in part, of the functions of the British Transport police is felt by every police officer. We need and have a right to know what the Government's intention is.
  Mr. Wilson: The Minister will have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. On the question of the privatisation of Railtrack, we shall cross that viaduct when we come to it. However, I do not think that that will happen this side of a general election, unless the Government are taking the suicide pills again. My hon. Friend's question concerning structure is one in respect of which I should value more elucidation. My understanding is that the British Transport police continues to be a subsidiary of the British Railways Board—and that much I welcome—but, with regard to the precise relationship with Railtrack, I understand that body to be a client of the British Railways Board in securing the services of the British Transport police, much along the lines of any of the other entities being created by the Railways Act. No doubt the Minister will fill us in.
  I do not want to detain the House, but these are immensely important questions concerning not just matters of detail but the basis of the Bill and the extent to which it will meet the very legitimate concerns of the British Transport police and the public. Eventually, as in the case of everything to do with this legislation, it is the public who should be borne in mind. A shocking proportion of crimes of violence are committed within a very narrow radius of railway stations. There is enormous fear, particularly among women using railway stations late at night. That, as a by-product of this legislation—a short Bill to be rushed through 10 days before it takes effect—the powers of the British Transport police are to be seriously diluted is an unacceptable proposition and one in respect of which the Minister must answer much more satisfactorily to the House.
  All of this is a product of rail privatisation legislation.
  76
  In particular, it is a part of the fragmentation of the railways, which almost literally nobody, except the 300 Tory Members of Parliament who voted for it, wants.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Freeman: By leave of the House, I shall seek to respond to the questions that have been addressed to me.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), opening the debate for the Opposition, raised two points for response. He referred to the possibility that members of the British Transport police would have to carry in their backpack an index to all the various agreements being entered into on the new railway system. That is not the case. The core policing responsibilities that will be laid upon all those who are licensed—Railtrack, the train operators, those who operate light maintenance depots and those who operate stations—are covered. It is the intention of the police committee to draw up a standard specification of responsibilities of the British Transport police for what are called core services. I read into the record at the beginning of the debate the definition of core police responsibilities. It is clearly sensible that the chief constable be able to refer to a standard, almost boilerplate, set of responsibilities of the police in relation to any part of the railways.
  I accept, and have always accepted, the argument that one cannot have different core policing responsibilities for different sections of the railways. That would cause confusion. No doubt the chief constable will ensure that there is a clear standard set of instructions and guidance for all transport police constables in the exercise of their duty.
  With regard to non-core activities—and here we are talking at the margin—there may well be certain guarding responsibilities that neither the British Transport police wish to discharge nor rail operators wish to place upon the shoulders of the British Transport police. Core policing activities constitute the vast majority of the responsibilities of the police. Law and order issues throughout the railway system—whether passenger or freight—will be clearly specified and will be standard and consistent as between different licensees.
  Mr. Dobson: If all these agreements are to be identical, why do we need lines 28 to 31 at all? They are utterly superfluous. Why do we need to say that a constable will be able to act
  "in accordance with the terms of that agreement"?
  Unless the agreements are going to be different, there is no need to include that line in the Bill. If the agreements are to be identical, the Minister can scrap those four lines, and then we shall be rather more satisfied with the Bill.
  Mr. Freeman: There are two reasons why the agreements might vary. The first is the duration of an agreement. If a franchise is to run for seven, 10 or 15 years, that needs to be written into the agreement. Secondly, the charge paid by the user of the British Transport police will vary according to the size of the rail operation. Those two conditions, which have nothing to do with what I call the boilerplate core policing arrangements, will have to be included in an agreement.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras looks incredulous at this explanation, but he should allow me to complete it. I think it important that everyone involved in the running of the new railways should have, set out clearly in an agreement, precise obligations. That is well precedented, and the hon. Member for Crewe and

  77
  Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—who also looks incredulous, but who has long experience of the operation of the railways and who will know full well that all the legislation of the past 10 years has included the idea of specific agreements between undertakings and the BTP—will recall that this has been true of light rapid transit and of parts of London Regional Transport. It is certainly important to specify obligations and rights.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman has given us two reasons why he wants separate agreements to be brought to bear on a constable going about his duties. The first is that such agreements will be for different lengths of time. Surely at any given moment an agreement will be in place covering a premises or a company: either it will exist, or it will have run out, and the owners will no longer be the owners.
  As for the different charges, is the Minister suggesting that the charges might affect the amount of effort put in by a constable or the extent of his jurisdiction? That is blithering nonsense. There is no good reason to keep this part of the Bill.
  Mr. Freeman: I have been accused of many things in my time, but never of talking blithering nonsense—
  Mr. Mackinlay: You have now.
  Mr. Freeman: There is always a first time. It stands to reason that a police services agreement will specify for a franchised train operator or station operator precisely what the obligations in addition to the standard core policing obligations are.
  Mr. Cryer: The Minister keeps referring to a standard core obligation on the police. Can he confirm that there is no statutory obligation on any party involved to impose such a core service? If any party to an agreement dissents, then the chief constable will be in no position to override that party. That provides the necessary condition for a wide variety of agreements—it is what the Bill will entail.
  Mr. Freeman: Not so—the police committee appointed by the board of British Rail will be responsible for drawing up a precise definition of the core policing responsibility of the BTP, and it will be imposed. Indeed, it will be a condition of the licences issued to everyone—apart from those who are exempt—running the railway. A preserved railway would be a good example of such exemption. The rail operator does not have the option whether to accept the remit of the BTP: it will be imposed on him. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Railways Act every operator requires a licence. The police committee determines the core policing arrangements, and the chief constable sits on that committee.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that the Minister understands that the real problem is that the House suspects that the implication of his reiteration of the phrase "core policing" is that he envisages two levels of policing. He may brush that aside by claiming that in some instances guarding can be done by security men, but the fact remains that, once the House suspects that he is introducing a two-tier system of policing, we will have grave doubts about whether the British Transport police will remain the same or whether they are to become an ever smaller part of a different system in which their duties will, perforce, be changed.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady may not have heard my speech at the beginning of the debate in which I defined core policing responsibilities. Those responsibilities are very broad. I offer two examples of activities in which the British Transport Police themselves might not be interested in engaging. After all, the chief constable wants to use his constables in the most effective possible way. The first example is guarding cash or other items of great value when they move, say, from a ticket office to a bank. I should have thought that a private sector security firm would be better able to provide that service. If the hon. Lady doubts that, she should talk to the chief constable who, like any other sensible chief constable, needs to use his limited manpower to the best possible effect.
  A second example might be the guarding of a free-standing freight facility or yard—that is not a job for policemen, whose job is to ensure that law and order are preserved on the railway and that terrorists are defeated. I really do not think that the difference between core and non-core functions is relevant; nor is the hon. Lady's concern shared by the chief constable.
  Mr. Dobson: Would the Minister apply the description "free-standing freight yard" to any of the Euro-terminals that he proposes?
  Mr. Freeman: I did not say yard, I said facility, by which I meant a depot. It is not the job of a policeman on static guard to make sure that a facility is not broken into. If the chief constable and the police committee want to give an independent operator the flexibility to provide such a service, that is only sensible.
  The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) asked me two questions. I can assure him, first, that light maintenance depots will be covered because they must be licensed. He asked also whether pre-emptive responsibilities could be placed on the BTP for dealing with people coming from outwith the rail estate on to a railway. The answer is yes; the Bill provides the appropriate jurisdiction for that.
  Mr. Harvey: To return to the Minister's earlier point, how long an agreement may last or how much it will cost are points of no relevance to the jurisdiction of the police carrying out an investigation. Coming closer to the nub of the argument, however, about core services and services which might, in some circumstances, be carried out by a private contractor, I suggest that the idea advanced by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—that police officers would need a manual about their person to tell them whether private contracts with security firms were in place—will turn out to be true after all.
  We are talking about the jurisdiction of the police, in which context those four lines of the Bill seem excessive. We do not want to insist on the BTP duplicating activities carried out by private security firms, but surely we need to give them the right, in the heat of a chase or of apprehending someone, to enter an area that may be patrolled by a private security firm.
  Mr. Freeman: Of course the police have that jurisdiction—that is the whole purpose of the Bill. If a criminal leaves the vicinity of a railway station or freight yard, and absconds to some other facility that may be guarded by a private security firm, the British Transport police will have full jurisdiction to enter that property. That is the position and we want it to continue after 1 April.

  79
  The hon. Member for North Devon foresees the problem that a policeman will not know whether he has responsibility. That problem already exists for police forces. I assure him that the question of jurisdiction will not arise. If a policeman pursues a criminal or suspicious individual to property anywhere in England and Wales, he will have complete jurisdiction.
  Mr. Dobson: In that case, why does the Minister need those four lines in the Bill? That is the reason why we are puzzled. All that we need are the provisions in the earlier part of the proposed subsection. We do not need the exclusion proposals. Does the Minister accept that those four lines crib, cabin and confine constables' jurisdiction? He must accept that they potentially reduce jurisdiction, which will cause confusion and a conflict may arise. The Minister says that there will be core policing and that non-core policing may be undertaken by others. That is of relevance to the terms of the agreement. How will constables know whether what they are doing is within those terms? The Minister has accepted that they may differ.
  Mr. Freeman: The chief constable is satisfied that he can issue instructions to his force which are consistent with the Bill's provisions. All constables will know precisely what their core policing responsibilities are and what their jurisdiction will be. The purpose of the Bill is to avoid any possible confusion.
  There are two reasons why we need the provisions in those four lines. A precedent has been set in the past 10 years—and perhaps in the years before—that it is important for the undertakings of London Regional Transport, the docklands light railway or companies operating a franchise to include a formal agreement. The companies involved have a responsibility to pay the employer of the British Transport police for their services. That is the position for non-railway services. It is also agreed that the British Transport police should have on file a formal understanding of their responsibilities.
  Although the core policing responsibilities will not change, other factors will vary from one user to the next. I have already given two examples of where there might be change. A third example might be that the individual franchisee might be involved in other non-railway undertakings. The British Transport police do not have jurisdiction to deal with crimes committed outside the railway network, which having-nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Does that not emphasise the fact that the Committee stage should be separate from today's proceedings so that those matters can be examined properly outside the House and in Committee?
  A British Transport police officer may be operating within the curtilage of the British Airports Authority and Heathrow airport, but just outside the curtilage of London Underground. Unless we take the opportunity to introduce a change today, that officer will not have the opportunity to exercise his powers as a constable. That is an absurdity. I have already given the examples of St. Stephen's entrance and the Trafalgar square riot. There is a void in police powers, which we should take this opportunity to remedy. Heathrow airport is another example of an interface in the region policed by London Underground and the Metropolitan police, where a British Transport police
  80
  officer could be on wrong side of the line and thus be unable to fulfil his or her duty as a constable, as expected by the public.
  Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the wider issue of the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables. If an officer happens, in uniform, to be travelling from his home to his police station and a crime is committed that has no connection with the railway, he does not have jurisdiction. The hon. Gentleman knows that. That is a sensible issue for debate, but it should not be discussed during the debate on this Bill and it was not an appropriate subject for discussion during the debates on the Railways Act 1993. I shall be happy to debate the subject in due course, but we need first to continue our discussions with the Home Office and with other home police forces, through the Home Office, to identify what reforms are needed. That subject is not connected with the Bill or with the Railways Act.
  I acknowledge that it is a subject about which the British Transport Police Federation and British Transport police chief constable are concerned. The hon. Gentleman referred to a letter that I wrote to him in September 1993. It dealt with that wider jurisdictional matter and not with the lacuna, which was discovered much later, in the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables pursuing crimes committed on the railway.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asked me who the employer is. The employer now and after 1 April is the British Railways Board, not Railtrack. That situation will not change until there is fresh primary legislation, and the debate on that legislation will be the time and place to discuss the matter. Railtrack will be an important user of British Transport policemen, but not the employer.
  I pay tribute to the achievements of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who spoke earlier. I have been in my job for four years and he has badgered me consistently about British Transport police issues and has brought officers of the British Transport Police Federation to my office on a dozen occasions. Accompanied by my hon. Friend, I have visited the federation's annual general meetings on several occasions and I shall be attending its conference with him this Wednesday. He has been exceptionally diligent in pursuing the BTP's interests.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Freeman: No.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised a number of issues. The first dealt with the wider jurisdictional point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the Government view that that is a separate issue, which needs to be addressed separately. He cited the example of an offence being committed on a bridge owned by the highway authority or by a private sector company above a railway line. In that situation, there is no question of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police being clouded or restricted. They have jurisdiction to arrest and pursue those who are affecting the safety of passengers using the railway.
  In his winding-up speech, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked a number of questions and I shall seek to answer them concisely. All those operators who have to have a licence are required to include a provision that there should be a police services

  81
  agreement. Every aspect of the operation of the railways—where they are open for public transportation of passengers and freight—must be licensed. I cited the only example that I could—the preserved railways. Some other public sector transport undertakings—for example, London Regional Transport and the docklands light railway—are covered separately. The practical effect of the legislation is universal.
  I confirm what I said in opening the debate. European passenger services will be included in the proposals because they will have to be licensed. We shall deal with the new channel tunnel rail link separately in a Bill which I hope will be presented later this year. I confirm that what I said about the Heathrow express was correct. If it runs on Railtrack, it will have to be licensed.
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the Minister. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), I picked up the Minister's last phrase. I asked him whether the Bill's provisions on licensing cross-referred to the Railways Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions Order 1994. From what he said, it appears that they do. I think that the Minister is nodding. That raises many interesting questions on which the Minister should give us more information.
  I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to make a lengthy intervention.
  Under the heading "Licence exemptions", paragraphs 3 and 4 set out a list running from "a" to "u"—about 22, at the last count. Most, or at least many, are small items which could easily be passed by; item "1", however, states that exemption will apply to
  "any network, station or light maintenance depot comprised in the Channel Tunnel system".
  We need a brief explanation of that from the Minister. Indeed, I think that we should have a brief explanation of everything in items "a" to "u".
  Mr. Freeman: Anything involving the construction of the new channel tunnel rail link will be the subject of separate legislation. To the extent that passenger and freight services use the existing channel tunnel, they will be covered.
  Mr. Wilson: The word "link" is not used; the phrase used is
  "any network, station or light maintenance depot comprised in the Channel Tunnel system".
  The words "system" and "link" are not synonymous, as the Minister well knows.
  If the Opposition had not raised the list of exemptions, the Minister would not have told us about it. He did not intend to tell us about elements of the railway which will not require licensing and will therefore not be required to enter into agreements with the British Transport police. I find that pretty shocking.
  Mr. Freeman: I have made the position quite clear. [Interruption.] I have repeated what I said earlier, also very clearly.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North also asked about three other important issues. First, he asked about the police committee. The committee is appointed by the board; that has not changed, and will not change. Secondly, he asked who determines the charges. They will be determined by the board, and collected by it; if there is default, the operator is in default of licence conditions.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) asked about the Heathrow link. The Minister said that it would be covered by the Bill in so far as it was running on Railtrack. I understand that the part nearest to the airport will not run on Railtrack, but will use a bit of track that it will own. Does that mean that that part of the link will be under a separate and distinct jurisdiction? If so, that will be the vulnerable bit of the system that terrorists would use to obtain access to the whole system. As we all know, if the British Transport police do not have full confidence in the whole system, stations will be closed much more frequently—or there will be explosions, and people will be killed and injured.
  Mr. Freeman: The link will doubtless fall into the same category as Heathrow airport itself, where the British Airports Authority ensures that there is adequate, full and comprehensive policing.
  The police committee, the chairman of the board and the chief constable are content with the arrangements that we have presented today. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]
  Motion made and Question put, That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House:
  The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 44.

  Division No. 171]

  [7.43 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

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

  Amess, David

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dover, Den

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkins, Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  French, Douglas

  Booth, Hartley

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Hague, William

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hawksley, Warren

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

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

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Conway, Derek

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  83

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sackville, Tom

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Key, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sims, Roger

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knapman, Roger

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spink, Dr Robert

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

  Spring, Richard

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Legg, Barry

  Stern, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Lennox-Boyd, Mark

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lidington, David

  Sykes, John

  Lightbown, David

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Thomason, Roy

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  McLoughlin, Patrick

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

  Malone, Gerald

  Tracey, Richard

  Mans, Keith

  Trotter, Neville

  Marlow, Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Merchant, Piers

  Viggers, Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Waller, Gary

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Watts, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Whitney, Ray

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Norris, Steve

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Willetts, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Wood, Timothy

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Yeo, Tim

  Pawsey, James

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Pickles, Eric

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Richards, Rod

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. Michael Brown.

  Riddick, Graham

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Bayley, Hugh

  Mandelson, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Michael, Alun

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Mudie, George

  Cummings, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Olner, William

  Davidson, Ian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Patchett, Terry

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

  Redmond, Martin

  Denham, John

  Rendel, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Rooney, Terry

  Eastham, Ken

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  George, Bruce

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Tyler, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Hall, Mike

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Hanson, David

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jamieson, David

  Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Andrew Mackinlay.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Dame Janet. Due to the extraordinary speed at which the Bill is being considered—its First Reading was only last Friday—there has not, in my submission, been reasonable time to scrutinise it. We explored that issue on Second Reading.
  I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not select my starred amendments. Because of the rapid consideration of the Bill, I was denied an opportunity at least to have an informal interview with the Chairman of Ways and Means and/or yourself, Dame Janet, to make the case that my amendments fall within the terms of the Bill.
  It is grossly unfair to me and to other hon. Members that amendment No. 2 and new clause 1 in my name should not be debated in Committee, as they are within the rules of the House and relevant to the Bill. Amendement No. 2 relates to matters that were the subject of extensive debate on Second Reading. If passed, it would clarify the powers and jurisdiction of police officers, but I cannot even present it to the Committee. I make no criticism of the Chair but of the unreasonable manner in which the Bill is being pushed through the House. The jurisdiction of the British Transport police goes to the heart of amendment No. 2 and should be considered.
  New clause 1 is important. I would not lie awake at night worrying if it were not debated but for the fact that it concerns an important point of principle. If new clause 1 is debated and accepted by the Committee, it will clarify the jurisdiction of the police officers in question—that is, that they are British Railways police officers.
  As the Bill has been botched by the Executive—there is no adequate description of those officers in their title—I hope that you, Dame Janet, agree that there should be discrimination in my favour to allow me to present my amendments to the Committee and that it should be for the Minister to argue why they are inappropriate, if he sees fit.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Amendment No. 2 goes beyond the scope of the Bill and it is therefore out of order and cannot be debated.
  New clause 1 was not selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It is not the practice for the Chairman to give reasons in Committee.

Clause 1

  AMENDMENT OF THE BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ACT 1949
  Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out
  ', in its application to England and Wales,'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'throughout England and Wales'.
  No. 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (5).
  8 pm
  Mr. Mackinlay: It would appear that the draftsmen have forgotten about the Kingdom of Scotland in this matter, and that there is a disparity in the treatment of powers being made available to British Transport police officers in England and Wales as distinct from those in Scotland. It seems to me, particularly as the Bill is remedying a profound mistake by the Government, that

  85
  there should be clarity and precision, and that there should be uniformity of precision in one Act of Parliament relating to British Transport police officers, wherever they are in the United Kingdom.
  In clause 1, and throughout the Bill, reference is made to England and Wales. From the extent that we have been able to examine the Bill, it would seem that that is an error. The problem, Sir Geoffrey—
  Mr. Irvine Patnick: "Sir Geoffrey?"
  Mr. Mackinlay: I do not know whether it is possible through the usual good offices to ask the Government Whip to contain himself, but we are trying to deal with a difficult matter. The Minister described it as complex and detailed legislation, and the Government Whip is treating it as a matter of levity. It is inappropriate, Mr. Lofthouse, that it should be dealt with in that way, particularly when the Government have yet to apologise, not just to the House but to the British Transport police, for their error. My amendments are necessary to clarify the position.
  The problem that those of us who take an interest in the Bill have is that we have not had an opportunity of doing the necessary homework. I could find only one copy of the primary statute—the British Transport Commission Act 1949—in the Palace of Westminster and that took some discovery late at night on Thursday, before the Bill was published. To the extent that one has been able to do any homework, it looks as though my amendments are appropriate and necessary.
  The people from whom I would have sought advice and counsel—those in the British Transport Police Federation—did not receive the Bill from the Government. That has not been explained by the Minister. As I said in the debate on Second Reading, the federation received a copy of the Bill from me yesterday. The Minister referred on Second Reading to the views and support of the chief constable but made no reference to the endorsement of the British Transport Police Federation of the details of the Bill—it wants the principle, as we all do, and we recognise the need for great urgency. He could not do that because he had not sent it a copy of the Bill and, as a further result, I and other hon. Members were not able to consult it. It was extraordinarily difficult to get the advice of the chief constable or his assistants in time.
  My amendments would help to clarify the situation. I understand—perhaps the Minister will tell me—that a judgment exists either from a, sheriff in Scotland or the High Court that results in the British Transport police officers in Scotland having the wider jurisdiction powers that we discussed on Second Reading. For example, if a British Transport police officer outside Waverley station in Edinburgh saw an incident that required the attendance and stewardship of a police officer, that officer, operating not within the curtilage of a railway station but in a street close to the station, would be able to respond, but that is not the position in a comparable situation in London.
  I understand that that power exists by virtue of a judge's decision, and very wise and prudent that judge was. It seems to me that it is necessary for the Bill, first, to put on the statute book the view and opinion of the learned Scottish judge and, secondly, to ensure that those powers that have been enjoyed by British Transport police officers in Scotland are enjoyed throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that that is what my amendments would do.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to raise one narrow point on which I would appreciate my right hon. Friend's advice. I am sure that we all appreciate very much the careful attention that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has given the Bill, but I raise one tiny point about the word "throughout". I wonder whether it applies to private as well as public premises and, if the British Transport police were to provide, for example, a service within private premises, whether the proposed legislation would apply.
  My particular interest is the Port of London Police Federation, to which I have been an adviser for many years. As my right hon. Friend is aware, it is a small police force. Because of the privatisation of the ports, its position has changed rather dramatically. It has full chief constables but, following privatisation, their relative pay and conditions have been adversely affected. That has happened not because of privatisation but as one of the inevitable consequences. Their numbers are small indeed.
  Mr. Wilson: What is an inevitable consequence of privatisation that is not caused by privatisation?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if, like me, he had paid careful attention to the whole issue, on which the my right hon. Friend the Minister has shown great sympathy and understanding, he would appreciate that those snap judgments are not correct.
  My point is this. Because of the age of the Port of London police force, consideration is being given to its future. One of the possibilities would be for it to merge with the British Transport police, because that would provide a continuing career structure. Part of the port of London is located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Thurrock, and he takes a great interest in the British Transport police and in all activities of the ports.
  If there were to be such a change, and if the Port of London police came under the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, would the new subsection (1A)(3) apply to the Port of London police? It would be sad from the point of view of administration if we passed this exciting new Bill in a hurry only to find that by so doing we prevented the Port of London police even being considered for a merger with the British Transport police.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has always shown great sympathy and understanding for the problems of south-east England and particularly for Essex. I know that the hon. Member for Thurrock, who also takes an interest in the Fenchurch Street line, appreciates very much, although I am sure that he deplores Government policies, the interest that my right hon. Friend always takes in our affairs. The Port of London police are a fine body of constables, who have served the port well and wisely. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give me the assurance that, in the event of the Port of London police merging with the British Transport police, they will be allowed to carry on with their duties under the Bill. That is a small and narrow point, but I am sure that the draftsmen who assist the Minister will have thought about it. If my right hon. Friend can say that all would be well, I would be more than grateful.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) for raising the issue of the Port of London Police Federation. I have not met any of those responsible for the discharge of those important functions, but would be glad to pursue the matter

  87
  that my hon. Friend has raised. I am bound to say that administrative merger is one thing and difference in jurisdiction is another. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is important to have proper legal advice on the point. In any case, this is not the right Bill to deal with that particular point, important as it is. I accept what he has said and give him an undertaking that I will pursue it and will write to him initially. If it is appropriate to have meetings with the representatives of the Port of London Police Federation, that will be done.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised a perfectly sensible point: why not simply extend the Scottish provisions to England and Wales? That is a different debate. As I have said, it is a sensible point to raise. First, however, the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that my references to what was complex and detailed referred not to the Bill but to the compendium of law since 1949, which for the layman is fiendishly complicated. The 1949 legislation has been amended by many Governments on many different occasions. It is important to trace through the changes in the powers of the police and their jurisdiction from one Act to an amending Act.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister has flagged up his excuse if the Bill is proved subsequently to be botched. The Bill could receive Royal Assent, only for us to find that it, too, is in error. It seems that the Minister is lining up his built-in excuse for getting things wrong again.
  Mr. Freeman: That is not so. No Labour or Conservative Minister since the war has ever been able to give an assurance that complex legislation stemming from the 1945 to 1951 Parliament would be 100 per cent. right. Ministers make mistakes and Governments make mistakes. Sometimes there is an error of omission, sometimes one of commission. We try to get legislation right. Before the Bill receives Royal Assent I shall introduce the hon. Gentleman, if he would like, to the Parliamentary Counsel. He is a skilled lawyer who takes a great deal of pain and trouble when drafting any legislation. He is responsible not for policy but for translating the policy objectives of Ministers into legislation.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock raised several important issues. Scottish law has been different from English and Welsh law in relation to the powers of the BTP for 14 years. The Scottish provisions became law in 1980 and the English provisions, which date back to the 1949 Act, as amended on many different occasions, have provided a different set of laws. I am not aware of any problems having been raised with me over the past few years about difficulties arising as a result of the two different sets of laws. As in many different sectors, there are two distinct sets of legal jurisdiction. That is something that goes beyond the BTP.
  A problem has arisen specifically in relation to England and Wales, not Scotland. That has happened for reasons that I have described. Everyone who has participated in the debate understands that. The legal advice available to us, as I am sure to all others involved, was that the defect in England and Wales had to be put right. As I have said, there was no defect in the law relating to Scotland. It is the defect in English and Welsh legislation that we are seeking to correct.
  88
  The hon. Member for Thurrock raised the separate issue of why we should have different laws in Scotland than in England and Wales. That is a legitimate topic of debate. We were asked through the Bill to deal with a specific problem that had arisen in England and Wales as a result of the Railways Act 1993 in terms of its implications for the 1949 legislation, and we are doing so. We are not seeking to widen the jurisdiction of the BTP or to ensure that English and Scottish laws are the same in every aspect of life within our society. We are correcting an anomaly.
  On that basis, I cannot commend the amendment to the Committee. I say that in no partisan spirit. I have explained that there is an urgent need for legislation to address a specific problem. I hope that the Bill commands the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber and of those in another place. With that brief explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept what I have said in good faith.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Wilson: I do not want to prolong our debates. There is no point in covering the same ground again. The Opposition's position is as follows: if we are to have legislation that deals specifically with the British Transport police and if there is a consensus that the present legislation in Scotland is more effective than that which hitherto has pertained in England and Wales, why not use the opportunity to establish the same powers throughout the whole of the country? That would achieve the consistency that we are looking for and secure a more effective British Transport police.
  That is no ideology. There is no rule in the book stating that, because the primary purpose of a Bill is to remedy a defect in other legislation, we cannot take the opportunity to improve upon the status quo ante. I do not understand the Government's difficulty unless they are reluctant to extend the powers of the BTP in a logical way that is in line with the Scottish system. They cannot say that the Scottish system is less efficient than the one that pertains in England and Wales because everyone agrees that it is not.
  The BTP in England and Wales work within the same powers as their counterparts in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and I well know, we are all part of the same United Kingdom. Why should we not have the same BTP operating under the same rules? It is a simple question that the Minister has signally failed to answer except in the narrowest theological terms. He has said that the Bill is meant to do only A and that it would be some sort of crime against the constitution for it to do B and thus make it better.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 54, Noes 151.

  Division No. 172]

  [8.16 pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Armstrong, Hilary

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnes, Harry

  Dobson, Frank

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eastham, Ken

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  George, Bruce

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Gunnell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Harvey, Nick

  Cummings, John

  Jamieson, David

  89

  Lewis, Terry

  Prescott, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Raynsford, Nick

  McFall, John

  Redmond, Martin

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rendel, David

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mudie, George

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Olner, William

  Tyler, Paul

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Patchett, Terry

  Wilson, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Heald, Oliver

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Hendry, Charles

  Amess, David

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

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

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Bates, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Jessel, Toby

  Bellingham, Henry

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

  Booth, Hartley

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Boswell, Tim

  Key, Robert

  Bowden, Andrew

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Bowis, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Knapman, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Bright, Graham

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

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Burns, Simon

  Legg, Barry

  Butler, Peter

  Lidington, David

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Lightbown, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clappison, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Congdon, David

  Mans, Keith

  Conway, Derek

  Marlow, Tony

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

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

  Merchant, Piers

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Mills, Iain

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dover, Den

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Elletson, Harold

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Norris, Steve

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Faber, David

  Paice, James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Patnick, Irvine

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Pawsey, James

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Richards, Rod

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Riddick, Graham

  French, Douglas

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gallie, Phil

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Garnier, Edward

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Sackville, Tom

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Shersby, Michael

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Sims, Roger

  Hague, William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hannam, Sir John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Harris, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Spring, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  90

  Stern, Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Streeter, Gary

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sweeney, Walter

  Watts, John

  Sykes, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Thomason, Roy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

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

  Yeo, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Trotter, Neville

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

  Viggers, Peter

  Waller, Gary

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Dobson: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 31, to leave out from 'elsewhere' in line 21 to the end of line 31 and insert—
  'but only for the purposes of—

  (i) carrying out investigations; and

  (ii) arresting any person—

  (aa) whom he has followed from, or from the vicinity of, any such premises, in circumstances where that person could have been arrested in, on, or in the vicinity of, such premises; or

  (bb) who is in possession of goods or money which the constable reasonably believes to have been stolen from or from the vicinity of, any such premises or from the custody of the transport police.'.

  The First Deputy Chairman: With this we will consider amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 2.
  Mr. Dobson: When I originally suggested that the Government should bring forward a one-clause Bill to correct their own grotesque error which had left the British Transport police without proper jurisdiction from 1 April, I had hoped that, on the basis of once bitten twice shy, the Government would put forward a one-clause Bill which would do the job that the British Transport police, British Rail and the British Transport Police Federation all want it to do. The trouble is that the Government do not seem to have done that.
  We are told—but we have no objective evidence to this effect—that the chief constable is satisfied with the proposition that is before us, but we think it is quite unsatisfactory. During the Second Reading debate we raised the question of the need for the four lines at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill which would restrict the powers of a constable as being lawful only when he was acting in accordance with the terms of the agreement with one of the privatised operators.
  The Minister has put forward a number of what can only be described as quite preposterous justifications for this proposition. For instance, he said that one of the reasons for the clause was that, although some of the provisions of the agreements would be universal, they might cover different periods for different companies. We will try to deal with that one. If there is an agreement in force, whether it lasts for a week or a decade, either it is in operation or it is not. If the agreement is in operation, it might be identical; if it is not in operation, it would not be valid and it would have no bearing on the powers of a constable employed by, or working for, British Transport police.
  Another of the Minister's suggestions for his preposterous proposition was that different sums of money

  91
  might be involved. The sums of money involved must surely be completely irrelevant to the actions of an individual constable. Either he is doing his job, or he is not. If, as will probably be the case, the Government have managed to drag in a fly-by-night outfit which has not paid its contribution, that will surely be of no consequence. Provided that that outfit is a railway operator for the time being, the constable will have certain duties in relation to its property and its operations. The state of that outfit's accounts and what it is paying are utterly irrelevant to the constable's jurisdiction. Money cannot affect the constable's jurisdiction.
  8.30 pm
  The Minister came closest to providing a sensible explanation for the provision when he said that some operators might also operate other activities and the constable should not be obliged to act in a policing role in relation to the other activities. I do not understand why a constable should expect to do that. I do not see why the agreement should have to exclude non-railway premises and non-railway functions. Unless they were imported into the agreement in the first place, there would be no reason why a British Transport police constable should have anything to do with such premises or functions.
  The Minister may say that there may be circumstances in which part of a depot is devoted to non-railway activities and therefore the constable needs to have jurisdiction there. That may be the case. However, if he needs that jurisdiction, he should have it. It should not be limited by considerations of who owns the premises or what they are used for.
  The Minister has come up with no sensible arguments in favour of the four lines at the bottom of page 1 of this two-clause Bill. He has given us no justification for the provisions. The continued presence of those four lines in the Bill could possibly limit the jurisdiction of British Transport police constables. It is clear from the letter that the Minister was forced to send to the chair of the British Transport police committee that the committee believed that there were problems. If that was not the case, the Minister would not have had to write his letter.
  I am not convinced that that committee is convinced that what the Minister is saying is what the committee wants to hear or that it is entirely satisfied with the Minister's current propositions. We have tabled the amendments to delete the four lines which we believe are objectionable, ridiculous and troublesome and which will cause bother for constables who are trying to go about their duties and for the management of BTP when it tries to carry out its proper management tasks.
  As I admitted earlier, my detailed formulation of the wording of the amendment may be unsatisfactory. I am quite prepared to accept that. We have suggested that the best way to deal with the matter would be to import into the law for England and Wales the provisions that presently apply in Scotland where everyone accepts that the system currently works well. The Minister will have to accept that the restrictions on the powers of the constable set out in the last four lines of the Bill will not apply in Scotland. Constables in Scotland will not have to check whether they are acting in accordance with the terms of each individual agreement.
  92
  There will be general powers in Scotland, but there will not be untrammelled general powers in England and Wales. That is absurd, particularly as British Transport police officers are not necessarily confined to England and Wales, or to Scotland. British Transport police officers do not recognise any difference at the boundaries. They sometimes travel by car and sometimes by train backwards and forwards across the border. However, their jurisdictions could differ depending on which side of the border they are. That is preposterous and is likely to cause difficulty for constables.
  The Minister has presented no sound or solid explanation of why he wants the provision in the Bill. The provision is totally unnecessary. It complicates things and makes life difficult for those who must try to operate the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. It will make life difficult for those who try to protect passengers and goods on the railways and, as we said earlier, it will make life difficult for those who have the very difficult task of trying to ensure that terrorists do not kill or maim people on the railways or manage to close the system down by threatening bomb incidents.
  The Minister has failed in his undertaking. When I approached him and told him that I thought that he should present a one-clause Bill, he said that that was what the Government were contemplating. They committed themselves to that in the Lords. However, it should be understood that if the Government say that they are going to introduce a one-clause Bill which will clear up a mess that they created in the first place, it is reasonable for the House to expect them to introduce a one-clause Bill which will not create another mess similar to the one they have created already and which this Bill is supposed to correct.
  We are giving the Minister an opportunity to accept our amendments or the spirit of the amendments. It would be no criticism of the Minister if he were to say that he was prepared to consider them and come back with amendments in the other place to deal with the very reasonable points that we have raised. My hon. Friends and I, and the representative of the Liberal Democrat party, the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), have acted throughout with the intention of trying to get the law back on the rails, to correct the Government's errors and to ensure that, from 1 April, the law is effective.
  We have behaved throughout with utter responsibility and a concern for the safety of passengers and British Transport police officers. We do not believe that the Government have responded in kind to our propositions. They have not introduced a Bill that does the trick. Either amendment or both amendments would massively improve the Bill. The principle behind them would result in a great improvement. In particular, amendment No. 1 would bring the law in England and Wales into line with the law in Scotland which everyone accepts is satisfactory and which is in no way restricted by a clause or provision like the last four lines of page 1 of the Bill.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I spent a great deal of time last Session on the Floor of the House and also in Committee in the debates on the Railways Bill. We had 35 sittings in Committee which included many hours of debate on the future role of the British Transport police.
  The Minister has been asked tonight—and we have not had a satisfactory answer from him—why, throughout those lengthy debates, the Government did not manage to get it right. They bungled not just the clause on the BTP,

  93
  but their definition of the BTP's remit, role and powers. They are in danger of doing the same again with the Bill. My hon. Friends have tabled an amendment that would clarify the powers of the British Transport police. Those powers were ably set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
  The Committee on the Railways Bill debated the provisions relating to the British Transport police in the light of a consultative document which the Department of Transport issued on the future of the British Transport police. That document was issued in November 1992. There was very little time for people to comment because the closing date for consultation was 16 December 1992. I hope that the Minister can tell us how many responses the Department of Transport received to that consultation paper. Does he believe that adequate time was given to enable those who wished to make a response to do so? If there was adequate time for those with an interest in the affairs of the British Transport police to consult and respond to the Government's proposals, why was the problem that we are discussing in Committee tonight missed?
  After the debates last year, which followed a consultation period on a Government document, and which took place over a longer period in Committee on the Railways Bill than we have in this rushed Committee of the whole House on this Bill, can the Minister assure us that what he is now proposing is foolproof and that the Government will not have to come back with further changes?
  The amendment in the name of my hon. Friends seeks to define the powers of the police as that of investigation—the seeking of evidence and interviewing suspects or witnesses—and/or that of arrest in certain specified circumstances. It is suggested that the BTP should have those powers away from the premises of British Rail, its subsidiaries, and the rail operators who engage the services of the BTP. The Minister's definition in the Bill as drafted is wider. It says that British Transport police officers would have powers with regard to
  "matters connected with or affecting the British Railways Board"
  and the other bodies concerned.
  Can the Minister tell the Committee what precisely is meant by the words "matters connected with or affecting"? If the scope of the powers in the Bill is wider than the scope proposed in the amendment—that is, the power of investigation, the collecting of evidence, and the power of arrest—we should know what those powers are. If the powers in the Bill are not wider than those proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, we should have the simple and clear definition proposed by my hon. Friend. I hope that the Committee will support his amendment.
  I trust that the Minister will respond also to the issue of the supervision of the British Transport police. That supervision will be in the hands of the police committee. Can the Minister tell us who the members of the committee will be and how they will define the words "connected with or affecting"? Unless we know how the committee will define the policy of the British Transport police, we will not know the remit and range of their powers away from railway premises.
  94
  8.45 pm
  All hon. Members want to ensure that the British Transport police have the powers that they need to do their job of protecting law and order, protecting passengers, and protecting the property of railway operators. Those powers should be defined in the Bill. However, I do not believe that they are clearly defined at present. My hon. Friend makes a better job of that definition in his amendment.
  During the long Committee sittings on the Railways Bill, it became clear on several occasions that the Government were simply making up railway privatisation as they went along. They were unclear on how to put into practice their objective of privatising the railways. Clause after clause was brought to the Committee and included in the Railways Bill. Clauses were then withdrawn and we were told that different clauses would be introduced. That Committee was an arena for debate in which there were days, weeks and months to reflect, go back to the draftsmen and re-examine the provisions of the Bill in the light of debate and questions raised, but still a serious error was made.
  Tonight, a new Bill is presented to us as something that we must debate and finish in a single evening. It is not as though the faults in the original Bill suddenly came to light on Wednesday or Thursday last week. There is absolutely no reason why the Minister could not have published his Bill weeks ago—I do not want to repeat the Second Reading debate—so that hon. Members who wished to examine and probe whether the Government had got it right this time could table amendments or seek to see the Minister to express reservations. I should like the Minister to explain why those opportunities have not been provided. I suspect that the reason why they have not been provided is that the Government are deeply embarrassed at having botched the Railways Bill and that they want to hide their embarrassment with the shortest possible debate.
  Filling the holes in the Railways Bill is rather like trying to refloat the Titanic. The Government introduced today's Bill to block some of the holes and mistakes in the original Bill. As the consequences of rail privatisation go ahead, I am absolutely convinced that this will be the first of many Bills that the Government will have to introduce desperately to make the unworkable work and make rail privatisation happen in a way that will improve services to the travelling public. Frankly, the Government will not be successful because rail privatisation will not improve services for the public. The whole endeavour is fatally flawed.
  Mr. Trotter: It may be helpful to remind the Committee of the scope of activity of the British Transport police when considering their powers. The British Transport police deal not only with matters that obviously relate to the police; they deal with a very wide range of matters, similar to any Home Office force. They deal with murder, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm, firearms and explosives—reference has already been made to that—rape, robbery, booking office frauds, thefts, thefts of motor vehicles, thousands of cases of fraud relating mostly to tickets, arson, damage to motor vehicles, numerous incidents involving endangering the safety of the public on the railways and public order offences. They deal with a total of some 78,000 or 80,000 offences a year, which is some 200 plus a day. Obviously, the scope of the force is very wide.

  95
  Can my right hon. Friend give the Committee the assurance that he has given to me privately, which is that the force will continue to have all the powers that it needs to deal with that wide ramification of crime from murder at the top to graffiti at the bottom, if I may put it that way? Can he give an assurance that the force will retain the adequate powers that it has at present to deal with such incidents?
  Mr. Harvey: Earlier, the Minister said that the responsibility of the British Transport police will differ in various parts of the railways network. That is why there would be a variety of agreements. Everybody accepts that, however, we are discussing not the responsibilities of the British Transport police, but its jurisdiction.
  Any curb on that jurisdiction is a risk or a gamble. A number of hon. Members have given today various hypothetical examples of where the limits to the transport police's jurisdiction might have unforeseen and calamitous consequences, in that a villain could get away in various situations.
  The only argument which the Minister has made which appears to have any logic as to why jurisdiction should be limited in this way is that some of the private railway companies might have other interests which are not related to railways over which they would not want the transport police to have jurisdiction. That being so, surely the way to address that is to amend line 25 in another place to specify that it is simply the railway interests of the companies which would be covered.
  In my view, any limit to jurisdiction is a gamble. The burden of proof is therefore on the side of whoever wishes to curtail that jurisdiction. If it is curtailed in an unfortunate way and there are disastrous consequences, it will be on the Minister's shoulders. The burden of proof is with him, and I have yet to hear any reason as to why the limit to jurisdiction in those four lines should be imposed.
  Mr. Cryer: It would be helpful if the Minister were to give a good reason why the amendment should be rejected. It is a serious attempt to clarify the position and to place it—as lawyers say—beyond peradventure that the British Transport police, or the British Railways Board police as it will be under the combined Acts, are not placed in jeopardy because they are not sure of their jurisdiction. That is the essence of the argument.
  The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) asked for an assurance that a wide range of powers which the transport police currently undertake are not to be affected in any way by the legislation. I ask the Minister whether they would be affected in any way by amendment No. 1. which we are considering together with amendment No. 6. The range of powers given there to allow the railway police to act elsewhere other than on railway premises would cover the range of offences which the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
  I cannot see that the phrases put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would in any way inhibit that, so it would improve the Bill. There is no question but that there is a limitation placed in line 30 of the Bill that the constable can act only
  96
  "in accordance with the terms of that agreement."
  That refers to the service agreement between the British Railways Board and police, and it implies that there is a potential limitation.
  The Minister said that the agreements would vary by duration. Obviously, once an agreement has expired, a constable will no longer have jurisdiction. If an organisation were no longer employing the British Transport police, there would be no jurisdiction. That is only one example.
  The Minister, for instance, mentioned the amount of money involved. I cannot understand how that would affect the component which the Minister emphasised—the jurisdiction of the railway police which is to be built into every licence to every franchisee. However, if money is to affect the matter, that would surely mean that the range of services which the police will offer will be more costly the wider the range. Inevitably, that means the jurisdiction of the police, because the services it offers for sale are police services.
  If money is to be greater for a given range of services, inevitably more services will be involved and therefore the jurisdiction of the agreement will be wider. One set of policemen will operate under one agreement, and they will have wider jurisdiction on particular premises subject to that agreement than policemen who are operating on other premises and subject to a different agreement.
  Ministers have claimed that the chief constables' "code of conduct" will be imposed on every licence which, the Minister claims, is a safeguard. We need to ask questions about that. There will be lots of agreements, and operators will be changing. As one operator goes into liquidation, another comes in and takes over the franchise. There will be many changes.
  The Department of Transport, as I recall, claimed at the time the Bill was being debated that as many as 14,000 contracts—not all covering the police—would be involved in setting up this crazy pack of cards which the demented right-wingers are seeking to impose on an unwilling nation. That is all right in the sense that it will hasten their electoral doom at the next general election. However, we must suffer the crazy and demented ravings of the reich which is currently operating in the Government offices in Whitehall. The right-wing loonies have control.
  The Opposition oppose the Bill in Parliament and in principle, and we have now to try to make it work as effectively as we can in the short term. Hopefully, there will not be many aspects of the Railways Act 1993 which will be put into operation because of the shortage of time between April and the next general election.
  Nonetheless, we all enunciated an important point at Second Reading about the protection of the public from entry on to the railways and the protection of people on the railways from vandalism and, alas, from the terrorist potential which is there daily. Indeed, there was a bomb threat at Orpington station early today. It caused disruption.
  All the factors that I have mentioned are ever present. We do not want the British Transport police, as part of the thin blue line against the rising tide of crime that is engulfing the nation under the Conservative Government, to be handicapped. That is why we are raising these points. We want to make sure beyond peradventure that the law is clear.
  If legislation has to be tested in the courts, it is poor legislation. We want to make it clear. I should have thought

  97
  that the amendment clarified the position. It seeks to leave out the mumbo jumbo about the terms of the agreement. It does not depend on the terms of the agreement. The Minister has told Parliament that as a condition of every licence the chief constable will lay down universal terms and conditions for the operation of the police in relation to the conduct of law and order. Terms and conditions relating to time and money will also be laid down, but they will not affect law and order or the duties of the British Transport police. We would not need to worry about the terms of the agreement if a standard set of terms and conditions were laid out in the Bill.
  It is more satisfactory for Parliament to write terms and conditions into the Bill than for it to leave them to some shadowy committee. If the chief constable tells the people who administer the licences that they must incorporate certain terms in the licence, and if there is a plethora of agreements, someone somewhere might just leave out the section that would be so relevant in a subsequent court case and open to challenge. We want to make the law on criminal activities which inhibits the operation of the railway and the safety of passengers and users as clear as we possibly can. I should have thought that the amendment did just that.
  Mr. Freeman: I shall first deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I guess that more points will be made by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) in due course.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras asked why there should be a police services agreement. I have already explained that the Government believe that it is important to formalise the relationship between the British Transport police and the various constituent parts of the railway industry in terms of the precise functions and responsibilities of the police for a certain user. That is not to say that the core police responsibilities will not be the same for each user. Provisions in the agreement will relate to the specifics of a case.
  I have already explained that one of the main purposes of the agreement might well be to limit the responsibilities of the police to the railway undertakings involved and not to the other activities of the company. Such an agreement is well precedented, for example, in the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the Leeds Supertram Act 1993. So I do not understand hon. Members' fears about the use of the agreement. It seems sensible and practical. We seek to deal with a problem that has arisen in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. In Scotland, jurisdiction and limits of jurisdiction are not an issue.
  9 pm
  Mr. Dobson: Where in any of the precedents that the Minister adduced today or in his letter to the chairman of the police committee does it say that the constable can act only in accordance with the terms of an agreement?
  Mr. Freeman: I have already given two examples. If the hon. Gentleman consults the Leeds Supertram Act 1993, he will find that there must be a formal agreement to enshrine responsibility. The Leeds supertram has not opened yet, but there has to be an agreement between British Transport police and that undertaking. The same is true of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. There is nothing unusual about a formal agreement.
  Mr. Dobson: I have the Leeds Supertram Act here. There is no suggestion anywhere in the Act or in the other two precedents that the Minister has given—[Interruption.] The Minister is getting a copy of the Act, which will prove that I am telling the truth—that a constable's duties will be trammelled or curtailed by the agreement that is reached. That is the point that we have sought to make to the Minister.
  Mr. Freeman: Section 64 of the Leeds Supertram Act 1993 says:
  "Where agreement under this section is made with the railways board, members of the British Transport Police Force may act in accordance with the terms of the agreement as constables in, on and in the vicinity of any premises of the Executive notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section 53 (As to appointment of constables) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949."
  A similar provision is replicated in schedule 4 of the London Regional Transport Act 1984. The existence of agreements is already precedented.
  Mr. Dobson: We all know that there are agreements, but nowhere in any of the legislation that the Minister has quoted is there any suggestion that the specific terms of the agreement limit the powers of a constable.
  Mr. Freeman: I shall deal with the limitation of the powers of a constable, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), in a moment. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) asked me two questions. First, he asked me to comment on the phrase,
  "matters connected with or affecting".
  That is drawn from the British Transport Commission Act 1949. The language has proved to be effective ever since. Those words are a broader definition than the practice in Scotland, but they are well proven and tried and tested.
  The hon. Member for York asked me who was on the police committee. The police committee is, and will continue to be, appointed by the British Railways Board. It includes, obviously, appointees from the railways. There is an independent member. There is also the chairman of the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee. The order that has been laid before Parliament simply gives the British Railways Board the power to appoint representatives from Railtrack.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Oh?
  Mr. Freeman: Because Railtrack comprises literally half the railway—the infrastructure. Also, as the name of the Central Transport Users Consultative Committee is changing—although its powers are, if anything, slightly enlarged—the order that is before Parliament now simply refers to the new Central Rail Users Consultative Committee.
  Mr. Bayley: Are there proposals to allow private rail operators to appoint members of the police committee? I ask the question because of a statement in the consultation document that the Department of Transport distributed on the future of the British Transport police, which says in paragraph 28:
  "On the other hand, a national police force controlled by private companies and exercising all the powers of Constables might prove unacceptable to public opinion."
  Mr. Freeman: There is no suggestion that private franchisees should appoint members of the police committee. [Interruption.] I am able to handle the point, thank you—so far.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Another fine mess you have got into!
  Mr. Freeman: When I need help, I will ask for it.
  There is no question of private sector franchisees appointing themselves or others to the police committee. The police committee is appointed by the British Railways Board. Obviously it would be sensible for the chairman of that board, when in due course he makes new appointments to the police committee, to appoint representatives of franchisees, but there are no franchisees at the moment and there will be none this year. There will be some next year, and at that stage it may be sensible to include representatives, but they are representatives.
  Mr. Bayley rose—
  Mr. Freeman: I should like to make progress, if I may.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) asked whether all the various crimes and offences that he described could be encompassed in the jurisdiction envisaged by the Bill. The answer, obviously, is yes. There will be no change to the powers of the British Transport police in relation to the pursuit of offenders, the arrest of offenders and the questioning and interrogation of offenders, if we pass the Bill.
  The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) asked about the jurisdiction covered by a police services agreement. I have indicated—I repeat the point for the sake of clarity—that there may be a need to exclude non-railway businesses which will vary according to the police user. Each police user will have a different set of businesses and undertakings which will therefore have to be specifically described in the agreement if they are to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the police. That has long been the case. The jurisdiction of the British Transport police does not extend beyond the railways.
  The hon. Member for Bradford, South asked about the limitations imposed on jurisdiction. There must be an agreement and that will be enforced as a condition of the licence. It will be in a form agreed by the police committee for core policing and any agreement must be approved by the Secretary of State. Those provisions are clear.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South because he has done me a favour. I note from the Order Paper that the hon. Gentleman has an Adjournment debate tabled for this Friday, dealing with Menwyth Hill station. I have to tell him that last week, on learning of that, my civil servants said, "You have to answer that Adjournment debate, Minister."
  Mr. Cryer: It shows how much the right hon. Gentleman knows about railways.
  Mr. Freeman: The reason why I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman is that my constituency diary was cleared of all engagements. Now they tell me that, having consulted British Rail, even British Rail cannot find Menwyth Hill station. A Defence Minister is to answer, so now I have a completely clear day.
  Mr. Dobson: Other railway stations may disappear into the Menwyth triangle before privatisation proceeds far.
  Mr. Cryer: The fact that Department of Transport officials believe that Menwyth Hill station is a railway station shows how long they have been dedicated to supporting the road industry.
  Mr. Dobson: They are obviously running a ghost train through there.
  I feel sorry for the Minister because he has been sent out to put right his and other people's mistakes and finds himself defending the indefensible in trying to put them right. The Opposition accept that a police services agreement is needed between each railway company or undertaking and British Transport police. Nobody disputes the fact that all those organisations other than British Rail have such an agreement now, but we do dispute whether an individual agreement could limit the powers of constables employed by British Transport police. Such limits should not exist.
  At the risk of being accused of tedious repetition, I must point out yet again that, if the agreements vary—eventually there may be more than 100—neither the constables nor British Transport police will know whether they have the authority to act in individual circumstances. The Minister has still offered no explanation. The three precedents that he quoted are not relevant as they do not include the words to which we object in the Bill. It would have been better had he not quoted them.
  We also asked the Minister to give examples of differences that might exist in those agreements. I shall not go into whether some agreements will run for a longer time than others. Either they exist or they do not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and others pointed out, the financial side of the contract is utterly irrelevant to the work of the constable.
  As the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and I have said, the nearest the Minister has come to giving a sensible justification was when he said that some railway companies might own premises that are not used for railway purposes, so the agreement would need to exclude such premises. It does not need to do that because the clause confines constables to acting
  "in, on and in the vicinity of any police premises; and … elsewhere, in relation to matters connected with or affecting … a police services user".
  They would become a user as a police service. There is no question of the last four lines of page 1 qualifying the fact; it does not need qualifying as it is qualified right from the start.
  The Minister has not come up with a sensible explanation or justification for those four lines, which is why we shall call for a Division on the amendment, which would delete those and other words and replace them with the words drawn from the Scottish legislation. Everyone must accept that that legislation works and would not be limited by the words to which we object in the Bill. I cannot understand why the Minister does not see that.
  Opposition Members are becoming increasingly suspicious that, yet again, the Government are up to something. We are developing a suspicion that, one way or another, bits of the railway system and more and more policing activities will be excluded from the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. As we said at the beginning of debates on the Bill—which was not very long ago—it is crucial to the safety of passengers and of goods, and, above all, crucial in the fight against the terrorist, that there be no gaps, that we continue to have comprehensive jurisdiction. We do not believe that this one-clause Bill will do the job it was supposed to do and the job that we requested be done. That is why we shall press the amendment to a vote.
  9.15 pm
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 49, Noes 167.

  Division No. 173]

  [9.15 pm

  AYES

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Barnes, Harry

  McFall, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Maclennan, Robert

  Benton, Joe

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Miller, Andrew

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

  Morley, Elliot

  Clapham, Michael

  Mudie, George

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Olner, William

  Cryer, Bob

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cummings, John

  Pike, Peter L.

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Davidson, Ian

  Redmond, Martin

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

  Rendel, David

  Denham, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Dobson, Frank

  Skinner, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Tyler, Paul

  George, Bruce

  Vaz, Keith

  Gordon, Mildred

  Walley, Joan

  Gunnell, John

  Wilson, Brian

  Hall, Mike

  Hanson, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Harvey, Nick

  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Home Robertson, John

  Jamieson, David

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Amess, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Faber, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bates, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  French, Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Booth, Hartley

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boswell, Tim

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bowis, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, William

  Bright, Graham

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  Harris, David

  Burns, Simon

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Butler, Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heald, Oliver

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Cash, William

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Clappison, James

  Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Dover, Den

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  102

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

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Legg, Barry

  Spring, Richard

  Lidington, David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lightbown, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sweeney, Walter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marlow, Tony

  Thomason, Roy

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mills, Iain

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

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tracey, Richard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trimble, David

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Trotter, Neville

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Page, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Richards, Rod

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Riddick, Graham

  Willetts, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sackville, Tom

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shersby, Michael

  Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Mackinlay Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 25, at end insert—"or (iv) London Underground Limited."
  The amendment would improve the Bill by adding London Underground Ltd. to clause 1(3). It should be inserted for the sake of clarity. I anticipate that the Minister will say that London Underground is subject to the user agreements. I would welcome that clarification. This a probing amendment, as it seems that London Underground has been forgotten.
  I am conscious of the fact that, unlike the other users which have been the subject of earlier discussion, London Underground is represented on the British Transport police committee. It would be appropriate, therefore, for its status to be reflected in the Bill. It is in that spirit that I have moved the amendment.
  Mr. Freeman: I shall clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman. The powers of the British Transport police in relation to London Underground are already covered by the London Regional Transport Act 1984, so there is no need for the amendment. I confirm that the British Railways Board appoints London Underground's managing director, who sits on the British Transport police committee. I am not aware of any proposals to change that. A sufficient number of British Transport policemen deal with the underground to warrant a representative of London Underground on that committee. The arrangements have worked well and I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendment is not necessary.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  AMENDMENT OF THE BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ACT 1949
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Wilson: I want to use this debate to explore the licence exemptions. The way in which information has trickled out tonight shows that the conduct of this Bill has been an affront. Many issues should clearly have been discussed in Committee. There is an awful lot of ground to be covered and many questions to be asked in this House and outside it by the people who will be affected by this legislation.
  In something of a departure from his normal style, the Minister refused to answer my earlier questions and peremptorily terminated our discussion of the channel tunnel. As I said, a grave problem has to be settled. Where will the writ of the British Transport police run? Perhaps we can have an action replay of the earlier stages of the debate when I started to probe the Minister on that subject. The hon. Member for North Devon, (Mr. Harvey) also mentioned exemptions. The Minister's replies could not have been more clear cut—exemptions were about the odd steam train here and there. He stated categorically that the tunnel was not covered by exemptions.
  I mentioned the relationship between the Bill and SI 606, the Railways (Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions) Order 1994. As far as I can gather from his reply on Second Reading, the Minister confirmed that the list of exemptions of operators who will not require licences contained in that order is relevant to the Bill. In other words, if one does not need a licence and one is therefore listed in the statutory instrument, one will not be covered by the obligation to retain British Transport police. If that is not an accurate summary, the Minister can correct me. If it is, it raises questions of major importance.
  The list does not merely cover some trivial group of steam engine operators, but includes some important categories, and it needs at least some explanation to be given to the House. For instance, category (a) includes:
  "any network, station or light maintenance depot, the operator of which immediately before the coming into force of this article was a person other than—(i) the Board, (ii) a subsidiary of the Board, (iii) London Regional Transport, or (iv) a subsidiary of London Regional Transport".
  Category (b) gives a geographical description of a network that is to be exempted from the need for a licence. I am no expert on the geography of London, but the description reads suspiciously like the docklands light railway, or certainly parts of it. Is that the case? The description is of
  "the railway line running from the junction between Westferry Station and West India Quay Station, through Poplar Station, to the western end of Beckton station in London"—
  and so on and so forth. It also lists other stations. Is that the docklands light railway? If so, it is not some old steam engine, run by enthusiasts. On that count, the Minister's answer appears to have been faulty.
  Paragraph (1) is perhaps the most interesting. It reads:
  104
  "any network, station or light maintenance depot comprised in the Channel Tunnel system".
  I am advised by the interpretation section that the "Channel Tunnel system" means that system defined in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. That Act contains a lengthy description and it appears that the system includes not only the underwater link between the two countries, but also much infrastructure on this side of the tunnel. For instance, it includes the two terminal areas, the service and maintenance area, the inland clearance depot at Ashford, the necessary links with the road and rail networks and the fixed and movable equipment needed for the operation of the tunnel. Is that the extent of what is to be outside the remit of the British Transport police? That is a straightforward question. Now that we have drawn out the information that the channel tunnel is affected by the legislation, I find the Minister's earlier answer extremely puzzling: I do not know why he said that exemptions had nothing to do with the tunnel, when that is clearly not the case.
  Item "m" is also interesting. It refers to
  the light maintenance depots listed in Schedule 1".
  Schedule 1 of the order lists 63 such depots. They are not trivial; I would guess that they are some of the biggest British Rail depots in the country. Examples are Chester wagon shop, the traction maintenance depot at Crewe, the Eastleigh freight traction maintenance depot and Saltley fuel and maintenance point.
  Let me truncate the question, and simply ask how many of those depots which are at present within the ambit of the British Transport police will not be subject to licence—and thus not BTP responsibility—in the future. If the answer is "none", the Minister can give it very quickly, and it will be in line with his earlier answers. If, however, the list includes depots which are currently the responsibility of the British Transport police but which will be exempted from the licence system, that is clearly not consistent with what the Minister told the Committee earlier.
  There is a vast chasm of conflicting interpretations. At the beginning of the debate, the Minister told us categorically that exemptions meant steam railways, and similar bits and pieces that were of no account to anyone. The British Transport police, however, believe that as a result of the exemptions they will be excluded from the Heathrow express, the docklands light railway, European passenger services and many other important segments of the railway, and I believe that the hon. Member for North Devon has been told as much. That, as I have said, represents a chasm of misunderstanding—and an eloquent comment on the Government's handling of the matter: as we enter the last minutes of consideration of the Bill, that is the belief held by people outside who will be affected by it.
  It would have been much more straightforward of the Minister not to ignore the existence of the list of exemptions, but to try to explain to the Committee its relevance, or lack of relevance. We would then have been given a statement of the position, rather than a dismissal of the idea in the hope—probably—that no one would notice the connection between the Bill and the statutory instrument that the Minister himself tabled a few days ago.
  I look forward to the Minister's answer.
  Mr. Freeman: Let me deal with the three major points raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).

  105
  First, if there is an exemption and a licence is not required, the arguments that I have deployed in relation to enforcing an agreement through the licence clearly cannot apply: the hon. Gentleman is right in that regard. Undertakings that are exempt—including London Underground and the docklands light railway, which is related to London Regional Transport for the purposes of legislation—will exercise their right, and enter into an agreement with the British Transport police. The hon. Gentleman is correct, however, in saying that because they are exempt from the railway licensing system it is an option for them to extend the jurisdiction of the British Transport police, rather than its being imposed on them.
  I can confirm that the docklands light railway and London Underground have a formal relationship with the British Transport police; in other words, they have extended the jurisdiction of the police voluntarily to themselves—and the system has worked very well.
  I have mentioned the representation on the police committee. I indicated a cross-reference and the hon. Gentleman was right to ask questions about police jurisdiction in relation to exemptees.
  The hon. Gentleman cited the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and its definition of the tunnel system, which is exempt. That definition relates to the tunnels, terminal areas at Cheriton and Frethun, an inland clearance depot which is not proceeding as originally envisaged, necessary road and rail links of each country, and the fixed and movable equipment needed for tunnel operations.
  Although British Transport police jurisdiction cannot be imposed on the tunnel system through the licensing system, BTP's jurisdiction is clear in respect of passenger and freight rail services to and from the tunnel. It exists because licences are required to run those train services, so a requirement will be imposed on the licensee to enter an agreement—which must be approved by the Secretary of State—to cover the powers of the police. Therefore, British Transport police will be at Waterloo station and on the trains, and will be responsible for the law and order function that I described earlier in respect of freight services.
  In the tunnel itself and at its portals, Eurotunnel will be responsible for security arrangements. If there are problems, it will call in Kent constabulary. There is an agreement between Kent constabulary and Eurotunnel. On the other side of the channel, different arrangements will apply because there the state is responsible for security and policing arrangements.
  Mr. Harvey: Will European Passenger Services be an exemptee?
  Mr. Freeman: It will not be exempt. European Passenger Services will run all the trains to and from the tunnel. It will be licensed, so BTP will police those boarding and using its trains.
  The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North drew my attention to the long list of light maintenance depots, which are exempt from the licensing system. He is right to say that jurisdiction can extend automatically to investigations and to the pursuit to those depots of anyone committing an offence. Of that, there is no question. I should not have thought that policing the depots themselves would be high on the list of policing responsibilities, but I accept that there may be a legitimate interest on the part of depot
  106
  owners to enter an agreement with British Transport police. However, that will not be compulsory but voluntarily negotiated.
  Mr. Dobson: Is the Minister saying that British Transport police will have no jurisdiction over exempt premises and will have a right to enter such premises only in pursuit of someone who thieved something from the railway?
  Mr. Freeman: Yes, that is a fair and accurate description. After discussions with British Transport police and the chief constable, I am not aware of any particular problems arising in relation to constraints on jurisdiction. Clearly there is a right of pursuit, but because such depots are exempt from the licensing regime it would not be possible to impose a BTP agreement on their owners, although some may wish to enter such an agreement to protect their property.
  Mr. Trotter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour party issued a press release tonight? I subsequently spoke to the chairman of the British Transport Police Federation, who described that press release as
  "a load of garbage, so wrong it is unbelievable. I can only conclude that it was designed to stir up trouble unnecessarily."
  I suggest to my right hon. Friend that that has been the tone of many comments by Opposition Members tonight.
  Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. Doubtless the matter will be discussed in Torquay at the annual conference that he and I will be attending.
  Mr. Wilson: That was a despicable intervention.
  I have stood opposite the Minister, at the Opposition Dispatch Box, throughout the Railways Bill and in Committee, I respect his regard for detail and his attempts to explain the proposed legislation—in so far as it is capable of being explained—and I know that he does not run away from the issues. I am not suggesting that it was anything deliberate, as the area had not been explored, but it is on the record that at the start of the debate today he dismissed the exemptions as being only steam trains, and the odd bit here and there.
  In his response to me on the stand part debate, the Minister went through every one of the substantive exemptions that I asked about and confirmed that, in each case, there would be at the very least a possibility that those parts of the railway would be outside the jurisdiction of the British Transport police and that they might or might not opt in. So far as I am concerned, that is it—the record is straight on that and we shall not obstruct the Bill tonight—but that was not what the Minister said to start with, so there are still huge questions to be answered.
  The guy who is paid money by the British Transport police to look after their interests—the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter), who had neither the intellect nor the energy to ask any of those questions—then stood up at the end and produced the best contribution that he could make. And it spoke volumes. When members of the British Transport police read the record of this debate, they will know who asked the questions, who scraped away the surface and who began to get some of the information that is relevant to their future work and to that of railway passengers. I will let it rest there, but—my goodness—

  107
  what a movement there has been since the start of the debate in the factual information that has come from the Minister.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. Dobson: I do not wish to detain the House for long. As I explained on Second Reading, the Bill is before the House because the Labour party pressed the Government to put right their errors in the Railways Act that would have left the British Transport police bereft of significant powers to combat crime, look after the interests of passengers and goods on the railways, and continue our efforts to fight terrorism. The Bill was urged on the Government by myself, and, in the knowledge of my urging, also by the chairman of British Rail and the chief constable of the British Transport police. They believed that it was right to introduce such a Bill. I believe that it was right to do so and hope that the inadequate measure that is before us tonight will be something of an improvement on the situation that would have prevailed had we not got the Bill.
  Tonight's brief debate has demonstrated what we suspected as soon as we saw the Bill—that it is an inadequate and confused measure. I do not know what members of the British Transport Police Federation might think, nor do I know what the chief constable of the British Transport police might think, but it appears to all Opposition Members that aspects of the Bill suggest that the comprehensive policing of the whole of the railway network exclusively by British Transport police is under threat and is further threatened.
  We suspect that it is the Government's intention to exempt more and more of the railway system from the coverage of BTP generally and to cause them to restrict their activities to what is called core policing so that organisations such as Group 4 can move in and take over some of BTP's current functions.
  As I said on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) was not present, the measures taken by BTP to counter terrorism are extremely impressive. They managed to assess 1,136 bomb threats last year and to close stations on only 33 occasions, when nine bombs were found. Of the 1,103 occasions when they decided not to advise the closure of stations, none of them involved a bomb and no one was injured or killed. That was the result of having a comprehensive policing system for Britain's entire railway system. That left the senior officers who have to make such judgments confident about the information that they were receiving. They were confident about their ability to analyse the situation and confident to take their lives and others' lives in their hands in making their decisions.
  If the Bill undermines in any way the comprehensive nature of BTP's coverage, the Minister will be responsible for putting at risk people's safety and for increasing the vulnerability of the transport system to terrorism. He had
  108
  better remember that. If he has any doubts about the Bill in view of what has been said and the questions asked by Opposition Members, which have been left unanswered, perhaps he should eat a little humble pie and suggest some changes to be made in another place.
  We are dubious about the Bill. We asked for it to be introduced and it was, but we consider it unsatisfactory. Its long-term ramifications may be extremely dangerous.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Freeman: I have a clear conscience about the Bill. It deals with a specific problem and it is clear and concise. It does not undermine the powers of the British Transport police. It ensures that their jurisdiction and powers are unimpaired. I reject the criticism that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has levelled that the Bill may be defective in some way and that we should think again. It is, of course, a Government Bill. We are not dealing with an Opposition measure. It is the result of the best legal advice and it has been supported by the Labour party and endorsed by the police committee, the chief constable and the chairman of the British Railways Board.
  We are correcting a specific problem. The Bill is not a charter for Group 4 or any other private sector security firm. It is designed to ensure that BTP's powers remain unimpaired. The force will in future be able to provide the same jurisdiction and cover that it has applied hitherto. The Government have discharged their responsibilities to BTP promptly and adequately and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
  Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief but this is an important matter. I am concerned that the Bill affects the prerogative of Her Majesty in as much as it relates to constables who are sworn, I believe, to carry out their powers under the royal prerogative. If that is so, the Queen's—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That point of order cannot now arise; we have just completed the Bill.

PETITION

  Value Added Tax on Fuel
  9.55 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: I rise to present a petition to the House about a matter which has enraged many British citizens: the imposition of VAT on fuel. It has enraged British citizens because the Government specifically promised in the last election campaign that they would not widen the scope of VAT. The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of the people of York
  Sheweth

  That the Government intends to impose VAT on domestic fuel bills, which will greatly add to the hardship suffered by those on low incomes or with special heating needs.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove from the Finance Bill currently being considered by the House the proposals to add VAT to domestic fuel bills.

  109
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  The petition is signed by Mr. A. Kelly of Tennyson Avenue, York, and by many others of my constituents.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Outdoor Education (Safety)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
  9.56 pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I am very grateful to have been awarded the chance to debate safety in outdoor education. i come to the Chamber with mixed emotions of pleasure and sadness—pleasure that I am able to air views about outdoor education on behalf of my constituents and sadness because of the circumstances in which I have had to ask for the debate.
  At 11 am on 22 March last year, eight teenagers from Southway school in my constituency went on a canoeing trip to Lyme bay in Dorset and by 11 o'clock that night it had been confirmed that four of those teenagers had died in that venture. During the past year the bereaved parents have borne their great pain with considerable dignity. They have campaigned for changes in the law with passion and perseverance because it is their wish that no parent should have to go through the agony that they have been through in the past year.
  I speak, both as a former teacher and as a parent, as a supporter of outdoor education. Young people—particularly those who suffer the monotony of urban life—need the challenge of the outdoors. It gives direction and purpose to their lives and provides a discipline that is lacking in the lives of many youngsters today. The national curriculum recommends outdoor pursuits to schools and the debate is not about taking away all risk from outdoor pursuits, but about removing all unnecessary risk from those pursuits.
  What changes have taken place in the past few years? Because of the onset of local management of schools, many local education authority outdoor centres are winding down or have closed. The debate is not about the merits of LMS, but that is still a fact. Many of those centres are now being replaced by commercial private centres that are run for profit. The debate is not about whether that should happen. Some of those commercial centres are good, some are excellent, some are mediocre and a few are cowboy outfits that are putting children's lives at risk. It is my wish that the poorest centres should be brought up to the standard of the best centres, or should close.
  My concerns about the matter are not new. Which? has been campaigning for changes in the law for 19 years—since 1975. In 1991, it carried out a survey of centres in Great Britain. If the Minister has not already seen it, I commend to him Holiday Which? of September 1991 which showed that some of the centres that it inspected were seriously lacking in basic safety measures. It also found, as I have said, that some of the centres were excellent. However, two of the 10 centres inspected were seriously deficient in safety measures.
  At that time, calls—the parents to whom I have referred and I have been saying this for the past year—were made for compulsory registration of activity centres, for a comprehensive code of practice for those centres, for appropriate qualifications for instructors employed by activity centres and for a formal system of regular and comprehensive inspection by an independent body. What checks are made?
  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. Wood.]
  Mr. Jamieson: What checks are being made on those centres? In a recent. well-reported case, the centre in Lyme bay and several other centres were checked by an inspector who was sent round by the British Activity Holiday Association. Presumably, he gave a clean bill of health to those centres. However, it was later found that he ran a centre that was seriously deficient. He was quoted in no less a journal than the Western Morning News as saying that he had no qualifications. He said that he just used common sense to carry out the task.
  Would we allow an aeroplane mechanic working on a aeroplane on which we were about to fly or a surgeon who was about to carry out open-heart surgery to use just common sense? What is wrong with the present system is that any of us in the Chamber, whether we were skilled or experienced, could open an outdoor pursuits centre tomorrow and take youngsters on potentially hazardous outings.
  Most local education authorities have good guidance. Over the past year, I have discovered that a few of them have weak guidance. Some have guidance that is virtually non-existent. I am concerned that grant-maintained schools do not have guidance on which to fall back unless they take note of the LEA guidance in their areas.
  Some of those schools are now using what is called the named instructor scheme whereby a centre fills in a check list sent in by the school. That check list is checked afterwards. However, the difficulty is that too few schools have people who are competent to say whether that check list has been filled in correctly. Similarly, too few LEAs have outdoor pursuits advisers who can tell them whether that check list has been filled in correctly. The system is fundamentally flawed because those check lists rely on the centres giving truthful and accurate answers about the operation of the centres.
  It is estimated that 25 per cent. of children who go to those centres every year do not go through their schools or LEAs. They go straight to the centre from home. Their parents usually find a centre in one of the Sunday supplements. There is no checking in between by any other body to discover whether the centre is working to high standards.
  We expect the highest standards of safety in a civilised society in any body that is operating publicly. We do not get on a bus and ask whether the bus driver has a driving licence. We expect that to be the case. However, in outdoor education activities, there is no statutory requirement for any person to have qualifications to carry out those activities.
  I want now to consider briefly the Government's response to the tragedy to which I have referred. On 11 November, the Secretary of State for Education released his four-point plan. The first item in the plan is that the Health and Safety Executive should inspect the centres. It came out earlier this year that the Health and Safety Executive will inspect only 100–50 a year for two years—out of an estimated 3,000 centres. On that basis, it will take 60 years to inspect all the centres. If we applied that to motor vehicles, would we say that it is satisfactory to give an MOT to only one out of 30 vehicles? The Minister's plan is seriously deficient in that respect.
  There is another point. In written questions, I have asked both the Department for Education and the Department of Employment where those 3,000 centres are in Britain. Neither of those Departments could give me an answer. They simply said that the information was not
  112
  collected in the form in which I requested it. All that I asked for was the names of the centres and the counties in which they are. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten the House and tell us in what form the statistics are kept, if they are kept at all. Does he know where all the centres are, so that he is in a position to have them inspected by the Health and Safety Executive?
  Another point in the Minister's plan is that the reports will be published. I agree with that, but where will the reports be published? How will they be made available to parents who are thumbing through the colour supplements on Sunday to find a centre? How will parents and schools see the reports? I remind the Minister that the Department of Employment said that the first reports will not be available until April 1995 and the second batch will be available in April 1996. Three years after the tragedy, we will have reports on one out of every 30 centres.
  I refer to a letter that I received from the Minister on another matter—I asked him about Ofsted reports of private schools. In a letter dated 17 February, he said:
  "The onus is on the school to distribute the report to interested parties or to advise them where reports can be obtained."
  Will he use the same criteria for those centres or will the reports be openly and freely available to all?
  The four-point plan set out further guidance for schools. I am glad that many schools are receiving good guidance. The guidance available in Devon is excellent—it was updated following the terrible tragedy. However, all of the guidance documents still rely on honest and truthful answers from the outdoor centres. That is a fundamental flaw in the present system.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Jamieson: Time is limited; I am sorry but I am unable to give way tonight.
  The fourth point in the plan laid out by the Minister is that he will change the articles for governing bodies to reinforce the legal responsibility of governors. Unless other measures are put in place, I am afraid that that will make governors who support outdoor education reluctant to send children on such activities because they would be held legally liable for the shortcomings of centres over which they have no control whatever.
  The Secretary of State has set up a steering group—it is meeting at present—to draw up new guidelines. The membership of that group is excellent. I am pleased that it has a number of distinguished members. The work of that group will be of limited value—indeed, it will have negligible value—unless there are some statutory teeth to what it is doing. The draft document refers users to a code of practice set out by tourist boards. That code of practice has been drawn up largely by people who own such centres or who have a vested interest in them. Any code of practice should be drawn up independently by people who do not have a direct financial interest in a centre.
  Most of all, what is wrong is that there is no binding requirement on any centre to employ instructors who are properly qualified to carry out the work. We know that some of the people who work in centres start work a matter of days before the activity is undertaken, sometimes with no training at all. They are paid £30 or £40 a week, and are expected to take responsibility for the lives of young children.
  What is needed? Clearly, the new guidelines for local education authorities—particularly those which have

  113
  insufficiently good guidelines at the moment—are right. I applaud what the Minister is doing in that respect. We want all of the guidelines to come up to the best standards. However, they must be backed by teeth. There must be a statutory obligation on the centres.
  The Minister needs to address two points. The inspections that take place are carried out by the Health and Safety Executive, but just inspecting a few centres is insufficient. The hon. Gentleman must make sure that far more centres are inspected. They could be inspected by an agency, and the centres themselves could pay. That is a little bit like the MOT test example that I gave. The centres could have some sort of kite mark which would show that they had been tested and had met high standards as a minimum requirement. I know that many good centres would welcome and would pay for such a scheme. That does not necessarily have a financial implication, and perhaps there could be some pump-priming from the Minister. I ask him to address seriously the question of wider inspection.
  The other main point is that there should be a clear legal framework for establishing that instructors who are undertaking potentially hazardous activities, such as abseiling, yachting or canoeing on the sea, should have qualifications to carry out those activities. That does not exist at the moment. If we allow just anybody to take children abseiling or canoeing, I am afraid that their lives will be at risk. I have also found out that there are literally millions of children going through the centres each year. I ask the Minister to address the two points of inspection and the statutory qualifications that people should have.
  It is my wish, and the wish of the parents who lost their children in the appalling tragedy last year, that there should be changes in the law to make sure that all outdoor education establishments are working to the highest standards. I know that my thoughts, and those of many hon. Members, will be with the parents who lost Simon, Claire, Dean and Rachel. Let us hope that their sad and tragic loss spurs to us change the law.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Bill Olner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) for allowing me a few minutes to speak in the debate. I am also grateful to the Minister because he indicated that, hopefully, he would be able to respond in some way.
  My concern is the safety aspects of private schools and, in particular, private kindergartens and primary schools. Tragically, the young child of a Mr. and Mrs. Sargeant in my constituency died in a swimming accident at such a private school. The child died basically because of a difficulty with a floatation device.
  I am not seeking to apportion blame or neglect in the matter. What concerns me, and what also concerns Mr. and Mrs. Sargeant, is the yawning gap in enforcing the best standards within those establishments. This follows closely on what my hon. Friend was saying.
  There are elements of danger in everything, but people—particularly parents—are reassured if they know that those elements of danger, to the best of everybody's intentions, are being closely monitored. There does not appear to be anyone with jurisdiction for safety in private schools, with the exception of the Health and Safety Executive and the police. Admirable as those two bodies
  114
  might be, I do not believe that they have the breadth, scope and expertise of local education authorities. LEAs examine such matters continually and on a larger scale. In the letter that the Minister kindly sent me dated 7 March he unfortunately gives no undertaking that the Government are prepared to consider that suggestion.
  I hope that in response to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport and my speech the Minister will take it on himself to consider the matter more closely. He said in his letter that once an independent school has satisfied the Secretary of State that the necessary standards have been achieved, everything is OK, everything is signed. I remind the Minister that, tragically, standards can be applied in the first instance but may well not continue to be applied.
  Unfortunately, there is a yawning gap in the legislation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will examine the case again and will consider the difficulties that have arisen. I hope that there will be some liaison with the LEAs. I hope that their expertise, which I am sure will be welcomed by most of the independent and private schools, can be put to good use.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call anyone, I must be clear that the Member has the permission of both the Minister and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) to speak.
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I wish to intervene for only one minute.
  I also lost a constituent as a result of the canoeing accident. I was extremely disappointed that my next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), did not have the courtesy to allow me to intervene in his speech in this important debate, which I am glad that he managed to obtain. It is not helpful if next-door neighbours who have suffered the same tragedy do not stand together to announce such—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must make it clear that an Adjournment debate is essentially on a subject raised by one Member and answered by a Minister. The custom is for another Member who wishes to take part in the debate to sound out both the Member and the Minister in advance.
  Mr. Steen: I merely wished to intervene, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not intend to make a speech, but because the hon. Member for Devonport refused even to allow me to ask a question, I am having to make a short speech.
  I lost a constituent in the tragic accident. I do not believe that if statutory rules and regulations had been laid down the accident would have happened. It was one of those tragedies that occur from time to time which one feels are an appalling waste of life. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not overreact to the tragedy, believing that creating more rules and regulations will prevent such tragedies from happening.
  The Health and Safety Executive has an amazing number of things to do. To give it more tasks is unlikely to result in such tragedies being prevented. I hope that the

  115
  Minister will take that point to heart. We do not necessarily stop such unfortunate occurrences by passing rules and regulations.
  10.18 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member have the permission of the Minister?
  Mr. Miller: I said to the Minister that I would take only two minutes, and I shall stick to that.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on handling the matter in the way that he has. It is a particularly important issue. I must say in response to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) that such tragedies can be avoided. I rise to speak as someone with many years' experience of canoeing. I built some of the first glass fibre boats in this country in the early 1960s.
  When I discussed the day after the tragedy the matters raised by my hon. Friend, I was horrified to learn about the lack of supervision. Basic needs were ignored. For example, the youngsters had been given no training in deep-sea rescue before they were taken across Lyme bay, which is a treacherous piece of water. There were no spray decks on the vessels. The clothing worn, although good, was inadequate. The situation in which those youngsters found themselves was bound to cause a tragedy. It is nonsense to argue that that tragedy could not have been avoided. Way back in the early 1960s, there were canoeing expeditions in British waters, emulating experiences gained by eskimos in Arctic waters, that were supervised far more safely than was this specific incident.
  The right place to comment in detail and to attribute blame is obviously another place, but I hope that the Minister will take on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport throughout the past year, and the very clear guidance given by the British Canoe Union and other organisations which have clearly indicated that the tragedy should have been, and could have been, avoided.
  10.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on bringing this important matter before the House in the way that he has. As he pointed out, we are in effect at the anniversary of the Lyme bay tragedy to which he referred, in which four of our young people so sadly died. I wish to express yet again the sympathy that I and my colleagues feel and want to express to the family and friends of those young people, and our determination to learn the lessons and to take effective action in regard to them. I also want fully to acknowledge the tenacity with which the hon. Gentleman has rightly pursued the issue, which will have affected his constituents and those of other hon. Members present, and what he has done to promote that inside the House and outside and indeed in my own Department. He has also met the Secretary of State with the parents of the young people.
  I shall briefly set out our response and the reasoning behind it, in the hope that I will be able to persuade hon.
  116
  Members of our thinking, and of the effectiveness that we believe that it will have. I recognise that the hon. Member for Devonport, the Devon county council, the young people in the Southway school, the bereaved parents and many other people have said that they believe—the hon. Gentleman has repeated it tonight—that the right way forward is to introduce new statutory and regulatory provision, through which there would be a compulsory scheme of accreditation and inspection of outdoor activity centres, whether in the private or public sector. I want to explain why, although we thought very carefully about that, in the end we did not share that view.
  First, I do not think that it is necessarily, even now, sufficiently realised what comprehensive and relevant provision there already is in common law and statute law and in regulations. There are the long established and important common law requirements for those acting in loco parentis to exercise a duty of care. There are existing general statutes imposing duties with respect to health and safety and especially, as has been referred to more than once, the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Within that general framework, there are specific regulations such as the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and others which apply to activity centres as well as to other premises.
  In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Diner), I believe that those all apply equally to the types of schools that he mentioned, but I would like to examine the point that he made to discover whether that is the case and what other assurances I am able to give him in the matter that he raised during the debate. I will do that and let him know when I have done so.
  The regulations require employers and the self-employed to undertake an assessment of risks to the health and safety of their employees and to others, such as members of the public, who may be affected by their work, and introduce measures necessary to comply with the requirements of the law. I cannot comment on matters before the courts, but it is well known that prosecutions are being pursued relating to the events at Lyme bay under existing law by the Crown Prosecution Service.
  We therefore believe that further specific provisions for activity centres in that regard would not necessarily add rapidly or significantly to safety. They would undoubtedly take time to frame and implement—more time than the measures which we are currently implementing.
  Given the range of existing provisions, there might be serious dangers that additional requirements—even of the kind outlined by the hon. Gentleman—would add burdens on both suppliers and customers of services, including the schools themselves, increasing costs and possibly, therefore, acting as a deterrent to the provision of activities, which the hon. Gentleman conceded at the outset form such a valuable educational contribution to the curriculum of the schools.
  Against that background, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the Government's alternative approach in the statement that he made last November. He announced the Government's programme of action, which consisted of a special programme of inspections of outdoor centres by the Health and Safety Executive and its expert inspectorate, and the provision of information from that programme. On the hon. Gentleman's point about their inspecting "only 100 centres", it is normal practice for the Health and Safety Executive, as it is with their factory and all other kinds of inspections, to look at the profile of the

  117
  matter and draw up priorities. Those can be altered and made flexible as experience is gained and priorities change. I shall discuss that a little more later if time permits, but it is an important point to bear in mind. Although the number may appear small, the effectiveness may be much greater, as it is with factory inspections. We shall then have new advice and guidance to our partners in the education service, who are the customers for the services provided by the centres.
  In his announcement, the Secretary of State emphasised the Government's support for the initiative being undertaken by the English tourist board, in association with others, to devise a code of practice for activity centres and to work towards a new system of accreditation with endorsement by respected national bodies. The Government not only support that process but are and will remain closely involved with it.
  We are undertaking a comprehensive series of actions, looking carefully at the quality of health and safety provision in a large and representative sample of centres with information emerging from that process, and the possibility of enforcement measures in response to any deficiencies identified; advice to the schools and others on the education side, including a clarification of relevant responsibilities; and encouragement of and involvement with a national but non-statutory scheme of accreditation, which will form an increasingly important reference point for the users of services.
  The action being undertaken is comprehensive, dealing with the various aspects of the question by partnership, which is the right approach, with others involved, building on existing resources in the system and on established lines of responsibility. We believe that approach to be both quicker and of more practical benefit than an attempt to put in place new, more comprehensive and statutorily-based forms of regulation.
  Work on all aspects of the action programme is being taken forward urgently. For example, my Department has already been working on new guidance to schools and others in the education service, with valuable collaboration by other agencies both inside and outside Government, with the aim of preparing a new document which we plan to make available next month. That will set out in appropriate detail, but in concise and practical form,
  118
  information which schools and local authorities will wish to consider, drawn from the lessons of the Lyme bay tragedy. We shall give advice on procedures which they will wish to follow to ensure, as far as is practicable, the safety of pupils attending outdoor centres.
  The Health and Safety Executive, for its part, is well advanced with arrangements for the special programme of inspections that will begin on 1 April. It will involve inspectors from six areas of the country, including Wales and Scotland, and from local authorities. More than 100 visits will be made by October this year. Centres are being chosen on the basis of local information, taking account of the proportion of the client group represented by children, the risks associated with the activities offered, the number and range of activities and the knowledge of any previous incidents.
  The inspections will go into the quality and numbers of instructing staff, affiliation to appropriate national bodies, arrangements for monitoring health and safety, the suitability and maintenance of equipment, accident reporting and emergency procedures. Special training for the inspectors involved has already been provided and will continue. A published report of the findings of the visits will be made available next spring. If any areas of significant concern emerge before that, that information will be made available.
  I hope that I have said enough in the time available to show that we have given this matter careful and close thought. We looked at the alternatives outlined by the hon. Gentleman but, having taken account of the balance of the speed and efficacy with which we could introduce measures, the varying circumstances of the centres, the expertise available through the Health and Safety Executive, and our desire to make those centres as readily available to schools as they have been in the past, the Secretary of State and I believe that the solution which we are offering is rapidly available and practical. We shall monitor it and keep it closely under review.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in looking forward to that new regime making a significant and rapid impact and difference to ensure that, as far as we can, the tragedy that occurred a year ago will never be repeated.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 405, if the 433 days mentioned as average waiting time between an appeal against a social security appeal tribunal's decision and its determination by a social security commissioner are working days; and what steps he is taking to reduce this waiting time.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of days referred to are calendar days. The chief commissioner is making full use of existing deputy social security commissioners to help reduce waiting times. He has also arranged for the transfer of some cases to commissioners in Scotland, where waiting times are shorter. A committee is also examining ways to improve the appeal procedures.

PRIME MINISTER

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what will be the implications for the operation of the Cabinet Office of the code of practice on open government.

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

  Ministers (Legal Action)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each occasion in the past five years when Ministers of the Crown have requested financial assistance in legal actions, on the grounds that these impinged upon their ministerial duties; and how each of these applications was determined.

  The Prime Minister
  No central record is kept of such requests.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him in February.

  The Prime Minister
  A considerable number.

  Car Industries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 581, concerning the sale of indigenous car industries, what assessment he has made of the effect of the takeover of Rover on output and employment in the United Kingdom.
  2
  The Prime Minister
  The hon. Gentleman is aware of the assurances given by BMW to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 31 January. Nothing has happened since then to change our view that the acquisition offers good prospects for Rover and for output and employment in our vehicle industry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 581, concerning the sale of indigenous car industries, if he will publish the source of his information concerning the intentions of French Government, together with the timetable for the sale.

  The Prime Minister
  The French Government have stated publicly on several occasions that they intend to privatise Renault, and the company was one of 21 firms, banks and insurance companies listed in an annex to their privatisation Bill in July 1993. Mr. Longuet, French Minister of Industry and International Trade, has recently indicated to the press that, despite the breakdown of the planned merger of Renault and Volvo, it is still intended to privatise Renault, although this is understood to be unlikely to take place before the presidential elections in May 1995.

  Trinidad Terms
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the progress to date on the implementation of the Trinidad terms; if he will raise this matter at the next G7 summit; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  A total of 20 of the poorest and most indebted countries have benefited from Trinidad debt reschedulings by the Paris club. These are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Republic, Guyana, Honduras, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia. Over $5·5 billion of debt has been restructured under the terms and over $2 billion of debt and debt servicing has been reduced.

  We shall continue to work for full Trinidad terms, including increasing the level of debt reduction for the poorest and most indebted countries from 50 to 80 per cent. on a case-by-case basis, and for earlier action on reducing the whole stock of official debt. The summit of G7 Heads of Government later this year will provide such an opportunity.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions in the last five years he has knowingly provided incomplete information to answers to parliamentary questions other than on grounds of disproportionate cost; and on what subjects.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 15 March 1994,Official Report, column 645.

  India
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he raised the matter of the proliferation consequences of India's nuclear capability with his Indian counterpart during his recent visit.
  3
  The Prime Minister
  No. The Indian Government are well aware of our concerns about nuclear proliferation in south Asia, which were raised with the Indian Foreign Secretary during Mr. Narasimha Rao's visit.

  Parliamentary Bills
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he would support a measure that would introduce a block on parliamentary Bills in the British Parliament if 27 per cent. of hon. Members opposed them.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister what rule applies to Ministers; and who is responsible for registering gifts received by(a) himself and (b) other Ministers.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1994]: Gifts received by Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons have to be registered in the Register of Members' Interests if they exceed £125 in value and if they relate in any way to membership of the House. Registration is the responsibility of the individual Member.

  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" provides separately that all gifts accepted by Ministers in their official capacity should be reported to the permanent secretary of the Department. In addition, it provides that any gift exceeding £125 in value must be surrendered or purchased at its cash value abated by £125. Since such gifts accepted by Ministers in their official capacity must be either purchased or surrendered, there is no interest to register.

  Orsett Hospital
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if, on his next visit to Basildon, he will meet officers of the Basildon and Thurrock community health council to discuss the possible closure of Orsett hospital.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: When I next visit Basildon, I look forward to meeting a wide range of people.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Orsett hospital, Thurrock in addition to his proposed visit to the maternity unit at Basildon hospital.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: I have no current plans to visit Thurrock.

  Serious Crime Criteria
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out in a form which does not jeopardise national security the criteria used by the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service to assess what constitutes a serious crime.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: No. The term "serious crime" is widely understood and, in the context of the Intelligence Services Bill, does not require further definition.

  Economic Well-being Criteria
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will set out in a form which does not jeopardise national security the financial criteria used by the Secret Intelligence Service and the Security Service to assess matters which relate to the economic well-being of the country.
  4
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: The term
  "economic well being of the United Kingdom"
  is a well-known provision, used in the Intelligence Services Bill, the Security Service Act 1989 and the European Convention on Human Rights without definition.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave two examples of where the Secret Intelligence Service might act in this area in his speech introducing the Intelligence Services Bill on 22 February 1994 Official Report, column 157.

  Shoot-to-kill Policy
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a shoot-to-kill policy arising from terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: We have no such policy. What is normally implied by a "shoot-to-kill" policy would not be consistent with section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or section 3 of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Information Technology Services Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many bridging and relocation loans are outstanding with the staff of the Information Technology Services Agency; what is the total sum of such loans outstanding; and what will be the status of such loans in the event of transfer to the private sector.

  Mr. Hague
  The information available as at 18 March 1994 is as follows:

  Number outstanding

  Total sum outstanding

  Bridging loans1 20

  £1,008,144

  Advances of Salary2 231

  £840,112·84

  1 Bridging loans include all bridging and relocation loans as they are, essentially, the same thing—short term loans which are repaid when an individual's former property is sold.

  2 Advances of salary are long term loans used to purchase property and are repayable over a maximum of 15 years.

  The status of these loans in the event of transfer to the private sector is still being considered.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the terms of reference guiding the competition to choose a strategic partner for the Information Technology Services Agency in his Department.

  Mr. Hague
  The ITSA plans to transfer its day-to-day computer and output handling operations to the private sector. A project team is taking forward the detailed work required in preparation for the tendering process. The objectives of the project team are as follows:To improve IT service provision to ITSA.
  To make recommendations to ministers.

  5
  To negotiate terms and conditions which will support the smooth transfer of civil servants to the private sector.
  To ensure security of service supply whilst generating ongoing competition.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many registered disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this is of the total.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is contained in the magazine "Independent", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which changes recommended by the Social Security Select Committee in its first report of 1993–94, and agreed by the Government, have still to be implemented by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  All the recommendations made by the Select Committee that were accepted by the Government have now been introduced.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provisions exist to uprate war pensions for individuals whose circumstances have changed since their last assessment.

  Mr. Hague
  Any war pensioner who feels that his pensioned disablement has deteriorated since it was last assessed can request a review of that assessment at any time.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people claiming income support who are aged 25 years or under who are having deductions made from their benefit in respect of rent arrears because they failed timeously to renew their claim for housing benefit; and what is his estimate of the value of housing benefit thus unclaimed.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a full-time mature student in higher education is eligible for housing benefit for any part of the year.

  Mr. Burt
  Mature students in higher education are eligible to claim housing benefit throughout the year if they are within one of the specified vulnerable groups, which include single parents, student couples with dependent children and disabled students. Non-student partners can also claim on behalf of the couple if they satisfy the normal qualifying conditions.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the implications for his Department of right-to-buy legislation and increases in service charges for tenants who have taken advantage of such legislation; and if he will make a statement.
  6
  Mr. Burt
  Former council tenants who buy their homes under right-to-buy legislation while receiving income support have the amount of housing costs included in their assessment restricted to the eligible rent payable immediately before the purchase of their properties.

  In such cases, income support is adjusted to reflect subsequent changes in mortgage interest rates and in the amount of eligible service charges levied.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current share of gross domestic product taken by social security expenditure in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) each of the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.

  Mr. Hague
  The customary measure used when making international comparisons is public social protection expenditure, which includes public health care costs, personal social services and compulsory occupational pensions as well as social security spending. The figures for social protection for the United Kingdom and OECD countries are in the table.

  Social protection expenditure as a percentage of GDP

  Country

  1990 Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  23

  Belgium

  27

  Denmark

  30

  France

  28

  Germany

  27

  Greece

  121

  Ireland

  20

  Italy

  24

  Luxembourg

  26

  Netherlands

  32

  Portugal

  17

  Spain

  21

  Australia

  13

  Austria

  25

  Canada

  219

  Finland

  27

  Japan

  12

  Norway

  29

  New Zealand

  19

  Sweden

  34

  United States

  215

  1 1989.

  2 Estimate.

  Source: Eurostat, OECD.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the totals of claimants receiving invalidity benefit in(a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) England in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table.

  Invalidity Benefit recipients1

  Date

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  2 June 19792

  465,000

  76,000

  69,000

  31 May 1980

  464,000

  78,000

  67,000

  30 May 1981

  468,000

  88,000

  71,000

  29 May 1982

  504,000

  95,000

  79,000

  2 April 1983

  542,000

  102,000

  87,000

  31 March 1984

  581,000

  110,000

  98,000

  30 March 1985

  618,000

  116,000

  108,000

  7

  Date

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  5 April 1986

  654,000

  125,000

  112,000

  4 April 1987

  704,000

  135,000

  122,000

  2 April 1988

  767,000

  147,000

  127,000

  1 April 1989

  829,000

  158,000

  132,000

  31 March 1990

  895,000

  169,000

  137,000

  30 March 1991

  971,000

  181,000

  147,000

  4 April 1992

  1,072,000

  200,000

  159,000

  1 Based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants in Great Britain, rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 A breakdown of recipients by standard statistical region is only available from 1980. Figures for 1979 include a small number of people claiming but not receiving benefit.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received invalidity benefit following an award of non-contributory sickness benefit(a) between April 1992 and April 1993, (b) since April 1993 and (c) in total since April 1983.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 January 1994, c. 188–89]: The figures of 4,000 in the period 2 April 1990 to 31 March 1991 and 1,000 in the period 1 April 1991 to 4 April 1992 should read 3,000 and 2,000 respectively.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total cost of market testing work carried out in his Department.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is published in the "Citizen's Charter White Paper: Second Report", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) claimed and (b) were awarded non-contributory sickness benefit (i) between April 1992 and April 1993, (ii) since April 1993 and (iii) in total since April 1983.

  Mr. Scott
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 January 1994, c. 187–88]: The figure of 6,000 for the period 2 April 1990 to 31 March 1991 should have read 3,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the implications for the operation of his Department of the code of practice on open government.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The code of practice on Government information will reinforce and build the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's existing arrangements for the provision of information. I see it as an important element in our commitment to open government, which has been demonstrated during recent months by the release of unprecedented quantities of previously withheld material into the public domain.
  8

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many registered disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this is of the total.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Lady to the annual disability report contained in the 18 March issue of "Independent" magazine, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Students (Military Training)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries from which foreign students visited the United Kingdom for military training and the countries that United Kingdom military personnel visited to train military students, to which reference is made at paragraph 30 of his departmental annual report and expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1997–98, Cm. 2502.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The countries from which foreign students visited the United Kingdom in 1992–93 for military training are:

  Antigua

  Mauritius

  Bahamas

  Morocco

  Bangladesh

  Mozambique

  Barbados

  Namibia

  Belize

  Nepal

  Botswana

  Nigeria

  Brazil

  Pakistan

  Bulgaria

  Paraguay

  Chile

  Peru

  Colombia

  Philippines

  Czech Republic

  Poland

  Egypt

  Romania

  Fiji

  Russia

  Gambia

  Senegal

  Ghana

  Seychelles

  Guyana

  Singapore

  Hungary

  South Korea

  India

  Sri Lanka

  Indonesia

  St. Lucia

  Ireland

  Swaziland

  Jamaica

  Tanzania

  Jordan

  Thailand

  Kenya

  Trinidad

  Lebanon

  Uganda

  Malawi

  Yemen

  Malaysia

  Zambia

  Maldives

  Zimbabwe

  Malta

  The countries that United Kingdom military personnel visited to train military students are:

  Angola

  Lesotho

  Antigua

  Malaysia

  Bangladesh

  Maldives

  Barbados

  Mauritius

  Belize

  Mozambique

  Chile

  Namibia

  Dominica

  Nigeria

  Gambia

  St. Lucia

  Ghana

  St. Vincent

  Grenada

  Swaziland

  Indonesia

  Uganda

  Latvia

  Zimbabwe

  Mr. Lorraine Osman
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers signed public interest immunity certificates in the case of Lorraine Osman; and when they did so.
  9
  Mr. Goodlad
  The then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the former hon. Member for Warwickshire North, on 12 June 1990; and the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Earl of Caithness, on 21 February 1992.

  Middle East
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the Syria-Israel peace talks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The most recent bilateral talks between Syrian and Israeli delegations were held in Washington from 24 January. The Syrian delegation returned to Damascus after the Hebron massacre on 25 February. We and our European Union partners have encouraged all parties to the peace process to resume direct negotiations as soon as possible.

  Iraq
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about military attacks by the Iraqi regime in the marshes in southern Iraq in the past two weeks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of increased Iraqi military activity in the southern marshes and condemn any violation of Security Council resolution 688. We are monitoring the situation closely with our coalition allies.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the use by Iraqi forces of napalm incendiary bombs in military attacks in the marshes in southern Iraq; what is the status of such devices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are aware of increased Iraqi military activity in the southern marshes and condemn any violation of Security Council resolution 688. There is no evidence of napalm attacks against the marsh Arabs. We are monitoring the situation closely with our coalition allies.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has regarding the recent change in the level of Iraqi troop and militia deployment along the border of the Kurdish-controlled region of the country.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received reports from the Kurdish administration in northern Iraq of increased Iraqi troop movements and deployments in the area. We are assessing these reports and are monitoring the situation closely with our coalition allies.

  We require the Iraqi regime to comply with United Nations resolution 688 which called on Iraq to cease the repression of its civilian population.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to extend the European Union arms embargo on Sudan into a comprehensive United Nations-led arms embargo.
  10
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A global arms embargo would require the passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution. We have not ruled out recourse to the United Nations Security Council, but would not want to pursue this option unless we were sure that this was the right tactic.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the European Union is making representations that there should be a strengthened and resident human rights presence in Sudan under the United Nations Commission on Human Rights' special rapporteur.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  At the recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights we and our European Union partners whole-heartedly supported the resolution on the human rights situation, commending the report of the United Nations special rapporteur, which recommended that the situation should be monitored by national and international non-governmental human rights organisations, who should enjoy free access throughout the country.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for the last 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to one of his Department's agencies for answer; and what precentage of parliamentary questions to his Department this represents.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A part of one written parliamentary question was referred to the Wiston House Conference Centre, Wilton Park. The reply appeared with my answer in the Official Report of 18 February, at column 1034. This represents less than 0·01 per cent. of the parliamentary questions dealt with by this Department over the last 12 months.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many scholarships are being awarded to overseas students; how much is being spent on those from the ODA budget during the current year; what was the number and cost in real terms(a) five, (b) 10 and (c) 15 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The 1993–94 expenditure figures are not yet complete. But we expect a total of 15,100 scholarships for overseas students funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have been taken up this financial year. The ODA's provision—11,300 awards—is worth some £118 million, which includes an estimate of £10 million for other training activities for which an accurate forecast is not available.

  The number and cost in real terms five, 10 and 15 years ago are as follows:
  11

  Cost in Real Terms—(1993–94 prices)

  £ million

  Year

  ODA component

  ODA component

  1988–89

  19,088

  (13,882)

  129·91

  (112·17)

  1983–84

  9,081

  (6,666)

  84·76

  (76·53)

  1978–79

  7,709

  (7,643)

  55·95

  (55·12)

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) of 9 March,Official Report, column 245, on items agreed and adopted at the meeting of the European Community's Foreign Affairs Council held on 21 to 22 February, what formal votes were taken otherwise than on the United States' and European Community's mutual recognition on spirit designations; and if he will make it his practice to record automatically in future answers on all such votes, including those where no formal votes have been taken.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There were no votes on the other items discussed in the Council and recorded in my statement on 9 March.

  The Council also formally approved a number of measures on which agreement had already been reached—known as A points—without further discussion. Details are given in the Council secretariat press releases issued after Council meetings. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Wells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held on 15 March in Brussels.

  Mr. Hurd
  I attended the Foreign Affairs Council held in Brussels on 15 March.

  The Council reached a satisfactory agreement on the fisheries aspect of Norway's accession negotiations. The common fisheries policy's rules applying within the waters of the Twelve generally, and the special rules applying to Spain and Portugal under the accession treaty, are unchanged. Reciprocal arrangements for access to Community and Norwegian resources, including the setting of total allowable catches and quotas, fully respect the principle of relative stability. Transitional arrangements have been agreed which enable Norway to continue its fisheries agreement with Russia until it expires at the end of June 1998, and to continue various features of its current management and control system north of 62 deg north for up to three years on a non-discriminatory basis. The Council also agreed arrangements to provide additional quotas of cod for the cohesion countries. On this basis, Norway settled its terms of accession to the European Union.

  The Foreign Affairs Council also discussed the qualified majority voting arrangements which will apply once the EFTAn applicants have joined the European Union. With Spanish support, I emphasised the need to ensure the adequate protection of significant minorities in the Council. Other Ministers argued that the qualified majority should be kept constant as a proportion of the total
  12
  number of votes after enlargement. The matter will be discussed again at a specially convened Foreign Affairs Council on 22 March.

  There was a useful discussion on the new own resources decision and the budget discipline decision in which some progress was made towards securing United Kingdom objectives. Both issues will be discussed at ECOFIN on 21 March, where we hope for agreement on all outstanding points.

  There were no formal votes.

  Angola
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Angola, with particular reference to the number of villages being besieged by UNITA troops; and what representations he has made to the United Nations for action to bring to an end the civil war.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Fighting in Angola continues, mainly in the north and north-east. The principal towns currently besieged by UNITA are Menongue, Luena, Kuito and Malange.

  We were actively involved in drawing up United Nations Security Council resolution 903 of 16 March, which maintained the sanctions against UNITA which brought them to the negotiating table. We continue to support the efforts of the United Nations to persuade both sides to reach a settlement.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communication he has received from Lord Owen in respect of the bomb explosion in Sarajevo market on 5 February and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Lord Owen is in regular communication with European Union Foreign Ministers. These communications are confidential.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date he first became aware of the inclusion of reference to civil aid and arms sales contained in the March 1988 Malaysian protocol.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: In October 1993.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 826, if he will show tax-free incomes,

  13
  defined as personal income tax allowances plus child benefits, as percentages of average male manual earnings for single-wage families with (a) one, (b) two, (c) three and (d) four children in each year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Dorrell
  These figures should be interpreted with care as a £1 increase in child benefit is worth four tunes as much to a taxpayer with a marginal rate of 25 per cent. as a £1 increase in the personal allowance. The figures given in my answer of 3 February therefore give a more reliable picture of the effect of income tax allowances and child benefit on the incomes of the relevant families.

  Personal allowance plus married couple's allowance1 plus child benefit expressed as a percentage of average male manual earnings2

  Year

  With 1 child

  With 2 children

  With 3 children

  With 4 children

  1979–80

  39·0

  43·0

  47·0

  51·1

  1980–81

  39·6

  43·3

  47–0

  50·7

  1981–82

  36·4

  40·3

  44·2

  48·1

  1982–83

  38·6

  42·6

  46·6

  50·6

  1983–84

  40·8

  45·0

  49·1

  53·3

  1984–85

  42·7

  46·9

  51·1

  55·3

  1985–86

  43·7

  47·8

  51·9

  56·0

  1986–87

  43·4

  47·3

  51·2

  55·2

  1987–88

  41·7

  45·5

  49·3

  53·1

  1988–89

  41·3

  44·8

  48·3

  53·8

  1989–90

  40·5

  43·1

  46·9

  50·1

  Average impact of 1993 budget measures on households1

  1994–95

  1995–96

  £ per week

  Percentage of net income

  £per week

  Percentage of net income

  All households

  5·75

  1·9

  8·75

  2·8

  Pensioners

  1·00

  0·7

  1·90

  1·3

  Poorest 20 per cent.

  1·40

  1·2

  2·55

  2·1

  Richest 20 per cent.

  12·00

  2·0

  16·70

  2·8

  1 Estimates based on the 1989–91 Family Expenditure Surveys, uprated to 1994–95 price and earnings levels on the basis of illustrative assumptions about price and earnings growth. The figures are relative to indexation and include the main tax measures directly affecting households. They are net of the increases in benefits to help meet higher fuel bills. The 1994–95 figure includes measures implemented between November 1993 and the November 1994 Budgets. The 1995–96 figures also includes other pre-announced measures to be implemented before the November 1995 Budget.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 19 January,Official Report, columns 635–41, (1) if he will provide estimates in 1993–94 prices of the real disposable income after tax of similar family types across a similar range of incomes in 1993–94 and 1994–95;

  Income after income tax and National Insurance contributions, 1993–94

  £ per week

  Multiples of average earnings

  50

  75

  100

  150

  200

  300

  400

  500

  700

  1,000

  2,000

  Single

  141·65

  201·04

  260·42

  387·30

  495·27

  711·21

  927·15

  1,143·09

  1,574·97

  2,222·79

  4,382·19

  Married, one working, no children

  149·92

  209·31

  268·69

  398·24

  508·50

  724·44

  940·38

  1,156·32

  1,588·20

  2,236·02

  4,395·42

  Married, one working, two children

  168·02

  227·41

  286·79

  416·34

  526·60

  742·54

  958·48

  1,174·42

  1,606·30

  2,254–12

  4,413·52

  Married, both working, no children

  168·72

  231·87

  291·58

  410·34

  530·18

  774·31

  1,003·77

  1,219·71

  1,651·59

  2,299·41

  4,458·81

  Notes:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the household receives no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only has income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 National Insurance Contributions at the contracted-in-rate.

  2. Child benefit is included in the income of the married couple with two children.

  3. Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These are assumed to be £359·90 a week in 1993–94, based on the illustrative earnings growth assumption of 3·5 per cent. Where both partners are working, the husband and wife are assumed to share the relevant multiple of average male earnings in the ratio 60:40.
  14

  Year

  With 1 child

  With 2 children

  With 3 children

  With 4 children

  1990–91

  40·1

  43·1

  46·1

  49·0

  1991–92

  40·4

  43·3

  46·1

  48·9

  1992–93

  40·1

  42·9

  45·8

  48·7

  1993–943

  38·8

  41·7

  44·6

  47·5

  1 Married man's allowance for years up to 1990–91.

  2 Full-time males paid at adult rates working a full week.

  3 Assuming that the husband receives the full married couple's allowance Provisional.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the increase in the tax bill for a typical family in the next year compared with the current year; and what is the increase in earnings for the average family since 1979.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Estimates of the impact of the main tax-related measures in the 1993 Budgets are in the table. Since 1978–79, average gross male earnings have increased by 40 per cent. in real terms. Over the same period, real net take-home pay—after tax and inflation—has increased by the same amount.

  (2) if he will provide estimates in 1993–94 prices of the real disposable income after tax of a married couple with two children on average earnings in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 10 March 1994]: Estimates of disposable income in 1993–94 for the hypothetical families requested are in the table. Real disposable income in 1994–95 will depend on what happens to earnings and prices.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the real exchange rate for sterling, the deutschmark, the United States dollar and the French franc for each year since 1981;

  (2) what is his estimate of the real exchange rate for sterling on (a) April 1992, (b) February 1993 and (c) March 1994;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the current trend in sterling's relative position against the ecu; and if he will set out the difference between sterling's actual position and its previous ERM value in (a) November 1992, (b) February 1993, (c) November 1993 and (d) February 1994;

  (4) what was the nominal exchange rate against the ecu in (a) January 1993 and (b) December 1989; what was the corresponding change in the real exchange rate against the ecu based on (i) relative producer prices, (ii) relative export unit values and (iii) the terms of trade for manufactures; and what has been the effect on the output and employment in manufacturing industry;

  (5) if he will give the devaluation since September 1992 in real and nominal terms up to February 1994 of (a) the pound sterling, (b) the Italian lira and (c) the Spanish peseta coupled with the changes in the national balance of trade and the rate of inflation of these countries over the same period;

  (6) what is the Government's policy on the level to which sterling may fall against the deutschmark in relation to the level agreed when the United Kingdom entered the exchange rate mechanism in October 1990.

  Mr. Nelson
  Sterling's exchange rate against the Community currencies, the United States dollar and the ecu can be found in the monthly Central Statistical Office's "Financial Statistics" publication. The weighted composition of the ecu is set by the European Commission and can be found in the "Official Journal" No. L189, 4 July 1989. Export and import prices for all Community countries can be found in the monthly International Monetary Fund "International Financial Statistics" publication. Price and trade figures for all Community countries can be found in the monthly Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "Main Economic Indicators" publication. Together these data can be used to calculate the information requested. "Main Economic Indicators" also provides output figures, including industrial production, and manufacturing employment data for the United Kingdom.

  The real exchange rate is only one factor affecting output and employment in manufacturing industry. It is difficult to isolate the effect of changes in the real exchange rate from that of other factors, such as activity in the United Kingdom's trading partners and barriers to free trade. Manufacturing output in the three months to January was up 2·1 per cent. on the same period a year ago and manufacturing productivity in the three months to January was up 2·9 per cent. on the same period a year ago.

  Movements in the exchange rate form part of our continuing assessment of monetary conditions but we have no specific targets for sterling's exchange rate. Since leaving the exchange rate mechanism, sterling's exchange rate has floated. Sterling's exchange rate against the ecu reflects day-to-day market trading in all the Community currencies.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the regulatory functions of the Bank of England; how many staff are employed in each case and at what cost to the Exchequer directly or indirectly; and what consideration has been given to creating executive agencies to do the work or to privatisation.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Bank of England regulatory functions consist of banking supervision and the supervision of the wholesale market. About 300 staff are employed in banking supervision and about 30 more on wholesale market. The costs of these functions are in effect met by the Bank's income from non-interest bearing deposits placed with the Bank by the banking sector. There is no cost to the Exchequer.

  A move to create executive agencies would not be appropriate since such agencies are parts of a Government Department, while the Bank of England is a public corporation. There are no plans to privatise these functions.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the change in the level of unemployment between 1979 and 1993 in each of the founder members of the EEC and in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  The relevant statistics can be found in the latest edition of "European Economy"—1993, No. 55,—published by the European Commission, in the statistical annexe table 3.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the rate of economic growth between 1979 and 1993(a) in Britain and (b) in each other founder member of the EEC.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures requested can be found in table 10 of the statistical annexe to the latest edition of "European Economy", published by the European Commission.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the average annual rate of United Kingdom economic growth in 1988–1993 and the average rate in 1968 to 1973, 1973 to 1979 and 1979 to 1988; and if he will include corresponding figures for the EEC Six collectively and for the United States of America.

  Mr. Nelson
  The figures requested can be calculated from section VI, table 7 of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication, "National Accounts", the table on gross domestic product in the appendix to the OECD publication "Main Economic Indicators", and table 10 of the statistical annexe to the latest edition of "European Economy", published by the European Commission.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average rate of growth of the United Kingdom and the six founder members of the EEC since 1979; and what conclusions he has drawn from these figures.
  17
  Mr. Nelson
  The figures requested are published by the European Commission in table 10 of the statistical annexe to "European Economy".

  Manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the change in the terms of trade for finished manufactures since the winter of 1986–87; and what has been the effect of the change on(a) imports and exports of finished manufactures and (b) output and employment in manufacturing industry;

  (2) what was the change in the terms of trade for finished manufactures since the second half of 1973; and what has been the effect on (a) imports and exports of finished manufactures and (b) output and employment in manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Nelson
  In the fourth quarter of 1993, it is estimated that the terms of trade of finished manufactures were 12 per cent. higher than in the two winter quarters of 1986–87 and 32 per cent. higher than in the second half of 1973. No estimates are available for the contribution of the terms of trade in finished manufactures to changes in exports and imports of finished manufactures or manufacturing output and employment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of semi-manufactures imported from non-EEC countries competes on price directly or indirectly with home-produced goods; whether the prices of such imports have risen or fallen in the last three years; and what effect the price changes have had on domestic production.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for the prices of imported semi-manufactures from non-EEC countries are available on the Central Statistical Office data base, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library. The identifier is ENUK. All imported semi-manufactures potentially compete directly or indirectly with home-produced goods. No estimates are available of the effect of these import price changes on domestic production.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the reduction in imports and increase in exports of manufactures which the Treasury model of the economy shows would follow a reduction in the sterling exchange rate against the ecu to its average in February 1993 after 12 and 24 months.

  Mr. Nelson
  All hon. Members have access to the Treasury model through the House of Commons Library. It is Treasury practice not to provide the results of model simulations in answer to parliamentary questions. This is due both to the excessive cost involved and the difficulty in making appropriate assumptions without knowing the context in which the figures will be used.

  Interest and Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) by whom the United Kingdom was represented at the recent meeting of the European Monetary Institute to co-ordinate interest rate policy; what was the purpose of that meeting; what proposals were made to co-ordinate interest rate policies or to use the leeway provided by 15 per cent. bands to achieve economic convergence; and what is the Government's policy on the proposals;
  18
  (2) who represents the United Kingdom in the discussions between the EEC central banks aimed at restoring the former currency parities within the exchange rate mechanism; what steps are taken to ensure the views expressed by the United Kingdom representative have had the prior approval of the Government; and what undertakings, assurances and understandings, express or implied, have been given concerning the future rate of exchange between sterling and the Ecu.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Governor of the Bank of England is a member of the council of the European Monetary Institute —EMI. Article 10 of the EMI statute states that the proceedings of the EMI council meetings shall be confidential, though the council may, acting unanimously, decide to make the outcome of its deliberations public.

  Articles 3 of the EMI statute requires the EMI to carry out the tasks and functions conferred upon it by the Maastricht treaty and the statute without prejudice to the responsibility of the competent authorities for the conduct of monetary policy within the respective member states. In accordance with article 8 of the EMI statute, the Governor, representing the Bank of England, acts according to his own responsibilities. These include implementation of the Government's monetary policy.

  Decisions concerning the parities of participating currencies in the ERM are taken by Ministers and central bank governors of the member states. No undertakings, assurances or understandings, express or implied, have been given concerning the future rate of exchange between sterling and the ecu.

  Consumer Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the output of consumer goods between 1985 and June 1993 for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the other member states of the EEC; and if he will make a statement on the changes.

  Mr. Nelson
  Statistics for the output of consumption goods in EC member states are shown in table 0408 of "Data for Short-term Economic Analysis", published monthly by Eurostat. This publication is available in the Library.

  Semi-manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the unit value of semi-manufactures imported from non-EC countries in the three months to the end of January; how this has affected the change since 1990 of the nominal exchange rate against non-EEC currencies; what proportion of such imported semi-manufactures is used by United Kingdom manufacturers of goods other than food, drink and tobacco; what effect that value had on the input price of the materials used by such manufactures; and what was the corresponding change in the nominal exchange rate for sterling against those currencies.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for the prices of imported semi-manufactures from non-EC countries are available on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library. The identifier is ENUK. The proportion of imported semi-manufactures used by different United Kingdom manufacturers is not available for recent years.
  19
  Semi-manufactures are not included in the CSO's producer price index of inputs. No estimates are available for the effect of import prices of semi-manufactures on the exchange rate.

  Japanese Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the Japanese trade surplus on the world economy.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Japanese trade surplus reflects, in the main, structural factors, such as the high domestic savings ratio, and Japan's relative cyclical position. Free trade is vital to maximise the opportunities for world growth; the world economy would benefit from any reduction in restrictions on access to the Japanese market.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1964(a) Japanese imports and exports of (i) goods and services, (ii) goods less manufactures and (iii) manufactures, (b) the trade-weighted nominal exchange rate and (c) the relative export prices of manufactures.

  Mr. Nelson
  The relevant statistics are available from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development statistics directorate publication "Current Economic Indicators", the OECD publication "Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade" and the International Monetary Fund publication "International Financial Statistics", monthly and yearly editions.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the volume of exports in the period 1985 to 1992 for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the other member states of the EEC; and if he will make a statement on the changes.

  Mr. Nelson
  Figures for United Kingdom export volumes are available on the Central Statistical Office data base, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library. Figures for other member states of the EC are available in "OECD Economic Outlook", December 1993, available through the House of Commons Library.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change since the second half of 1973 in the real exchange rate relative to that of the EC Six; what has been the effect of this on the prosperity of the south coast resorts; and if he will publish a table showing for each year since 1970 (i) imports of tourism from and exports to the EC Six in terms of 1993 prices and (ii) the net effect on output and employment in the United Kingdom tourist industry.

  Mr. Nelson
  Sterling's exchange rate against the currencies of the six original members of the Community can be found in the monthly Central Statistical Office's "Financial Statistics" publication. Price data for these countries can be found in the monthly Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development "Main Economic Indicators" publication. Together, these data can be used to calculate the change in the real exchange rate since 1973.
  20
  The real exchange rate is only one factor affecting prosperity of the south coast resorts and output and employment in the United Kingdom tourist industry as a whole. It is impossible to isolate the effect of changes in the real exchange rate from that of other factors, such as activity in the tourist industries of other regions and countries. Data on the number of tourists and their related expenditure in current prices from and to the six countries are available in the "Business Monitor MQ6", published by the CSO. The yearly CSO "United Kingdom Balance of Payments" publication contains a service industry deflator which can be used to convert to 1993 prices.

  Intermediate Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the output of intermediate goods between 1985 and June 1993 for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other member states of the EC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Statistics for the output of intermediate goods in EC member states are shown in table 0406 of "Data for Short-term Economic Analysis", published monthly by Eurostat. This publication is available in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the relative position of the United Kingdom in table 0406 of the February issue of "Eurostat Data for Short term Economic Analysis" in terms the percentage change in output in intermediate goods between 1985 and the 1993 of the USA, Japan and the EC member countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  Total industrial production is a more important indicator than any of its market sector components. In the latest three months for which figures are available, compared to a year earlier, production rose 3¾ per cent. in the United Kingdom, while it fell in Japan, Germany, France and Italy.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the volume of gross domestic product in the period 1985 to 1992 for the United Kingdom and the other member states of the EEC; and if he will make a statement on the changes.

  Mr. Nelson
  GDP statistics for the United Kingdom and other EC member states are published by Eurostat and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Copies of their latest publications are available in the Library.

  Company Directors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has as to the effect of the reduction in direct taxation on non-income benefits of directors of companies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Directors pay tax on their total income. The cash equivalent of any benefits in kind is added to money income for tax purposes. There has been no significant change in the proportion of directors receiving taxable benefits in kind. Reductions in income tax rates have applied equally to benefits in kind and other income.
  21
  Low income tax rates, which apply equally to benefits in kind and other income, promote incentives and wealth creation. This has contributed to the 40 per cent. increase in the real take-home pay of a family on average earnings since 1978–79.

  Intrastat
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement about the quality of the statistics produced by Intrastat.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have little to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 8 February,Official Report, column 121.

  The investigations are proceeding well. Customs and Excise and the Central Statistical Office aim to publish a full report in the summer at around the same time as data from the 1994 edition of the Pink Book on the United Kingdom balance of payments are released. If the investigations point to substantial revisions these will be made at the earliest opportunity.

  Uganda (Debt)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government have to review the current position regarding the level of Ugandan debt, in the light of the forthcoming meeting of the Paris club.

  Mr. Nelson
  Uganda received a concessional rescheduling of her official bilateral debts from the Paris club creditors on 17 July 1992. The agreement was on Trinidad terms.

  Under the terms of this agreement, creditors agreed to consider reducing the whole stock of official bilateral debt by up to 50 per cent. subject to Uganda maintaining a three to four-year track record of reform with the IMF.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the past five years he has knowingly provided incomplete information in answers to parliamentary questions other than on grounds of disproportionate cost; and on what subjects.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I and my ministerial colleagues seek to provide parliamentary answers which are as complete and accurate as possible.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for the past 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to one of his Department's agencies for answer; and what percentage of parliamentary questions to his Department this represents.

  Mr. Nelson
  In the last 12 months, no parliamentary questions have been referred by Treasury Ministers to the chief executives of agencies for answer.

  Drugs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the street value of drugs seized by Customs and Excise in each year for the past four years in South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Humberside.
  22
  Sir John Cope
  HM Customs and Excise is divided into a number of geographically based collections, which do not coincide with county boundaries. The counties of South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and Humberside are straddled by the collections of east midlands, Leeds and northern England. These collections also include areas of Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Cumbria, Durham and Northumberland.

  The street value of drugs seized in these three collections for the past four calendar years was as follows:

  East Midland

  Leeds

  Northern England

  £

  £

  £

  1990

  181,110

  2,894,723

  406,422

  1991

  3,838,692

  2,717,989

  5,611

  1992

  92,162

  1,195,476

  86,196

  1993

  434,295

  1,311,932

  1,801,765

  TOTAL

  4,546,259

  8,140,120

  2,299,944

  These values are for drugs seized within the boundaries of the collections and may include seizures made by officers based outside the collection area.

  Arms Sales
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product was derived from the sale of armaments in 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 at 1992–93 prices.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information is not available.

  Cheque Presentation System
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he has taken of the effect of technological advances on the requirement for the cheque presentation systems under the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government are committed to introduce legislation, as soon as parliamentary time will permit, to enable a collecting bank to capture electronically the details of a cheque and to pass on to a paying bank those details instead of the cheque itself. The Government will need to consider carefully appropriate safeguards for consumers.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues in February.

  Sir John Cope
  My ministerial colleagues and I received 1,606 from, and wrote 1,171 letters to, hon. Members in February.

  Belize
  Sir Thomass Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the total public indebtedness to the United Kingdom of Belize; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  Belize's outstanding public sector debts with the United Kingdom total £16·61 million, all of which are owed to the Overseas Development Administration.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the shortfall in VAT on fuel in 1994–95 due to the use of special companies created to receive advance payments.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs is not in a position to determine the extent to which "special" companies may be set up to receive advance payments for supplies of fuel and power made from 1 April 1994. Consequently it is not possible to provide an estimate of any shortfall in revenue there might be as a result.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: The information requested is set out in the table and represents the position as at 1 January 1994.

  Grade

  Total number employed (staff in post)

  Percentage of women

  1

  1

  0

  1a

  3

  0

  2

  6

  0

  Chief Accountancy Adviser

  1

  0

  3

  24

  13

  4

  3

  0

  5

  68

  13

  6

  23

  0

  7

  194

  19

  Senior Executive Officer

  85

  28

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1

  0

  Senior Information Officer

  1

  0

  Senior Librarian

  1

  100

  Higher Executive Officer(D)

  13

  39

  Senior Economic Assistant

  27

  11

  S/Assistant Statistician

  5

  0

  Higher Scientific Officer

  2

  100

  Higher Executive Officer

  122

  34

  Librarian

  4

  100

  Administrative Trainee

  12

  25

  Economic Assistant

  16

  25

  Assistant Statistician

  4

  25

  Information Officer

  1

  100

  Graduate Trainee

  1

  0

  Executive Officer

  163

  34

  Assistant Librarian

  5

  40

  Administrative Officer

  208

  51

  Administrative Assistant

  94

  61

  Chief Typing Manager

  2

  100

  Senior Personal Secretary

  16

  100

  Typing Manager

  3

  100

  Personal Secretary

  111

  98

  Typist

  49

  92

  Support Manager Band 1

  1

  0

  Support Manager Band 2

  4

  50

  Support Manager Band 3

  7

  29

  Support Grade Band 1

  53

  28

  Support Grade Band 2

  113

  32

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Kenya
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Her Majesty's Government are doing to assist drought-affected people in Kenya.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We have pledged nearly £15 million in humanitarian assistance since the onset of the present drought in 1992. We were the first donor to respond to the Government of Kenya's appeal for food aid in December 1993, allocating 15,000 tonnes of food aid, worth about £3.8 million, since then for the immediate needs of drought victims in Kenya.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to review the operation of aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Government have recently reviewed the aid and trade provision. I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on 17 June 1993,Official Report, column 679 which announced the conclusions of that wide-ranging review. The Government have no plans to conduct a further review.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given to help Mozambique.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  We expect to spend about £40 million in the current financial year.

  Ukraine
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the International Monetary Fund and the World bank's lending policy towards the Ukraine.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  As a member of both IMF and the World bank group, Ukraine is eligible for the full range of non-concessional facilities offered by those institutions, including the IMF's new systemic transformation facility, designed to assist former command economies in the early stages of transition. The fund is involved in discussion with the Ukrainian authorities on an economic adjustment programme, which would help to facilitate lending by both institutions.

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the reason for the projected reduction in the overseas aid budget between 1994–95 and 1995–96, as set out at table 23 of his annual report 1994, Cm. 2502.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The budget for the Overseas Development Administration's total external assistance programmes, including non-voted expenditure, is planned to rise from £2,191 million in 1994–95 to £2,245 million in 1995–96, as shown in table 23 of the report.
  25
  The decline in voted expenditure between 1994–95 and 1995–96 reflects the rise in non-voted expenditure, the latter representing essentially the United Kingdom share of EC budgetary spending on aid for developing countries and assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the definition of(a) low income countries, (b) lower middle income countries, (c) upper middle income countries and (d) high income countries as used to define the allocations of overseas aid in figure 10 of his annual departmental report and expenditure plans, 1994–95 to 1997–98, Cm. 2502.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The classifications are those used by the development assistance committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and are defined as follows:Low income country: GNP per capita below $765 in 1991;
  Lower middle income country: GNP per capita in 1991 of $765 or above but not exceeding $2,556;
  Upper middle income country: GNP per capita in 1991 of $2,555 or above but not exceeding $7,380;
  High income country: GNP per capita in 1991 above $7,380

  Subsistence Farmers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the three most recent development projects whose objectives are to improve the income of subsistence farmers, which illustrate the programme and policies of Her Majesty's Government in pursuit of that objective.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Recently approved projects aimed at improving the livelihoods of subsistence farmers in pursuit of the Government's support for sustainable agriculture under the aid programme include the farming systems development and training project, Ghana; the Krishak Bharati co-operative rainfed farming project in India and the Khosi Hills seed and vegetable project, Nepal.

  Global Environment Assistance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the reason for the projected reduction on expenditure on global environment assistance between 1993–94 and 1994–95 as set out at table 23 of his departmental annual report and expenditure plans 1994–95 to 1997–98 Cm. 2502.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The planned reduction reflects the scheduled drawdown agreements of the global environment facility and the Montreal protocol multilateral fund, and anticipates expenditure needs. This same expenditure profile leads to a sharp rise in subsequent years.

  China
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has that the involvement of agencies funded by his Department in the Chinese population control programme lessens the extent to which that programme breaches human rights.
  26
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The United Nations Population Fund—UNFPA—and the International Planned Parenthood Federation neither support nor condone coercive population programmes in China. Both agencies have a moderating effect on Chinese population policies. A recent example is the decision of the Chinese Government, following a recommendation by UNFPA, to seek advice from the World Health Organisation on the draft "natal and health care law", which had been widely criticised.

  Cocoa
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much financial assistance has been given by the Government to(a) the international cocoa gene bank in Trinidad, (b) the CATIE cocoa genebank in Costa Rica, (c) the international cocoa germplasm database at Reading, Berkshire and (d) the international cocoa quarantine station at Reading, Berkshire in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Over the past five years, the ODA has not provided financial assistance to the international cocoa gene bank in Trinidad, the CATIE cocoa genebank in Costa Rica, or the international cocoa germplasm data bases in Reading.

  The international cocoa quarantine station at Reading is funded by the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance and the EC. However, in 1993, the ODA provided £18,000 to support the participation of Ghana.

  Aid Offers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates on which aid offers in principle were made to the Governments of countries overseas in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: Our bilateral aid programme is managed in close consultation with aid recipient countries. This involves continuing liaison over programmes and individual projects. It is not possible to list the dates when individual aid offers were made.

  Aid Grants
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total amount of overseas aid grants made to(a) Indonesia and (b) Tanzania for each year since 1979 and in total for each country in constant 1993 prices.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: United Kingdom gross bilateral aid flows to Indonesia and Tanzania from 1979 to the end of the financial year 1992–93 in cash and constant 1992–93 prices were as follows:

  £ thousands

  Indonesia

  Tanzania

  Year

  Gross bilateral aid

  1992–93 prices

  Gross bilateral aid

  1992–93 prices

  1979

  11,720

  27,899

  23,559

  56,082

  1980

  11,190

  22,513

  32,119

  64,619

  1981

  15,350

  28,158

  30,040

  55,106

  1982

  17,219

  29,486

  27,328

  46,798

  1983

  12,358

  20,225

  30,384

  49,725

  27

  Indonesia

  Tanzania

  Year

  Gross bilateral aid

  1992–93 prices

  Gross bilateral aid

  1992–93 prices

  1984

  28,292

  44,086

  33,033

  51,474

  1985

  33,649

  49,678

  17,967

  26,526

  1986

  8,898

  12,763

  12,715

  18,238

  1987

  12,223

  16,645

  28,789

  39,205

  1987–88

  14,660

  19,964

  33,617

  45,780

  1988–89

  17,366

  22,161

  31,956

  40,780

  1989–90

  21,616

  25,791

  20,060

  23,935

  1990–91

  24,854

  27,442

  41,403

  45,715

  1991–92

  34,425

  35,747

  32,454

  33,700

  1992–93

  33,164

  33,164

  62,370

  62,370

  The basis on which these figures are recorded was changed from calendar to financial years with effect from 1992; the previous five financial years have been included above for ease of comparison.

  The figures shown include disbursements of Commonwealth Development Corporation investments, and also bilateral concessional aid loans committed prior to 1979, but since forgiven under the retrospective terms adjustment policy.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what will be the implications for the operation of his Department of the code of practice on open government.

  Mr. Sproat
  The code of practice will reinforce and build on my Department's existing arrangements for the provision of information. Operational details will be announced nearer to the time of the launch.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what progress is being made in compiling the inventory of works of art in the royal palaces.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Lord Chamberlain has stated that the inventory of the works of art in the royal palaces is making good progress and is on target for completion by the end of 1997.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 481, what is the range of all actual rents paid at each of the royal places for all accommodation; how many heads of department in the royal household have furnishing costs paid by his Department; and how much has been spent in each of the last five years;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 15 March, Official Report, column 612, what in money terms is the range of all those actual rental payments for grace and favour accommodation in the occupied royal places; how many rents make up the £69,000; how much relates to each palace; how much of the rent is received by the Royal Household and how much by his Department; and by what criteria it is determined which rentals are paid to the Royal Household and which to the Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: The rents in respect of each palace are as follows:
  28

  £000

  Buckingham Palace and Mews

  8

  St James's Palace

  15

  Kensington Palace

  11

  Windsor Castle and Home Park

  35

  69

  A total of £30,000 is received by the civil list and £39,000 by the grant in aid, according to which account pays the wages. The £69,000 relates to 47 occupants who pay rent. In addition to these 47 occupants, seven occupants pay rent through deductions from wages to the Crown estate and two through deductions of £3,000 from wages to the royal collection. It would not be appropriate to disclose rents paid by individuals.

  Six heads of departments have furnished accommodation provided. Costs incurred in this respect during the last five years are: 1989–90, £112,000; 1990–91, none identified; 1991–92, £99,000; 1992–93, £88,000 and 1993–94, £26,000.

  Archaeology
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration he has given to widening the terms of reference to his Department's review of the Museum of London archaeological service to include the provision of archaeology services for London as a whole.

  Mr. Sproat
  The terms of reference of the review being jointly financed by this Department, English Heritage, the corporation of London and the museum of London require the consultants to assess the demand of archaeological services in London as a whole, and to recommend how services of the nature at present provided by the museum of London archaeological service could be provided in future, taking into account services provided by other organisations. I therefore consider the terms of reference of the review to be satisfactory as they stand.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by, him and his ministerial colleague in February.

  Mr. Brooke
  My hon. Friend and I received 300 letters from, and wrote 237 letters to, hon. Members during February.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage on how many occasions he has knowingly provided incomplete information in answers to parliamentary questions other than on grounds of disproportionate cost; and on what subjects.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Department of National Heritage is less than two years old, coming into being on April 13 1992. I answer parliamentary questions on the basis set out in paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". I also seek to comply with the Speaker's guidance on the need for brief answers to oral questions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the latest date available, the current occupancy rate for each bail hostel in Humberside, and each of the three counties of Yorkshire; and what the corresponding figures were 12 months ago.

  Mr. Maclean
  The figures requested, based on total approved places, are as follows:

  Percentage occupancy rates

  February 1993

  February 1994

  Humberside

  Queen's Road

  32

  47

  Scunthorpe1

  —

  39

  South Yorkshire

  Centre 45

  91

  45

  Norfolk Park

  60

  62

  Rookwood

  37

  78

  Town Moor

  79

  85

  West Yorkshire

  Howden House

  71

  61

  Walmer Villas

  76

  84

  Elm Bank

  100

  71

  Albion Street1

  —

  84

  Cardigan House

  84

  68

  St. John's

  90

  92

  Ripon House

  84

  93

  North Yorkshire

  No hostels currently.

  1 Both Scunthorpe and Albion Street opened subsequent to February 1993.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he is giving to the closure of bail hostels in Humberside and each of the three counties of Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The closure of 11 approved hostels was announced at the end of November last year. The South Yorkshire probation committee was asked to identify one hostel for closure; and it has now been agreed that the Centre 45 hostel in Sheffield should close. None of the approved hostels in Humberside or West Yorkshire is affected. There are currently no hostels in North Yorkshire, although a new hostel in York is expected to open shortly.

  The Government continue to support the provision of approved hostels where these meet the needs of the courts in a cost-effective way and within the requirements of national standards.

  Yorkshire and Humberside Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners from(a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside are currently serving custodial sentences in prisons in Northern Ireland; and if he will give for each prisoner, the length of their sentence, when they were committed and the nature of their offence;

  (2) how many prisoners from (a) South Yorkshire, (b) North Yorkshire, (c) West Yorkshire and (d) Humberside are currently serving custodial sentences in prisons in
  30
  Scotland; and if he will give for each prisoner, the length of their sentence, when they were committed and the nature of their offence.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Television Licences
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to abolish custodial sentences as a punishment for the non-payment of fines imposed for not paying the television licence fee.

  Mr. Maclean
  Committal to prison is one of a range of measures available to courts for enforcing fines. We have no plans to remove this power in relation to fines imposed for any particular offence.

  Amylnitrite
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make the sale of amylnitrite to children illegal.

  Mr. Maclean
  The substance amylnitrite belongs to the group of chemicals known as alkylnitrites. While it is not strictly speaking a solvent, it can be misused by inhalation of its vapours. Sales of intoxicating substances are already regulated by the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985 which makes it an offence for people such as retailers to sell or supply intoxicating substances to persons under 18 whom they believe intend to misuse them. The Act has no specific list of chemicals; there is a wide range of everyday products which can be misused by inhalation.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has considered the misuse of alkylnitrites and the possibility of controlling them under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 on three occasions—in 1984, 1987 and 1991. On each occasion, the council concluded that, although the misuse of those substances posed a limited health hazard, such misuse did not lead to dependency and did not give rise to social problems of a scale to justify use of the controls in the 1971 Act. The advisory council is, however, keeping the matter under review.

  Police Firearms
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many guns are owned by the police for their use, setting out separately pistols, shotguns, rifles, semi-automatic and automatic weapons; how many policemen are qualified to use firearms; and how many armed response units are available on average at any one time(a) in each constabulary and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Figures for police firearms and average numbers of armed response vehicles are not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Certain other related information is provided each year by police forces in England and Wales. At 31 December 1992, the latest date for which information is available, there were 6,850 authorised firearms officers. There were 1,669 operations involving armed response vehicles during that year. Thirty one forces currently operate armed response vehicles.

  Operation Barnard
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested during Operation Barnard in Wanstead on 16 February on suspicion of having been involved in a riot at Welling last October; and of these who many were subsequently released without any charges being brought.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that five people were arrested on suspicion of having been involved in disturbances at Welling. All were subsequently released without charge.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy on the proposed change to the European Court of Human Rights' treatment of human rights cases.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on 24 February,Official Report, column 314, the Government are contributing fully to work within the Council of Europe on the reform of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights by their replacement by a single court, with the aim of enabling the increasing number of cases to be dealt with more speedily while maintaining the highest standards of jurisprudence.

  Traffic Videos
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidelines he has issued to police forces regarding the disposal of traffic videos to private companies;

  (2) if he will make a statement regarding the sale and disposal of police videos;

  (3) what representations he has received about the disposal of traffic videos to private companies and their subsequent resale.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No guidelines have been issued to police forces about the release of road traffic video footage to private companies. One hon. Member has made representations.

  The supply of police video material is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police. I understand though that the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Policer Offices is to consider the matter.

  Campsfield House Detention Centre
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees at Campsfield House have been subjected to forced feeding; under what powers such action is taken; and what safeguards there are for the human rights of those concerned.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No person detained under immigration powers has been force fed at Campsfield House or elsewhere.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors were taken into account in determining the level of security measures installed at Campsfield House detention centre.
  32
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The security measures at Campsfield house are designed to allow as much freedom of movement as possible within the centre, but to take account also of the needs to maintain good order and prevent detainees from absconding.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list each prison where there have been no incidents of illegal drug use in each of the past seven years;

  (2) in how many prisons there have been incidents of illegal drug use in each of the past seven years; and what proportion they are of the total numbers of prisons.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 21 March 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General, Mr. Derek Lewis, from the office, to reply to your two Parliamentary Questions about incidents of illegal drug use in each of the past seven years in Prison Service establishments.
  The available information is for the period up to 1992 and for charges proved at adjudication of the offence of possession or selling or delivering controlled drugs (including any proved charges of attempt, incite or assist). This information is published annually for each establishment in Statistics of Offences Against Prison Discipline and Punishments England and Wales. Copies are available in the library of the House of Commons. In each of the years 1986 to 1992 some 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of establishments have had one or more cases of drugs offences.

  Drugs Trafficking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the numbers of people engaged full time in the trafficking of illegal drugs in each of the past seven years.

  Mr. Maclean
  As drug trafficking is a clandestine activity, it is not possible to estimate the numbers of people engaged full-time in the trafficking of illegal drugs. However, information on the number of persons convicted or cautioned for drugs trafficking offences is contained in table 3.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom, 1992" a copy of which is in the Library.

  Immigration
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it the practice that when the hon. Member for Walsall, North is making written representations to a Minister in his Department on behalf of a constituent he will not be telephoned by a chief immigration officer to try to persuade him to drop the representation.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Written representations submitted to Ministers which the Immigration Service has not had the opportunity to consider are sent first to the port concerned for consideration. It is not the practice of the Immigration Service to try to persuade an hon. Member not to pursue his representations.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) teaching and (b) non-teaching posts, by full-time equivalent, were funded by section 11 money in (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) proposed for 1994–95, by each local education authority.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The available information is set out in the table. The figures

  Local education authority

  Posts as at 1 April 1992

  Posts as at1 April 1993

  Posts as at1 April 1994

  Teachers

  Others

  Teachers

  Others

  Teachers

  Others

  Avon

  38·9

  5

  38·6

  5

  38·6

  5

  Barking and Dagenham*

  13·6

  4·2

  13·6

  4·2

  13·6

  3

  Barnet*

  47·54

  32·16

  47·54

  11·756

  47·54

  11·765

  Bedfordshire

  165·9

  63·7

  165·4

  59·2

  165·4

  58·5

  Berkshire*

  73·5

  17·8

  73·5

  17

  73·5

  17

  Bexley

  7·04

  3·61

  6·327

  1·08

  6·327

  1·08

  Birmingham*

  251

  343

  250·15

  223

  243·79

  221·23

  Bolton

  40·2

  23·0

  40·2

  23·2

  40·2

  23–2

  Bradford

  260·1

  182·17

  260·1

  151·35

  260·01

  151·35

  Brent

  119·2

  26·9

  115

  1·9

  90·5

  1·9

  Buckinghamshire*

  91

  48·67

  86·4

  47·67

  81·1

  44·67

  Bury

  23·3

  12·35

  23·3

  12·35

  23·3

  12·35

  Calderdale

  50·5

  33·04

  50·5

  33·04

  50·5

  33·04

  Cambridgeshire

  64

  29·1

  64

  16

  64

  16

  Camden*

  76·4

  16·3

  76·4

  12·6

  76·4

  12·6

  Cheshire

  5

  2

  5

  2

  5

  2

  Cleveland

  31

  13·5

  30

  14·5

  29·4

  15·1

  Coventry City**

  114

  56·46

  141

  44·22

  141

  44·22

  Croydon*

  63·4

  23·55

  63·4

  17·75

  63·2

  18·5

  Derbyshire**

  96

  12

  96

  12

  96

  12

  Devon

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Doncaster

  8

  5·2

  8

  2·95

  8

  2·95

  Dudley

  64

  18

  64

  7

  64

  6·6

  Ealing

  172·4

  64·1

  172·4

  57·6

  172·4

  57·6

  East Sussex

  10

  1·6

  10

  1·6

  10

  1·6

  Enfield*

  64

  24·25

  64

  5·5

  64

  5·5

  Essex*

  2

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Gateshead

  2

  2·2

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Greenwich**

  86

  34

  86

  32

  86

  32

  Gwent

  14

  7

  14

  7

  14

  7

  Hackney

  226

  25·5

  226

  2·5

  226

  2·5

  Hammersmith

  41

  9·85

  41

  7

  41

  7

  Hampshire

  39

  13·9

  39

  13·9

  39

  13·9

  Haringey**

  181·05

  51·68

  181·05

  36·88

  172·73

  38·55

  Harrow**

  36

  14·3

  36

  1

  36

  1

  Havering

  3

  —

  3

  —

  3

  —

  Hertfordshire

  114·5

  33·86

  114·5

  17·4

  114·5

  17·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  24

  0

  24

  0

  24

  0

  Hillingdon

  12

  15·95

  12

  11·35

  12

  11·35

  Hounslow

  91·4

  8

  91·4

  8

  91·4

  8

  Humberside

  18·2

  5·2

  18·2

  5·2

  18·2

  5·2

  Islington

  102

  4·95

  102

  —

  102

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  58

  3·3

  58

  1

  58

  1

  Kent

  59·16

  31·59

  57·79

  30·72

  57·79

  30·72

  Kingston

  7–08

  1

  7–08

  1

  7·08

  1

  Kirklees

  149·5

  80·72

  149·5

  65·92

  149·5

  65·92

  Lambeth

  61·2

  —

  61·2

  —

  61·2

  —

  Lancashire

  265·7

  192·4

  265·7

  192·4

  265·7

  192·4

  Leeds

  8

  180·46

  7·03

  153·98

  5·03

  151·01

  Leicestershire

  214·7

  75·25

  214·7

  68·95

  214·7

  68·95

  Lewisham

  98·5

  12·95

  98·5

  12·95

  98·5

  12·95

  Lincolnshire

  4·5

  —

  4·5

  —

  4·5

  —

  Liverpool

  7·2

  9·5

  7·2

  9·5

  7·2

  9·5

  Manchester

  110

  78·42

  110

  68·38

  110

  68·38

  Merton

  28

  6·28

  28

  6·28

  28

  6·28

  Newcastle

  19

  5

  19

  2

  19

  2

  Newham

  130·8

  37·6

  127·8

  14

  127·8

  14

  Norfolk

  4·9

  0·75

  4·9

  0·75

  4·9

  0·75

  Northamptonshire

  45

  24·01

  43

  7·91

  43

  7·91

  North Tyneside

  8·8

  0·9

  8·8

  0·9

  8·8

  0·9

  North Yorkshire

  4

  0

  4

  0

  4

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  93

  22·1

  91

  8·9

  91

  8·9

  Oldham

  123·45

  41·9

  125·7

  42·7

  125·7

  36·95

  Oxfordshire

  44·1

  14·3

  44·1

  14·3

  44·1

  14·3

  Redbridge

  56·8

  5·97

  56·8

  5·97

  55·2

  5·97

  34
  relate to (a) posts designated to be filled by qualified teachers, and (b) other posts, eligible for funding under section 11.
  35

  Local education authority

  Posts as at 1 April 1992

  Posts as at 1 April 1993

  Posts as at 1 April 1994

  Teachers

  Others

  Teachers

  Others

  Teachers

  Others

  Redditch

  1

  0·67

  1

  0·67

  1

  0·67

  Richmond

  4

  0·5

  4

  0·5

  4

  0·5

  Rochdale

  69

  27·7

  68

  25·7

  67

  25·7

  Rotherham

  19·5

  16·15

  19·5

  13·4

  19·5

  13·4

  Salford

  2·0

  4·5

  2·0

  4·5

  2·0

  4·5

  Sandwell**

  91·0

  16·5

  91·0

  16·5

  91·0

  11·5

  Sheffield

  113·5

  42·5

  105·5

  16·0

  105·5

  16·0

  Shropshire

  6·0

  1·0

  6·0

  1·0

  6·0

  1·0

  South Glamorgan

  30·8

  9·1

  30·8

  9·1

  30·8

  9·1

  Southwark

  108·5

  37·75

  108·5

  37·75

  108·5

  37·75

  Staffordshire**

  53·0

  12·0

  53·0

  12·0

  53·0

  12·0

  St. Helens

  0·7

  1·0

  0·7

  1·0

  0·7

  1·0

  Stockport

  4·0

  2·52

  4·0

  2·52

  4·0

  2·52

  Suffolk

  15·8

  7·16

  15·8

  7·16

  15·8

  7·16

  Sunderland

  8·8

  0·49

  8·8

  0·49

  8·8

  0·49

  Surrey*

  17·5

  7·0

  17·5

  7·0

  17·5

  7·0

  Sutton

  2·0

  1·5

  2·0

  1·5

  2·0

  1·5

  Tameside

  20·0

  18·62

  20·0

  15·49

  20·0

  15·49

  Tower Hamlets

  426·5

  79·7

  426·5

  50·0

  425·5

  52·0

  Trafford

  15·5

  5·5

  15·0

  5·5

  15·0

  5·5

  Wakefield

  22·0

  2·0

  22·0

  0·0

  22·0

  0·0

  Waltham Forest

  114·0

  28·0

  114·0

  24·0

  114·0

  24·0

  Walsall

  101·0

  32·25

  101·0

  30·0

  101·0

  30·0

  Wandsworth

  112·0

  14·3

  105·0

  4·9

  103·0

  4·9

  Warwickshire*

  54·5

  12·92

  54·5

  12·92

  54·5

  12·92

  Westminster

  95·5

  3·56

  95·5

  0·9

  95·5

  0·9

  West Sussex**

  13·5

  10·89

  13·5

  3·39

  13·5

  3·39

  Wigan

  3·5

  0·0

  3·5

  0·0

  3·5

  0·0

  Wiltshire

  8·625

  1·575

  8·625

  1·575

  8·625

  1·575

  Wirral*

  6·0

  1·0

  6·0

  1·0

  6·0

  0·0

  Wolverhampton

  101·5

  37·0

  101·5

  37·0

  101·5

  37·0

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are as at 1 April 1992 and 1 April 1993 respectively.

  2. As to 1994–95, the figures relate to posts eligible for funding from 1 April 1994. It is a matter for authorities to decide, within the overall financial provision, how they propose to proceed in the light of the reductions in section 11 funding. Authorities marked * have indicated that they propose to make no substantive change in 1994–95. In cases marked **, authorities' proposals for change are receiving attention. In other cases, responses are awaited from authorities.

  3. Since currently approved projects came into effect on 1 April 1992, a number of schools which were previously covered by local authority projects but which have since opted for grant maintained status have chosen to set up their own project funded directly under section 11.

  4. Since 1 April 1993, most further education colleges, and a small number of sixth form colleges, which previously benefited from section 11 funding paid to the local education authority have begun receiving grant direct.

  5. Some projects approved with effect from 1 April 1992 were, in the light of their particular circumstances, approved for periods of 2 years or less.

  6. Figures relate to posts in full-time equivalent terms.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received and from whom regarding the reductions in section 11 funding.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received a large number of representations from a wide range of organisations and individuals against the reductions in section 11 funding. These include local authorities, local authority associations, teaching unions, racial equality councils, ethnic minority voluntary organisations, school heads and other teachers, school governors and parents.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many teachers will be affected by the reductions in section 11 funding;

  (2) what projects will be affected (a) nationally and (b) in Coventry by reductions in section 11 funding;

  (3) what advice he has issued to local authorities as how best to apply the reduced amount of section 11 funding in order that access by ethnic minorities to the national curriculum is maintained.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is for local authorities to decide how they propose to proceed in the light of the reductions in section 11 funding which we regret that it has been 36
  necessary to make. We have suggested that any local authority that may need to form judgments about the relative priorities of different projects and posts may wish to take into account a range of considerations, including in particular the importance to the targeted ethnic minority communities of a project's objectives and the effectiveness of a project in delivering the improvements or achievements sought.

  We have been gratified by the number of authorities that have already notified us that they are planning to make good the shortfall in funding in order that projects can continue at their present level. We are currently considering proposals submitted by some authorities which are planning to reduce the level of activity under their approved projects from 1994–95. Other authorities have yet to notify us of their intentions.

  I understand that Coventry city council intends to make no change to existing education projects before September, but has not yet finalised its plans thereafter. No advice has yet been received with regard to Coventry's non-education projects.

  I also refer the hon. Member to my reply today to a question from the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce a human rights clause into future trade agreements with Indonesia.

  Mr. Needham
  Trade agreements fall within the competence of the EU. It is standard practice for human rights clauses to appear in agreement between the EU and third countries.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in the last, and current, financial year, consultants to his Department have advised him of possible conflicts of interest; on how many occasions he has issued directions to consultants to avoid or overcome conflicts of interest; and if he will place in the Library copies of the standard contract clauses covering these issues.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested in respect of the first part of the question is not collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. There is a standard clause within all consultancy contracts which requests them to inform the Department should a conflict of interest arise. I have placed copies of the clause in the Library of the House.

  Mechanical Engineering Products
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the change in the volume of United Kingdom sales of mechanical engineering products between 1990 and 1992; what were the corresponding figures for Germany, France and Italy; if he will publish a table showing the value and volume of United Kingdom output, imports, exports and consumption of mechanical engineering products in 1970, 1979, 1990 and 1992 together with the numbers employed in the United Kingdom industry; and when he expects United Kingdom output to reach the 1990 levels.

  Mr. Needham
  Available information on the annual output of the mechanical engineering industry in United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy can be obtained from the Eurostat CRONOS database, which can be accessed in the Library of the House.

  Figures of United Kingdom sales, exports and imports from which consumption can be derived, are publishing in the "Business Monitor" series covering the mechanical engineering industries. Compatible information on the volume of trade, and, therefore, consumption is not readily available. Employment figures are published in the "Annual Abstract of Statistics". Copies of these publications are in the Library of the House.

  My Department does not forecast industrial production.

  Cotton Cloth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the reasons for the relative amount of output of cotton cloth in the United Kingdom from 1989 to 1993 on(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Italy, Germany and France; if he will publish a
  38
  table showing the corresponding figures for 1973 and 1979 together with, for each of those years (i) production, imports, exports and consumption of cotton cloth by each country and (ii) United Kingdom imports from and exports of cotton cloth to each of the other three countries.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department has not undertaken such an assessment. Information on cotton cloth production is regularly published by the UN in "Monthly Bulletin of Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Information on trade in cotton cloth for the United Kingdom, Italy, France, and Germany is regularly published by the United Nations in "Yearbook of International Trade Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Information for the United Kingdom's trade with the other countries in cotton cloth is published by the Central Stastical Office in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" which can he obtained from the Library of the House. Information on consumption of cotton cloth is not collected.

  Vehicle Output
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the change in the level of output of buses, coaches and minibuses between 1988 and 1992; what were the corresponding figures for Germany, France and Italy; if he will publish a table showing the value and volume of output, imports, exports and consumption of buses, coaches and minibuses in the four countries in 1970, 1979, 1988 and 1992 together with the numbers employed; and when he expects United Kingdom output to regain the 1990 level.

  Mr. Needham
  The available data can be found in publications in the Library of the House.

  International data for the volume of production of buses are published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd. in table 12 of the 1993 edition of "Motor Industry of Great Britain, World Automotive Statistics". New registrations of buses and coaches can be found in table 36 of the same publication. Information regarding the value and volume of exports for the United Kingdom can be found in table 62, and imports in table 91. For the other countries, the volume of exports is in tables 81 to 83. The table numbers referred to may vary in earlier editions. The data from this source may not be strictly comparable between countries. Figures showing the value of trade are published by the United Nations in "International Trade Statistics Yearbook volume 2". Data for the value of output and the numbers employed in the production of buses, coaches and minibuses are not available. My Department does not forecast output.

  Semi-manufactures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish figures for British imports of semi-manufactures from(a) inside and (b) outside the EC for the three months ending in January and for the same period a year ago and in 1990; which import categories, which exporting countries, and which user industries account for the bulk of the change; what were the corresponding changes in the level of United Kingdom output of like goods over the same periods; and by how much the import content of goods produced in the United Kingdom has changed as a result.
  39
  Mr. Needham
  Summary information regarding total United Kingdom imports of semi-manufactures, on a balance of payments basis, is available only up to December 1993 and was published by the Central Statistical Office in "First Release, Balance of United Kingdom visible trade-December 1993", CSO(94)47. The most recent figures for imports from non-EC countries only, for January 1994, were published in "First Release, Balance of trade with countries outside the EC-January 1994," CSO(94)38.

  More detailed information, on an "Overseas Trade Statistics" basis, is published in the December 1993 issue of the Business Monitor MM20, "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with countries outside the European Community (Extra—EC Trade)" and the third quarter 1993 issue of Business Monitor MQ20, "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom with countries within the European Community (Intra-EC Trade: Intrastat)". These are available in the Library of the House.

  Figures for 1990, by country, are not available on the balance of payments basis. The 1990 figures for individual countries, on an "Overseas Trade Statistics" basis, are available from Business Monitor MA20, "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom". Copies of the publication are also available in the Library of the House.

  Due to major differences between the industrial and trade classifications, it is not possible to provide comparable information on United Kingdom production and employment.

  It is not possible to identify industries importing semi-manufactures. Figures for the import content of United Kingdom output of finished manufactures are not available.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the reasons for the comparative performance of British exports between 1980 and 1988; what were the corresponding figures for Germany, Italy, France, Belgium and the Netherlands on the same basis as table 6.3 of Eurostat's "Basic Statistics of the Community"; and if he will publish the corresponding figures for the period since 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  The Department has not undertaken such an assessment. The information requested is regularly published by Eurostat in "Basic Statistics of the Community", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Wool Yarn
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the(a) output, (b) level of exports, (c) level of imports and (d) consumption of wool yarn in (i) Italy and (ii) the United Kingdom in (1) 1973, (2) 1979 and (3) 1991; what was United Kingdom output as a percentage of the Italian output in each of these three years; and what were United Kingdom imports from and exports to Italy of wool yarn in each of the three years.

  Mr. Needham
  Information of wool yarn production is regularly published by the UN in "Monthly Bulletin of Statistics", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Information on the trade in wool yarn of the United Kingdom and Italy is regularly published by the UN in "Yearbook of International Trade Statistics", a copy of 40
  which is available in the Library of the House. Information on the United Kingdom's trade with Italy in wool yarn is published by the Central Statistical Office in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which can be obtained from the Library of the House.

  Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage change in the volume of imports in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Italy and (c) France between (i) 1975 to 1979 and (ii) 1979 to 1993.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on change in the volume of imports can readily be derived from the "Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade", published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Consistent information for 1993 is not currently available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage change in imports between 1980 and 1989 into(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France, (c) Italy, (d) the Netherlands, (e) Germany and (f) Belgium; and what were the corresponding percentage increases from 1988 in each case.

  Mr. Needham
  The information can be readily derived from the "Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade", published by the OECD, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  EC Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the implied degree of change in the United Kingdom share of world trade between the latest available three months and the same period in 1990; what were the corresponding changes in the level of exports to the rest of the EC and non-EC countries; what is the estimated change in the import content of United Kingdom exports since 1990; what is his assessment of the extent to which the change in both the nominal and real exchange rate for sterling against the ecu is responsible for that performance; and if he will publish a table showing the terms of trade and relative volume for United Kingdom trade in finished manufactures with the rest of the EC, non-EC and all countries in the latest three months, the third quarter of 1992, the third quarter of 1990, the first quarter of 1987, the second quarter of 1979 and the second half of 1973.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdom share of world trade can be readily derived from information regularly published in "Direction of Trade Statistics", published by the International Monetary Fund, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. United Kingdom exports to the rest of the EC, non-EC and all countries, together with the associated terms of trade and volumes for United Kingdom trade in finished manufactures may be readily derived from data held on the Central Statistical Office data base, which can be accessed from the Library of the House. Estimates of the import content of United Kingdom exports since 1990 are not available.

  United Kingdom exports are now around 20 per cent. more cost competitive than prior to exchange rate mechanism withdrawal. This is clearly of benefit to United Kingdom exporters. However, the United Kingdom export

  41
  performance must be viewed in the light of the weakness of the economies of our major EC trading partners. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that it is tight control over costs which determine the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy in the long run.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 229, to what extent his Department monitors the effect of changes in terms of trade for finished manufactures on production and trade of industries other than the motor industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Department has not conducted a study to isolate the effect of changes in the terms of trade for finished manufactures on industries other than the motor industry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing for 1964, 1973, 1979, 1989 and the latest available date the number of manufacturing plants, their distribution by number of employees and the number of employees in each category; and what is his assessment of the factors which contributed to the changes over that period.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Data for 1964 are not available. The quinquenniel census of production for 1963 contained structure data in summary tables, table 4. For 1973 and 1979, figures were published in the summary tables of the "Annual Census of Production", table 6. For 1989 and 1991, the latest available year, figures were published in the summary volumes of the "Annual Census of Production", table 6. Copies of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  There were changes in the standard industrial classification, on which these figures are based, in 1968 and 1980, but in the main the figures reflect the industry's response to changes in the marketplace in the United Kingdom and overseas.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 229, for what reasons he cannot provide detailed information concerning the effect of the change in the terms of trade for finished manufactures on United Kingdom production and trade in motor cars.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The production and trade in motor cars in international markets are determined by market forces, including the competitiveness of individual car manufacturers.

  Coal Mining
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his current estimate of the number of coal mining jobs lost since 1979 in the South Yorkshire area.

  Mr. Eggar
  Since March 1979, the number of coal mining jobs lost in the South Yorkshire area, including Barnsley and Doncaster, is 47,956.

  Malaysian Airline
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the dates Ministers, or officials from his Department, including his Department's agencies, have used the Malaysian airline MAS for each year since 1985 including this year to date on official business; and what was the cost of each flight to his Department.

  Mr. Needham
  My Department does not keep central records of the airlines used by Ministers and officials carrying out official business.

  Electricity Market
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech made by the Minister for Energy to the conference on the future electricity market held in London on 11 March.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have placed a copy of my speech of 11 March in the Library of the House.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of whether the current actions of the Malaysian Government in relation to buying British are in breach of GATT regulations; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Needham
  As long as any Malaysian action is limited to direct purchases by Government, there would be no breach of GATT rules, since Malaysia has not signed the GATT agreement on Government procurement. The Government will continue to monitor the position carefully, including by keeping in close touch with United Kingdom companies that may be affected.

  Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd.
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has received on future developments or changes in arrangements between Courage and Grand Metropolitan in respect of Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, have received any information about such matters. However, under section 88 of the Fair Trading Act, the Director General of Fair Trading—DGFT—has a duty to keep under review undertakings given to the Secretary of State under that section. From time to time, this may require the DGFT or his officials to meet with the parties to such undertakings. This would include Courage and Grand Metropolitan, two of the firms that gave undertakings following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Elders IXL Ltd./Grand Metropolitan plc merger. The matters discussed at any such meetings are confidential to the parties.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest available figures for the percentages of United Kingdom energy production and consumption which are accounted for by renewable energy sources.
  43
  Mr. Eggar
  Renewable energy sources accounted for 1·2 per cent. of the United Kingdom's energy production and consumption in 1992, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Charles Barker
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 4, if he will examine the speed of the sale of Charles Barker, the price involved, whether any other bidders were involved and the position of creditors of the original company.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  On the basis of the information presently before me, I am not persuaded that an investigation should be undertaken. If, however, the hon. Member is able to provide further relevant material, this will be considered.

  Coal Privatisation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement about the continuation of British Coal's health and safety research programme in the period up to and after privatisation.

  Mr. Eggar
  In the light of the advice we received from the Health and Safety Commission on the issue of heath and safety research, the Government have now approved further expenditure of £2·1 million between 1995 and 1998 to ensure the completion of British Coal's current health and safety research and development programme.

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for the setting up of the Coal Authority.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Coal Industry Bill currently before Parliament includes provisions for setting up the Coal Authority which, among other functions, will be responsible for licensing coal mining operations and granting interests in coal; and taking over British Coal's responsibilities for historic physical liabilities, including subsidence, where these are not transferred to the private sector.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the Coal Industry Bill and granting of Royal Assent, the aim is to establish the authority, and thus the new independent licensing regime, about two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, though its members may be appointed shortly before that date. The Department has sought provision for the Coal Authority in the 1994–95 estimates. Urgent expenditure, estimated at £500,000, will be met by repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

  Coal Reserves
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if coal reserves exist under all or part of(a) Dorset, (b) Wiltshire, (c) Oxfordshire, (d) Avon, (e) Herefordshire, (f) Worcestershire, (g) Buckinghamshire, (h) Berkshire, (i) Cheshire, (j) Lincolnshire, (k) Norfolk, (l) Kent, (m) Cambridgeshire, (n) Cumbria, (o) North Yorkshire and (p) Humberside; and at what depth the shallowest seam lies in respect of each.
  44
  Mr. Eggar
  My Department does not hold the information requested. Information provided by the British Geological Survey suggests that coal either does not occur, or where it does occur, it is not economically recoverable at the present time in Dorset, Oxfordshire, Herefordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Kent, Cambridgeshire and Humberside. There are deep mines in North Yorkshire where coal reserves occur at depths ranging from 300 m to 1,000 m.

  Opencast coal mining and small-scale shallow underground mining currently takes place in Cumbria. Shallow coal occurs at or near the surface in localised areas in Cheshire, Worcestershire and Avon, extending slightly into west Wiltshire, but the potential is considered to be very limited in these counties.

  Paramount Airways Court Case
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the implications of the Paramount court case; and what changes he plans to the law on receivership.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade made a statement to the House on this issue on 14 March, Official Report, columns 615–16.

  Cuba
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the trade figures between the United Kingdom and Cuba over the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: The United Kingdom continues to run a trade surplus with Cuba although total bilateral trade was significantly lower in 1993 than in 1992. This reflects the contraction of the Cuban economy following the loss of Cuba's subsidised trading arrangements with the Soviet Union and of the guaranteed markets for Cuba's exports in eastern Europe. The resulting shortage of foreign exchange has led to a significant drop in Cuba's import capacity during 1989–93.

  Data on United Kingdom bilateral trade with Cuba are found in the Business Monitor MM20, available in the Library of the House.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what matters were discussed and what decisions taken at the European council meeting on the workings of the internal market in Brussels on 10 March.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: I attended the first Internal Market Council—IMC—of the Greek presidency in Brussels on 10 March 1994.

  Common positions on proposals on food additives other than colours and sweeteners; the application of open network provision to voice telephony; and extraction solvents used in the production of foodstuffs and food ingredients were agreed as A points.

  An amendment to directive 83/189 on technical standards and a proposal on equipment for use in explosive atmospheres were finally adopted as A points.

  This was a debate on the progress of follow-up work on the Commission's strategic programme for the internal

  45
  market including Commission proposals on administrative co-operation and the management of the mutual recognition of national rules. The Committee of Permanent Representatives—Coreper—was asked to prepare substantive conclusions for discussion at the IMC in June.

  The proposed counterfeit goods regulation was remitted to Coreper for further discussion of the legal base.

  There was an orientation debate on a proposed regulation to establish the free circulation of novel foods within the single market. The proposal was remitted to Coreper for further detailed work.

  The next meeting of the Council is planned for 16 June 1994.

SCOTLAND

  Arable Land Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total paid to farmers in(a) arable aid scheme set-aside payments and (b) total arable area scheme payments in Scotland following the 1993–94 harvest; and how many farmers in Scotland have received arable area payments of £1 million or more.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Under the arable area payments scheme—AAPS—Scottish farmers have received the following aid to date in respect of their 1993 AAPS claims:(a) £15·47 million in set-aside payments; and (b) £79·09 million in total arable aid. A further £11·5 million in respect of the final oilseeds payment is being issued this week. No Scottish farmer has received more than £1 million of arable aid.

  Gaelic
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the totals spent on promoting Scottish Gaelic in each of the last 15 years.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Government support for Gaelic centres on three areas, specific grants for Gaelic education, Gaelic organisations and Gaelic television. The totals spent in each of the last 15 financial years are given in the table.

  Additional public sector financial support for Gaelic includes support by Highlands and Islands Enterprise, local enterprise companies, local authorities and the Scottish Arts Council. Information on the amounts spent by these bodies is not held centrally.

  Scottish Office support for Gaelic

  Specific grants for Gaelic Education

  Gaelic Organisations

  Gaelic Television

  Total

  1979–80

  0

  60,996

  0

  60,996

  1980–81

  0

  72,281

  0

  72,281

  1981–82

  0

  87,517

  0

  87,517

  1982–83

  0

  101,356

  0

  101,356

  1983–84

  0

  77,190

  0

  77,190

  1984–85

  0

  81,050

  0

  81,050

  1985–86

  0

  121,000

  0

  121,000

  1986–87

  250,000

  131,000

  0

  381,000

  1987–88

  300,000

  179,723

  0

  479,723

  1988–89

  500,000

  208,000

  0

  708,000

  1989–90

  850,000

  298,000

  0

  1,148,000

  1990–91

  1,200,000

  306,000

  0

  1,506,000

  1991–92

  1,500,000

  362,800

  100,000

  1,962,800

  1992–93

  1,650,000

  814,000

  9,500,000

  11,964,000

  1993–94

  1,716,000

  879,558

  9,500,000

  12,095,558

  Area Tourist Boards
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the reorganisation of area tourist boards in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I am most grateful to the Scottish tourist board for the work it has done in developing a range of options for the reorganisation of area tourist boards—ATBs—in Scotland. After wide consultations, and within the framework of these options, I have concluded that the needs of Scotland's tourist industry will be best served by a 14-board structure, to be established on 1 April 1996. In order to ensure a smooth transition I intend to appoint the initial members of the new area tourist boards entirely on the basis of nominations from existing boards and from local authorities.

  The Scottish tourist board will be responsible for advising me on the detailed arrangements for establishing this new network, including the individual schemes which will be required by each of the new boards. In carrying out this responsibility I will require it to collaborate closely with existing ATBs, with existing and shadow local authorities and with the tourist industry generally.

  Many of those involved in the operation of area tourist boards have put it to me that, in order to meet local needs and retain local loyalties, it will be essential for the new boards to be locally accountable for their operational arrangements. I accept this advice and am asking the Scottish tourist board to pay particular attention to identifying suitable local arrangements in the schemes it works up for individual boards. Here again, it will be required to work in close collaboration with the tourist industry itself.

  I am confident that the new 14-board structure will provide visitors to Scotland with a greatly improved service. Our tourist industry will be given a competitive edge by a network which is sensitive to local needs and which delivers the effective marketing called for in the tourism review. A map illustrating the new structure is being placed in the Library. Subject to parliamentary approval the composition of the new boards will be as follows:

  Proposed area tourist board1

  Proposed new councils2

  1. Shetland

  Shetland

  2. Orkney

  Orkney

  3. Western Isles

  Western Isles

  4. Highland

  Highland

  5. Grampian

  City of Aberdeen

  Aberdeenshire

  Moray

  6. Tayside

  Angus

  City of Dundee

  7. Fife

  Fife

  8. Perthshire

  Perthshire and Kinross

  9. Loch Lomond, Stirling and Trossachs, Argyll and Bute

  Argyll and Bute

  Stirling

  Clackmannan and Falkirk

  Dumbarton and Clydebank

  47

  Proposed area tourist board1

  Proposed new councils2

  10. Glasgow and the Clyde Valley

  City of Glasgow

  Inverclyde

  Renfrewshire

  East Renfrewshire

  East Dunbartonshire

  North Lanarkshire

  South Lanarkshire

  11. Edinburgh and Lothian

  City of Edinburgh

  East and Midlothian

  West Lothian

  12. Scottish Borders

  The Borders

  13. Ayrshire and Arran

  North Ayrshire

  South Ayrshire

  East Ayrshire

  14. Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1 The exact name of the Board will be a matter for local decision.

  2 Position following First Scottish Standing Committee's consideration of the Local Government, etc. (Scotland) Bill. Boundaries of local authorities lying within each ATB may be subject to change during the remaining stages of the Bill.

  Outdoor Education Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names, location and county of each of the outdoor education centres in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Health Care International
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give full details of all discretionary grants awarded to Health Care International for the building of its new hospital complex at Clydebank; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of Government subsidy has been provided towards the Health Care International hospital in Clydebank.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 8 March 1994]: Details of such assistance are generally treated as commercially confidential. However information about the offer of regional selective assistance made to the company under Section 7 of the Industrial Development Act 1982 was published in the April 1992 edition of the "Employment Gazette", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Land reclamation work was also undertaken on the site by the Scottish Development Agency/Scottish Enterprise. This work was required to deal with the effects of industrial dereliction, primarily asbestos pollution, and to render the site capable of use and was largely undertaken prior to the sale of the site to Health Care International.

  School Books
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has regarding the amount spent by each local education authority in Scotland on books in 1993 prices in(a) 1979–80, (b) 1984–85, (c) 1989–90 and (d) 1992–93.
  48
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The available information on education authorities' spending on books and equipment is given in the table. The table shows combined figures for books and equipment in 1984–85 and later years because not all authorities' returns identify separately spending on books in those years.

  Expenditure by education authorities on books and educational equipment adjusted to 1992–93 prices using the GDP deflator

  £000

  1979–80

  1984–85

  1989–90

  1992–93

  Borders

  38

  349

  353

  1,619

  Central

  726

  3,107

  4,392

  4,438

  Dumfries and Galloway

  436

  1,292

  1,695

  2,817

  Fife

  947

  3,838

  4,419

  5,758

  Grampian

  3,878

  4,538

  7,320

  9,043

  Highland

  528

  2,479

  3,294

  3,860

  Lothian

  2,078

  4,366

  7,377

  10,183

  Strathclyde

  8,344

  19,932

  26,629

  33,133

  Tayside

  607

  2,009

  6,510

  5,794

  Orkney

  186

  265

  142

  166

  Shetland

  81

  310

  688

  723

  Western Isles

  143

  362

  550

  979

  Note 1: The figures include expenditure on books and educational equipment in local authority schools, further education colleges and community education establishments.

  Note 2: The figures for 1979–80 relate to expenditure on text and library books only.

  Ministerial Receptions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of receptions held by Ministers in his Department in 1993–94.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: The cost of receptions held by Ministers in my Department during 1993–94 was £23,973.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of state for Employment (1) if he will show for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for the latest available period, for all leavers and separately for male and female, for each ethnic group, and for those with a disability or health problem, the number and proportion of employment training trainees who three months after leaving were(a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else;

  (2) what proportion of respondents to the youth training leavers survey were early leavers showing the reasons for early leaving by percentage; for each region; and for Great Britain as a whole, giving information separately for males, females and in total;

  (3) how many people have participated in (i) training for work—employment training/employment action—(ii) the business start-up allowance and (iii) youth training in each year since 1987–88; and how many people are expected to participate in those programmes and (a) community action and (b) learning for work in 1993–94 and 1994–95 in (1) London, (2) each standard region and (3) Great Britain;
  49
  (4) if he will give the latest available results from the employment training leavers survey for each training and enterprise council area in respect of employment training leavers who (a) had been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) had obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and how many of the employment training leavers in the relevant period had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan;

  (5) if he will show (a) for London, (b) for each standard region and (c) for Great Britain, the latest information he has on the characteristics of those who have entered training for work in respect of (i) the number of entrants covered, (ii) whether male or female, (iii) duration of unemployment, (iv) ethnic origin and (v) whether they have a disability;

  (6) if he will give for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, the latest information he has on the number and level of national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications gained by people leaving youth training in the past year, broken down by (a) ethnicity, (b) disability and (c) gender; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) what (a) number and (b) proportion of employment training leavers had (a) been entered for a vocational qualification, (b) obtained a vocational qualification, (c) had failed to obtain a vocational qualification and (d) were awaiting their results; and how many of the employment training leavers in the relevant period had completed the training agreed in their initial action plan in the latest period for which figures are available, giving a breakdown between male and female, by ethnic group and for those with a disability

  (8) what number and proportion of respondents to the employment training/training for work leavers survey were early leavers showing the reasons for early leaving by percentage, and showing the figures separately for male, female and in total

  (9) if he will publish tables showing the latest available results from the youth training leavers survey for each training and enterprise council area broken down to show the number and proportion of youth training leavers who were (a) in full-time work with the same employer, (b) in full-time work with a different employer, (c) in part-time work, (d) on a full-time course at a college or training centre, (e) on another youth training scheme, (f) doing something else, (g) who were unemployed, (h) who had obtained a vocational qualification; and if he will also indicate (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (ii) the usable percentage response rate and (iii) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers;

  (10) if he will give the latest available results from the employment training leavers survey for each training and enterprise council area in England and Wales broken down to show the number and proportion of employment training leavers who were (a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work, (f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else;

  (11) if he will show for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, for all trainees and separately for male and female, for the latest available period, the wages
  50
  earned by employment training trainees who three months after leaving were (a) in a full-time job, (b) in a part-time job and (c) self-employed;

  (12) if he will give for each region and for Great Britain as a whole the latest information he has on the characteristics of those who have entered employment training showing (a) the number of entrants covered, (b) whether male or female, (c) duration of unemployment, (d) ethnic origins and (e) whether they have a disability;

  (13) what is the latest information he has on the number and level of national vocational qualifications and Scottish vocational qualifications gained by people leaving training for work in the past year in each region and for Great Britain as a whole, broken down by (a) ethnicity, (b) disabilty and (c) gender; and if he will make a statement;

  (14) if he will give for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, the latest results of the youth training scheme/youth training leavers survey, to show for all trainees, for male and female trainees and for each separate ethnic group and for those with a disability, (a) those in full-time work with the same employer, (b) those in full-time work with a different employer, (c) those in part-time work, (d) those on a full time course at a college or training centre, (e) those on another youth training scheme, (f) those doing something else, (g) those who were unemployed and (h) those who had obtained a vocational qualification; and if he will also show (i) the number of questionnaires issued, (ii) the usable percentage response rate and (iii) the percentage of respondents who were early leavers.

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

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list separately for each region and for London the contractors who have been approved to deliver places in respect of(a)job clubs, (b) restart courses, (c) job plan workshops, (d) community action, (e) employment rehabilitation courses and (f) sheltered workshops and sheltered placements in 1993–94 and the number of places they have been contracted for;

  (2) if he will outline for (a) job clubs, (b) restart courses, (c) job plan workshops, (d) community action, (e) employment rehabilitation courses and (f) sheltered workshops and sheltered placements, the process which is followed in inviting tenders to operate the scheme, the criteria by which successful bids are chosen, the length of contracts awarded and the element of contract funding which is determined by successful outcomes; how that performance element is assessed; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 21 March 1994:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to write to you direct to respond to your Parliamentary Questions about the tendering process which apply to:

  (a) Jobclub

  (b) Restart Course

  (c) Jobplan Workshops

  51

  (d) Community Action

  (e) Employment Rehabilitation Course

  (f) Sheltered Workshops and Sheltered Placements

  This is something which falls within the responsibilities he has delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It is Employment Service policy that tenders are evaluated to ascertain the economically most advantageous tender taking into account quality, skills, experience, resources and price.
  The arrangements which apply to (a)-(c) and (e) are set out in the Employment Service Programmes Contract and Tendering Guide and a copy is enclosed for your information. In addition, for Employment Rehabilitation, a copy of the information pack "Employment Rehabilitation—Information for Contractors" is enclosed.
  Of these four programmes, only Jobclub relates funding to successful outcomes and the arrangements are outlined in Part Two of the Contracts Guide. One recent change has been made which does not appear in the Guide. The maximum length of a contract has been increased from two to three years to bring programmes in line with contracting arrangements which operate elsewhere in the Employment Service.
  For Community Action the contracting process differs from our other programmes in that contracts are for one year and providers are paid a fixed rate of £40 per filled place per week. The contracting process is described in the Community Action Specification and standard contract (copy enclosed). This also lists the criteria used to select successful bids. The primary aim of Community Action is to help long-term unemployed people back into work. No extra funding is available to providers for successful outcomes, though each contract is monitored and we expect a reasonable proportion of participants to leave the programme for jobs, training or other positive outcomes, e.g. education or self-employment.
  Turning to Sheltered Employment, the Secretary of State for Employment, approved on 10 March new arrangements which will come into force on 1 April for the funding of Supported Employment (formerly Sheltered Employment). ES officials are in the process of negotiating formal contracts with SE providers for the provision of places in sheltered workshops and in sheltered placements with host employers.
  This change will be the first occasion that formal contracts operate within this programme and the contracts are being placed with existing providers of the service. The contracts will formalise existing arrangements and will not be subject to competitive tendering. Formal contracts will clearly spell out the respective responsibilities of the Employment Service and the contractors who provide this service and will enable the ES to negotiate several qualitative and quantitative targets which will form part of the contract.
  In your second question about the same programmes and services, you asked for lists of contractors and numbers of places contracted for. The responsibility for contracting in the ES is decentralised and records are not held centrally at the moment. However, a contracts data base is currently being set up which will provide information on Restart Courses, Jobplan Workshops and Community Action providers. This information will be ready in the summer. Formal contracts do not exist for Supported Employment in 1993–94.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Open Government
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what new detailed information his Department, the Employment Service and training and enterprise councils will be making available to the public under the code of practice on open government; how people will be able to obtain such information and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Department, Employment Service and training and enterprise councils already answer between them many hundreds of thousands of inquiries each year. The code of practice will reinforce and build on existing arrangements for providing information to the public.

  Career Development Loans
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for career development loans by unemployed people have been turned down by the banks; how many unemployed people awarded career development loans subsequently go into full-time employment after completing training; how many unemployed people have been served with career development loan default notices; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on the number of rejected career development loan—CDL—applications from unemployed people is not available. The current approval rate for all CDL applicants is approximately 70 per cent.

  Follow-up surveys on a 20 per cent. sample of CDL trainees are carried out three months after they have completed their training course. Information from responders to this survey indicates that over 60 per cent. of CDL trainees, who are registered unemployed at the time of taking out a CDL, have a positive outcome to their training at the three-month stage; 36 per cent. go into full-time employment, 5 per cent. into part-time employment and 10 per cent. into self employment. A further 5 per cent. are waiting to take up an unaccepted job offer and 5 per cent. go on to take further training.

  Information on the number of unemployed CDL trainees who have defaulted on their loan repayments is not available. However, recent analysis undertaken by the banks of reasons for CDLs defaulting would suggest that of the 1,687 loans defaulted in the current financial year to February, approximately a third were due to unemployment at the end of the course.

  Community Action
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have entered community action in total; and how many were participating in community action in each month since September 1993(a) for London; (b) for each standard region; and (c) for Great Britain.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms. Clare Short, dated 21 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Community Action.
  To the end of February (the latest date for which figures are available) 14,476 people had participated in Community Action. The number of people participating on the last Friday of each month since September for each of our nine regions and for Great Britain as a whole are contained in the attached table.
  I am unable to provide the information you request on participants in London as figures are collected regionally.
  Early indications show that Community Action is proving to be effective in helping long-term unemployed people into jobs or training.
  53

  Table showing community action occupancy by region at the end of each month since September 1993

  September

  October

  November

  December

  January

  February

  Northern

  —

  33

  66

  118

  207

  503

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  —

  73

  286

  436

  730

  1,139

  East Midlands and Eastern

  21

  108

  332

  472

  667

  960

  London and South East

  86

  296

  702

  1,239

  2,380

  4,330

  South West

  95

  233

  436

  639

  855

  1,171

  Wales

  11

  80

  187

  311

  451

  659

  West Midlands

  5

  55

  190

  320

  518

  810

  North West

  36

  215

  440

  633

  909

  1,412

  Scotland

  21

  104

  237

  399

  561

  1,178

  Total

  275

  1,197

  2,876

  4,567

  7,278

  12,162

  Source: Employment Service Regional Offices.

  Young Unemployed (Guidance and Support)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give further details about the objectives, procedures, benefit penalties and location of the pilot schemes he recently announced to provide more guidance and support to unemployed 18 to 24-year-olds with poor work histories; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 21 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the pilot schemes to help unemployed 18–24 year olds back into work.
  The Employment Service (ES) is developing two pilots designed to help 18–24 year olds unemployed for a year or more. Each pilot will consist of 10,000 places and will run for a year from April 1994. They are designed to test out new alternative approaches to helping young adults back to work.
  One pilot is a four week course designed to provide advice, guidance and jobsearch through group activities. It will run in the following regions: London and the South East, South West, Norther, East Midlands and Eastern and in Scotland.
  The second pilot involves placing people on to a caseload operated by an ES adviser. There will be a series of up to six interviews for each client over a six to 12 week period. It will run in London and the South East, the West Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside, Wales and the North West.
  Participation in both programmes is a requirement for people aged 18–24 unemployed for a year or more who decline or fail to take up all other offers of help at their Restart interview.
  If people fail to attend the course when asked they will be interviewed to establish the reason. If a satisfactory reason is not given their details will be passed to a Benefits Agency Adjudication Officer for a decision as to whether a reduction should be applied to their Income Support payment. Individuals can lose up to 40% of their personal allowance for each week they fail to attend. Similar procedures have been in place for some time in relation to Jobplan and Restart Courses.
  If people fail to attend a caseloading interview a further invitation to interview letter will be issued. Should they fail to attend on the second occasion their benefit will be suspended and their case referred to adjudication. Normally their entitlement will be reinstated as soon as they do attend an interview. These are the same procedures which have applied for many years for all other interviews with ES advisers.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions in the last five years he has knowingly provided incomplete information in answers to parliamentary questions other than on grounds of disproportionate cost; and on what subjects.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Department answers questions on the basis set out in paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the note on chart 4A in his booklet produced jointly with the Treasury, "The UK Approach" for distribution at the Detroit G7 jobs summit, that "Definition of unemployment changes slightly through period covered"; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The chart in question shows United Kingdom unemployment under two definitions. From 1948 onwards, the United Kingdom unemployment rate represented the number registering as unemployed at employment exchanges and youth employment service careers offices, as a percentage of these registered unemployed plus the total number of employees in employment. These are the rates shown in the chart between 1949 and 1970.

  When, in 1982, the Rayner review led to registration becoming voluntary and thereby threatened the integrity of official statistics, the basis of the count was changed to become a count of those claiming unemployment-related benefits at Employment Service local offices.

  In order to ensure that this series remains a valid economic indicator, Employment Department statisticians compile a seasonally adjusted claimant unemployment series with a coverage which is consistent with current eligibility criteria. The unemployment rate derived from this series, which goes back to 1971, represents the number of unemployed claimants as a percentage of the claimant unemployed plus employees in employment, self employed, HM forces, and people on work-related Government training programmes. These rates from the consistent seasonally adjusted series appear in the chart from 1971 onwards.

  ABB
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 15 March, at column 636, how many of the former ABB workers to

  55
  whom he refers have had their unemployment benefit suspended for any period since they were made redundant by ABB.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 21 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about people made redundant by ABB Transportation Ltd who have had their unemployment benefit suspended for any period.
  For reasons explained in my letter of 24 November, I regret that this information is not available. No records are kept on the number of clients claiming benefit who have been made redundant by a particular company, or about the status of their claim. This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  Claims are filed alphabetically by client's name, and it would not be cost effective to make a retrospective check seeking to match clients against redundancy from ABB Transportation Ltd.
  I am sorry I cannot be of more help on this occasion.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the implications of the judgment of the House of Lords in Regina v. Secretary of State for Employment Ex-parte Equal Opportunities Commission and Another.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are carefully considering this judgment and will take what action may be necessary to comply with its legal obligations.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what number of employed people have been counted(a) twice and (b) more than twice in employment figures in each of the last 15 years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Precise information on the number of people with more than one job included in the published work force in employment estimates is not available. However, the labour force survey collects information on the number of people who have two or more paid jobs. A distinction cannot be made between the number of people counted twice or more than twice in the employment figures. Consistent information is available only from 1984 and is given in the table:

  Numbers of people with a second job: Great Britain

  Thousands

  Spring 1984

  698

  Spring 1985

  778

  Spring 1986

  813

  Spring 1987

  834

  Spring 1988

  960

  Spring 1989

  1,054

  Spring 1990

  1,073

  Spring 1991

  1,074

  Spring 1992

  962

  Spring 1993

  1,029

  Autumn 1993

  1,127

  Source: Labour Force Survey.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what are the totals of self-employed in the 56
  Government employment figures in each of the past 15 years; and what proportion they are of (a) the employed work force and (b) the population;

  (2) what are the totals of part-time workers included in employment figures in each of the last 15 years; and what proportion they are of (a) the total employed work force and (b) the total of the population.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As the information requested is derived from a number of statistical tables, I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Outdoor Adventure Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many commercial outdoor adventure centres are currently operating in England; and if he will list them by county.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not collected in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. It is estimated that about 3,000 outdoor activity centres operate in Great Britain.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many outdoor adventure centres will be inspected by the Health and Safety Executive between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1995; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This is a programme being run jointly by the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities, representatives of which will visit more than 100 activity centres. As an element of surprise is integral to this programme, it would not be helpful to alert the centres concerned to the intention to visit them.

  Job Vacancies, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is the current number of unfilled vacancies in the jobcentres in the Doncaster area; and what was the figure(a) five years and (b) 10 years ago;

  (2) how many vacancies were listed in the Doncaster area jobcentres during (a) December, (b) January, (c) February and (d) at the latest date for which he has figures available; and if he will make a statement as to the nature of these vacancies.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 14 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about vacancies in Jobcentres in the Doncaster area.
  There are six Jobcentres in the Doncaster travel to work area, five in Doncaster and one in Thorne. The Doncaster Jobcentres have one central vacancy taking point.
  Information about the current number of unfilled vacancies and the number five and ten years ago is shown in Table 1 attached.
  The number of vacancies notified in the statistical period 6 December 1993 to 7 January 1994 is shown in Table 2. Information from 8 January is not yet available.
  Information about the nature of vacancies is collected on a quarterly basis. During the period covered by your question the information was collected on 7 January and is shown on Table 3.
  I hope this is helpful.
  57

  Table 1

  Unfilled vacancies

  Doncaster jobcentres

  Thorne job-centre

  7 January 1994

  384

  67

  6 January 1989

  338

  42

  6 January 1984

  166

  20

  Table 2

  Vacancies notified 6 December 1993 to 7 January 1994

  Doncaster jobcentres

  316

  Thorne jobcentre

  60

  Total

  376

  Vacancies notified 11 October 1993 to 7 January 1994

  Doncaster Jobcentres

  Thorne Job-centre

  Permanent full-time

  568

  172

  Permanent part-time

  417

  60

  Temporary full-time

  168

  2

  Temporary part-time

  76

  0

  Total

  1,229

  234

EDUCATION

  Malaysian Airlines
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the dates Ministers, or officials from his Department, including his Department's agencies, have used the Malaysian airline MAS for each year since 1985 including this year to date on official business; and what was the cost of each flight to his Department.

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list for the last 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to one of his Department's agencies for answer; and what percentage of parliamentary questions to his Department this represents.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No such referrals have been made during the last 12 months.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues in February.

  Mr. Boswell
  Nearly 1,200 letters were received from hon. Members and just over 1,300 replies were dispatched in February 1994.

  Mandatory Awards
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the number of mandatory award holders, excluding European Community and sandwich 58
  students on their placement year, in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what are the projected numbers for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Boswell
  The table shows the information requested.

  Academic year

  Award-holders Thousands

  1991–92

  553

  1992–93

  1636

  1993–94

  2719

  1994–95

  2761

  1995–96

  2767

  1996–97

  2763

  1 Provisional.

  2 Projected.

  Discretionary Awards
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total amount spent in current prices on discretionary awards by local authorities in the last three academic years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Boswell
  Expenditure on discretionary awards by local authorities in England and Wales in 1992–93 constant prices was £231·1 million in 1990–91, £248·9 million in 1991–92 and £238·1 million—provisional—in 1992–93.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what additional help he is proposing to provide to local education authorities to assit them in their role of providing discretionary student awards.

  Mr. Boswell
  The provision of discretionary awards is a matter for local education authorities. A national survey of LEA discretionary awards—supported by the Department—is in progress. My right hon. Friend and I will wish to consider carefully the findings of the survey once they are available.

  Drop-out Rates
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what details are kept on the number of students who leave college before the end of term or course for financial reasons; and if he will list them by area.

  Mr. Boswell
  Higher education drop-out rates are published in the departmental report. Table 14 in the latest report—Cm 2510—a copy of which is available in the Library, shows that drop-out rates have remained broadly steady over the period from 1982–83 to 1991–92. The Department does not collect information on the reasons why students leave courses prematurely, whether it is for financial reasons or otherwise; nor does it collect data by area.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has about the numbers of applicants for places in higher education institutions who decline to give information about the occupation of parents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  In 1991–92, of the 274,255 United Kingdom applicants to the polytechnics central admissions
  59
  system 37,277–13·6 per cent.—failed to answer the relevant question on the application form. The corresponding figures for applicants to the Universities Central Council on Admissions were 21,884–9·1 per cent.—out of 241,660 applicants.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if students applying for places in higher education have the right to see references given about them to the institutions.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the institutions themselves and the individuals and bodies supplying the references, except where the references are held on computer, which are subject to the access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education for what purpose his Department uses local education authorities to transfer mandatory awards of maintenance grants and tuition and college fees to students and institutions of higher education.

  Mr. Boswell
  Local education authorities have been under a duty since 1962 to make mandatory awards to eligible students. Regulations made under the Education Act 1962 require LEAs to decide the eligibility of students; to assess and meet their maintenance requirements; and to pay specified fees in respect of their course. Since 1 April 1990 my right hon. Friend has paid specific grant to LEAs at 100 per cent. for this expenditure.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the numbers of full-time students in higher education institutions who are(a) home-based, (b) living away from the parents' home and studying in London or (c) living away from the parents' home and studying elsewhere.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on term-time accommodation of all full-time higher education students is not held centrally. However, data for students in receipt of mandatory awards are shown in the table.

  Mandatory awards held by students domiciled in England and Wales 1991–92

  Rate received

  Numbers

  Parental home rate

  49,800

  London rate of grant

  76,800

  "Elsewhere" rate of grant

  413,800

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to safeguard access to the national curriculum for members of ethnic minorities who have English language difficulties(a) nationally and (b) in Coventry.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Provision for the education of pupils from minority ethnic groups who have English language difficulties is primarily a matter for schools and local education authorities. Authorities with high proportions of children with origins outside predominantly English-speaking countries generally receive within their education standard spending assessment higher allowances to spend per pupil than other authorities in otherwise 60
  comparable circumstances. Nationally, when undertaking the recent review of Education SSAs for the 1994–95 financial year, we took account of the reduction in the section 11 grant rate. But SSAs are not prescriptive and Coventry will remain responsible for determining its own spending priorities.

  Fuel Bills
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information he has regarding special companies created by colleges and universities to accept advance payments for annual fuel bills for the next five years; and if the funding councils will be asked to take into account such payments.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend is not aware that any special companies have been established by colleges or universities for the purpose of accepting advance payments for fuel bills, but he understands that colleges in the further education sector have received advice from independent consultants on schemes for paying fuel bills in advance. Where any such schemes entailed borrowing by colleges above a certain level, the consent of the Further Education Funding Council would be required. It would be for individual colleges to determine how to meet the cost of borrowing.

  Teaching Posts (Applications)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure that local education authorities treat applications for teaching posts from both locally managed and grant-maintained schools equally on individual merits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  When a school has a delegated budget under the local management of schools scheme, it is the governing body that decides which teachers should be appointed to any vacant posts at the school. The local education authority may offer advice, but cannot insist on a school appointing only candidates of which it approves. The Department's publications for school governors stress that all applicants for posts must be judged on their merits.

  Undergraduates (Personal Identifiers)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will bring forward proposals to allow the University and College Admissions Service and the Student Loans Company to make use of national insurance numbers as personal identifiers.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to bring forward such proposals.

  Post-16 Courses
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that all school pupils have a right of access to information about all post-16 courses available in their locality.

  Mr. Boswell
  Under the Education Act 1993, maintained schools, and city technology colleges, are now required to distribute to their year 11 pupils information published and supplied to them by local colleges. This complemented by the guidance on the whole range of
  61
  post-16 options in the publication "It's Your Choice", and by information on school and college performance in the comparative tables published by the Department.

  Cornish Language, History and Culture
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the totals of money spent from his Department on promoting Cornish language, history and culture in each of the past 15 years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend does not make specific provision for this purpose. Schools are free to teach the Cornish language if there is sufficient demand and they have the resources to do so. National curriculum geography requires that all pupils develop a knowledge and understanding of their local area and there is provision in national curriculum history to study local history.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many approaches his Department's territorial teams have received from parents who have failed to get their children admitted to the grant-maintained school of their choice; and what plans he has to begin keeping a central record of such approaches.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department does not keep detailed records of different categories of written and telephone inquiries from members of the public. There are no present plans to collect data on the number of approaches made to members of the Department's school territorial teams about the specific issue of admissions to grant-maintained schools. Both the Department and the Office for Standards in Education have however noted that when a school becomes grant-maintained there tends to be an increase in the number of applications for admission.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to monitor the effects of reductions in section 11 funding(a) nationally and (b) in Coventry.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend will continue to monitor the standard of educational provision for all pupils including those for whom English is not their first language, through the Office for Standards in Education.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 737, how many square yards of carpet woven with the NCC logo were purchased by the National Curriculum Council for its offices in York; and from whom it was purchased.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Approximately 275 sq yds of the carpet is currently in place in the former NCC offices in York but information on how much carpet was purchased by the NCC and from whom is not held centrally and is not identifiable from published NCC documents.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when, and for what reasons, he or any other Minister has signed a public interest immunity cerificate in connection with the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Neither I nor any other Northern Ireland Office Minister has signed such a certificate since I became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Interdepartmental Co-operation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the steps he has taken to develop co-operation between Departments in the Northern Ireland Office and the Scottish Office on trade, industry and transport matters.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Northern Ireland officials regularly meet their counterparts from the Scottish Office on areas of mutual interest in trade, industry and transport. Those include inward investment, electricity interconnection and transportation links. The permanent secretary of the Department of Economic Development and his senior colleagues will be meeting the secretary and top officials of the Scottish Office Industry Department in May in Belfast.

  Community Care
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that the moneys from both the people first budget and the transfer from protected rights are utilised solely for community care and not for capital projects.

  Mr. Ancram
  The people first community care allocation, which includes the social security transfer, is earmarked for community care services. To secure a comprehensive range of community services it will be necessary for health and social services boards to spend capital relevant to community care such as aids, equipment, transport and day care facilities.

  Poultry
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many poultry birds were slaughtered in each year since 1988 in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Total recorded poultry slaughterings in Northern Ireland in each year since 1988 were as follows:

  Million birds

  Total slaughterings

  of which, broilers

  1988

  39·12

  37·37

  1989

  35·19

  33·87

  1990

  41·71

  39·82

  1991

  45·74

  43·90

  1992

  52·03

  49·63

  1993

  55·91

  54·12

  Eggs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the figures for egg consumption in Northern Ireland for each year since 1988.
  63
  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what will be the implications for the operation of his Department of the code of practice on open government.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The code of practice will reinforce and build on existing arrangements for the provision of information by the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office.

  Operational arrangements within each Department will be announced in the near future.

  Product and Process Development Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 March,Official Report, columns 260–61, what was the total number of applications for (a) the number of companies participating in and (b) the number of first-time users of the product and process development scheme so far in 1993–94; and what were the comparable figures in the previous year.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  So far in 1993–94, 113 companies —43 first-time users—have submitted 173 applications under the product and process development scheme compared to 65 companies—24 first-time users—and 153 applications in 1992–93.

  Airports Police
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures will exist for the Northern Ireland airport police to have access to information contained in the police computers operated by the RUC, Home Office forces and Scotland's constabularies, following the airports police privatisation.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Northern Ireland airports constabulary does not and will not have direct access to information held on computers operated by the RUC, Home Office forces or Scottish constabularies. Where the airport police require such information to carry out their duty, they will seek advice from the local RUC, as is the case at present.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure that the Northern Ireland airport police will be subject to all existing criminal evidence procedure and legislation following their privatisation.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 has been amended for that purpose and will apply to all airport constabularies authorised under article 19 of the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements will be made to ensure that the Northern Ireland airport police continue to be subject to the existing police complaints procedures following their privatisation.
  64
  Mr. Tim Smith
  The present arrangement between Northern Ireland Airports Ltd. and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland will be extended to the successor company after privatisation of the airport.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review the decision to privatise the Northern Ireland airport police following the decision to review security at United Kingdom's international airports.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  A detailed review of security at Belfast international airport has just been completed and Government security advisers are content with the proposed arrangements for policing after privatisation.

  HMS Caroline
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will seek to retain HMS Caroline in Belfast, following its de-commission, as a floating maritime museum and tourist attraction.

  Mr. Ancram
  I understand that there are no plans to de-commission HMS Caroline.

  Imperial War Museum
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements exist for the collection of the imperial war museum to be exhibited in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  There are no specific arrangements for the collection of the imperial war museum to be exhibited in Northern Ireland. It is however open to museums in Northern Ireland to borrow artefacts from other national museums by negotiation.

  Arable Land Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total paid to farmers in(a) arable aid scheme set-aside payments and (b) total arable area scheme payments in Northern Ireland following the 1993–94 harvest; and how many farmers in Northern Ireland have received arable area payments of £1 million or more.

  Mr. Ancram
  In Northern Ireland to date, the total amount paid to farmers for set-aside under the EC arable area aid scheme is £243,086. The amount paid under the arable area aid scheme for eligible crops harvested in 1993 is £3,727,725.

  No farmer in Northern Ireland has received arable area payments of £1 million or more.

  Housing
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Housing Executive dwellings, and of what types, have been demolished in each of the last five years and the current year to date; and what are the projections for the next three years in each council area in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I have been advised by the chief executive that the information is as follows:
  65

  District Council Area

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Projection for three years

  Antrim

  —

  6

  323

  13

  17

  13

  56

  Ards

  14

  —

  50

  45

  —

  —

  70

  Armagh

  2

  24

  10

  3

  7

  1

  —

  Ballymena

  —

  5

  13

  29

  —

  2

  130

  Ballymoney

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  47

  Banbridge

  36

  21

  41

  2

  1

  —

  3

  Belfast

  1,321

  911

  734

  645

  514

  —

  1,653

  Carrickfergus

  34

  1

  —

  6

  69

  4

  28

  Castlereagh

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  11

  —

  Coleraine

  6

  3

  2

  8

  —

  —

  80

  Cookstown

  3

  —

  —

  —

  17

  —

  4

  Craigavon

  117

  139

  145

  16

  54

  —

  29

  Deny

  38

  123

  52

  14

  3

  63

  84

  Down

  10

  10

  32

  1

  —

  —

  85

  Dungannon

  5

  13

  2

  10

  2

  4

  24

  Fermanagh

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  16

  Lame

  1

  —

  4

  —

  59

  —

  19

  Limavady

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lisburn

  7

  2

  2

  —

  4

  —

  61

  Magherafelt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Moyle

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  26

  Newry and Moyle

  60

  61

  31

  8

  —

  10

  —

  Newtownabbey

  3

  43

  16

  95

  152

  15

  335

  North Down

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Omagh

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Strabane

  1

  19

  7

  13

  1

  —

  2

  Information on types of dwellings demolished is available only for Northern Ireland as a whole, and is estimated as follows:

  Per cent.

  Bungalows

  7

  Houses

  67

  Maisonettes

  9

  Flats

  16

  Rural cottages

  1

  The above figures include dwellings acquired or which the executive hope to acquire, for re-development or housing action area activity.

  Illegal Fishing
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present position within the Fisheries Conservancy Board of the scientist alleged to have been involved in the unauthorised removal of salmon from the Grillagh river for the purpose of stripping salmon eggs from them in 1990.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 11 March 1994]: It would not be appropriate to disclose this information.

HEALTH

  Family Health Centres
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many family health centres per 1,000 population there are in(a) Inner London, (b) Greater London, (c) Birmingham, (d) Newcastle, (e) Liverpool, (f) Leeds and (g) Manchester.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Health centres are furnished by district health authorities under the terms of section 21 of the National Health Service Act 1946, and provide 66
  community health care. Some general practitioners, about a quarter, practise from them, but may use them partly in conjunction with their own premises.

  The number of health centres per 1,000 of the population for the areas in question at 1 April 1993 is shown in the table:

  Family health services authority

  Health centers

  Population

  Health centers per 1,000

  Inner London

  118

  5,770,000

  0·02

  Greater London (inclusiveof Inner London figures)

  135

  6,906,000

  0·02

  Newcastle

  9

  282,000

  0·032

  Leeds

  19

  722,000

  0·026

  Birmingham

  28

  1,009,000

  0·028

  Liverpool

  12

  479,000

  0·025

  Manchester

  13

  435,000

  0·03

  Amyl Nitrate
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research has been carried out into the effects of amyl nitrate on children; and if she will publish the results.

  (2) what research her Department has carried out into the extent of the use of amyl nitrate among school children.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has not carried out any research directed specifically at the extent of the use of amyl nitrate among school children, nor are we aware of any research carried out specifically into the effects of amyl nitrate on children.

  The Department gives financial support to St George's hospital medical school for its collection of statistics on deaths associated with abuse of volatile substances.

  We are aware of concerns that alkyl nitrites are being misused by young people in the rave scene. Both the Government and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of

  67
  Drugs, an independent body of experts set up under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, are keeping the matter under review.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what controls exist on the prices which may be charged for private dental treatment; and what plans she has to change them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Arrangements for private dental treatment, private dental charges and information about them are matters between the dentist and the patient.

  Schizophrenia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the reason for drugs used to treat schizophrenia being excluded from the list of drugs exempted from prescription charges.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The list of medical conditions that confer prescription charge exemption was drawn up in 1968, when prescription charges were reinstated. This was done with the full co-operation of medical practitioners, whose representatives made it clear that they could only agree to exemption for certain readily identifiable medical conditions, which called automatically for life-long medication.

  The list has been reviewed on a number of occasions, but on each it has been concluded that no change should be made. There are extensive general arrangements for prescription charge exemption, which coupled with charge remission under the national health service low income scheme, protect vulnerable groups in the community. These arrangements ensure that no one need be deterred from obtaining necessary medication for financial reasons.

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will introduce standardised forms for use in all aftercare cases, covered by section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Mr. Bowis
  We are actively considering that proposal.

  North Yorkshire Health Authority
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the reasons why North Yorkshire health authority has appointed a chief medical officer in addition to a director of public health; and if she will describe the responsibilities of each post.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  That is the responsibility of North Yorkshire health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mrs. Susan Wrigley, for details.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paramedics are employed by the London ambulance service; and how many have been transferred to work in stations in(a) south-east London and (b) Lewisham.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service currently employs around 400 paramedics. It plans to train more than 750 further paramedics by the end of 1996.
  68
  Operational decisions on the deployment of staff are made by individual ambulance services in the light of local circumstances. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Martin Gorham, chief executive of the London ambulance service, for futher information.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many National Health Service trusts she expects to be operational on 1 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have today approved a further eight applications from units wishing to become national health service trusts in the fourth wave. That will bring the total for the fourth wave to 143. There will now be 419 fully operational NHS trusts from 1 April 1994.

  The eight new trusts are: Hammersmith hospitals—incorporating Charing Cross hospital, Hammersmith hospital, Queen Charlotte's hospital and Acton hospital—Chelsea and Westminter Healthcare; Mount Vernon and Watford hospitals; West Hertfordshire Community Health; Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare; University College London hospitals; Royal Victoria infirmary and associated hospitals; and Newcastle City Health. I have not approved the application from Surrey Heartlands.

  Eye, Ear and Throat Surgery, Shrewsbury
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received(a) for and (b) against retaining eye, ear and throat surgery in Shrewsbury; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received a number of representations all of which have been referred to Shropshire health authority, which is currently undertaking a public consultation exercise on the future provision of the service.

  Yorkshire Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to public funds of the retirement dinner for the former chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority; and from which budget the function was funded.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  That is a matter for the Yorkshire regional health authority.

  Prescribing Patterns
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has about the prescribing patterns of(a) fundholding and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholders are leading the way in improving the cost-effectiveness of prescribing while ensuring that patients receive all the medicines that they need. They prescribe drugs in generic form more often than non-fundholders—49 per cent. compared with 43 per cent.—and their prescribing costs are increasing by around 4 per cent. per year less than those of other GPs.

  Hospital Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds there were in each year between 1978–79 and 1988–89 in the area covered by the London implementation group.

  Year

  Inner London district health authorities

  Special health authorities

  Outer London district health authorities

  Inner, Outer London DHAs and SHAs

  1979

  28,629

  3,411

  32,812

  64,852

  1980

  27,396

  3,357

  31,910

  62,663

  1981

  27,006

  3,393

  31,462

  61,861

  1982

  26,476

  3,346

  30,877

  60,699

  1983

  26,092

  3,328

  30,171

  59,591

  1984

  25,222

  3,236

  28,922

  57,380

  1985

  24,140

  3,087

  27,918

  55,145

  1986

  23,024

  3,025

  26,660

  52,709

  1987–88

  21,202

  2,860

  25,052

  49,114

  1988–89

  20,454

  2,780

  23,543

  46,777

  Source: SH3 1979–1986.

  KHO3 1987–88 to 1992–93.

  In 1979 there were 1,061,064 in-patients treated in inner and outer London district health authorities and special health authorities. The figure for 1988–89 increased to 1,373,377—a 29 per cent. increase.

  Pacemaker Leads
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been implanted with(a) Sorin S80049 bi-polar leads and (b) Medtronic 4012 leads since 1987; and how many in each case have since died.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no S80049 pacemaker lead made by Sorin Biomedica.

  Data returned on a voluntary basis to the national pacemaker database show that, since 1987, 611 patients were implanted with Sorin Biomedica lead model S800149, 25, of whom have since died, while 954 patients were implanted with Medtronic 4012 lead model, 140 of whom have since died.

  In none of the above cases was the cause of death recorded as lead related.

  Heart Valves
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people who have been implanted with heart valves since 1980 have died; and how many have died as a result of faulty valves.

  Mr. Sackville
  No figures are available for heart valve implants before 1986. However, according to the United Kingdom heart valve registry 31,271 patients were implanted with heart valves between 1 January 1986 and 31 December 1992. Of those, 5,841 have died. None of the deaths was related to faulty valves.

  Of patients implanted prior to 1986, 43 deaths have been reported following failure of mechanical heart valves.

  Thalidomide
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the product licence for the drug thalidomide was lapsed or was withdrawn; and how long it had been in force.

  Mr. Sackville
  Thalidomide was first made available to doctors in the United Kingdom in 1958 and withdrawn on
  70
  Dr. Mawhinney
  The average daily number of available beds, wards open night and day—24 hours—1979 to 1988–89 in the area covered by the London implementation group is shown in the table:

  2 December 1961 before the introduction of the Medicines Act 1968. A product licence was therefore not necessary at the time.

  Allergens
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the link between exposure to traffic fumes and susceptibility to allergens.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollution episodes has concluded that there is evidence that certain but not all constituents of traffic fumes, or chemicals formed from them, such as ozone, may worsen the symptoms of some allergic conditions. The group was assisted in its considerations by a leading immuno-toxicologist, and is reviewing the evidence in its current assessment of the interaction of all traffic pollutants.

  Further advice has been sought from the Department's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. It has asked for information from two leading research workers currently undertaking studies into the relationship between levels of air pollutants in London and symptoms among hay fever sufferers.

  The British Society for Clinical Allergy and Immunology has set up a working party to look at the possible relationship between pollutants and allergic disease. The Department is represented on that group.

  Psychiatric Unit, Torbay
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have died within six months of being discharged from the Edith Morgan psychiatric unit, Torbay hospital in the latest convenient period.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had with the Edith Morgan psychiatric unit, Torbay hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health consults national health service authorities and trusts on a wide variety of matters.
  71
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each of the five years, the number and causes of deaths at the Edith Morgan psychiatric Unit, Torbay hospital.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the chairman of the South Devon healthcare trust, for these details.

  Air Pollution
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has regarding any correlation between levels of disease and of air pollution; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is advised on these matters by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants and by the advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollution episodes. The latter's three reports are in the Library; they are on ozone; on sulphur dioxide, acid aerosols and particulates; and on oxides of nitrogen. MAAPE is reviewing the evidence in its current assessment of the interaction of all traffic pollutants. Also, COMEAP has formed two sub-groups; one is to consider the relationship between air pollution and asthma and the other the medical effects of particulates in the air.

  Advice and information for the public is provided on the freephone helpline: 0800 556677.

  Management Costs
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on management and financial consultants by her Department, the National Health Service Management Executive and any centrally run patient care services, not including trusts and health authority direct spending.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department spent £19,377,397 on all types of consultancy in 1992–93. It is not possible separately to identify expenditure on management and financial consultants.

  Orthopaedic Services, Hampshire
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will outline her reasons for endorsing the proposal of the Basingstoke and North Hampshire district health authority to transfer orthopaedic services from Lord Mayor Treloar hospital to Basingstoke district hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  The proposal arose following the decision of a local health authority to withdraw from 1993 its substantive contract for elective orthopaedic services from Lord Mayor Treloar hospital in order to purchase those same services locally. Without new work from other health authorities, the cost to Basingstoke and North Hampshire district health authority of obtaining the same level of service from Lord Mayor Treloar hospital would increase substantially at the expense of reduced services elsewhere. We gave very careful consideration to the proposal to transfer orthopaedic services from Lord Mayor Treloar hospital to Basingstoke district hospital and to the views of the organisations and individuals who had responded to consultation. In deciding to approve the proposal, we were satisfied that the proposal would enable the district health authority to make better use of its resources in meeting the overall health needs of the local 72
  population, that the consultation process had been adequate; and that the alternative proposals that had been suggested did not provide a more appropriate option.

  Breast Screening
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on public relations by her Department, the national health service management executive and the breast cancer screening programme that can be identified, excluding trusts and health authority direct spending, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  Functions that are commonly associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's information division. The service also covers the national health service management executive. Manpower and running costs for 1992–93 were £1·749 million.

  The breast cancer screening programme spent £42,400 on publicity in 1993–94. That included the production of an annual review, quarterly newsletters to those involved in breast screening and responses to press questions and articles about the screening programme. In addition, £18,000 was provided to part fund the production of an information leaflet for women and £25,000 on the production of videos specifically for ethnic groups on the benefits of breast screening.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those local authority areas where environmental health officers have prosecuted under food hygiene regulations restaurants and public houses engaged in the culinary practice of cooking and serving beef on hot stones.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not separately identifiable from the returns provide from local authorities. Such practices would not necessarily constitute an offence under the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970.

WALES

  Library Services
  Mr. Ray Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that the new local authorities he proposes for Wales will be able to fulfil the statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service in accordance with the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Local Government (Wales) Bill sets out the powers that it is proposed should be available to my right hon. Friend. The existing powers under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 remain unchanged.

  Under the Bill, the new authorities will be required to produce service delivery plans for all services, including the public library service.

  Poultry Slaughtering
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many poultry birds were slaughtered in each year since 1988 in Wales.
  73
  Mr. Redwood
  Information on poultry birds slaughtered in Great Britain because of salmonella infection has been collected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food since 1989. Figures for Wales are given in the table.

  Poultry slaughtered in Wales1

  Year

  Birds slaughtered

  1989

  381

  1990

  106,715

  1991

  64,790

  1992

  18,060

  1993

  22,896

  Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  1 There is wide variation in the number of birds slaughtered in each individual case of salmonella infection depending on the size of the flock that may have been affected or potentially affected.

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this is of the total.

  Mr. Redwood
  As at 1 January 1994, 39 staff—1·6 per cent. of the total in my Department—had registered as disabled. My Department also employs several unregistered disabled people.

  Egg Consumption
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the figures for egg consumption in Wales for each year since 1988.

  Mr. Redwood
  Estimates of household consumption of eggs are provided from the national food survey which is carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The estimates, which are expressed in terms of average numbers of eggs consumed per person per week, exclude eggs used in manufacturing or catering and institutions. The figures are given in the table.

  Egg consumption in Wales

  Year

  Number per person per week

  1988

  2·39

  1989

  2·09

  1990

  2·14

  1991

  2·23

  1992

  2·15

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for 'Wales if he will list for the last 12 months how many parliamentary questions he has referred to his Department's executive agency for answer; and what percentage of parliamentary questions to his Department this represents.

  Mr. Redwood
  The chief executive of Cadvv has answered six parliamentary questions in the last 12 months from a total of 3,425 received by my Department.

  Cwmcarn Grant-maintained School
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales under what regulations the former head teacher of Cwmcarn secondary grant-maintained school, Gwent, was given early retirement and sick leave, in the second year of grant-maintained status.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Teachers (Compensation for Redundancy and Premature Retirement) Regulations 1989 provide arrangements for the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools to compensate teachers who are prematurely retired. Decisions in respect of sick leave are the responsibility of the governing body as employer of staff at the school.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many schools in Wales voted during 1993 to adopt grant-maintained status;

  (2) how many schools in Wales have voted to adopt grant-maintained status; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Eighteen schools in Wales have voted in favour of applying for grant-maintained status. Six of the ballots were held in 1993.

  Rent Forms
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statutory forms used by rent officers will be available in the Welsh language.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  When the Rent Act 1977 (Forms, etc). (Welsh Forms and Particulars) (Amendment) Regulations 1994, laid before the house on 16 March, comes into force on 6 April 1994.

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many reports were produced by Her Majesty's inspectors in Wales in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1992–93;

  (2) what percentage of Her Majesty's inspectors appointed after 1992 have (a) no teaching experience and (b) over five years' experience of teaching in primary or secondary schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  These are matters for the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector for schools in Wales. I have therefore asked the chief inspector, Mr. R. L. James, to write to the hon. Member.

  A476
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when work will commence on the A476 Blaenau Ffestiniog to Betws-y-Coed road; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Full details of my right hon. Friend's forward programme will be set out in a revised edition of "Roads in Wales" to be published in the spring.

  Arable Area Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total paid to farmers in(a) arable aid scheme set-aside payments and (b) total arable area scheme

  75
  payments in Wales following the 1993–94 harvest; and how many farmers in Wales have received arable area payments of £1 million or more.

  Mr. Redwood
  Total payments to date in Wales under the arable area payments scheme amount to £5,257,009, including set-aside payments of £617,480. These figures do not include final oilseed payments, which are being made now.

  No farmers in Wales received payments of £1 million or more.

  House Prices
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes have taken place in the average prices of(a) council houses and (b) housing association houses in Wales during each of the past 14 years.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on the changes in average market prices of council dwellings in Wales for each year since 1981 is shown in the following table. Information on average prices for housing association dwellings is not available centrally.

  Average market prices of council dwellings in Wales1

  Year

  Average price £

  Percentage change on previous year

  1981

  13,844

  —

  1982

  13,602

  -1·7

  1983

  14,258

  4·8

  1984

  15,272

  7·1

  1985

  16,346

  7·0

  1986

  17,404

  6·5

  1987

  18,844

  8·3

  1988

  20,219

  7·3

  1989

  25,233

  24·8

  1990

  29,476

  16·8

  1991

  29,161

  —1·1

  1992

  32,078

  10·0

  1993

  31,319

  —2·4

  1 The data provided are based on the market prices of council dwellings sold in each year rather than the value of council stock. Information is only available for market prices of all council dwellings sold, no distinction being made between houses and flats. Consistent information is not available for 1980.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many three and four-year-old children are in receipt of nursery education in each education authority area; and what percentage this represents of the total number of children of that age group in each area.

  Mr. Redwood
  The number and percentage of three and four-year-old children receiving nursery education in each local education authority in Wales as at January 1993 are as follows:

  Number1

  Per cent.1

  Clwyd

  8,809

  83

  Dyfed

  5,529

  64

  Gwent

  8,943

  70

  Gwynedd

  2,775

  46

  Mid Glamorgan

  11,112

  71

  Powys

  1,582

  55

  South Glamorgan

  7,163

  61

  West Glamorgan

  7,925

  84

  76
  1 Ages as at 31 December 1992 (estimated)

  Others receive some other form of pre-school education or nursery.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has about the prescribing patterns of(a) fundholding and (b) non-fundholding general practitioners.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is evidence that many GPs in Wales are taking positive steps to rationalise their prescribing, and to improve cost-effectiveness while ensuring that their patients receive all the medicines they need. Prescribing costs of GP fundholders are, on average, rising at present by about 7·6 per cent. a year, while those of other GPs are rising by an average of about 11·1 per cent. a year.

  Jobs (Location)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of jobs that have(a) located in Wales from areas outside of Wales and (b) located from Wales to areas outside Wales in each of the last 15 years.

  Mr. Redwood
  Comprehensive information is not available. However, the 1,120 inward investment projects from overseas and the rest of the United Kingdom recorded by Welsh Development International since April 1983 forecast almost 110,000 new and safeguarded jobs.

  The figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of their decision to invest and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Brynglas Tunnels and Malpas Road Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the final cost and completion date of the Brynglas tunnels and Malpas road scheme.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The recent departmental report by the Welsh Office shows the estimated gross cost of the scheme as £76 million. The current contract completion date is December 1994.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 634, if he will list the dates of setting up of each of the executive non-departmental bodies under his sponsorship and if he will list the years in which each of them has their financial management and policy review or reviews.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: The requirement that non-departmental public bodies should be subject to a financial management and policy review every five years was introduced in 1988. The dates of the establishment of each body and of the reviews carried out since 1988 are shown in the table:

  Body

  Established

  FMPR(S)

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  1987

  1993–94

  Countryside Council for Wales

  1991

  1994–95

  Curriculum Council for Wales

  1988

  1—

  77

  Body

  Established

  FMPR(S)

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  1977

  1986–87 and 1991–92

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  21993

  scheduled for 1998–99

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  21993

  scheduled for 1998–99

  Housing for Wales

  1989

  1993–94

  Land Authority for Wales

  1975

  1991–92

  National Library of Wales

  1907

  1987–88 and 1993–94

  National Museum of Wales

  1907

  1987–88 and 1993–94

  Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments

  1908

  1988–89 and 1993–94

  Sports Council for Wales

  1972

  1991–92

  Wales Tourist Board

  1969

  1992–93

  Wales Youth Agency

  1992

  scheduled for 1997–98

  Welsh Development Agency

  1976

  1991–92

  Welsh Language Board

  1993

  scheduled for 1999–2000

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  1983

  1989–90

  1 The Curriculum Council for Wales is to be replaced by the new Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales from 1 April 1994.

  2 Began operations from April 1993.

  Child Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the awarding of a contract for administering a child care creche and holiday play scheme for civil servants' children on behalf of the consortium of Cardiff Government Departments led by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: The contract to manage the civil service nursery, which was awarded to Acorns Nurseries in September 1993, and the contract to provide holiday playcare, which has been awarded to South Glamorgan county council to run from I April 1994 were both awarded following fair and open competition.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fruit and Vegetables
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will state(a) the latest European Commission estimate for the amount, in tonnes, of (i) apples, (ii) tomatoes, (iii) cauliflowers and (iv) peaches and nectarines withdrawn from the market per year as part of the European Community's market intervention and (b) the cost of this policy per taxpayer in the United Kingdom, breaking this figure down into (1) the running costs of the policy and (2) the amount which the policy adds on to food prices.

  Mr. Jack
  The following are the latest estimates from the European Commission of the amounts of produce withdrawn within the Community for the 1993–94 marketing year.

  Tonnes

  Apples

  616,758

  Tomatoes

  47,630

  Cauliflowers

  27,809

  Peaches

  686,903

  Nectarines

  153,040

  78
  The Exchequer cost of CAP support of fresh fruit andvegetables in the United Kingdom is estimated at £2·8 million for the 1993–94 financial year. This represents 1 per cent. of total United Kingdom Exchequer cost of CAP support. The United Kingdom also contributes to the EC budget as a whole, which funds the cost of withdrawals of fresh fruit and vegetables in other member states.

  It is not possible to make precise estimates of the consumer costs of the fresh fruit and vegetables support without making a large number of assumptions.

  Fish Testing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made to the French Government about biological testing of third-party fish; what effect such testing has had on fish markets particularly as respects the United Kingdom; and what proposals she has to get such testing stopped.

  Mr. Jack
  The embassy in Paris has made representations to the French authorities about the unacceptable delays caused to fish imports of third country origin by the strict controls presently being imposed by the French authorities. Clearly these controls are likely to be adding to market disruption elsewhere by diverting goods from the French market. We have also written to the European Commission explaining that we consider the controls go further than is permitted by EU requirements and requesting the Commission urgently to consider their legality.

  European Fishermen (Financial Support)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial aid and support, regional and national, is paid to(a) the French, (b) the Spanish and (c) the Danish fishing industry which is not available to British fishermen.

  Mr. Jack
  Member states are free to operate aids which benefit fishermen provided they comply with the conditions of article 92 of the treaty of Rome and the guidelines on the examination of state aids in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. The European Commission has responsibility, under article 93 of the treaty, for keeping under constant review all systems of aid operating in each member state to ensure that they do not result in unfair competition. We are not ourselves in a position to construct a complete picture of the aids operated in other member states, or to analyse all the financial regimes of other member states to establish their relevance to fishermen. Indeed, it would be disproportionately costly to attempt this. We do, however, press the Commission to fulfil its responsibility when we suspect another member state is operating an unfair aid, and we have recently written to the Commission in relation to certain French and Spanish aids.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 384, if she will set out the grounds for her assessment that the advice offered on animal welfare issues will contribute to a better understanding of animals' needs in circumstances where unnecessary suffering might otherwise occur.
  79
  Mr. Jack
  The guidance is intended to help farmers and others in understanding legal requirements and in taking practical steps to ensure that animals do not suffer unnecessarily. In preparing this advice, a wide range of experts are consulted.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the policy of slaughtering broiler and laying poultry flocks was rescinded.

  Mr. Soames
  The compulsory slaughter of commercial egg laying poultry flocks found on investigation to be infected with salmonella enteritidis ceased on 25 February 1993. At no time has there been a compulsory slaughter

  Birds slaughtered

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total

  Layers

  867,460

  576,202

  248,936

  297,721

  20,691

  0

  2,011,010

  Layer breeders

  6,043

  17,573

  43,320

  13,614

  22,535

  3,036

  106,121

  Broiler breeders

  0

  164,390

  290,800

  148,542

  149,685

  58,050

  811,467

  Total

  873,503

  758,165

  583,056

  459,877

  192,911

  61,086

  2,928,598

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many registered disabled people are employed in her Department; and what percentage this is of the total employed.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is available in the Cabinet Office publication of the "Independent", copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Small Producers of Food
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 384, how many people have commented on the "Small producers of Food" booklet; and of those how many gave positive responses.

  Mr. Jack
  Sixty-four people took the opportunity to comment, 90 per cent. of whom said they found it a useful reference guide for their business.

  Advertising
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 18 February,Official Report, columns 1056–58, what was the qualitative assessment of inquiries and the number of leaflets distributed following the plant health campaigns; how many environmentally sensitive area grants had been taken up by farmers before and after the advertising campaign; and how many inquiries have been received concerning the national agricultural exhibitions.

  Mr. Jack
  The plant health and seeds inspectorate is satisfied that publicity has significantly assisted in acquainting growers with the requirements of the new European single market in plant health, and has assisted in raising awareness among producers of plants particularly at risk from disease. Approximately 121,000 leaflets, posters and newsletters dealing with plant health have been distributed; the environmentally sensitive, areas scheme has been publicised since it was first launched, the provisional number of current management agreements 80
  policy in operation in respect of commercial broiler poultry flocks. Controls on layer breeder and broiler breeder flocks operate in accordance with directive 92/117/EEC on zoonoses.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many poultry birds were slaughtered in England in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of poultry birds compulsorily slaughtered because of salmonella infection in England since the introduction of the policy in March 1989 are set out in the table.

  stands at 4,761; there are no central records of enquiries received as a result of the national exhibition programme. Any inquiries are directed to the appropriate policy areas or to regional service centres. To attempt to gather any statistics would involve disproportionate cost.

  Blackdown Hills
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the launch of the Blackdown Hills environmentally sensitive area, indicating the consultation that has taken place, and the arrangements to ensure that fanners and other relevant organisations are aware of the opportunities arising from this environmentally sensitive area.

  Mr. Jack
  The Blackdown Hills environmentally sensitive area—ESA—was launched on 16 March. We carried out full public consultation on this ESA last spring with interested bodies both locally and nationally. All farmers within the area have been notified of the launch of the ESA and have been invited to attend one of a series of evening information meetings.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the BSE maternal transmission experiment commenced; and when it is expected to be completed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Ministry's study into the occurrence of maternal transmission started in July 1989 and will continue until the cattle develop clinical BSE or reach seven years of age—the youngest animal in the study will not reach this age until late 1996.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make an interim statement on the results of the Ministry BSE maternal transmission experiment.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This experiment is incomplete so no conclusions can be drawn. All animals in the study will be killed and their brains examined, either when they
  81
  develop clinical signs of BSE, or when they are seven years old. The youngest animal in the study will not be seven years old until late 1996, and at the present time the experiment cannot be completed before that date.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many cases of BSE have been confirmed among the experimental animals involved in the BSE maternal transmission experiment;

  (2) how many cattle involved in the experiment set up to investigate the possibility of maternal transmission of BSE have been confirmed as being infected by BSE to date; how many were among the offspring of cows confirmed to have BSE and how many were among the controls; and how many infected animals had access to contaminated feed.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Of the 630 cattle involved in the study, 19 have been confirmed as BSE cases to date. For scientific reasons, the study is being conducted blind, and it is therefore not known whether these cases are offspring of confirmed BSE cases or control animals. All these animals were purchased and their feeding history before purchase is unknown, and irrelevant to the study.

  Arable Aid Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total paid to farmers in(a) arable aid scheme set-aside payments and (b) total arable area scheme payments in England following the 1993–94 harvest; and how many farmers in England have received arable area payments of £1 million or more.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Total payments to date in England under the arable area payments scheme amount to £625 million, including set-aside payments of just under £125 million. These figures do not include final oilseeds payments, which are being made now. Since some applicants receive payments made up of a number of separate elements, the precise number who have received total payments of £1 million or more can currently only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents of sheep scab there have been in each county of England in each year since 1988; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of outbreaks of sheep scab in each county of England from 1988 to 1992 are listed in the table. Figures are not available after June 1992, when the obligation to notify ended.

  County

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Avon

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  4

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Cornwall

  2

  15

  11

  13

  6

  Cumbria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Derbyshire

  2

  1

  6

  4

  1

  Devon

  3

  15

  6

  16

  13

  Dorset

  3

  4

  1

  2

  1

  East Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Essex

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  4

  11

  —

  82

  County

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  11992

  Hereford and Worcester

  1

  3

  2

  1

  1

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  9

  15

  7

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  1

  5

  4

  Lincolnshire

  2

  —

  1

  1

  3

  Merseyside

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  —

  7

  2

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  7

  1

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Shropshire

  3

  2

  2

  1

  3

  Somerset

  4

  10

  7

  3

  5

  Staffordshire

  —

  3

  1

  2

  3

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Warwickshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  West Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Wiltshire

  —

  3

  —

  —

  2

  Totals

  26

  60

  82

  96

  63

  1 January-June only.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if she will make a statement on the European Community decision of 3 February giving certain derogations to Greece from directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport;

  (2) what are the implications of the European Commission decision of 3 February giving derogations to Greece from directive 91/628/EEC for the export of United Kingdom animals to Greece; and what views were given by her representatives on the Standing Veterinary Committee when that committee considered the granting of derogations to Greece.

  Mr. Soames
  Article 16 of directive 91/628/EEC provides for measures to be adopted to take account of the natural constraints specific to certain territories. The Commission decision of 3 February applies to the transport of animals in certain areas of Greece which are remote from the Greek mainland. The decision provides that certain detailed requirements of the directive need not apply to such transport, provided that other specified conditions are met in order to safeguard animal welfare. When the Standing Veterinary Committee was asked to give its opinion, the United Kingdom delegation stressed the importance of proper safeguards and considered that the decision fell within the scope of the measures envisaged in article 16. It does not affect the conditions for the transport of animals to Greece from elsewhere in the Community.

  Forestry Grants
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the take-up of forestry grants since EC regulation 2080/92 forestry measures in agriculture was introduced.

  Sir Hector Monro
  I have been asked to reply. Since European Council regulation No. 2080/92 came into force on 30 July 1992, the Forestry Commission has approved 10,162 applications under the woodland grant scheme, including those associated with the farm woodland
  83
  premium scheme. The grants paid by the Government under these schemes will be part-financed by the European Community. The approved applications are for establishing 41,000 hectares of new woodlands, restocking 25,000 hectares of felled woodlands, and managing 149,000 hectares of existing woodlands.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Open Government
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the implications for the operation of his Department of the code of practice on open government.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The code of practice applies to all Departments, agencies and public bodies within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. This includes the part of the Cabinet Office for which, with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Civil Service—the Prime Minister—I am responsible—the Office of Public Service and Science; Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Office of Information. The code will reinforce and build on their existing arrangements for the provision of information. Operational details will be available nearer to the time of the launch.

  Duchy Council Meetings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will hold future meetings of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster in Lancashire.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have no plans to hold meetings of the Duchy Council in Lancashire. Council members pay visits to Duchy surveys including the Lancashire survey, each year.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how long each of the last five meetings of the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster took.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The average length of the last five Duchy Council meetings was approximately two hours.

  Science, Engineering and Technology Week
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contribution his Department will make to the science, engineering and technology week, beginning 18 March, in terms of speeches by Ministers, publications and financial support.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member in part to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) on 14 March 1994,Official Report, column 487. I and my ministerial colleagues will be attending as many events as possible during the week. In terms of financial support, the Office of Science and Technology—OST—has made around £150,000 available to the British Association for the Advancement of Science for the organisation of the week. The OST will also be publishing
  84
  a booklet during the week entitled "Science Connections —a guide to leading organisations promoting science, engineering and technology." I will ensure that a copy is placed in the Library of the House.

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to present an annual report on the citizens charter to Parliament.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Citizens charter policy is to ensure that the individual public services publish performance against commitments and standards at regular intervals. Reports to Parliament on the initiative as a whole will be made when appropriate.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what factors led him not to make a statement when the second report on the citizens charter was published.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  "The Citizens Charter Second Report: 1994" was announced by means of a written parliamentary question. A statement was not thought appropriate since the publication of reports has now become established practice.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many months intervened between the publication of the first and second annual report of the citizens charter; and what factors underlay the length of the interval.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Just under 16 months elapsed between the publication of the first report on 25 November 1992 and the publication of the second report on 16 March 1994. There is no commitment to publish an annual report.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the third report of the citizens charter will be published.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No date has yet been set for publishing a further report on the citizens charter. The results of individual public services performance against the charter principles will continue to be published.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why he made a statement to the House when the first report on the citizens charter was published.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It was considered appropriate to issue a statement to mark the first full-scale report on the Government's new policy initiative.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much compensation has been paid as a result of successful complaints under each of the citizens charters over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There are six charters for England, Scotland and Wales that contain provision for financial compensation. Information on the amount of compensation paid covering the most recent 12 month period currently available is as follows:
  85

  Department

  Compensation paid (nearest £000)

  From

  To

  British Rail Passenger's Charter

  1,932

  April 1992

  March 1993

  2,495

  April 1993

  1November 1993

  London Underground's Customer Charter

  241

  March 1993

  February 1994

  Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Traveller's Charter

  10

  January 1993

  December 1993

  Contributions Agency Contributors' Charter and Employers' Charter2

  64

  April 1992

  March 1993

  Benefits Agency Customer Charter

  4,071

  April 1992

  March 1993

  1 Most recent figures available.

  2 Separate figures for the Contributions Agency contributors' charter and the Contribution Agency employers' charter are unavailable.

  In addition to this, in the financial year 1992–93 the Employment Service paid £88,000 in special payments; in the same period the Inland Revenue paid £389,000 in compensation for "serious error" as defined in the code of practice "Mistakes by the Inland Revenue".

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will estimate the number of occasions since 1992 on which he has felt it necessary to restrict information provided in answer to parliamentary questions, other than on grounds of disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 15 March,Official Report, column 645.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many meetings have been held of the private sector forum he has established; to what extent it is informing his Department over the market testing and contracting out of civil service work; and if he will publish the names of the members of the forum.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The precise arrangements for the forum which I am setting up are still under consideration, and the names of those who might be invited have not been settled. I am eager to take account of the private sector's views on market testing and contracting out of civil service work and hold meetings from time to time with their representatives. Most recently, on 31 January my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I met representatives from a number of private sector companies to seek their views on these issues.

  £ million at 1994–95 prices

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  N Ireland

  UK Total

  1992–93

  AFRC

  105·6

  8·6

  12·5

  0·7

  127·4

  Per cent.

  82·9

  6·8

  9·8

  0·5

  100·0

  ESRC

  39·9

  0·7

  4·3

  0·6

  45·5

  Per cent.

  87·7

  1·5

  9·4

  1·3

  100·0

  MRC

  204·3

  1·8

  25·6

  0·4

  232·1

  Per cent.

  88·0

  0·8

  11·0

  0·2

  100·0

  Government Information
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish the final version of the code of practice on Government information upon which he has been consulting and which is due to come into operation on 4 April.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much was spent on research into diabetes by the Medical Research Council for the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the last financial year, 1992–93, the Medical Research Council's expenditure on research into diabetes was £3 million. The council is always willing to consider soundly-based scientific proposals in competition with other applications for research funding.

  Science Research Establishments
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish for(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom, and for each year since 1964, the total amount of expenditure and the percentage of overall science research spending by (i) the Natural Environment Research Council, (ii) the Science and Engineering Research Council, (iii) the Medical Research Council, (iv) the Economic and Social Research Council, (v) the Agriculture and Food Research Council, (vi) the Royal Society and (vii) other public body, in constant prices.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This information is not held in the form requested. The table gives a breakdown of total research council expenditure by region for the period 1983–84 to 1989–90 together with a breakdown by research council for 1991–92 and 1992–93. The two sets of data were compiled on slightly different bases.
  87

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  N Ireland

  UK Total

  NERC

  107·7

  14·7

  13·9

  0·5

  136·8

  Per cent.

  78·7

  10·7

  10·2

  0·4

  100·0

  SERC

  389·7

  10·5

  43·9

  3·3

  447·4

  Per cent.

  87–1

  2·3

  9·8

  0·7

  100·0

  Total

  847·2

  36·3

  100·2

  5·5

  989·2

  Per cent.

  85·6

  3·7

  10·2

  0·6

  100·0

  1991–92

  AFRC

  91·0

  7·7

  9·1

  0·2

  108·0

  Per cent.

  84·2

  7–1

  8·5

  0·2

  100·0

  ESRC

  32·1

  0·9

  4·0

  0·4

  37·4

  Per cent.

  85·7

  2·4

  10·7

  1·2

  100·0

  MRC

  186·0

  2·0

  27·8

  0·4

  216·2

  Per cent.

  86·0

  0·9

  12·8

  0·2

  100·0

  NERC

  102·8

  20·4

  11·5

  0·3

  135·0

  Per cent.

  76·1

  15·1

  8·5

  0·2

  100·0

  SERC

  341·4

  8·0

  37·9

  2·6

  389·9

  Per cent.

  87·6

  2·1

  9·7

  0·7

  100·0

  Total

  753·3

  39–0

  90·3

  4·0

  886·6

  Per cent.

  85·0

  4·4

  10·2

  0·5

  100·0

  1989–90

  Total

  812·9

  30·1

  82·5

  1·5

  927·1

  Per cent.

  87·7

  3·2

  8·9

  0·2

  100·0

  1988–89

  Total

  727·7

  25·6

  72·8

  0·8

  826·4

  Per cent.

  88·0

  3·1

  8·8

  0·1

  100·0

  1987–88

  Total

  701·5

  29·2

  86·1

  2·6

  819·5

  Per cent.

  85·6

  3·6

  10–5

  0·3

  100·0

  1986–87

  Total

  685·5

  25·9

  77·8

  2·6

  791·7

  Per cent.

  86·6

  3·3

  9·8

  0·3

  100·0

  1985–86

  Total

  681·4

  25·5

  78–8

  2·7

  788·4

  Per cent.

  86·4

  3·2

  10·0

  0·3

  100·0

  1984–85

  Total

  682·5

  25·4

  78·0

  2·5

  788·4

  Per cent.

  86·6

  3·2

  9·9

  0·3

  100·0

  1983–84

  Total

  680·8

  27·2

  73·6

  3·0

  784·6

  Per cent.

  86·8

  3·5

  9·4

  0·4

  100·0

  1990–91 No information is available.

  Differences in totals are accounted for by rounding.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish for(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom, the total number and percentage of staff employed, and the total number of research establishments funded in whole or in part by (i) the NERC, (ii) the SERC, (iii) the AFRC, (iv) MRC, (v) the ESRC, (vi) the Royal Society or (vii) other public body, for each year since 1964.

  England

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  NERC

  Research establishments Staffing

  14

  14

  14

  14

  13

  14

  14

  15

  14

  14

  15

  Number

  2,489

  2,249

  2,085

  1,985

  2,177

  2,155

  2,125

  2,292

  2,346

  2,455

  2,531

  Per cent.

  78

  76

  78

  78

  77

  80

  79

  80

  80

  83

  84

  SERC

  Research establishments Staffing

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  88
  Mr. David Davis
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The tables give a regional analysis by research council for the years 1983 to 1993 and 1986 to 1993 for the Medical Research Council. The Royal Society does not fund any research establishments.
  89

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Number

  2,359

  2,164

  2,084

  2,064

  2,107

  2,034

  2,012

  2,000

  1,992

  1,864

  1,830

  Per cent.

  95

  95

  95

  95

  95

  94

  95

  95

  94

  95

  95

  AFRC

  Research establishments

  23

  23

  20

  15

  8

  8

  8

  8

  7

  7

  7

  Staffing

  Number

  5,374

  5,259

  4,739

  4,555

  3,728

  3,665

  3,517

  3,517

  2,772

  2,872

  2,839

  Per cent.

  89

  89

  89

  89

  79

  80

  79

  80

  78

  82

  82

  MRC

  Research establishments

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  43

  43

  41

  41

  41

  41

  40

  39

  Staffing

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  2,309

  2,274

  2,405

  2,322

  2,422

  2,432

  2,429

  2,226

  Per cent

  —

  —

  —

  85

  84

  84

  84

  84

  84

  84

  84

  ESRC

  Research establishments

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffing

  Estimated number

  160

  160

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Per cent.

  100

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note: Staff numbers and percentages relate only to staff employed at the research establishments.

  Wales

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  NERC

  Research establishments

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Staffing

  Number

  273

  268

  173

  210

  202

  202

  198

  183

  185

  184

  185

  Per cent.

  10

  9

  7

  8

  7

  8

  7

  7

  7

  6

  6

  AFRC

  Research establishments

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Staffing

  Number

  272

  266

  245

  224

  638

  630

  609

  527

  483

  321

  300

  Per cent.

  5

  5

  5

  4

  14

  14

  14

  12

  14

  9

  9

  MRC

  Research establishments

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Staffing

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  34

  24

  25

  21

  23

  25

  32

  15

  Per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Note:

  Staff numbers and percentages relate only to staff employed at the research establishments.

  Scotland

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  NERC

  Research establishments

  6

  6

  6

  6

  5

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Staffing

  Number

  392

  440

  400

  400

  439

  328

  381

  382

  382

  310

  288

  Per cent.

  l2

  15

  15

  15

  15

  12

  14

  13

  13

  11

  10

  SERC

  Research establishments

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Staffing

  Number

  114

  108

  106

  105

  117

  122

  111

  112

  119

  106

  102

  Per cent.

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  6

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  AFRC

  Research establishments

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Staffing

  Number

  388

  364

  343

  337

  327

  292

  330

  339

  308

  321

  314

  Per cent.

  6

  6

  6

  7

  7

  6

  7

  8

  8

  9

  9

  MRC

  Research establishments

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  7

  7

  7

  7

  8

  7

  7

  Staffing

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  363

  404

  422

  412

  439

  444

  446

  389

  Per cent.

  —

  —

  —

  13

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  15

  Note:

  Staff numbers and percentages relate only to staff employed at the research establishments.
  90 91

  Northern Ireland

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  NERC

  Research establishments funded Staffing (all less than 1 per cent.)

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Number

  8

  9

  8

  8

  8

  8

  7

  8

  8

  8

  8

  Note:

  Staff numbers and percentages relate only to staff employed at the research establishments.

  United Kingdom

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  NERC

  Research establishments Staffing

  25

  25

  25

  25

  23

  25

  25

  26

  25

  25

  26

  Number

  3,156

  2,966

  2,646

  2,608

  2,826

  2,693

  2,711

  2,805

  2,921

  2,957

  3,012

  SERC

  Research establishments Staffing

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  4

  Number

  2,473

  2,272

  2,190

  2,169

  2,224

  2,156

  2,123

  2,112

  2,111

  1,970

  1,932

  AFRC

  Research establishments Staffing

  26

  26

  23

  18

  11

  11

  11

  11

  10

  10

  10

  Number

  6,034

  5,889

  5,327

  5,116

  4,693

  4,587

  4,456

  4,383

  3,563

  3,514

  3,453

  MRC

  Research establishments Staffing

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  53

  51

  49

  49

  49

  50

  48

  47

  Number

  —

  —

  —

  2,706

  2,702

  2,852

  2,755

  2,884

  2,901

  2,907

  2,630

  ESRC

  Research establishments Staffing

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Estimated number

  160

  160

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Note:

  Staff numbers and percentages relate only to staff employed at the research establishments.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list for(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland, the names of all science research establishments which have been in operation at any time since 1964, together with the year of closure or removal if appropriate.

  Mr. David Davis
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The tables list establishments operated by the research councils since 1964–1986 for the Medical Research Council. Establishments are referred to by their most recent name.

  England

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Establishment

  Year closed

  British Geological Survey Keyworth

  Exhibition Road, London

  1984–85

  Princes Gate, London

  1981–82

  Gorst Road, London

  1985–86

  Bashley Road, London

  1985–86

  Leeds

  1985–86

  Clerkenwell Road, London

  1987–88

  Grays Inn Road, London

  1988–89

  Sussex

  1985–86

  Newcastle

  Hartland. Devon

  Exeter

  Wallingford

  92

  Establishment

  Year closed

  Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Taunton

  1986–87

  Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Deacon Laboratory

  Wormley

  The James Rennell Centre

  Robert Hooke Institute, Oxford

  1991–92

  Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory

  Plymouth Marine Laboratory

  West Hoe, Plymouth

  Citadel Hill, Plymouth

  Institute of Hydrology

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  Merlewood, Cumbria

  Monks Wood, Huntingdon

  Furzebrook, Dorset

  Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology

  Fisheries Helminthology Unit

  1971–72

  Water Resource Systems Research Unit

  1990–91

  Centre for Population Biology

  Unit of Comparative Plant Biology

  Unit of Behavioural Ecology

  NERC/ESRC Land Use Programme

  NERC Unit for Thematic Information Systems

  Experimental Cartography Unit

  1981–82

  Institute of Freshwater Ecology

  Windermere

  East Stoke, Dorset

  Coastal Ecology Research Unit

  1978–79

  British Antarctic Survey

  Sea Mammal Research Unit

  93

  Medical Research Council (INFORMATION FROM 1986 ONLY)

  Year closed

  Anatomical Neuropharmacology Unit

  Applied Psychology Unit

  Biochemical and Clinical Magnetic Resonance Unit

  Biochemical Parasitology Unit

  1987

  Biostatistics Unit

  Blood Group Unit

  Cell Biophysics Unit

  1990

  Cell Mutation Unit

  Cellular Immunology Unit

  Child Psychiatry Unit

  Clinical Oncology and Radiotherapy Unit

  Clinical Pharmacology Unit

  Clinical Research Centre

  Cognitive Development Unit

  Common Cold Unit

  1990

  Cyclotron Unit

  Dental Research Unit

  Development and Integration of Behaviour Unit

  1991

  Development Neurobiology Unit

  1988

  Dunn Nutrition Unit

  Environmental Epidemiology Unit

  Epidemiology and Medical Care Unit

  Experimental Embryology and Teratology Unit

  Human Biochemical Genetics Unit

  Human Movement and Balance Unit

  Immunochemistry Unit

  Institute of Hearing Research

  Institute of Molecular Medicine

  Laboratory of Molecular Biology

  Leukaemia Unit

  Mammalian Development Unit

  1992

  Mineral Metabolism Unit

  1988

  Molecular Genetics Unit

  1991

  Molecular Haematology Unit

  Molecular Immunopathology Unit

  Molecular Neurobiology Unit

  1992

  MRC/ESRC Unit of Social and Applied Psychology

  Muscle and Cell Motility Unit

  Neural Mechanisms of Behaviour Unit

  1987

  Neuro-otology Unit

  1989

  Neurochemical Pathology Unit

  Neurological Prostheses Unit

  1992

  National Institute of Medical Research

  Perceptual and Cognitive Performance Unit

  1988

  Protein Function and Design Unit

  Radiobiology Unit

  Social and Community Psychiatry Unit

  Social Psychiatry Unit

  1989

  Tuberculosis and Related Infections Unit

  Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases Unit

  1986

  Toxicology Unit

  Trauma Unit

  1986

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Year closed

  Institute of Animal Health

  Compton

  Pirbright

  Houghton

  1993

  Babraham Institute

  Institute of Food Research

  Lanford

  Norwich

  Reading

  1990

  Letcombe Laboratory

  1987

  Wood Research Organisation

  1987

  Commonwealth Bureau

  1987

  Horticulture Research International

  East Mailing

  Littlehampton

  Wellesborough

  —

  94

  Year closed

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research Hurley

  1992

  Institute of Plant Science Research

  Norwich (John Inns Institute)

  Brighton

  —

  Institute of Arable Crops Research

  Long Ashton

  Rothamstead

  —

  Silsoe Research Institute

  —

  Plant Breeding Institute

  1987

  Wye College, Hops Research Department

  1987

  Reproductive Physiology Unit, Cambridge

  1985

  Experimental Agronomy Unit, Oxford

  1973

  Plant Physiology Unit, Imperial College

  1973

  Systematic Fungicides Unit, Wye

  1976

  Flower Crop Physiology Unit, Shinfield

  1973

  Soil Physics Unit, Cambridge

  1979

  Structural Chemistry Unit, London

  1978

  Muscle Mechanisms Unit, Oxford

  1979

  Invertebrate Chemistry Unit

  1987

  Developmental Botany Unit

  1979

  Economic and Social Research Council

  Year closed

  Survey Research Unit, LSE

  1976

  Race Relations Research Unit, Bristol

  1976

  Ethnic Relations Research Unit, Aston1

  1983

  Industrial Relations Research Unit, Warwick1

  1984

  Centre for Socio-legal Studies, Oxford1

  1984

  Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure

  1984

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  Year closed

  Royal Green Observatory

  Cambridge

  Herstmonceux

  1988

  Daresbury Laboratory

  Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

  Chilton

  Astrophyics Research, Culham

  1973

  Appleton Laboratory, Ditton

  1981

  Atlas Computer Laboratory

  1975

  1 Units marked 1 converted to designated research centres within host universities.

  Wales

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Year closed

  British Geological Survey Aberystwyth

  —

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology Bangor

  —

  Institute of Hydrology Plynlimon

  —

  NERC Research Vessels Service Barry

  —

  Unit of Marine lnverterate Biology Menai Bridge

  1981–82

  Medical Research Council (information from 1986 only)

  Year closed

  Epidemiology Unit

  —

  Pneumoconiosis Unit

  —

  95

  Agricultural and Food Research Council

  Year closed

  Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Aberystwyth

  —

  Scotland

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Year closed

  British Geological Survey

  Murchison House, Edinburgh

  —

  Grange Terrace, Edinburgh

  1993–94

  Newbattle Abbey, Edinburgh

  1993–94

  Peffermill, Edinburgh

  1993–94

  Gilmerton Road, Edinburgh

  1993–94

  Eskdalemuir, Dumfries

  —

  Loanhead, Edinburgh

  —

  Institue of Hydrology

  Balquidder

  —

  Stirling

  —

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  Banchory

  —

  Bush

  —

  Dunstaffnage Marine Laboratory

  —

  Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory

  —

  Institute for Marine Environmental Research

  1977–78

  Institute of Marine Biochemistry

  1986–87

  Unit of Aquatic Biochemistry

  —

  Medical Research Council

  INFORMATION FROM 1986 ONLY

  Year closed

  Blood Pressure Unit

  —

  Brain Metabolism Unit

  —

  Epidemiological Studies in Psychiatry Unit

  1991

  Human Genetics Unit

  —

  Mammalian Genome Unit

  1986

  Medical Sociology Unit

  —

  Protein Phosphorylation Unit

  —

  Reproductive Biology Unit

  —

  Virology Unit

  —

  Agriculture and Food Research Council

  Year closed

  Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics Research, Edinburgh

  —

  Edinburgh Computing Centre

  1986

  Statistics Unit, Edinburgh

  1986

  Institute for Animal Health, Edinburgh

  —

  Roslin Institute

  —

  Science and Engineering Research Council

  Year closed

  Royal Observatory, Edinburgh

  —

  Northern Ireland

  Natural Environment Research Council

  Year closed

  British Geological Survey, Belfast

  —

ATTORNEY GENERAL

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the use of public interest immunity certificates.

  The Attorney-General
  I shall be giving evidence to Lord Justice Scott on 24 March.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish in a White Paper clarification as to the purpose of public interest immunity certificates and when they should be used along with any proposals for reform of the procedure.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the procedures on the use of public interest immunity as a reason for the non-publication of documents.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General when judges in court have recently pronounced on the public interest immunity certificate process.

  The Attorney-General
  Decisions of the court are a matter of public record.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Attorney-General how many sentences he has referred to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient in the last year; and what the outcome has been in these cases.

  The Solicitor-General
  For the period 1 March 1993 to 28 February 1994, the Attorney-General applied for leave to refer a total of 32 sentences to the Court of Appeal of which one was to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. Two cases were later withdrawn. Twenty-one cases have so far been considered by the court. In each case, leave was granted and in 16 the court substituted a higher sentence. Nine cases await hearing.

  Mr. Paul Haley
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the conclusions to be drawn from the prosecution of Mr. Paul Haley of 28 Woodlands Park road, London SE10, following a motor vehicle accident on 12 January 1993.

  The Attorney-General
  The case was dealt with at all stages on its own merits and having regard to its particular circumstances in accordance with the general principles set out in the "Code for Crown Prosecutors". The outcome has no general implications.

TRANSPORT

  Red Routes
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what benefits have been derived from the pilot red route project.
  97
  Mr. Norris
  The red route in north and east London has resulted in quicker and more reliable journey times, particularly for buses, and improved conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, bus patronage has increased, accidents have been reduced, and there has been less rat running through unsuitable residential areas.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of additional long-haul flights using regional airports.

  Mr. Norris
  We are continuing to seek to agree liberal air services agreements which give equal access to all United Kingdom airports for carriers of both sides. Since last February, we have reached agreements with seven countries allowing access to all United Kingdom airports and with a further two offering more access to some regional airports.

  "Paying For Better Motorways"
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responses he has had from motoring organisations to his Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways".

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responses he has had from motoring organisations to his Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways".

  Mr. MacGregor
  The AA and RAC have publicly recognised the potential benefits that motorway charging could bring. Both organisations favoured electronic technology as the means by which charging should be implemented.

  United Kingdom Vessels (Safety)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve the rules and regulations governing the safety of officers and crews of United Kingdom-registered merchant vessels and the skippers and crews of United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has just completed the development of a system of vocational qualifications—VOs—for all seafarers, including those on fishing vessels, in conjunction with the industry and trade unions. The VOs are designed to produce a better trained and therefore more safety conscious work force. My Department is also playing a leading role in the revision of the standards of training certification and watchkeeping convention at the International Maritime Organisation.

  Motorway Use Surveys
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has for surveys of the proportion of car owners who regularly use motorways.

  Mr. Key
  Independent surveys last year broadly confirmed surveys carried out for the Department in 1992 and recorded in the Green Paper "Paying for Better Motorways". All show that about half of drivers regularly use motorways. We have no plans for further surveys.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Links
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure the provision of a direct rail link between Liverpool and the channel tunnel.

  Mr. Freeman
  The provision of rail services through the channel tunnel is a commercial matter for British Rail and its successors. I understand that freight services through the tunnel will operate from Royal Seaforth and passengers from Liverpool will be able to join day and overnight services to the continent from Crewe.

  M65-M6 Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the traffic implications for Colne of the decision to link the M65 to the M6.

  Mr. Key
  None. However, our studies have shown that the opening of the link from the M65 to the M6 could increase traffic on the M65 east of Blackburn by some I I per cent. There could be between 9,000 and 11,000 vehicles per day on the A56 east of Colne in 1997.

  Rail Users, Harborough
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance his Department is providing to rail users in the Harborough constituency.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the financial year 1993–94, the Government are providing £930 million through the public service obligation grant to assist British Rail to provide rail passenger services. The grant is not yet broken down by service or constituency. In due course, the total level of grant will be disaggregated by franchise.

  Thames Passenger Traffic
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of passenger traffic within the Greater London area he estimates is carried by the River Thames.

  Mr. Norris
  Less than one tenth of 1 per cent. The River Thames working group is examining the potential for greater use of the river.

  Motorways, Eastern England
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of motorways by length are in eastern England.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Department's eastern region covers Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. The length of motorway in these counties is 316 km over 11 per cent. of the national motorway network in England.

  London Transport
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about investment in London Transport.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from a variety of organisations and individual members of the public about investment in London Transport.

  Traffic Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish a table showing the number of road traffic accidents involving injury to(a) vehicle users and (b) pedestrians in the Doncaster town centre area in each year for the past four years;

  (2) what was the average volume of commuter car traffic entering the central areas of (a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Sheffield per day for each of the past 10 years; and what are his Department's predictions for the next four years.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested in the questions is only available from the local authorities concerned.

  Exhaust Fumes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to reduce PM10 particulate emissions from exhaust fumes.

  Mr. Key
  The Government are supporting EC measures to cut particulate emissions from road transport which are produced mainly by diesel-engined vehicles. Limits were introduced in December 1992 for new cars and in October 1993 for new heavy trucks and buses. These will be reduced by over 40 per cent. for passenger cars from January 1997 under EC proposals, and by 50 per cent. for heavy vehicles from October 1996, under a directive already adopted. We are participating in discussions in the EC on further tightening of heavy diesel limits for the year 2000.

  The limits apply to the total mass of particulates emitted and not just to PM10 in isolation. Evidence indicates however that this method is a reliable way of limiting PM10 levels.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals the United Kingdom representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency's Sagstram special committee on nuclear materials transport plans to put to the Sagstram meeting on 21 to 25 March in Vienna; and if he will place a copy of the United Kingdom submission in the Library.

  Mr. Key
  None.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimates were given to him by British Rail for the costs of reorganisation for rail privatisation in(a) the current financial year and (b) the forthcoming financial year;

  (2) if he will list the percentage of public funding to British Rail that has been used for restructuring of British Rail in preparation for privatisation in (a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94; what is his estimate for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what funds he has made available to British Rail for reorganisation in preparation for privatisation;

  (4) what funds he has made available to Railtrack to implement privatisation in 1993–94; and what is his estimate for 1994–95.

  Mr. Freeman
  These costs are primarily a matter for British Rail and, after April, Railtrack. In 1992–93 British 100
  Rail reported that around £10 million was spent on reorganisation. In 1993–94, we understand that British Rail expects to spend around £56 million. In 1994–95 British Rail and Railtrack have estimated that they will require an additional £50 million for running costs and up to £30 million for expenditure on new equipment and systems in support of reorganisation.

  Reorganisation costs will facilitate the biggest railway reorganisation for half a century that will bring substantial benefits to the travelling public. Reorganisation costs in 1992–93 represented around 0·5 per cent. of public funding to British Rail; the comparable percentages in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are estimated to be 3·7 and 6·5 per cent. respectively.

  Additional funds to meet the full costs of reorganisation have been provided within the public expenditure provision for the railway industry was set out in the transport report published on 10 March.

  Lorry Ban, London
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has held with the Metropolitan and City of London police on the enforcement of the London night-time and weekend lorry ban.

  Mr. Norris
  Enforcement of the ban is a matter for the London borough councils and the police. There have been informal discussions with the Metropolitan police concerning the proposal to amend the London-wide ban. They foresee no particular difficulty with the changes we propose. We have no reason to believe that the City of London police take a different view.

  Taxis, London
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in response to his consultation on the future of taxi services in London.

  Mr. Norris
  The consultation covered England and Wales, including London; the consultation period ended on 1 March 1994.

  My Department issued about 4,500 copies of the consultation paper to organisations and individuals who have an interest in the subject. These include local authority associations and all individual county and district councils, local and national taxi and private hire vehicle organisations, the licensing officers organisation, the police, organisations concerned with people who have mobility problems and vulnerable members of society, consumer groups, transport interests, the press, car, taxi and taximeter manufacturers and those concerned with tourists. We have received some 700 responses.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many registered disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this is of the total.

  Mr. Norris
  On 1 June 1993, the Department employed 186·5 registered disabled staff, which was 1·3 per cent. of its total staff. This information, together with information on other Departments is given in the Cabinet Office magazine, the "Independent" which was published on 18 March. A copy of the magazine is in the Libraries of the House.

  Staff Reporting Practices
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list which parts of his Department's guide for staff reporting officers are mandatory; in cases where reporting officers do not comply with all the notes, whether his Department's personnel management officers must make a judgment as to whether or not compliance with the notes would have led to a different marking or other comments; and whether the individual concerned is informed of judgments.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department required all reporting and countersigning officers to study the staff appraisal and reporting notes for guidance before completing any staff reports. The notes, which are advisory, aim to achieve the greatest possible consistency of approach across a wide ranging and diverse group of staff.

  Personnel officers review all completed staff reports, and where necessary, return completed reports to the reporting officers for clarification or amendment. Personnel officers would query a report which had been completed in a way which conflicts with the guidance. However, judgments on standards are for reporting and countersigning officers. Personnel officers may draw attention to marks which appear inconsistent, but, except in a few cases where officers are on secondment to other organisations and reports are being completed by non-civil servants, decisions or marks awarded are for reporting and countersigning officers, who have had the opportunity to observe and oversee an officer's work.

  Vocational Drivers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, by traffic area office, the number of vocational drivers called to disciplinary hearings over the last 12 months; and how many of these drivers would not have been called under the arrangements he intends to introduce shortly.

  Mr. Key
  Approximately 9,000 driver disciplinary hearings took place nationally in the last 12 months, but the figures for individual traffic area officers are not readily available. We estimate that under the new arrangements. the total will fall to about 3,000 disciplinary hearings a year.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will be the impact on the staffing levels of(a) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and (b) the traffic area offices of the changes to the criteria for calling vocational drivers to disciplinary hearings.

  Mr. Key
  We estimate that staffing requirements in each of the traffic area offices will be reduced by about one post. There are no staffing implications for the DVLA.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the financial savings he estimates will be made by his Department following the changes to the criteria for calling vocational drivers to disciplinary hearings.

  Mr. Key
  We estimate that the changes to the criteria for calling vocational drivers to disciplinary hearings will achieve savings of about £160,000.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations with which he had 102
  consultations before announcing the introduction of the guidelines for calling vocational drivers to disciplinary hearings.

  Mr. Key
  The Department's consultation document on proposals for passenger and goods vehicle operator licensing, circulated in May 1993, also sought views on the necessity for a separate disciplinary regime for drivers of lorries and coaches. The majority of organisations consulted were in favour of maintaining a separate conduct regime. The guidelines for calling drivers to disciplinary hearings are an administrative matter and there was no outside consultation.

  Agency Chief Executives (Pay)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the chief executives covered by his Department, their salaries, dates of appointment and when their contracts expire; and whether they will be eligible to apply for re-appointment to the posts when their contracts expire.

  Mr. Norris
  There are currently five agencies in the Department of Transport. They are:

  (1) Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency

  (2) Vehicle Certification Agency

  (3) Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  (4) Transport Research Laboratory

  (5) Driving Standards Agency

  Mr. R. J. Oliver, chief executive VI, first took up his post on 1 August 1988 and was re-appointed in April 1991. His current appointment expires on 31 March 1993. His salary is currently £52,286 per annum.

  Mr. D. W. Harvey, chief executive VCA, took up his post on 2 April 1990. His initial appointment expired on 1 April 1993 but has been extended. His salary is currently £43,836 per annum.

  Mr. S. R. Curtis, chief executive DVLA, took up his post on 12 March 1990. His appointment expires on I April 1995. His salary is currently £51,360 per annum.

  Mr. H. J. Wootton, chief executive TRL, took up his post on 11 November 1991. His appointment expires on 16 November 1996. His salary is £66,503 per annum.

  Dr. S. J. Ford, chief executive DSA, took up his post on 1 September 1993. His appointment expires 22 August 1996. His salary is £47,900 per annum.

  They will all be eligible to apply for reappointment when their contracts expire.

  On 1 April 1994, three further agencies are being created:

  Highways Agency

  Coastguards Agency

  Marine Safety Agency

  Mr. L. J. Haynes will be appointed as chief executive of the Highways Agency from 1 April 1994 to 13 February 1999. His salary is currently £100,000 per annum.

  Mr. C. J. Harris will be appointed as chief executive Coastguard Agency from 1 April 1994 to 19 May 1997. His salary is currently £47,994 per annum.

  Mr. R. M. Bradley will be appointed as chief executive of the Marine Safety Agency from 1 April 1994 until 31 December 1995. His salary is currently £45,675 per annum.

  Redundancy Arrangements
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many postcards he has received to date from members of his Department objecting to the imposition of new redundancy arrangements.

  Mr. Norris
  The permanent secretary has to date received some 3,950 pre-printed postcards from members of two trade unions, the CPSA and the NUCPS.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters were received from, and written to, hon. Members by him and his ministerial colleagues in February.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The number of letters received from hon. Members by Ministers in the Department of Transport in February was 1,144. The number of letters written to hon. Members by Ministers in the Department of Transport in February was 1,196.

  Victoria to Gatwick Rail Service
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the track costs that are charged to the Victoria to Gatwick InterCity service; how they differ from other services being prepared for privatisation; and what is the average figure for Great Britain.

  Mr. Freeman
  On 15 February, Railtrack published the illustrative revenue from the sale of track access rights to passenger train operating units—TOUs. The estimate of revenue from the sale of track access rights to Gatwick express in 1994–95 is £8 million. Railtrack estimated that total revenue from the sale of track access rights in 1994–95 to the 24 mainland passenger TOUs would be £2·2 billion.

  Charges for Gatwick express and all other passenger TOUs have been calculated using the methodology set out in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 15 February Official Report, column 237.

  Ticket Purchase
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the London Underground stations which do not have full-time ticket kiosks.

  Mr. Norris
  Every London Underground station has at least one full-time ticket purchasing facility.

  Private Railway Companies
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the passengers charter will apply to private railway companies which win franchises to run passenger railway services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The existing passengers charter is BR's document, setting out BR's code of practice for dealing with passengers and for paying compensation when things go wrong. Franchisees will be required, as a condition of their franchise agreement, to produce and publish their own passenger's charters, which will be expected to cover the same ground, including the payment of compensation, as BR's existing charter.

  London Traffic Cameras
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the effect of introducing camera enforcement of road traffic regulations in London.

  Mr. Norris
  Cameras have been used to record red light violations since 1989, and have reduced red light violations by 45 per cent. and violation-related accidents by 60 per cent.

  The "speed" cameras introduced on west London trunk roads in October 1992 show considerable benefit from reduced numbers of road accidents and casualties. Traffic congestion and delay following accidents have also been reduced. I expect to release full-year accident figures in the near future.

  There is no direct effect on road traffic regulations. The Road Traffic Act 1991 permitted the use of photographic evidence in courts. These regulations came into effect in July 1992.

  Heathrow Night Flights
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the current restrictions on night flights at Heathrow.

  Mr. Norris
  The current restrictions, on which we consulted last October, end on 27 March. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 February,Official Report, column 78, concerning the representations we received on these.

  We consulted from 10 November to 31 December 1993 on the restrictions to apply from 27 March to 23 October 1994—the summer season—and for the following four years. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 31 January, Official Report, column 506, concerning details of consultation. The number of responses given referred to those for the 1994 summer season.

  London Buses' Subsidiaries (Privatisation)
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the application of the expected receipts from the privatisation of London Buses' subsidiary companies.

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport will retain the full amount of any proceeds from the sale of the companies up to a specified amount and 25 per cent. of any proceeds above that sum. The amount involved is commercially confidential at this stage in the sale process.

  Road Building and Improvements
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Tranport what causal relationship his Department has established between the amount of new road building or road improvements and the increase in car ownership and car use.

  Mr. Key
  None. Growth in car ownership and use is best explained by growth in incomes and the economy. Nor is there conclusive evidence that individual road improvement schemes are a significant factor in creating traffic; but this relationship is being studied by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, which is due to report shortly.

  Vehicle Inspectors
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle inspectors are employed in each region by the traffic licensing offices.

  Mr. Key
  The Vehicle Inspectorate—VI—is the Department of Transport's principal vehicle inspection agency. The VI employs two main groups of inspection staff: vehicle examiners—PTOs, HPTOs and SPT0s—

  Location

  Senior professional and technical officer

  Higher Professional and technical officer

  professional technical and officer

  Enforcement coordinators

  Senior traffic examiners

  Traffic examiners

  Total

  1. Inverness-Perth

  2

  1

  6

  —

  1

  4

  14

  2. Glasgow-Kilmarnock

  —

  —

  12

  —

  —

  5

  17

  3. Edinburgh

  1

  1

  6

  —

  1

  7

  16

  4. Carlisle-Preston

  —

  2

  9

  —

  1

  7

  19

  5. Manchester-Derby

  1

  —

  17

  —

  1

  6

  25

  6. Liverpool-Wrexham

  1

  1

  13

  —

  1

  7

  23

  7. Stoke-Wolverhampton

  —

  2

  13

  —

  2

  9

  26

  8. Birmingham-Kidderminster

  1

  1

  12

  —

  1

  8

  23

  9. Cardiff-Swansea

  1

  1

  12

  —

  1

  7

  22

  10. Bristol-Gloucester

  1

  1

  10

  —

  1

  5

  18

  11. Exeter-Plymouth

  1

  2

  13

  —

  1

  7

  24

  12. Bicester-Southampton

  1

  1

  9

  —

  2

  9

  22

  13. Mitcham-Lancing

  1

  1

  11

  —

  1

  10

  24

  14. Canterbury-Gillingham

  —

  2

  9

  —

  3

  11

  25

  15. Yeading-Edmonton

  1

  —

  13

  —

  1

  8

  23

  16. Purfleet-Royston

  1

  1

  10

  —

  1

  7

  20

  17. Norwich-Ipswich

  —

  2

  8

  —

  1

  6

  17

  18. Leicester-Leighton Buzzard

  1

  1

  9

  —

  1

  9

  21

  19. Grantham-Peterborough

  —

  3

  7

  —

  2

  4

  16

  20. Nottingham-Doncaster

  1

  1

  12

  —

  —

  7

  21

  21. Grimsby-Beverley

  —

  2

  5

  —

  —

  5

  12

  22. Leeds-Walton

  1

  1

  12

  —

  —

  9

  23

  23. Darlington-Newcastle

  1

  1

  9

  —

  —

  7

  18

  Group regional offices

  8

  18

  1

  5

  1

  —

  33

  502

  Note: Figures relate to substantive grade of staff.

  Public Service Vehicles (Spot Checks)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many spot checks on public service vehicles are done on average each year.

  Mr. Key
  Based on figures for the past three years the Vehicle Inspectorate executive agency—VI—has conducted an average of about 58,000 roadworthiness and traffic enforcement spot checks annually. The relevant information is as follows.

  1. Roadworthiness spot checks

  Year

  Spot checks

  1990–91

  20,527

  1991–92

  21,106

  1992–93

  124,895

  Total

  66,528

  Average

  22,176

  1 Excludes 4,647 special checks on emissions.

  106
  who are responsible for conducting roadworthiness checks; and traffic examiners—TEs and STEs—who monitor and enforce regulations relating to drivers' hours and vehicle operating weights. Vehicle and traffic examiners also advise the traffic commissioners on licensing matters. The table summarises the number of staff engaged in this work by each of the VI's 23 enforcement areas.

  2. Traffic Enforcement spot checks

  Year

  Spot checks

  1990–91

  32,584

  1991–92

  33,778

  1992–93

  40,508

  Total

  106,870

  Average

  35,623

  The VI took over responsibility for the Traffic Enforcement Organisation from April 1991.

  Motor Cycle Leg Protectors
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research is currently being conducted and at what cost into the use of leg protectors on motor cycles; what have been the conclusions drawn from previous research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Research on leg protectors is continuing at the Transport Research Laboratory—TRL. Most of the current effort is in support of the United Kingdom contribution to the International Standards Organisation—ISO—proposals for an ISO standard on "Test and analysis procedures for research evaluation of rider crash protection devices fitted to motorcycles", in which the motor cycle industry is participating. The cost over the last 10 years has been roughly £300,000 per annum at current
  107
  prices and at present represents some 29 per cent. of total expenditure on motor cycle related research. The research to date shows that properly designed leg protectors could reduce the severity of, or even eliminate, at least 25 per cent. of leg injuries without increasing injuries to other parts of the body. I refer the hon. Member to TRL's working paper WPNS/213 entitled "TRRL Review of Research on Motorcycle Leg Protection—1991", a copy of which was placed in the Library in July 1992.

  Fishing Crews
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the implementation of European Community 93/103/EC concerning minimum safety and health requirements for the crews of fishing vessels.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: Arrangements for the implementation of European Community directive 93/103/EC, which will only apply to new fishing vessels from 23 November 1995, will be discussed at the May meeting of the fishing industry safety group.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the problem of negative equity on property subject to compulsory purchase orders for road improvements.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: The Government take very seriously the problem of negative equity and since October 1992 we have introduced measures, such as those designed to facilitate mortgage transfers between properties, to help affected home owners. We are actively considering whether, should a home which is the subject of negative equity be compulsorily acquired, any further measures are necessary and if so, what form these measures should take.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision concerning the construction of an underpass at the junction of Newham way and Prince Regents lane in Newham; and if prior to that date he will announce his proposals to meet the problems of negative equity in the area.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: The inspector's report on the public inquiry into the scheme was received earlier this month and is now being considered. I cannot yet say when a decision will be announced.

  On negative equity, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his other question which I have answered earlier today.

  Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each civil service grade in his Department(a) the total number of persons employed and (b) the percentage of this figure that are women.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 17 March 1994]: The table shows total staff in post, and percentages of women employed in each grade in the Department of Transport and its agencies. The figures reflect staff in post as at 1 April 1993.
  108

  Department of Transport—Staff in Post—1 April 1993

  Grade

  Total

  Total Female

  Female Percentage

  Grade 1

  1

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  4

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  25

  2

  8·0

  Grade 4

  16

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  110

  8

  7·3

  Grade 6

  146

  7

  4·8

  Grade 7

  763

  73

  9·6

  SEO

  951

  81

  8·5

  HEO

  1,395

  330

  23·7

  EO

  4,468

  1,049

  23·5

  AO

  3,676

  2,563

  69·7

  AA

  3,683

  2,833

  76·9

  Chair/Member of Commission

  8

  0

  0

  Total

  15,246

  6,946

  45·6

  Shipping Forecast
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made to the broadcasting authority about having the shipping forecast times on the long wave.

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Meteorological Office under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, Meteorological Office to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Barry Field, dated 15 March 1994:
  I am responding to your Parliamentary Question concerning the timing of the shipping forecasts.
  The importance of the shipping forecast is well recognised by the BBC, the Met Office and the Department of Transport. Although the situation has been considered in the context of other BBC radio programme changes, it has been agreed that the times of the shipping forecast will remain unchanged. On very rare occasions, the 1750 shipping forecast may be delayed if test matches (to be broadcast on Radio 4) are at a critical stage; if so an announcement will be made at 1750 giving the new time of broadcast.

ENVIRONMENT

  Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many bottles of(a) whisky and gin and (b) sherry and port were consumed by his private offices in 1993–94.

  Mr. Gummer
  That information is not available.

  Ministerial Receptions
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of receptions held by Ministers in his Department in 1993–94.

  Mr. Gummer
  The details of my Department's annual expenditure on running costs are published every year in the annual report. Expenditure on receptions is included within this figure and is less than 0·00002 per cent. of total net expenditure.

  Expenditure, London
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total Government spending in the London boroughs of(a) Hackney, (b) Haringey, (c) Islington, (d) Lambeth and (e) Newham.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available information on central Government financial support for the London boroughs concerned is as follows:

  Government Grants: 1993–94 estimates

  £ thousands

  Revenue grants1

  Capital grants

  Housing subsidies2

  Total

  Hackney

  291,191

  3,679

  116,565

  411,435

  Haringey

  269,069

  3,887

  70,361

  343,317

  Islington

  196,857

  4,854

  135,725

  337,436

  Lambeth

  310,941

  5,166

  137,080

  453,187

  Newham

  279,019

  20,166

  67,841

  367,026

  1 Revenue grants consist of Revenue Support Grant, Specific and Special Grants; redistributed non-domestic rates are excluded.

  2 This consists of Housing Revenue account Subsidies and contributions towards running costs of Approved Homes Improvement Agencies.

  Rents, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the average percentage increase in rents for private(a) unfurnished and (b) furnished lettings set by rent officers in each for the last 10 years in the Doncaster area.

  Sir George Young
  The available information, which relates to south Yorkshire, is given in the table. Comparable data for the Doncaster area is not readily available.

  South Yorkshire

  Average yearly percentage increase in registered fair rents

  Year

  Private Unfurnished Lettings

  Private furnished Lettings

  1983

  2·9

  7·4

  1984

  15·2

  -3·5

  1985

  5·2

  15·6

  1986

  10·3

  6·4

  1987

  3·9

  8·1

  1988

  12·6

  12·3

  1989

  6·4

  8·9

  1990

  10·8

  13·6

  1991

  10·8

  14·5

  1992

  8·1

  -5·0

  Disabled Employees
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many registered disabled people are employed in his Department; and what percentage this is of the total.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the "Independent" magazine, which was published on Friday 18 March and contains the information requested.

  Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Government Spending
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total Government spending in(a) Pendle, (b) Bath and (c) Bournemouth.

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available information on central Government financial support to the district councils in the areas concerned is as follows:

  Government Grants: 1993–94 estimates

  £ thousands

  Revenue grants1

  Capital grants

  Housing subsidies2

  Total

  Pendle

  11,508

  1,570

  3,996

  17,074

  Bath

  14,004

  894

  6,589

  21,487

  Bournemouth

  39,768

  606

  6,278

  46,652

  1 Revenue grants consist of Revenue Support Grant, Specific and Special Grants; redistributed non-domestic rates are excluded.

  2 This consists of Housing Revenue Account Subsidies and contributions towards running costs of Approved Home Improvement Agencies.

  Children at Risk
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the allocation within Doncaster's standard spending assessment, on a per capita basis, for children at risk, during the next financial year; what is the allocation for each of the other metropolitan borough councils in South Yorkshire; and on what basis this formula operates.

  Mr. Baldry
  The children's personal social services element for 1994–95 for Doncaster is £32 per head of resident population. Information for the other metropolitan borough councils is in the table:

  Table showing the children's personal social service (PSS) element for 1994–95 per head of resident population for Doncaster and the other metropolitan borough councils in south Yorkshire.

  PSS for children (£/head)

  Doncaster

  32

  Barnsley

  26

  Rotherham

  27

  Sheffield

  33

  The formula uses a "client group approach"; the client group is the estimated number of children at risk. Cost adjustments are made to reflect the increased costs associated with social conditions and differences in the costs of provision between areas. The formula for the children's PSS element, along with the formulae for other SSA elements, has been revised in the light of the SSA review.

  Abandoned Mines (Discharges)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) of 9 February,Official Report, column 315, when he hopes to complete his review of the legal framework governing discharges from abandoned mines.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are still considering this subject. The consultation paper "Paying for our Past", published on 8
  111
  March, said that the justification for the special exemptions for abandoned mines should be reassessed in the light of the emerging conclusions of the review of contaminated land and liabilities.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 6, what is the source of information on which he based his reply regarding the carbon dioxide emission implications of the latest GATT agreement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The terms of reference of working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as agreed at the IPCC eighth session in Harare, require working group III to consider and develop as necessary a range of internally consistent scenarios for future emissions based on reasonable economic, demographic and technological projections and taking account of the gaps and uncertainties in available knowledge. Any available evidence on the impact of GATT on emissions would be considered as part of IPCC's review.

  Fuel Bills (Advance Payments)
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the use of special companies by local authorities to accept advance payments for fuel bills for the next five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no such information.

  Trunk Townstal Estate
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will give approval to the Trunk Townstal estate action scheme, Dartmouth; how much the scheme will cost; and how many older council houses will be refurbished.

  Sir George Young
  My Department is currently processing the application and a decision will be reached shortly. The total cost of the proposed scheme is £6·7 million, including estate action resources of £1·6 million, and provides for the refurbishment of 299 units as well as 98 new houses.

  Air Quality Standards
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects his Department's expert panel on air quality standards to reach its conclusions on PM10 levels.

  Mr. Atkins
  The expert panel on air quality standards, a group of independent medical and scientific experts, is considering a standard for particles—PM 10—and I expect it to reach its conclusions as soon as reasonably practicable.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the estimated cost of including the 12 towns recommended by his Department's quality of urban air review group in the enhanced urban network.

  Mr. Atkins
  The costs for including the 12 towns recommended by the Department of the Environment's quality of urban air review group in the enhanced urban network are £5,382,229 to March 1994.
  112
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether levels of PM10 monitored in towns in the enhanced urban network have exceeded(a) United States air quality standards and (b) World Health Organisation air quality guidelines.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1992, levels of PM10 exceeded the United States air quality standard at Belfast on three days. World Health Organisation guidelines were exceeded in 1992 at Belfast on 10 days and in Birmingham on four days.

  Provisional data for the first half of 1993 show that the United States standard was exceeded in Cardiff and Liverpool on one day each and that the WHO guideline was exceeded in London on two days, Belfast on seven days, Liverpool on three days and in Birmingham and Newcastle on one day each.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he plans to take to control levels of PM10 particulates in the air.

  Mr. Atkins
  Road transport is the main source of PM10 emissions in urban areas. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic earlier today. Further action to reduce levels of fine particles will be considered in the light of advice from the Department of Health's independent committee on medical effects of air pollutants and the independent expert panel on air quality standards, a group of independent medical and scientific experts which recommends air quality standards to the Secretary of State for the Environment, which is currently considering a standard for particles.

  Castle Point Borough Council
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what explanation was given to his Department for the financial crisis at Castle Point borough council prior to his decision to impose capping on that council for the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  In its representations to the Department, the authority set out its view of both the manner in which deficits on the general fund had been incurred in 1991–92 and 1992–93 and the timing of their identification. The deficits were due, in the main, to incorrect budgeting for interest receivable and interest payable. The deficit for 1991–92 was identified by the district auditor during closure of the accounts in autumn 1992; the scale of the 1992–93 deficit had not been apparent until February 1993.

  Water
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made as to the cost implications for Government and the water industry if an area is designated as a high natural water dispersal area; and what is the timetable for changes in designation.

  Mr. Atkins
  For a high natural dispersion area to be identified, the waters must meet the criteria set out for less sensitive areas in the urban waste water treatment directive. The cost implications for water industry discharges into waters identified as HNDAs will, in each case, depend on the actual arrangements made for the treatment of sewage and the discharge of the treated
  113
  effluent. The directive requires the identification of these areas to be reviewed at intervals of not more than four years.

  Homeless Accommodation
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that any borough or district council using accommodation in respect of its duties to the homeless in areas of other councils will be required to inform that council of their presence and terms of occupancy.

  Sir George Young
  The Housing Act 1985 requires local housing authorities to have regard to the homelessness code of guidance for local authorities, third edition, issued by my right hon. Friend, which includes guidance about placing homeless households in accommodation outside an authority's own boundary. My Department is consulting on possible changes to this legislation.

  District Heating Schemes
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide estimates of the number of council tenants who receive unmetered supplies of gas and electricity through local authority district heating schemes and the number of council tenants who receive metered supplies of gas and electricity through local authority district heating schemes(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in each local authority in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 March 1994]: This information is not held centrally. Estimates of the number of local authority dwellings receiving unmetered supplies of energy for heating vary widely, from about 100,000 to about 300,000.

  Private Residential Homes
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list those concessions and rebates applicable to owners of private residential homes under the Disabled Persons Act 1978 on matters relating to his Department.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 18 March 1994]: I am not aware of any concessions or rebates granted by my Department to owners of private residential homes under disabled persons legislation. Matters relating to these properties are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

DEFENCE

  Belize
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the terms of the memorandum of understanding have now been communicated to the Belize Government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  A draft memoranda of understanding—MOU—has been submitted to the Government of Belize. This will replace the existing status of forces agreement which covers the presence of the garrison. The aim of the MOU is to reflect the evolvement of the British garrison into a residential training presence, rather than make any substantive changes.
  114
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest timetable for the withdrawal of the battalion from Belize; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  It is planned to withdraw the infantry battalion which is currently in Belize at the end of this month. The garrison drawdown is well under way and is planned to be complete by the end of September this year. Thereafter, there will be a residual United Kingdom training presence.

  Ferranti International plc
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the defence orders and projects in which Ferranti International plc has an involvement; and if he will state the general nature of the involvement in each case.

  Mr. Aitken
  A comprehensive list of all projects in which Ferranti International plc, in administrative receivership, is involved is not held centrally, but the company is involved in the following types of project: submarine command systems, counter-measures and training systems; surface ship command and control systems, air defence systems, information-handling systems, the Seawolf weapons system, and shore training facilities; Eurofighter 2000 sub-systems, the Tornado radar system, Harrier FRS2 components, the radar warning receiver for Army Lynx and Gazelle helicopters, and air traffic control simulation; Rapier weapon system.

  The nature of the work may range from design and development, through production, to the provision of in-service support, spares, repairs and post-design services.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 9 March,Official Report, column 254, if he will list which of the memoranda of understanding listed in his answer were (a) wholly or (b) partially related to exclusion from export licence controls; and whether such exclusions formed part of the memoranda.

  Mr. Aitken
  Such exclusion formed no part of any memoranda of understanding.

  Biological Warfare
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies he is undertaking of security from, or counter-measures against, environmental or biological attack.

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom continues an extensive and broad based programme of research aimed at providing our armed forces with effective protection against attack by chemical or biological weapons.

  Political Advisers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what access political advisers in his Department have to classified information;

  (2) what level of vetting is undertaken of political advisers to his Department.

  (3) what access political advisers in his Department have to data held by his Department as commercial-inconfidence.
  115
  Mr. Hanley
  Classified information, and information with privacy markings such as commercial in confidence, is distributed within my Department on a need-to-know basis. All staff employed by my Department, including my right hon. and learned Friend's special adviser, have access to such information which they require to perform their duties effectively. It is Government policy to vet all staff who require regular access to material classified secret and above; the level of vetting will depend on the classification of material to which staff require such access.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all persons who have held the post of political adviser in his Department since 1979, giving the dates of office for each.

  Mr. Hanley
  Individuals who have held the post of special adviser in my Department since 1979 are as follows:

  Andrew Dunlop Esq.—October 1986 to May 1988

  Keith Simpson Esq.—June 1988 to December 1990

  John Gardner Esq.—June 1991 to March 1992

  Perry Miller Esq.—April 1992 to February 1993

  Crispin Blunt Esq.—February 1993 to present

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the authorised height and speed of the pair of military jet aircraft that overflew the village of Clayton in South Yorkshire on 7 March at approximately 15.35 hours; what was their actual recorded height and speed; from which airfield they took off and landed at; and what was the nature of their sortie.

  Mr. Hanley
  Central records are only maintained of low-level military flights, which are those carried out below 2,000 ft. No military jet aircraft were booked to fly at low level in the low flying area concerned at approximately 15.35 hours on 7 March. However, it is possible that military aircraft overflew Clayton at heights above 2,000 ft.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low flying exercises have taken place in Wales in which planes have flown below 100 ft in the last year.

  Mr. Hanley
  Flying below 100 ft by fixed wing military aircraft is not permitted in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution was made by his Department to the luxury yacht "Tunas Samudera" handed over to the Malaysian Government in 1989.

  Mr. Aitken
  My Department made no financial contribution to the sail training ship "Tunas Samudera".

  Rescue Co-ordination Centre, Pitreavie
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current personnel establishment of the rescue co-ordination centre at Pitreavie; and what plans he has to increase it;

  (2) what plans he has for the improvement of the improvement of the facilities of the rescue co-ordination centre at Pitreavie; and what sums have been allocated for that purpose;
  116
  (3) if he will make a statement about the future of the rescue co-ordination centre at Pitreavie.

  Mr. Hanley
  Detailed internal work continues on the implementation of our plans to locate the single military rescue co-ordination centre—RCC—at Pitreavie. The current personnel establishment for the RCC is 24. On current plans, the single RCC will require 36 staff, however manning could be reduced to 27 following the introduction of improved information technology. Funding of some £3,900,000 has been allocated for improved accommodation, communications and IT systems to support the single RCC.

  "Options for Change"
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundancies will occur under the "Options for Change" programme; if he will list the ranks and regiments involved; and if he will make a statement with regard to his Department's policy concerning redundancy during active service.

  Mr. Hanley
  The ranks involved in redundancy so far are as follows:

  Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Ordinary Rate

  Private

  Corporal

  Able Rate

  Lance Corporal

  Sergeant

  Leading Rate

  Corporal

  Chief Technician

  Petty Officer

  Sergeant

  flight Sergeant

  Chief Petty Officer

  Staff Sergeant

  Warrant Officer

  Warrant Officer

  Warrant Officer 1 and 2

  Master Aircrew

  Sub Lieutenant

  Lieutenant

  Flying Officer

  Lieutenant

  Captain

  Flight Lieutenant

  Lieutenant Commander

  Major

  Squadron Leader

  Commander

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Wing Commander

  Captain

  Colonel

  Group Captain

  Brigadier

  Air Commodore

  Air Marshal

  Air Chief Marshal

  All regiments and corps of the Army, with the exception of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Royal Irish Regiment —home service part time—and Adjutant General's Corps —military provost staff—were involved in the redundancy programme.

  Personnel serving overseas who are selected for redundancy can return to the United Kingdom for their last six months of service to enable them to take their full entitlement of leave and resettlement training.

  UNPROFOR (Pay and Conditions)
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding unfavourable comparisons of pay and conditions as between British and other forces currently serving in UNPROFOR in Bosnia and other parts of former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has received a considerable number of representations on this subject, based largely on misinformation and misunderstanding.

  The full position on the pay of British troops serving with UNPROFOR was set out in my answer to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 7 February, Official Report, column 112.

  Head of Defence Sales
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the name of the next head of defence sales.
  118
  Mr. Aitken
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 9 March 1994,Official Report, column 253.

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 Disabled: Care Charging Policy
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard asked Her Majesty's Government:
What monitoring they are carrying out of the effect on disabled people and their carers of local authorities' policies to charge for community care services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords. the Government expect local authorities to monitor the effect of introducing charges or of changes to existing charging policy.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. But it is inadequate to push the matter back to local authorities to monitor. Is she aware that local authorities, faced with cuts in their budgets, are having to introduce increased charges for non-residential community care such as home care and day care? Is the Minister further aware that variations between areas pose another problem which means, in effect, that services are determined not so much by the needs of the disabled or the carers, but by where they live? In my view the whole arrangement makes a mockery of community care when the matter is considered along those lines. Will the Minister support the proposition that the Government announce a moratorium on local authority policies until such time as they have had a good opportunity to form clear operational guidelines after consultation with local authorities and voluntary organisations?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the vast majority of local authorities are having an increase in their funding for the coming year, especially for community care, where the Government have allocated an extra £1.2 billion. That is more than twice as much as for this year. It is wrong to have a centralised policy for charging. It is for local authorities to use their discretion and to make the best use of the resources available in terms of voluntary and other private organisations which can provide a good service. We believe that council tax payers should get value for money. There is no question of having a moratorium at the moment. We want local authorities to develop their services by introducing a wide range of different services, so that the people who need them can benefit.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend Lord Stallard is right in that there will be unequal treatment depending on where one lives? Does the Minister agree that that dispenses with the idea that we still have a National Health Service? Will the Minister take into account what I said in the
492
debate last week; namely, that cities like Manchester have a disproportionate number of elderly people, which includes a considerable percentage of disabled people? Does she agree that the result is that the burden falls very heavily on the council tax payers of Manchester to provide an adequate service unless some recognition is given to increased weighting for those particular areas?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, health authorities do not charge for care services, but they do for services such as prescriptions and eyesight tests where there is a national rate. We are talking about local authorities. As regards Manchester, that authority is receiving an increase in funding for this coming year of 2.3 per cent. When I go through the list there are very few local authorities which are not having increases in their budgets for next year, but that does not negate the fact that we expect them to charge where they feel it is reasonable and always to take into account the individual's ability to pay.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, has my noble friend noted the implication contained in the last two questions; that is, that one would only get an equal service across the country if one brings community care into the health service? More importantly, does she agree with me that the whole point of local authorities is that they provide the services that they see fit for their area, but now and again the electors disagree with them?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend. But the National Health Service deals with issues concerning health. We expect local authorities to deal with those concerning social services.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that despite the increase in funding to which she has referred, many local authorities could not afford a moratorium because they need the money? However, does she agree that we need a moratorium very badly because the charges are upsetting and damaging ageing, fragile and disabled people and their carers? Does she further agree that the answer is emergency funding by the Government for a moratorium? Will the Minister consider that, please?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is no question of a moratorium. We are very anxious to see community care develop. We want new services introduced and for local authorities to use their imagination, working with the voluntary and private sectors in giving a much wider range of services. Although the cost of services varies enormously between authorities, on average about 9 per cent. is recovered, which is a very low rate.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many local authorities put out such work to private contractors? Is it right for me to interpret her answers as indicating that the stringent examinations will apply also to all ex-servicemen who have been wounded in battle while defending their country and serving this nation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, local authorities are using the private sector more. We are very keen that

493
they should do that, provided that they get value for money and good quality services. I am afraid that I did not quite understand the second part of the noble Lord's question.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister note that the issues that are raised by my noble friend's Question cover many of the same issues that we debated fully last Wednesday in our debate on community care, when there was widespread agreement in the House that we need some form of national evaluation of, and national standards for, community care? Will the Government please reconsider this matter, otherwise the system will persist whereby the community care that one receives will depend on where one lives and not on what one needs?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there was a lot of support in that debate for the close monitoring of community care and I gave an undertaking on that. There was much less support for national standards. The Social Services Inspectorate is about to carry out five studies of people with physical and sensory impairment. Among the things that it will consider is the effect of local authorities' charging policies.

EC Draft Budget for 1995
2.44 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest date by which the preliminary draft budget for 1995 for each of the European Community's institutions will be available for scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament and whether they will give particulars of how further scrutiny can be accomplished within a reasonable time before the draft budget for 1995 is established by the Council of Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government will continue to ensure that all available documentation is deposited for scrutiny as soon as possible after it is received by the United Kingdom's permanent representative in Brussels. The Government regret that it is not yet possible to indicate by what dates this documentation will be available.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer is thoroughly unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that the British Parliament normally has the right to question expenditure before it is incurred or even before it is authorised? Will he take steps to ensure that the Committee of Permanent Representatives, on which the Commission also has a seat, does not so arrange events that it will not be possible for the documents to be made available to Parliament on time?
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the noble Lord, I would very much hope that the documents can be made available as soon as is possible. I can only provide the
494
noble Lord with the assurance that we shall continue to do all that we can to ensure that that documentation is made available as soon as is possible and that the noble Lord, who was given assurances last year, will receive copies of the overview as soon as is practical after publication.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer will disappoint a great many of us? Surely Her Majesty's Government are entitled to insist on the draft budget being brought forward in time for proper discussion in both Houses of this Parliament and to indicate that unless that is done, it will not be accepted?
Lord Henley: My Lords, Article 203 of the treaty sets out the exact dates as to when the various parts of the preliminary draft budget and the draft budget shall be made available and when they shall go through their various different stages. Those dates are quite late. We hope that we shall have the preliminary draft budget by the beginning or middle of June. As I said, we hope to have the overview available earlier and I have given an assurance that that will be made available to the House in due course. However, I accept that time is short and that that creates some difficulties in relation to parliamentary scrutiny. But the deadlines have existed for a number of years and I believe that we can live with them.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while I do not always agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on European matters, he is absolutely right on this. I hope that the Minister and his officials will ensure that the information comes before both Houses quickly, otherwise that expenditure will continue at a pace and in areas with which neither House of Parliament would agree. I think that my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, are absolutely right in seeking to ensure that the Government press for the documentation to be brought before us rather sooner than has been the case in the past.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct, as is his noble friend Lord Bruce. That is exactly why I gave an assurance—and I shall keep it—that we shall do all that we possibly can to ensure that all the documentation is made available to this Parliament so that it can exercise adequate scrutiny as early as possible.
Lord Annan: My Lords, if the information is to be received before June, does that mean that the article will have to be amended?
Lord Henley: My Lords, no, I did not say that. What I said was that the actual date by which it has to be received is some time much later. I think that it is 1st September, but I refer the noble Lord to the treaty and to Article 203. We try to get the documentation much earlier and the Commission normally produces it much earlier. We hope to get the preliminary draft budget by early to mid-June.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the British taxpayer has to contribute towards Britain's

495
contribution to the European budget, can my noble friend say as to which financial year in Europe the British taxpayer has to pay up in terms of our system of financial years?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is a rather complicated question and I am not sure whether I can give my noble friend a safe and satisfactory answer to it. We are talking about the preliminary draft budget or the budget for 1995, which will come into effect as from 1st January next year, so I presume that we are talking about moneys that this Parliament would vote in either this or the next financial year.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, following the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to the obligations of the British taxpayer, will the Minister confirm that if Norway, Sweden and Austria are admitted to the European Union they will be net contributors to the budget? Will he further confirm that the result would be a fall in Britain's contribution? Will he therefore explain why the British Government are so determined to prevent the widening of the Union, thus costing the British taxpayer millions of pounds?
Lord Henley: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are committed to widening the Union. As to whether those four countries will join is another matter. There is also the question of the own resources decision and agreement by all 12 countries as to when that comes into effect, and therefore at what level the budget can be set. Whether that would lead to an increase or decrease in the United Kingdom's net contribution would depend upon a number of factors, and it would not necessarily follow that our net contribution would fall because a number of other net contributors had joined.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement that he will do his best to see that the documents are received as soon as possible, does he not agree that we are now at the high table of the European Community; that we are now in there with great powers under Maastricht? Why cannot we show a little guts in the matter and insist upon what we want rather than lie down under whatever is possible? Further, will the Minister give the House an assurance that, notwithstanding the proposals for own resources at the Edinburgh conference, it would be possible for the Council to set a budget which is in total lower than that specified in the Treaty of Edinburgh?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. Until all 12 countries have ratified the own resources decision taken at Edinburgh, no budget can be set that is greater than the existing own resources decision.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, that was not the question.

UK Budgetary Deficit
2.52 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, at his request, and with his consent, I beg leave to ask the Question on the Order Paper standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the deficit due to the Maastricht Treaty, reported by the Central Statistical Office, shows that this year the United Kingdom's budgetary deficit has increased by roughly 100 per cent. on the general government debt of the previous year and whether this increase is likely to continue in succeeding years.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the UK Government's budgetary deficit, on the measure adopted for the Maastricht Treaty excessive deficits procedure, rose from £19.8 billion in 1991–92 to £45.7 billion in 1992–93. The November Budget forecast showed a further rise in 1993–94 to £55 billion. However, economic growth combined with a tight control of public spending and the measures announced in the two Budgets last year will put the government deficit on a firm downward trend.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that was a complicated Answer to a complicated Question. Is the Minister aware that we all wish him well? We hope that his hope will be realised. But is not the difficulty that under the Maastricht Treaty in future our budget deficits will have to be in accordance with a common policy agreed by the Commission? That will not take into account credits such as the sale of privatised assets. Will not that, in turn, put further pressure on Her Majesty's Government to reduce their budget deficit, thereby increasing deflationary pressures, leading to loss of businesses and jobs in the UK?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord did not find my Answer too complicated. What he probably found somewhat confusing is the fact that the deficit as agreed under Maastricht is a different measurement from the PSBR, to which the noble Lord referred. I do not believe the mere fact that the measure is calculated differently will have the effect that the noble Lord seems to suggest.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Maastricht requirements for the measurement of the government deficit are in accordance with correct accounting practice, unlike the usual UK method for the measurement of the PSBR which confuses current transactions with balance sheet transactions'? Be that as it may, will he tell us for how many years since 1979 the Government have not been in deficit on the basis of the Maastricht measurement?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the point to get over is that central government's financial deficit, to which the noble Lord refers as the Maastricht definition, and the PSBR are basically different measures. The main differences between the two are that the PSBR includes

497
public corporations' borrowing, privatisation proceeds and other financial transactions. As regards the number of years when we have not been in deficit since 1979, from my figures I understand that there was just one year which was 1988–89.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister cite that part of the Maastricht Treaty that defines precisely how the government deficit is determined? Is he aware that we appear to operate on a cash in and out basis, including items of negative expenditure and similar creative accounting methods? Will the Minister give us some assurance that a common definition will be arrived at and that a determination of the deficit will take into account capital receipts and capital expenditure so that we can have an above-the-line and below-the-line position, but, above all, something that can be agreed, preferably in writing, by the Commission.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to Article 104(c) of the Maastricht Treaty. It is somewhat lengthy and I do not believe that the House would welcome it if I were to read it out in detail.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the answer given to my noble friend Lord Eatwell confirm that under European Community rules the deficit could very well be higher than under the British rules? Under those circumstances, the 3 per cent. deficit which would activate action under the Maastricht Treaty would be reached sooner and on a different basis, and could therefore trigger deflationary policies. Is that not so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, further to the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, looking at the figures from 1979, there are relatively few years when we reached that 3 per cent. guideline under the Maastricht Treaty. I understand that we did in 1983–84, 1984–85, 1991–92 and subsequent years. I do not believe the mere fact that a different measure is used for calculating deficit, as opposed to the PSBR, need necessarily cause the noble Lord any worry. As regards the second part of the guidelines—that debt itself should be below 60 per cent.—we have been consistently below that figure since 1979. I understand that we were last above that figure many years ago.

Employment Appeal Tribunal: Procedure Rules
2.57 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether constitutional principles have been observed in the Lord Chancellor's instruction to the then President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Mr. Justice Wood, referred to in the Observer newspaper on 6th March 1994, to dismiss appeals as "hopeless cases" on paper and without an oral hearing.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the short Answer is yes, but in view of the fact that I do not accept some of the allegations in the article to which reference is made in the Question perhaps your Lordships will bear with me while I give a rather fuller explanation.
Rule 3 of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules provides that where it appears to the registrar that a notice of appeal does not give the appeal tribunal jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, then subject to the opportunity for the appellant to revise the notice and to express dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the registrar, no further action should be taken on the appeal.
I understood Mr. Justice Wood's position to be that it was undesirable to apply the Rule 3 procedure fully. After many exchanges with Mr. Justice Wood and against the mounting backlog in the EAT, I remained concerned that that view was still affecting the work of the EAT. Accordingly I wrote to Mr. Justice Wood asking for his assurance that Rule 3 would be applied in full and that preliminary hearings were not being used when no jurisdiction was shown in the notice of appeal. If he did not feel able to give me that assurance I asked that he should consider his position. That meant that I wished to ascertain on what basis a procedure not applying that rule in full might properly rest. I had no intention whatever of inviting Mr. Justice Wood to resign his judicial office, and I did not do so.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, most unfortunately, I am bound to say that I find the Answer given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor less than satisfactory. Am I not right in saying that the letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was written only after he had received a full and carefully considered letter from Mr. Justice Wood, written after he had consulted senior legal colleagues, explaining why Mr. Justice Wood, and his predecessors, regarded the long-standing practice of the Employment Appeal Tribunal as expeditious, economical and conducive to the interests of justice, and why he could not see any alternative way of fairly resolving the problem in the manner demanded by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? Did not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his letter say in terms that he wished no further discussion of the rule, despite Mr. Justice Wood's full and reasoned earlier letter?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, I had a number of discussions and exchanges with Mr. Justice Wood. He was concerned about the interpretation of the rule, especially the meaning of the phrase to which I referred in my Answer about jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. As I made clear to him, I was concerned with the question of whether the rule was being applied. I was not disputing his interpretation of the rule; I was asking that the rule should be applied.
That rule was laid down, under the authority of Parliament, in its original form by Lord Elwyn-Jones and in its current form by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. I concluded that it was necessary that the rule should be applied, having been laid down by

499
statutory authority. I considered that as the Lord Chancellor was under parliamentary authority—the rule-making authority in this connection—he was entitled to ask for such an assurance. If Mr. Justice Wood was not prepared to give that assurance I wished him to state the basis upon which a procedure, which was not fully applying the rule, could properly rest.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that this matter is the cause of the gravest anxiety to the judiciary and to practitioners? Is it the fact that an assurance was demanded of the judge that he exercise his judicial discretion by adopting a procedure that he had already indicated on carefully reasoned grounds he regarded as inappropriate and contrary to the established practice of Employment Appeal Tribunal?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I had understood Mr. Justice Wood's anxieties about the rule. My point was that the rule had been laid down for a statutory tribunal under statutory authority. Therefore, it was a rule to which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was subject.
My noble and learned friend Lord Oliver asked about anxiety within the judiciary and among practitioners. Prior to the article appearing in the Observer to which the Question relates, no member of the judiciary—that is, apart from one who came to see me in connection with another matter and mentioned this matter, and apart from discussions with my colleagues in heads of division—has raised any question about this matter with me.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, almost a year has passed since the writing of the alleged letter and the publication of the article in the Observer on 6th March. Prior to that date was there any suggestion of the resignation of Mr. Justice Wood or his transfer from the Employment Appeal Tribunal?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, Mr. Justice Wood resigned later. He made it clear to me in his letter of resignation that it had no connection whatever with this matter. A considerable time before that letter was written, he had made it clear to one of my colleagues, a head of division, that he intended to resign in 1993. With that knowledge one could have left this matter over but, in view of the discussions that had taken place, I felt it right to put to Mr. Justice Wood, as succinctly as I could, the real issues in this letter.
Lord Taylor of Gosforth: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that I was privy to this matter at the time, that I did not consider there to be any question of suggesting to the judge that he ought to resign has judicial office and that if I had felt any anxiety about, any encroachment on judicial independence I would have raised the matter with him?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. I am aware of what he said and I know well that he is ready to raise any questions that would impinge upon judicial independence in respect of any action of mine. As regards the judicial complement, the
500
arrangements for the EAT on a day-to-day basis were normally handled by my colleagues in the judiciary; that is, the Lord Chief Justice and in particular at the relevant time the then Deputy Chief Justice.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, many appeals to the EAT are by appellants who do not qualify for legal aid and are thus unrepresented. Therefore, does the noble and learned Lord believe that there is a real risk of injustice if so-called "hopeless cases" are dismissed without the appeal tribunal having satisfied itself at a preliminary hearing where the appellant is heard that there is no arguable ground for appeal? Is that not so in particular because so many applications that are considered by the EAT at a preliminary hearing go forward to a full hearing on the footing that there is an arguable point, and they actually succeed?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I appreciate the value of an oral hearing to a prospective appellant. But I have no doubt that when Lord Elwyn-Jones made these rules after consultation with the then Lord President of the Court of Session he had that in mind. The rules make a provision along these lines. If one is looking at justice in this matter, the important point is that people who had an undoubted case before the Employment Appeal Tribunal, a case in which there was jurisdiction, were being kept waiting for some two years while resources that could have been used for those hearings were devoted to the preliminary hearings to which reference has been made.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Wakeham): My Lords, we must move on.

Business of the House
3.8 p.m.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with until the Easter recess in respect of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill and, if they are brought from the Commons, the Insolvency (No. 2) Bill and the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill.— (Lord Wakeharn).
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I do not wish to discuss the subject matter of the Bills, in particular the second and third, having indicated that we assent to the Motion. However, as regards the Transport Police (Jurisdiction) Bill, there are one or two issues that I shall raise on Second Reading about which the noble Lord the Leader of the House ought to know. I understand that the British Transport Police query the adequacy of the Bill that is being brought forward. It was published only on Friday and has not yet been before another place and therefore we are in some slight difficulty. Clearly, the Insolvency (No. 2) Bill is essential in order that jobs are not lost and the transport Bill is important in order that the British Transport Police can have jurisdiction

501
beyond 1st April outside their own back yard. We shall do our best to see the Bill through but I hope that the Government who, after all, are papering over a pretty large crack in the British Rail privatisation Bill of last year, have got it right this time.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that he wishes to raise one or two points. I shall say nothing about the substance but there will be opportunity for debate and for amendments should they be necessary. We had better wait for the Bill to come from another place before deciding what to do.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in case there is any dubiety, I wish to say that we on these Benches fully recognise the importance and the urgency of these matters and raise no objection to the Motion. However, during the Bills' stages there could be room for amendments. There is no intention to do other than speed the legislation through this House as quickly as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Viscount Astor): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
I think it important to start by setting the scene for the changes that this Bill will bring about. Last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced a long-term review of the social security system. To assist in that process, the department published an analysis of the growth of social security provision over the next decade. The findings highlighted that benefits for incapacity were one of the three areas of likely growth.
Invalidity benefit is the fastest growing contributory benefit. It is second in cost only to retirement pension. Spending on this benefit has doubled in real terms in the past 10 years, from £2.7 billion to £6.2 billion. No responsible government could let that growth go on unattended. If we did, spending would grow by a further 50 per cent. in real terms by the end of the decade. That is why the Government decided to tackle that area first. The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Bill brings about a fundamental reform of benefits for people who are unable to work because of sickness or disability.
The new benefit—incapacity benefit—will replace sickness and invalidity benefit and has three major objectives: first, to ensure that benefit is targeted on those who are genuinely too sick or disabled to work; secondly, to provide a more rational structure of benefits; and thirdly, to ensure that incapacity provision is affordable and sustainable into the next century.
Before we embarked on this reform, we commissioned a series of research projects to look at the reasons behind the massive growth in invalidity benefit which has taken place, despite the improving health of the nation as a whole. That research highlighted two
502
particular problems. The first is the structure of invalidity benefit itself. It is not a means tested benefit, neither do we propose to make it so. But it is poorly focused on need. It provides a basic income in lieu of earnings, yet unlike those earnings it is tax free. It is paid to people who are unable to work, yet it is also payable for up to five years beyond pension age. And a significant element of the benefit, the additional pension, is earnings related, which often duplicates occupational and private provision for sickness.
The second problem we identified is the existing medical controls; the means by which a person's incapacity for work is judged. Over the years the original intention of the benefit to provide an income for people whose medical condition prevents them from working has become blurred.
The GP's role has become difficult. Through no fault of their own, GPs are often placed in the unacceptable position where, on the one hand, they have an obligation to their patient but, on the other, have to act as gatekeeper for the social security system. Ineffective medical controls have led to some abuse of incapacity benefits. Many people who are capable of work view invalidity benefit as a readily available supplement to their occupational pensions. The public at large resent this abuse. We concluded that the reforms must deal with both structural reform and new medical controls, in order to return to the original intention of the benefit.
The Bill will introduce a new benefit—incapacity benefit —which will be payable at three rates. The longer the period of sickness, the higher the benefit. Most people receive statutory sick pay for the first 28 weeks of sickness. The Bill will simplify statutory sick pay by replacing the two existing rates with a single rate set at the present higher rate. It will be worth an extra £4.70 a week at April 1994 rates for mainly lower paid and part-time employees. Those people are less likely to work for employers with generous occupational sick pay schemes.
For those who do not receive statutory sick pay, incapacity benefit will be available for the first 28 weeks, at the same rate as sickness benefit now. After 28 weeks it will increase to the same rate as SSP and it will become taxable. It has always been our intention to bring benefits-replaced earnings into tax, including invalidity benefit. But it is important to remember that not everyone receiving the benefit will pay tax. Only those with income from other sources bringing their income above the tax threshold will be affected. After a year of incapacity the basic rate will increase once again to the same rate as basic IVB.
The long-term element of the new benefit will not be available beyond pension age. Short-term incapacity benefit will be paid for up to 52 weeks where a person has become incapable of work before their 60th or 65th birthday. The earnings-related additional pension will not be part of the new benefit for those who come on to the benefit after April 1995. The additional pension has been recognised as somewhat of an anomaly.
Increases for age and adult dependants will continue but these will be restructured in order to better target the benefit. The age-related invalidity addition will be simplified and the ages of entitlement brought forward.

503
People whose incapacity begins before the age of 35 will receive an extra £12.15 a week on top of their basic benefit. Those incapacitated between the ages of 35 and 44 will receive an additional £6.10 a week. The age addition will continue to be paid for as long as a person remains on incapacity benefit. Increases for adult dependants will be paid for those who are looking after children, and for spouses aged 60 or over.
A key element of the reform is the new medical test of incapacity which is being developed to provide a clearer and more objective assessment of incapacity. An aim of this Bill has been to refocus the benefit on those who are medically; incapable of work. It is right that a benefit designed for the long-term sick and disabled should have entitlement restricted to those who are unable to work because of their medical condition.
We arrived at cur current proposal—that is, that incapacity should be measured by a functional assessment—after a thorough and wide-ranging research programme. The incapacity test will assess the effects of a claimant's medical condition. The test will measure limitations in a number of functional areas, and assess them against a commonly agreed standard of mental sensory and physical capabilities required for work.
We have based our test of incapacity on the approach used by the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys in its disability surveys in the 1980s. OPCS used established definitions of disability, but a new feature of its method was an attempt to measure the overall severity of disability arising from a number of different limitations. We are seeking to do the same for incapacity for work. There are several stages to this: first, the development of a series of scales covering all the areas of disability that might affect capacity for work; secondly, the ranking and scoring of the items in the scales in terms of their effect on capacity for work; thirdly, the identification of the point in each scale at or above which a person should be considered unable to work for the purpose of deciding benefit entitlement; and fourthly, the development of a model for assessing the effect of combinations of disabilities of different types and severity on capacity for work.
We published, on 1st December, a consultation document with detailed proposals for the new test, describing the proposed assessment and how it had been developed. The consultation period ended on 11th February and has prompted over 350 responses so far. All the responses have been extremely useful and are now being fed into the development process.
We have convened an expert panel, which is working through these stages. It has been at work since December, reviewing the scales and assigning incapacity scores to items within them. We have now reached the fourth stage, in which we ask the panel to score combinations of disabilities. There are over 80 people on the panel. They include disabled people, members of disability organisations, medical and occupational health: specialists, researchers and members of the Departments of Employment, Health and Social Security. All are included to provide expert views rather than to represent particular interests or organisations.
504
A sub-group of the panel is looking at the particular questions raised by the assessment of mental health. A second expert panel has begun work to assess the effects of disabilities on capacity to do particular jobs. Its findings will serve as a check on the results of the main panel.
The detail of the test will be revised to take account of the outcome of the consultation, development and evaluation processes. We will then issue a report which will summarise all the work that we have undertaken and present our proposals for the test. Only after all this shall we present our final proposals on the test to Parliament for approval, in the form of regulations. As a consequence, the Bill seeks from Parliament powers to prescribe in affirmative regulations the detail of the new test.
We propose to apply the new medical assessment after 28 weeks of incapacity for work. For the first 28 weeks of incapacity most people will be assessed against their ability to carry out their normal job. That is little different from now. It will be based on a GP's certificate.
After 28 weeks, people will move automatically on to a higher rate of benefit. Most will be sent a questionnaire for completion. Claimants will need to ask their GP for a statement of diagnosis, together with a description of the main disabling conditions. The majority of cases will be referred to a departmental doctor for a report and examination. The assessment will create an overall picture of the effect of the medical condition on the person's ability to carry out a range of work-related activities and hence their capacity for work.
When the new test is introduced it will apply to existing as well as new recipients. To do otherwise would be inequitable. No existing beneficiary of invalidity benefit who is genuinely incapable of work need have any worry. Indeed, the new test is being designed specifically to ensure that such people continue to get incapacity benefit.
The new test will not be applied to those new and existing claimants who are clearly incapable of work. That includes the terminally ill, those in receipt of the highest rate care-component of disability living allowance and those suffering from certain specified illnesses. A preliminary list of such illnesses was announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on 24th January. It is not final, and will be developed during the consultation process. We are consulting with the Disability Benefits Consortium on the content of the list.
In addition, existing IVB recipients who are aged 58 or over at the point of change, and who have been continuously in receipt of invalidity benefit since the proposals were first announced on 1st December last year, will not have to go through the new test. In total some 850,000 out of 1.5 million people will not be subject to the new test; they will, instead, continue to be subject to the existing medical controls.
We intend to use transitional arrangements to ensure that existing beneficiaries continue to receive their old rates of benefit and, with the exception of any additional pension, have it uprated annually, so long as their incapacity continues or there is another change in their

505
circumstances. An important feature of the new arrangements is that people will be able to undertake voluntary work subject to an hours limit of 16 hours per week without it affecting their benefit. That has been widely welcomed by voluntary and charitable organisations.
It had been our intention to bring this provision into effect when the new benefit is introduced. However, following representations, I am pleased to announce that the Government are bringing forward those arrangements for voluntary workers so that they will apply to recipients of sickness benefit, severe disablement allowance and invalidity benefit before April 1995. We will bring forward regulations to give effect to this intention at the earliest opportunity. I hope to have the arrangements in place by the summer.
The new arrangements will recognise the sensitivities of the vulnerable group for whom incapacity benefits were originally intended—the long-term sick and disabled. It will protect their benefit against those who abuse it. Nevertheless, we must have a system that combines safeguards for the vulnerable with being modern, realistic and affordable. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Astor.)
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank the Minister for his clear introduction to the Bill. The number of people on invalidity benefit is growing and the cost is rising. The Prime Minister said that it "beggars belief- that that can have anything to do with increasing sickness and disability. Therefore, instead, as the Secretary of State said when introducing the Bill in the other place on 24th January, it must be to do with, in his words, "haphazard" access, "lax" controls and a system, again in his words, that is "open to abuse". In other words, according to the Secretary of State invalidity benefit costs are rising because too many people on invalidity benefit are malingering; benefits are too generous; and GPs are being too lax.
So we have the Bill which will make the medical test tougher, thus making it harder to claim incapacity benefit. If the person passes the medical test, that benefit will be sharply reduced in value to make it less attractive; and, finally, as the Minister made clear, it will take away from GPs—who might know about people's conditions—the job of certifying that people should remain on benefit after six months and give it to independent adjudicators who will not have that knowledge.
Even if the assumptions of the Secretary of State which inform the Bill were valid, we would still argue that the Bill is both unnecessary and harsh. As the disability groups have all reminded us, the safeguards in the system are already adequate to root out any abuse or fraud. But when, instead, we know that the assumptions behind the Bill are false—and we know that they are false because the department's half a dozen pieces of research (which are in the Printed Paper Office and the Library) tell us that such assumptions are false—then the Bill is unusually unpleasant. As one of the disability
506
groups stated, at the core of the Bill is an assumption about malingering and abuse. Indeed, the noble Viscount referred to that this afternoon. The aim, according to that disability group, is to cut public expenditure by character assassination of the disabled. The group is right.
Let us take the first of the Government's assumptions; namely, that the growth in IVB is about malingering or abuse connived at by the general practitioner. Sir Michael Partridge, the Permanent Secretary of the department, was very clear when he told the Public Accounts Committee that,
"the theory of increased numbers due to fraud is not borne out by research".
Quite so, my Lords. However, I am not entirely sure whether the latter told the Minister the same thing. Why does he believe that the disabled are not abusing the system? The reason is that they are steady workers; indeed, more than half of those on benefit worked for their previous employer for more than 10 years and struggled to stay on in work as their health deteriorated, even though three-quarters of employers did nothing to help them stay in work by altering hours, conditions or types of appliances, but often actively pressed them to go.
I quote from the Government's research regarding a woman who was a supervisor for 15 years in a fish factory who suffered from severe osteoarthritis which became worse by standing on wet and cold concrete floors. She said:
"They"—
that is, the employers—
"weren't interested … you are just a number to them. It didn't matter if you had been there years, if you couldn't do the job, that was just too bad".
As I said, that example comes from the Government's research.
Once on invalidity benefit, in nine cases out of 10 the disabled do not find their health improving. However, in those cases where it improves—and they are usually the younger men and women—they try desperately hard to find work. They put themselves on the line time and again only to be met with rebuff and rejection. One manual worker with diabetes said that he was turned down each time because of his illness.
Again, I quote from another case which comes from the Government's research. A building labourer with severe arthritis who needed occasionally to sit and rest, stated:
"These employers have got that many people to choose from now … why should they hire me?"
Why indeed? After all, most disabled people are middle-aged, unemployed men from manual jobs with no formal educational qualifications. Their work, and their world of work, are disappearing around them. At the best of times and even in good health, they remain marginal to the labour force. Add to that the cost of their disability to employers through statutory sick pay, and it is not surprising that, once on invalidity benefit, those people find it hard to re-enter work.
They are told that they are fit for light manual work. But what does that mean, if such work does not exist? It is suggested that they might, for example, be car park attendants in an age of pay-and-display systems; lift

507
attendants or garage pump attendants when such jobs no longer exist; or swimming pool attendants, when pools have been closed. Even more bizarre was the case of a disabled man whole only language was Punjabi being told that he was fit to be a telephone operator, or that of a 59 year-old electrical engineer with respiratory disease, who was told that he was fit enough to be a dispatch rider even though he had never held a driving licence in his life. A scrap metal dealer with angina was told that he was fit enough to be a tax collector; and a roofing tiler with spinal injury was told he was fit enough to be a computer operator. Others were told, bizarrely, that they could be artists' models—presumably for someone other than Lucian Freud—taxidermists or embalmers. This would be funny if it was not used as an argument for depriving decent and desperate men of their benefit. How can it be right to tell them they are fit for work—work which for them does not exist—and then remove their benefit?
If the Government really believed—as the Secretary of State has said—that abuse was the problem, and that people were malingering who truly were fit for work, the Government and the Benefits Agency could simply refer more cases for review. However, the Government are, not going down that path precisely because they know that so few additional cases would be thrown up that the process would not generate the savings the Treasury is demanding. After all, last year the Benefits Agency reviewed 900,000 cases of people on invalidity benefit and the judgment of the GP and the claimant was upheld in 800,000 of those—that is, eight out of nine cases—and many of the rest comprised either those experiencing fluctuating conditions in their health or were mental health cases, which are notoriously hard to determine.
It is because claimants are not malingering and because they pass the existing medical test—there is no reason to think that test has become easier over time—that the Government need to make the test harsher and more stringent if they are to save any money that is now spent on the sick and the disabled. It is precisely because the disabled are not malingering that the test and the rules of the game have to be changed. Hence there is to be a new medical test which, it is suggested, will in a full year take nearly 200,000 people off invalidity benefit (or incapacity benefit as it will become) and will prevent a further 70,000 people who would have qualified for it becoming eligible for it. That will save the Treasury £1.45 billion as that procedure bites.
Of course, by making the medical test more stringent, those who fail to get invalidity benefit or incapacity benefit will sometimes still be too poorly to be regarded as available for work and therefore they will be refused unemployment benefit as well. A man who injured his spine as a result of falling from a roof discovered that he was refused invalidity benefit but denied unemployment benefit because he could not walk very far. What do people in such situations do as regards income? They are considered too 5t for invalidity or incapacity benefit but not fit enough to receive unemployment benefit. What do they do? Presumably they go on to income support except that half of them will not be eligible for
508
it because they will fail the means test either because they have modest savings or a partner in work. So, in return for what has been a contributory benefit, those who are in poor health will find themselves without any independent income at all.
The Government also argue that the numbers on invalidity benefit were growing because claimants were malingering and this was happening because the benefit was too generous and hence acted as a disincentive to work. That really is not true, and again the Government's own research shows that. Over half of those on invalidity benefit found that the benefit was worth less than half of what they had earned in their previous job. Invalidity benefit is not generous compared with earnings, and it is not therefore an incentive to leave work to go onto the benefit. What is true is that invalidity benefit is relatively more generous than other benefits such as unemployment benefit, sick pay, income support and old-age pensions precisely because it carries—as it was always intended to do—an additional allowance to cover the additional cost of disability. We all know that disability incurs necessary extra costs for special diets, extra heating, aids and appliances and for laundry.
This Bill will not only make the medical test harsher but—what is even worse in some ways—it will sharply cut the level of benefit thus requiring the disabled to shoulder the cost of their own disability. At the moment a disabled man aged 48 with two teenage children who has received invalidity benefit for 30 weeks receives, believe, £120 a week. In future, that same man, if he has passed the medical test and is receiving incapacity benefit, will receive just £79 a week. He will be £40 a week worse off, and he will receive the same income whether he has one child or three. He will receive no help for the costs of disability. Therefore he will receive £79 a week, whereas currently he receives £120 a week. If he were on income support, which is regarded by the state as the minimum poverty level for a family, he would receive not £79 a week but £109 a week.
In other words, not only will the new medical test result in invalidity benefit being withheld from over 200,000 people a year, but it will so depress the value of that benefit that thousands of people will, for six months, receive a benefit which is considerably below the level of income support. I would ask the Minister how those people are supposed to live. How will they rebuild their health and re-enter work living on £30 a week below income support? These people have passed the medical test and have been deemed to require a disability allowance.
No one denies that there are increasing numbers of people receiving invalidity benefit. However, as all the research shows, that has not occurred because more people are claiming the benefit, but because it is harder for poor people in poor health to come off the benefit. As the PSI report of June last year showed, this is true all over Europe. The reason for the increasing cost of invalidity benefit lies in the economy as a whole and derives from the firing and hiring practices of employers rather than in any malingering by the disabled.
We know—we debated this matter when we discussed the Statutory Sick Pay Bill—that the disabled

509
are three times more likely to be unemployed than the able bodied. We know that the disabled are six times less likely to be interviewed than the able bodied; and when they are interviewed, the disabled say that the biggest obstacle to their returning to work is the refusal of employers to take them on. When they have sought to return to work, one in six disabled people have experienced health problems as they could not carry out heavy work, and they could not move around much or work in long stretches. However, two in three disabled people said that they failed to return to work because employers would not interview them or because, when they did, the disabled failed the firm's medical test.
It is not the case that the disabled are abusing the system but that the system is failing the disabled. With the economic recession, the marginally employable across Europe have become unemployed, and as they are even more marginalised as a result of their disability and ill-health, it would have been sane and humane to allow such men and women to continue to qualify for invalidity benefit. They are unable—not unwilling—to work; but the Government's insistence that the country is keeping in idleness many disabled people who can work but will not do so confronts the employer's view that he cannot afford to employ those who may want to work but who, in his view, cannot do so. Caught between them, the disabled are distressed, maligned and impoverished.
I end by referring to an article which appeared in my local newspaper last December under the headline "Wife's Anguish". Mr. Skipper lived not far from me in Norwich. He was 50 years old and had been on invalidity benefit since 1990 because of a heart condition. His GP wanted him to remain on invalidity benefit but was overruled by the Benefits Agency Medical Service. In December, 48 hours after losing his invalidity benefit on the grounds that he was fit to return to work, he died of a heart attack. His doctor said:
"There have been patients which I have been quite certain were not fit to work but each time I have never succeeded in overturning the judgment of DSS doctors".
Mr. Skipper was told that he was fit for light work. According to his wife, it was worry about losing his benefit that brought on the heart attack. She said:
"I am angry, really angry with the Government. How many more people are going to die because they have been taken off invalidity benefit?"
Because it was December she had bought his Christmas present, a music centre. He played it just once.
Mr. Skipper's wife was angry. We should be ashamed. I hope that together your Lordships will substantially amend the Bill.
3.41 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for the encouraging words that he said about volunteers in the course of his speech. I shall want to read those words carefully before I decide whether they are sufficient to save us some time in Committee. I was at least pleased to hear them.
Those of us who are in the habit of moving amendments to Bills know that in Whitehall there are
510
two categories of recognised amendment: the unnecessary and the wrecking. Similarly, I am beginning to suspect that in the Department of Social Security there are two recognised categories of benefit: the unnecessary and the abused. In fact, I am beginning to wonder whether Cardinal Morton has taken up occupation in the Department of Social Security since the famous fork is alive and well in Richmond House—for if few people claim a benefit it is not needed; if more people claim a benefit it is abused. The Department is well known for looking on itself as a honey pot surrounded by benefit seeking wasps.
Speaking in another place on the Second Reading of this Bill the Secretary of State said, as the noble Viscount said today, that the system is open to abuse. He might perhaps have said that the system is open to use, for this benefit is being changed because there was an increase in the number of people claiming it. The department and the Minister have made an assumption as to why the increase occurred. As far as I can see, they have no significant evidential reasons for that assumption.
It is interesting to look at what appear to be the reasons. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the Policy Studies Institute has noticed the same increase all across Europe. It therefore seems a little improbable that it should be the result of a quirk in the British benefit system. Some people, rather than receive the first five years of pension, have been on invalidity benefit because it is not taxable. The Bill changes that. Therefore, if that were thought to be the cause there was no need for the whole mechanism of a new test as well.
Most important, the Policy Studies Institute has found that the major problem is that, because of changes in the labour market, on which the noble Baroness touched, it is becoming harder to get off benefit. Rules of order forbid me from quoting from the excellent speech of Mr. Alan Howarth on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, but I trust that at least the Minister and any of his noble friends who take a special interest in this Bill will read that speech with great care.
Today the noble Viscount talked about the improving health of the nation and used that as a reason for doubting whether so many people could be entitled to invalidity benefit. That carries an assumption that previously take up was 100 per cent. That is possible, but it is improbable. If the department thinks that, I should like to know why.
It is perfectly possible that the health of the nation as a whole may be improving. But the health of that part of it which is liable to unemployment, which has regrettably increased, may be worsening. If, for example, one looks at the Caine study undertaken following the closure of the Harris bacon factory in 1985, one finds that in the subsequent year GP consultations increased by 20 per cent., specialist referrals increased by 20 per cent. and hospital outpatient treatment rose by 60 per cent. Is that not in line with the increase which the department has found in invalidity benefit? Might we not be seeing here yet another example of what John Stuart Mill called the inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork? In addition, when we consider the

511
possibility that many of these people will end up on income support we may wonder just how much saving this measure will produce.
So we have a spurious problem. To solve the spurious problem we have a spurious solution. Therefore, the Department of Social Security, in true Whitehall fashion, has bethought itself of an objective test. What does Whitehall mean when it thinks of an objective test? It thinks of filling in a form. The amount that can be discovered about anyone's health by filling in a form is very limited. Forms necessarily are concerned with what is quantifiable and measurable. They concentrate on the measurable, and it is called the objective because it is easier to measure. They remind me of the Black Country Enoch and Eli story. Enoch found Eli scrabbling in the gutter late one night and said, "What are you doing there?". "I dropped half a crown". "Did you drop it here?" said Enoch. "No. I dropped it over there". "Then why are you looking here?" "The light is better here" The objective test tests what is easy, not what is relevant.
I also have considerable misgivings about the use of the all work test. Most of us here, in any normal sense of the word, work. I would hesitate to pronounce that most of us were fit to apply for work as a docker, supposing such work to exist any more. Curiously enough, almost the only exception which occurs to me—my noble friend Lord Addington—counts as disabled because he is a dyslexic. That just goes to show how difficult it is to apply an all work test.
I also believe that it has been a mistake to refuse point blank to take account of non-medical factors. Take, for example, the case of somebody who has suffered an eye injury. If he goes to work from Highgate he can easily travel on the Tube. But if he goes to work from South Molton or from Ysbyty Ifan in Merioneth, or one of the increasing number of places from which he can only go to work by car, if he is told that he must go to work by car I just hope that I am not travelling the other way when he does so. So fitness for work may depend on the circumstances from which you have to go to work.
The test also misses the intermittent effect; it is a snapshot, as any examination must be. To take cases from my own recent teaching experience, I have been seeing pupils suffering from depression and bronchial asthma. I know well that they are much fitter to work on some days than on others and any test which measures only a single day is likely to have got it very wrong indeed. We also ignore the effect of the test on the patient. To take a slipped disc —and I speak from memory—one may be fit to lift the object one is asked to lift in that one can raise it up, but once one has done that, one may be unfit to do anything else for the next three months. It is not really a sensible idea.
The test also downgrades the GP. At Second Reading on 24th January 1994 the Secretary of State said at col. 41 of Hansard that the GP was not to give an opinion on the person's capacity for work. That ignores the best advice and—this is the crucial piece of Whitehall thinking—it ignores all the individual factors which are the most important points in the story. It also leaves us
512
with a crevasse between signing on for work and losing invalidity benefit, down which many people appear to be falling and more will fall when the Bill is in place.
A citizens advice bureau in Sussex reported a client with crushed vertebrae who was in receipt of invalidity benefit. He was found by the Benefits Agency medical service to be fit for light work. He was told to sign on with the employment service agency, where he was told that he was not fit for any work that it could find. That is important, because if you cannot sign on and you are not pronounced unfit, you lose your national insurance contributions, with considerable long-term effect.
Before this Bill goes through we must somehow find a way of bridging the crevasse so that people do not fall into it. At present I do not see how that can be done. But I would be extremely grateful if we could do it on a consensual basis so that we may have consultation about it.
However, the test itself gives me the greatest misgivings of all; in particular, the use of the allegedly objective test for mental health. It is the key to mental health that in its more severe forms the patients lose insight and therefore their responses to a standard checklist test are not likely to be particularly reliable. The man who believes that he is the Emperor Napoleon is likely to pass with flying colours. A citizens advice bureau in Somerset found a manic depressive diagnosed as psychotic who passed the test with flying colours. But those of us who are in better mental health,. because of the much more self-critical nature of our answers, are liable to come out a good deal worse.
Some of the questions are very silly:
"Do you care about other people?".
The only person I can think of who would have answered no to that was the jolly miller who, in the song, lived on the river Dee. He said:
"I care for nobody, no, not I, If nobody cares for me".
He was not showing mental illness; he was showing the effects of enjoying a privatised monopoly. It is not good for one's social relations.
Some of the questions prove a good deal too much. Let us take a few of them:
"Do people or things so upset you that you just lash out?".
I presume that it means metaphorically, but it does not say so. When I found that I had lost this document at midnight last night, remembering the unflappable competence of my Whips' Office was the only thing that restrained me from qualifying myself as insane under the test.
"Do you prefer to be left totally alone at all times?",
otherwise known as the "Greta Garbo" syndrome;
"Do you feel panic-if you are on your own even for a brief time?",
otherwise known as the club bore syndrome;
"Do you need someone always in reach in case of problems?",
otherwise known as the Junior Minister syndrome;
"Do you hate the slightest change in your daily routine?",
otherwise known as the Lord Chancellor's Procession syndrome;
"Do you often sit for hours doing nothing?",
otherwise known as the Lobby-fodder syndrome. The test proves a great deal too much and it puts us in a quandary when we consider Clause 5 of the Bill.

513
That clause authorises the Minister, without further approval, to bring in the test by regulation. Members in another place may vote against it if they are not satisfied, and that illustrates why in the end this place will have to think again about voting against regulations. I am not yet convinced that the House is ready for it and therefore I cannot let Clause 5 go through in its present form and give the Minister a blank cheque to bring this into effect. I hope that we may be able to consider an amendment which, like the one we had on the Social Chapter, demands that this House should approve the test by resolution before we allow it to come into effect. I look forward to the comments of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee on that and other matters in the Bill with a great deal of interest.
3.56 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I accept that the number of those claiming social security benefits because they are incapable of work by reason of illness or disablement has risen rapidly in recent years. I also accept that there is a need to curtail unnecessary expenditure. However, I do not accept that the provisions of the Bill will ensure that those who are genuinely incapable of work will be protected.
I shall confine myself to Clauses 5 to 7 which concern the tests for incapacity for work. Noble Lords will be aware of my interest in sheep farmers and others who have suffered chronic ill health which they believe is attributable to exposure to organophosphate pesticides. For several months I have been receiving letters from these people asking for an explanation of the behaviour of officials from the Benefits Agency. All have had their claims for invalidity benefit disallowed by an adjudication officer. Some have undergone a medical examination of sorts by a Benefits Agency medical service doctor. From the letters it appears that very few, if any, of the doctors know what signs to look for or what symptoms to ask about in the case of chronic ill health caused by exposure to organophosphates. Their tests are rudimentary and seem to take no account of the fluctuating levels of ill health which can vary from hour to hour, let alone from day to day.
As a result of the letters, I have had a protracted and not very satisfactory correspondence with the chief executive of the Benefits Agency and his deputy about the problems encountered, particularly with medical examinations. It was not until last Friday that I was told through a third party that the chief executive of the Benefits Agency is not responsible for advice to the BAMS GPs, nor for monitoring them. That is the responsibility of the chief medical executive at Quarry House. Why was I not told this months ago, when I first inquired? It is beyond me.
As a result of my failure to obtain a satisfactory answer from the Benefits Agency, I was prompted to inquire further. I am no longer surprised that matters are in such a mess. In the West Midlands there are about 120,000 claims for invalidity benefit outstanding; 60,000 of those are waiting for further information and 30,000 claimants are waiting for medical examination. There are 667 doctors to cope with the workload.
514
The doctors who conduct the examinations are volunteers. There is no requirement that they have experience in either occupational medicine or disability and they are not vetted to ensure that they have no prejudices. Many are newly retired GPs. Their GP training, however distant in time, is considered more than adequate to enable them to identify individuals who are incapable of work. Let us compare that with paragraph 3.4 of the consultation document in respect of GPs who do not know whether or not someone is capable. The only specific training is half a day on form filling. There is no age limit, and dismissal is only on the grounds of professional misconduct. While I have a high regard for the medical profession as a whole, I am well aware that within it there are practitioners who leave much to be desired. I do not believe that sick and disabled people are best served now. What will be the situation when the Bill is enacted?
I see that the Government consider that only 1,100 extra staff will be required for the first two years; and that figure will be reduced to approximately 260 from 1997–98. Does that take into account the Benefits Agency medical services? It may well be that the Government believe that self-assessment questionnaires will weed out many of the applicants who at present go forward for medical examination. Experience with that type of questionnaire for claims for disability working allowance indicates that there would be difficulties for several groups of applicants for the new benefit. I am thinking particularly of those whose illnesses present symptoms of fluctuating severity. There is a long list of such diseases. Chronic illness caused by exposure to organophosphates is one of them. How, for example, is an applicant to complete a question asking whether he can lift a particular weight when one day he can and another day he cannot? If he answers "no", he can be accused of lying. If he answers "yes", he does himself an injustice. From my own experience I know that on some days I feel able to do quite a lot; on others I feel very weak, am in severe pain and need to sleep most of the day. Would I be considered capable of work because I have good days? What employer would employ me on the basis that I would only be able to perform my duties in an unpredictable manner?
I ask the Minister: will special provisions be made for those whose illnesses are of a fluctuating nature? Will the Government ensure that the Benefits Agency medical services are given the funds to employ and train enough suitably qualified doctors to give applicants for incapacity benefit an efficient and fair service? I do not deny that I am unhappy about several aspects of the Bill. I hope that they will be dealt with during its passage through this House.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, the easy way when dealing with a situation like this is to do nothing, to turn a blind eye and to let expenditure rip. I give the Government considerable credit for tackling a difficult and sensitive issue on the lines of this Bill. After all, the original statute laid down quite clearly the definitions for sickness benefit and invalidity benefit. It was clear that it was intended for people who by reason of some

515
specific disease, or bodily or mental disablement, were unable to work. As my noble friend said in introducing the Bill, the definition has been progressively widened to introduce non-medical factors, and it has become increasingly difficult for GPs to work the system. Therefore I believe that the Government are right to act. I am very glad that they are conducting detailed research. It is clearly very important to get the definition right if we are to avoid hard cases arising.
Another reason why I believe that the Government are right to act is that in all such social security matters we have to get a balance between the needs of those who are on benefit and the cost to those who have to meet the cost; namely, employers, employees, the self-employed and the taxpayer. That balance has to be kept in mind all the time. In making changes such as this from an old system to a new one, the transitional arrangements are all-important. They were referred to in particular by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. After all, expectations are built up. There must be many people who have been on invalidity benefit for a long time who were led to believe that they were likely to remain on the benefit for life. As a consequence, their budgets, mode of living and housing arrangements have been built upon the expectation that the benefit will continue. I am very glad to hear my noble friend say that those who are on invalidity benefit at the present moment will continue to have their rate of benefit protected. I assume that will be so only so long as they qualify under the new test.
As I understand it, three broad categories of people will he affected by the transition arrangements. First, there are the most severe cases, who, as my noble friend pointed out, will have no new test at all. They will go straight on to the new benefit. If they have been on benefit for any length of time, it will remain at the same level as invalidity benefit and will be up-rated on an annual basis in the customary way. The second category will be those who will undergo the new test and who will qualify. They will move from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit. That will be paid at the same rate after 52 weeks of incapacity. Those groups seem to me to be straightforward. What about the rest?
There will be another category of people who will undergo the new test and will fail. That is not a new situation; it happens under the existing arrangements. But I assume that more people will be involved. I wonder whether my noble friend can give us a little more information about that category. I assume that some of those people, when they lose the benefit, will be entitled to one or more of the "back to work" benefits. Others will be entitled to income support. In those categories it seems very important that we should avoid hard cases arising. Certainly the organisations that represent the disabled are concerned about this group. They feel that there will be some cases where there will be substantial loss of benefit, and hardship will be created. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some assurance particularly about this category of people.
I very much welcome what my noble friend said about people being able to do 16 hours' voluntary work without losing benefit. That is immensely important for disabled people: they can do some useful work; they
516
feel that they are wanted; and it gets them out of their own home environment. That is most welcome. I understand, too, that—possibly not as part of the Bill but as part of this package—it is the Government's intention to improve the motability scheme. It is a very valuable, imaginative scheme which was introduced some years ago when we began to recognise how important it is that those who are disabled should have the maximum mobility. The scheme has been improved in the light of experience over the years, and I understand that there is to be a further improvement as part of this package. Perhaps my noble friend can give the House a little more information about that.
In conclusion, I believe that the Government are right to tackle this difficult and sensitive issue on the lines of the Bill. But I hope that my noble friend will be able to give the House some assurances particularly about those who will not be eligible for the new benefit.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, we have just been listening to the lone voice supporting the Government in this debate. I am afraid that I have to say that it was not the most convincing speech I have ever heard the noble Lord make either in this place or the other place. When the noble Lord referred to the old and the new system, that in no way disguised the fact that the new system under this Bill is very damaging indeed to disabled people. There can be no doubt about that among the organisations concerned with disabled people and disabled people themselves.
The basic fact about the Bill is that it attacks the recipients of sickness and invalidity benefit. It criticises both them and doctors. It criticises the recipients as malingerers, which means crooks, and the doctors for being less than truthful. Those are very serious allegations. The Government have not begun to substantiate any of them. My noble friend Lady Hollis in her marvellous speech was not quoting Labour Party propaganda. She was citing the Government's own research. It will be very interesting to see how the Government manage to meet and respond to that kind of criticism. I find it very impressive to quote the Government's own research. I had intended to raise some of the points which have already been mentioned but I do not propose to repeat what my noble friend said.
Basically, the Bill will reduce the very low incomes of disabled people. Those incomes are already grossly inadequate. It will hurt those people where they can be damaged most, and that is in their pockets. Their poverty will be made even worse. It will intensify their sense of persecution. I have spoken to many of them and I know how very deeply disturbed they are about it.
The new incapacity test has been well described by various speakers in the debate. To test on functional grounds whether any person is fit for any work, which is the core of the Bill, is a very major step. it is very controversial, to put it mildly. Yet the final details will not be available until August. So we are now discussing a Bill of which we do not know the details. That is a very strange procedure. We are debating the Bill today and

517
will have to consider further stages of it without having precise knowledge of that very controversial test. Frankly, it is an absurd situation.
All we can do is consider the questionnaire in the consultation document. I hope that the Minister looked at the evidence of the citizens' advice bureaux. It shot the Government's case to ribbons. It was devastating. In the CAB's view, the questionnaire was loaded with loaded questions. The CAB felt that it was ambiguous and imprecise, with all or nothing questions, and was particularly difficult for mentally handicapped people. Yet it is on that information or something like it that the finances of disabled people will depend. It is like giving them cardboard crutches. The Government must do better than that. Disabled people are being let down by the provisions of the Bill.
I appreciate that determining incapacity for work is very difficult. The Government have very serious problems to consider. I accept that straightaway. I also accept that the old, cosy attitudes have been shattered by new technology. Paralysed people can now function by blinking, and those who have seen them regard it as a minor miracle. Also telecommunications permit worldwide contact from a bedroom. Willpower can be more important than muscle power and intellectual skill and experience can be most crucial of all.
If that is the case, and I believe that it is indisputable, how can an inflexible test be expected to operate? Such an inflexible test is almost bound to fail, unless there is a major allowance for discretion and common sense. There is no such allowance in the provisions of the Bill.
One of the outstanding disability groups is the Disability Income Group. I was disappointed that that group's amendment, which suggested,
"work which he can reasonably be expected to do",
was not accepted in the Committee in another place, particularly as I understand that the panel of 80 experts was told to think of the concept of people,
"not normally expected to work".
Some such concept should be part of the Bill.
It is quite clear that the incomes of disabled people are going to fall. That is the intention of the Bill. The Minister made no attempt to disguise that fact. It is deplorable. I entered the other place in 1966 and began to support the campaigners for a comprehensive disability income. It is very regrettable that after more than 25 or 26 years we are moving away from the concept of a comprehensive disability benefit rather than moving toward it. I cannot understand how any government can move in that direction.
It is particularly disturbing that the Bill looks likely to create a major gap in the welfare system, in that people will be deemed fit for work by the Benefits Agency, and therefore denied incapacity benefit, and will be assessed as unfit for work by the Employment Service and denied unemployment benefit. We simply cannot have two government agencies giving conflicting rulings to the detriment of disabled people. People are either fit for work or they are not fit for work. They cannot be both. Simple logic precludes us from fiddling about and shilly-shallying. It is one or the other. At the
518
very least every disabled person should be offered the crumb of either incapacity benefit or unemployment benefit. It is illogical and unjust to deny both.
In conclusion, the Bill seems to have been drawn up by bureaucrats isolated from reality. Unfortunately, it has been given the imprimatur of government Ministers. Disabled people cannot be forced to work, nor can employers be forced to employ them. When disablement strikes, there has to be a sensitive process of readjustment and rehabilitation. It is not an all-or-nothing situation. There needs to be a proper, partial incapacity benefit and not the means tested DWA. I hope that the Government will heed the voices of the disability organisations and respond to the anxieties and dismay of disabled people themselves.
I have an apology to make. Because of a previous engagement, I must leave the Chamber now. It is a gross discourtesy to the House and I apologise for it but it is inescapable. I shall read the proceedings with very great interest and especially the speech of my noble friend Lady Turner and the response of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I apologise to them for being unable to stay. I hope that my words will at least be considered by the Government.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this is another unpleasant Bill from this Government. Many noble Lords have already expressed their concern about it and, as has already been said, only one noble Lord spoke in its support. I do not want to repeat a great deal of what has been said.
As we know, the intention is to replace current sickness and invalidity benefit with a new benefit, incapacity benefit, from April 1995. The Government have been frank about it: one of the objectives is to save money. If it were simply an exercise to simplify benefit structures we might perhaps be disposed to look at it in a rather different light. It is further alleged that it will encourage employers to improve the motivation and health of employees. In that respect it somewhat resembles the recent Bill considered by your Lordships—the Statutory Sick Pay Bill. Indeed, the Secretary of State in the other place made it clear that the two measures are all part of the same social security package. Both are intended to cut social security expenditure and both will undoubtedly have the effect, when fully in operation, of denying benefits to those who really should receive them.
At the root of both Bills is the belief, voiced to some extent by the Prime Minister, that a lot of people are now receiving IVB when they are simply swinging the lead. Indeed, in a debate in the other place, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said, the Prime Minister actually said that it beggared belief that so many more people have suddenly become invalids, especially at a time when the health of the population has improved. He said that he made no apologies for looking at this area of expenditure, and the clear implication is that people are receiving IVB who should not be receiving it.
Everyone would agree—certainly on this side of the House —that it is the duty of government to ensure that there is a review from time to time of social security

519
expenditure and the benefit structure with a view to ensuring that changing needs are being properly met. Of course governments have a duty to consider whether all taxpayers' money—I stress "all"—and not just social security expenditure is being wisely spent.
Our quarrel with the Government is that the reviews they conduct always seem to result in the poorest and most vulnerable becoming even worse off. An example of that was their decision to do away with wages councils, where there is evidence that even low wages council rates have been cut by unscrupulous employers now that they no longer have to pay a statutory limit.
I know that the Government commissioned studies by the Department of Social Security and by independent research establishments. They were referred to by the Minister and by my noble friend Lady Hollis. But it appears that the studies reveal that the reasons for the growth in claims are multifactorial. There have been demographic changes so that there are now more elderly people. Many of them have been made redundant in the shake-outs that have taken place in industry and commerce over the past 10 years. It is difficult for a man over the age of 50 to obtain work in many areas. That fact itself has a bad effect on health.
The Disability Income Group takes the view that the evidence shows that demographic and other changes have had a significant impact on the growth in numbers of IVB recipients and that the increase is largely a consequence of a lack of realistic work opportunities. If it is the Government's intention to get as many people as possible currently receiving IVB back into employment of some kind, perhaps they should look at other ways of achieving that desirable object.
Is it sensible to keep loading social costs on to employers? The Statutory Sick Pay Act is a case in point. Et is not likely to cause employers to take risks with applicants with poor sickness records or with people who have been on IVB. Then again there are the new access to work measures under which employers are to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of equipment that enables disabled people to work. If the Government were to look again at their policies in those areas, I may be inclined to take more seriously their claim that the benefit changes proposed in the Bill are intended to take people off benefit and put them back into work; in other words. that they are benevolently inclined.
Moreover, there is no doubt at all that the new benefit will mean substantial losses to people who are not well off in the first place. The Disability Income Group produced figures showing what those losses may be for various sections of people. The biggest cut of all is in the 29 to 52-week period when a married man of 40 with two children could lose as much as £1,095.60 in a year. A married man of 50 with no children would lose £1,132.80 a year. Prose are astronomical figures when one looks at what people are receiving anyway—and they are people who are not well off by any reckoning.
Therefore, in addition to the worries consequent upon ill health, people are to be further stressed by the loss of a substantial amount of income which they might have received had the present system continued. As we know, there will be a new definition of "incapacity for work" which is being established by a panel of experts. A
520
number of noble Lords mentioned the problems in regard to the new definition. It was pointed out by the organisations involved with the disabled that loss of functional ability does not necessarily equate with incapacity for work. A so-called purely medical test of incapacity for work may fail to take account of the realities of life for the disabled. My noble friend Lord Ashley dealt with that point at some length based on his own unrivalled experience.
The test of incapacity for work associated with invalidity benefit has taken account of many factors, including age, education, experience, state of health and other personal factors, including the likelihood of obtaining employment. All those factors are to be excluded from the new test. There is a fear that many people who are not able to do full-time work will fail the new test. Indeed, as has already been said, the aim would appear to be to exclude around 20 per cent. of the people currently eligible for IVB. If that is so, many more claimants will be found capable of work, even though they have a disability or illness which substantially restricts their work capacity and therefore their employability.
What will happen to such people? Will they suddenly become unemployment statistics once again as they start claiming unemployment benefit? There is a fear that some people may fall between two benefits, so to speak. They may not be fit enough to qualify for the jobseeker's allowance but too fit for incapacity benefit. They simply may not be fit enough to go out to look for work in a way that claimants will be expected to do in order to qualify as a jobseeker.
It is therefore another nasty Bill. The intention clearly is to save money and to do so at the expense of people who can ill afford to make so substantial a contribution to public funds as envisaged in the savings here. Over the years the Government have foolishly cut the Treasury provision to the National Insurance Fund and provided national insurance rebates to persuade people to leave SERPS and occupational pension schemes who would have been better off not doing so. Thus the Treasury has forgone income it might otherwise have had. We should not now be looking to make savings from the poor and the sick. We do not oppose Bills at Second Reading in this Chamber. But we must do our best in Committee and at Report to ameliorate to some degree this quite awful Bill.
4.27 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Bill that we are considering today is integral to the evolution of the welfare state. It is not simply a cuts exercise. The benefit system needs to be targeted and sustainable. The Bill addresses the changing needs of the welfare state ensuring that benefits are paid to those who genuinely need them at a level that the country—the taxpayer—can afford.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that it was an attack on the disabled. It is not. She said that it is not the disabled who are abusing the system. I agree with her. It is those who are not disabled who are abusing the system. The noble Baroness quoted some of our research figures and in doing so proved why the Bill is

521
so necessary. Of course, as always, when we look at these Bills, the Labour Party offers no alternative policy. It contracted out responsibility for its policy development to the Social Justice Commission—a form of privatisation, I suppose. It concedes the need for reform but has not yet offered alternatives of its own. In order to make sure that I am entirely fair to your Lordships, I should point out to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that his party does not even have the excuse that it contracted out to an independent body. However, I shall now turn to the Bill.
Your Lordships are concerned about the medical test. I appreciate those anxieties, which are understandable. In another place while the Bill was going through Parliament the Government offered the Committee an opportunity for a briefing by my department's medical advisers and officials on some of the detailed aspects of the test. As in another place, I am happy to make that offer to those of your Lordships who have spoken today and who will find it useful, perhaps before the Committee stage. I intend to write to your Lordships who have spoken to offer that opportunity at a time and date when we come back after the recess, if any of your Lordships find it useful. The medical test is complicated and it is a departure; it is a new test. I will today attempt to answer as many questions on it as I am able.
General practitioners are placed in an unacceptable position in their role as gate-keeper to the invalidity benefit. Not only can that role upset the doctor-patient relationship, but it can also impact on a GP's earnings if a patient decides to leave the practice when the GP refuses to issue a medical certificate. In a recent independent survey, two-thirds of GPs interviewed said that they had issued certificates to people who were either not sick at all or were not sick enough to be incapable of work. The new arrangements for long-term incapacity benefit will relieve the GP of the burden of issuing medical certificates to claimants who are long-term sick. Incapacity benefit is intended for those who are medically incapable of work. The test must focus on the effects of the medical condition. We are taking the greatest care in the development of the test. I have already outlined the degree of consultation and evaluation that we are undertaking. Moreover, personal input from the claimant, the GP and the Benefits Agency doctor will ensure that each case is looked at on an individual basis and assessed accordingly.
The consultation document that was published last year set out detailed proposals for the medical test. The test is complex, and it is right that we consult widely to ensure that the final proposals are an effective assessment of incapacity for work. In addition to consultation process, we are undertaking a formal evaluation of the test. The objectives of the evaluation are to test the validity of the method of assessment, the effectiveness of the questionnaire and other documentation, and the consistency of the medical decision making and the new adjudication arrangements. The evaluation exercise has three stages: pilot, main stage and follow-up. Before the regulations are made, we shall
522
produce a report that summarises the findings of the consultation and evaluation, setting out in detail the new test.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made the point that surely the GP was the best person to know whether his patient was fit for work. A GP is not an occupational physician and cannot be expected to be able to assess his patient's abilities in the job market as a whole. Some feel that they have to try to make assessments from a poor knowledge base; others feel that this type of assessment is outside the jurisdiction of GPs. Perhaps I may quote from part of a programme of research carried out by the department to examine the factors that have led to a growth in those receiving IVB. One of the GPs interviewed for the report said:
"you're ultimately deciding whether someone's going to get some money or something … and it's better in many ways, if there's someone, an independent person, a third person … I do wish it didn't rest with us".
The Government have never said that they think GPs are to blame for the growth in IVB or that they have acted in any way improperly in issuing certificates. The Government have listened to what GPs have said about how they feel as the gate-keeper for social security benefits.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, offered some bizarre examples of jobs. I share the anxieties of the noble Baroness. Presently, where an adjudication officer decides that a person is incapable of his normal occupation but is capable of alternative work, case law requires that he specifies the type of work that that person may do. The jobs do not have to be available. The test is: if such work was available, could the person do it? That is why under the new test there will be no such requirement. The new medical test gets away from the method of assigning people to particular jobs and looks at the physical, mental and sensory capabilities required to do work, and by consensus will set a threshold at or above which capacity for work is substantially reduced.
It would not be right to continue to pay incapacity benefit to people who are not incapable of work. Unemployment benefits are available to people who are not incapable but are available for work. Unemployment services provide a range of programmes to help people back to work according to their particular needs. This ranges from help with fares to get to interviews to retraining for a new occupation. Those people who have been out of work for a long time are given priority.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about mental health difficulties. We are taking steps to ensure that the particular needs of people with mental health problems are addressed. A special procedure is being developed for people with severe mental illness. There will be questions in the questionnaire designed to provide information in cases of mild to moderate mental illness. In all such cases, a departmental doctor will consider the matter before a decision on entitlement is made.
The noble Earl asked about the purpose of the mental health questionnaire. The purpose is to provide a scored assessment of the effect of mild to moderate mental health problems on a person's capacity for work. It is aimed at the borderline between those people who can be considered fit enough to return to work and those

523
who are still unfit. It is not a diagnostic test of any mental condition, but provides information on the features of mental health problems that affect incapacity for work. Members of the assessment panel are working on the questionnaire to derive a threshold at or above which capacity for work is reduced by the existence of mental health problems.
In all cases where there has been a certified diagnosis of mental illness, the matter will be referred for advice to Benefits Agency doctors after 28 weeks. Information will be sought from the person's GP about the severity of the condition, including details about clinical findings and whether the person requires secure accommodation or is capable of independent living. In severe cases no questionnaire will be issued. The Benefits Agency doctor will return the case to the adjudication officer with the relevant information.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked about Benefits Agency doctors being capable of assessing functional limitations and medical conditions and giving advice. Those doctors have long experience of, and skills in, the assessment of disabilities. They will be fully conversant with the requirements of legislation and trained in the application of the new test. They will be able to provide independent advice without the constraints of the doctor-patient relationship which many GPs feel frustrate their ability to give an objective opinion.
Benefits Agency doctors will be involved in various ways. They will offer immediate advice to adjudication officers on the consistency between the information provided by the claimant on his or her functional limitations and the diagnosis and statement of main disabling conditions by the GP. They will obtain factual medical information from GPs or hospitals and carry out a functional assessment following a medical examination. The assessment will include the confirmation of diagnosis and the main disabling condition, a functional assessment of the person's ability to carry out the activities included in the test, a record of the person's functional limitations, including an explanation of any differences in the customer's questionnaire, and a recommendation as to whether or not further reviews should take place, if at all.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the questionnaire and whether it was an objective medical test. The questionnaire is the first step in the gathering of evidence to determine the claimant's incapacity. It continues the emphasis on the greater involvement of claimants in the decision-making process. The questionnaire focuses on capacity in terms that a lay person can understand. The proposed scheme will provide a comprehensive system that will give a full and fair service to all claimants.
The noble Earl was also worried about whether the test was just a limited look at someone's illness. It will not be a snapshot of medical assessment but will involve the completion of a questionnaire by the claimant, a statement of diagnosis from the claimant's GP, a list of principal disabling conditions and, when required, referral to a departmental doctor for report and examination. Departmental doctors who examine claimants will take account of the variability of the conditions over a period of time. Thus the assessment
524
will create an overall picture of the effect of the medical condition on the person's ability to carry out a range of work-related activities and hence their capacity to work.
We are developing a test which assesses specifically the effects of a claimant's medical condition on their capacity to work. The test is not looking at the overall ability to get and retain a job. Where a person is disadvantaged in the labour market because of factors such as age and qualifications, other forms of help are available to them. Our original intention is to introduce a test which is based on the effects of medical conditions. Many people have said that factors such as, experience and qualifications should be taken into account. These are not medical factors. The ability to travel to work is, however, different and its inclusion into the consideration would not necessarily invalidate the test. We have recently initiated a further validation exercise whereby we shall be considering this further.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Harp tree, asked about people who fail the test. It would be wrong to continue paying incapacity benefit to people who are assessed as capable of work. Those who fail the test will be able to register as unemployed and claim unemployment benefit and income support if they are unable to find work. Those who find a job within two months of leaving incapacity benefit will be able to claim disability working allowance.
My noble friend also asked about protection and how long it will last. Existing IVB claimants will transfer to incapacity benefit at IVB rates so long as they remain incapable of work. The rates of benefit will be up-rated annually except for the additional pension which will be frozen at the April 1995 rates.
Much of the debate has focused on helping sick and disabled people to get back to work. Many people who receive incapacity benefits do indeed want to work. We are making important changes to provide help for those who wish to go back to work. Benefits for the disabled have undergone massive and effective change in the past two years with the introduction of the disability living allowance and the disability working allowance. The disability working allowance in particular strives to provide assistance for those disabled people who wish to work and also provides a very important link back to the higher rates of incapacity benefits should the individual's attempt at work fail. Although take-up has been disappointingly slow, we must remember that the benefit is still quite new and I hope that take-up will improve in the future.
We are making a number of improvements to disability working allowance. The recipients will qualify for remission of prescriptions and dental charges from April 1995. We are introducing a disregard from October this year for up to £40 worth of childcare costs. This will be worth up to £28 per week for DWA recipients who wish to return to work with children under 11 years of age.
Recognising that many sick and disabled people wish to undergo training before starting work in future, they will be allowed to attend training courses between their final payment of incapacity benefit and starting work, and will still qualify for DWA. This is yet another step

525
towards ensuring that those people who wish to work will receive a comprehensive package of support that will enable them to re-enter the labour force.
In addition, the Secretary of State for Employment will be examining very carefully the circumstances of those who will become unemployed after being disallowed incapacity benefit; the intention here is to enable them to get back to work.
We are also carrying forward existing arrangements to allow some of the work and earnings of members of disability appeal tribunals to be disregarded when determining entitlement to existing incapacity benefit. We shall go further by introducing arrangements for Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board members. This, like the arrangements for voluntary work has been widely welcomed.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was anxious about the powers to make delegated legislation. I hope that your Lordships will see in this case that the powers are being properly sought. Secondary legislation is appropriate for the medical tests for three reasons. First, there will be a lot of detail to put into legislation which will needlessly add to the ever larger volume of statute law. Secondly, defining incapacity for work is a difficult process. Amendments may need to be made quickly to the medical test. Finally, making provision for delegated legislation allows for both the new arrangements to be brought in in 1995 and a wide-ranging consultation and evaluation exercise. Transitional issues too are complex. Regulations will allow a degree of flexibility if change is necessary in the light of operational experience. I hope that that provides an assurance to your Lordships. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure if made within three years of Royal Assent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spoke about IVB rates compared with unemployment and sickness benefit rates. The average amount of IVB currently in payment is about £90 a week. The earnings related additional pension can be up to £70 a week on top of that. IVB is paid without regard to financial need, occupational pension or the savings which the individual may have. That compares to the current rate of unemployment benefit of £45 a week. In future, the basic rate of long-term (highest) incapacity benefit will still be about 25 per cent. higher than the rate of unemployment benefit.
The noble Baroness also asked about the additions paid for child dependants. The increase will be paid with the highest rate of incapacity benefit for each of the dependants.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may help the Minister because this is a crucial point. We were talking about the higher rate for the short-term period which was between 26 weeks and 52 weeks when no child dependency allowances come into play. Therefore, a disabled man, married and with two teenage children, may find his incapacity award about £30 a week below what he would be getting in the same position on income support. Will the Minister confirm those figures, please?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was trying to point out to the noble Baroness that the child dependency increase will be paid at the highest rate of incapacity benefit for each child. I shall study what I said earlier and also what the noble Baroness said. If there are any differences, I shall perhaps write to the noble Baroness.
Incapacity benefit will continue to be paid even to those who have other income or savings. The benefit can be topped up by occupational pensions or income support for those who need it. The basic rate of incapacity benefit will be the same as the existing basic rate of invalidity benefit. Age additions will be payable to those whose incapacity begins early in their working life before they have been able to make their own private provision. Increases will continue to be paid to those who have a dependent spouse or dependent children. Even after the changes, about 70 per cent. of the new, long-term incapacity benefit recipients will have circumstances which will take them above income support entitlement.
The noble Baroness was also concerned about people who fail the incapacity test, but who are considered by the employment service as unfit to work and therefore will not qualify for any benefit. The employment service does not question the capability of those found fit to work by an adjudication officer. Those who are available for and are actively seeking work, will be eligible to claim unemployment-related benefits.
The Bill contains specific provision to ensure that a decision on incapacity benefit applies to other benefits. The noble Baroness was also concerned about disabled people being disadvantaged in the jobs market. All Employment Service and in Training, Enterprise and Educational Directorate programmes and services for unemployed people are open to unemployed people with disabilities, often with entry criteria being relaxed. In addition, there is a wide range of services and schemes for those who need special help.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned also about this subject. A person who is either incapable of work or who is registered as unemployed, will qualify for national insurance contribution credits. The new more objective test of incapacity will apply across the social security system and will establish whether a person is medically capable of work. My officials are working closely with colleagues in the Department of Employment on the design of the new test. Any claimant found capable under the test who wants to receive benefit will need to make a claim for unemployment benefit.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Viscount a simple question. Are we meant to hear what he is saying or is this just a conversation that he is having with himself?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord cannot hear what I am saying. I was trying, within the time available, to answer as many questions as I could. The noble Lord can study Hansard tomorrow so he will be able to read anything that he could not hear.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most of us have listened with very great interest to his careful and skilful analysis of some of the problems?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out. Perhaps noble Lords opposite do not want to hear what really matters. Perhaps they want to hear only what suits their case—and nothing else. If their amplifiers are not working well, I am sure that noble Lord opposite can make appropriate noises in the right direction.
The Bill is a fundamental reform. It is backed up by the findings of an extensive research programme. I believe that it is a fair response to the conflicting pressures of making provision for sick and disabled people and ever-growing expenditure. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may first assure him that under the Bill, for six months disabled men with families will be worse off than family men on income support and without disabilities. If the Minister is surprised by that, perhaps we may hope that that is a good sign and that he will be willing to amend the legislation in Committee. Secondly, does the Minister agree with his own Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael Partridge, who told the Public Accounts Committee:
"The theory that increased numbers on invalidity benefit is due to fraud is not sustained by the research".
Does the Minister agree with that? If he does agree, is it not the case that the medical test is being changed precisely because there is no fraud in the system—because if there were fraud, it could be rooted out in other ways?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Baroness is confused about what is and what is not fraud. I believe that the Permanent Secretary was entirely clear about what he regarded as fraud and what is something else. The noble Baroness is confusing the two issues totally. Fraud is not telling the Benefits Agency about one's entitlement or working when one is claiming benefit. That is a totally different matter from whether the test is objective and whether it is working. It has nothing at all to do with it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I may ask him a purely procedural question. If it should be the wish of the House to approve the Bill but not to approve the medical test, by what procedural rule can the House pursue that objective?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the regulations with regard to the medical test will be affirmative regulations and will come before your Lordships. Your Lordships will have a chance to debate those regulations, and the noble Earl can table a Motion against them.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Insolvency (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
British Railways Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Enforcement of Community Competition Rules: ECC Report
4.54 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley Lord Slynn of Hadley rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Enforcement of Community Competition Rules (1st Report, HL Paper 7).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the prohibition on anti-competitive practices, which is set out in Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome, has long been recognised as essential to establish the freedom of movement of goods, services and capital in the Common Market. It is no less essential that rules should have been established for the investigation and enforcement of those provisions. It is no less essential that if that were done by the Commission (as it had to be in view of the trans-national nature of many of the agreements and in view of the fact that many member states did not have a developed system of anti-competitive laws), those rules should be applied on a uniform basis.
By 1982, the backlog of cases before the Commission was considerable and there were many complaints by enterprises and their lawyers about the way in which the Commission was carrying out its tasks. For that reason, your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities conducted an investigation into those procedures and reported. Its criticisms were taken seriously by the Commission and, to a considerable degree, its recommendations were implemented. It was a remarkable achievement that that report was made and that its recommendations were so fully implemented.
Lately, however, there has been renewed concern about certain aspects of the Commission's procedures, as expressed by business enterprises and their lawyers. One reason—it is not the only one—is that, inevitably, the number of cases to be investigated by the Commission has increased. It is for that reason that the Select Committee decided to investigate the matter again and to see whether we could recommend further changes to avoid those difficulties. The committee has received very great assistance. We wish to express our appreciation to the many witnesses who gave evidence: the Bar, the Law Society, the Confederation of British Industry, the Director General of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and others. We should like to pay tribute particularly to Dr. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, the Director-General of the Competition Directorate, not only for his evidence, but

529
also for his open-minded consideration and reception of our proposals. We are also greatly indebted to Mrs. Eileen Denza, our legal adviser, for her considerable and valuable help in preparing our report.
I do not propose to detain your Lordships with an analysis of much of the detail that is set out in our report, but I invite your Lordships' consideration of four particular matters. The first concerns the structure of the Commission's teams. It is sometimes said that it is wrong that one body should set out to detect breaches of the treaty, to prosecute and then to take a decision about whether there have been violations of Articles 85 and 86. There is a superficial attraction in that approach and in saying that the same person should not be judge, prosecutor and policeman at the same time. However, in the end we were not persuaded that that was a necessary or desirable course. The setting up of one or more independent agencies would create problems. Even the setting up of separate directorates-general within the Commission would not be easy and we do not think that it would necessarily remedy the defects of which complaint has been made. We concluded that subject to the other changes that we recommend to achieve the goals of transparency, fairness and effective deterrence, it was not necessary to do that and that the function should be left with the Commission.
The second matter that we considered arose out of a number of very serious complaints that had been made by lawyers and business enterprises that they were being denied access to the Commission's files when their business affairs were under investigation. It is only fair to say that the Commission and, in particular, Dr. Ehlermann in his evidence, denied that there had been such a refusal. It appeared to the committee that it was essential that those enterprises which were being investigated should have access to material necessary for them to know the case made against them and to prepare their defence. However, we recognise that against that there has to be balanced the need for confidentiality and a justified claim by the Commission to preserve some of its internal working documents.
The task is not an easy one, but it seemed to the committee that it is essential that people should know where they are and to what they are entitled. So we have recommended that the Commission should publish a set of rules on access, making plain the limits of access and what types of documents are not to be made available. Equally we have recommended that there should be prepared an internal manual of procedure for Commission reporters to work to so that parties which are being investigated will know the rules. But we want to go much further than that.
After the last report in 1982, the post of hearing officer was created by the Commission. It was his job to supervise and to preside over oral hearings by the Commission and to make a report before a decision was taken by the Commission. The hearing officer has carried out an important function in relation to the oral hearings and the follow-up, and he has done that very well, but in the committee's view his function is too
530
limited. We recommend that he should have interlocutory powers to resolve procedural disputes in the course of an inquiry.
If a company wants to get hold of documents, and the Commission refuses its request, it should be for the hearing officer to decide whether the Commission is right or whether access should be granted. We have recommended some time-limits for the conduct of those inquiries, and the hearing officer should be empowered to resolve those disputes if they arise. Moreover, we think it quite wrong that the hearing officer's report should not be given to the parties, and we recommend that in future that should be done.
That is a big new step, but we recommend an even further step. We do not believe that it is enough that the hearing officer should necessarily have the last word. Following the Single European Act 1986, the court of first instance was established. It has already done good work to the satisfaction of most enterprises in deciding important cases. It has given confidence to business enterprises that there will be a full review of Commission decisions, and that procedural rules will be clarified and enforced.
The committee recommends that there should be a right of appeal from a decision of the hearing officer to the court of first instance, either directly or via a decision of a single commissioner. Otherwise, it seems to us that the practice will continue that disputes about procedure which arise at a very early stage will be the subject of a judicial decision only at the end of the case, perhaps years later when a great deal of work will have been done and perhaps wasted. So we recommend that there should be set up a right of appeal to the court of first instance.
We realise that it might be said that that would take time and cause delay. There might be delay, but we consider that that delay can be reduced considerably if two steps are taken: first, the appeal should be with leave only, we suggest, of a single judge of the court of first instance or of the hearing officer; secondly, we believe that the matter should be dealt with not by the full court or even by a chamber, but by a single judge. That suggestion would require a revision of the Court of Justice's rules. We thought in our report that it might also need an amendment of Regulation 17—the basic regulation which sets out the Commission's rules—but the view has been expressed by a number of eminent members of the Bar that it would not be necessary to revise Regulation 17. We may have been overcautious, but that is something that can be looked into by the Commission's lawyers and, I hope, by the United Kingdom Government's lawyers.
Whether or not Regulation 17 needs amending, the committee strongly urges that that right of appeal to the court of first instance should be set up as soon as possible. We very much hope that whether or not it requires amendment of Regulation 17, the Government will support our proposal. We have every reason to think that it may be a proposal acceptable to the Commission, and we believe that it will be a crucial step in giving business enterprises the confidence to feel that these inquiries are being conducted properly

531
I can deal with the other two points more briefly. The third point concerns a document which is somewhat curiously called a "comfort letter". When the Commission finds that it is unable to conduct a full inquiry and come to a decision within a reasonable time, and when the case is perhaps a relatively simple one, it writes a comfort letter indicating to the business enterprise concerned that it does not really see that there has been a violation of the treaty, but without giving a firm decision. That is good in that it helps to keep down the backlog, but the committee considered that it would be very much better if comfort letters were made more effective, and led, in many cases, to a decision by a single commissioner on the basis of the comfort letter. It would give a great deal more comfort if a commissioner could take a decision on the basis of the letter, and again, if that were properly carried out we do not believe that there should be unnecessary delay.
The fourth matter which is important in the present climate and context is the relationship between the Commission and national competition authorities. There have been many suggestions that investigations into anti-competitive practices should be dealt with more frequently by the national authorities, and the Commission itself has strongly encouraged that as a policy. So far the Commission has given what has been called a notice on co-operation. We believe that many of the less complex cases can well be dealt with by national authorities. We have recommended that criteria should now be established in order to decide whether the case should be dealt with in the UK or in the Commission in Brussels.
It will be necessary though to ensure that there is some supervision of these matters by the Commission, and we hope that that will speed up the process and lead still to uniform decisions within the Community. It may well be that most of our recommendations can be put into place now, or very quickly, without an amendment to Regulation 17, but if amendments to Regulation 17 are needed, the committee urges that the Government should press for the amendment of Regulation 17. Of course it will take time, but that need not hold up our other recommendations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. As I shall indicate in the course of my remarks, I believe that he and his colleagues have done a tremendous service. However, I am a little puzzled by the omission of one aspect, to which he might later allude. No reference has been made to political influences which may affect the final judgments of members of the Commission. The noble and learned Lord will know that in a number of instances the Commission has divided on these issues by nine to eight or even on the casting vote of the president. Does not that give rise to some anxiety that perhaps the competition elements are subsumed by other political and even national considerations? Why did the committee not choose to take the evidence of a former commissioner with responsibility for competition or, indeed, of the present commissioner?
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, we did not deal with that matter because it was felt to be completely
532
outside our remit. We were looking at the basic procedures of the Commission and of methods of judicial review. It may be that one of the other sub-committees of your Lordships' Select Committee might be competent to look into political influences and the way in which the Commission operates. However, it was not felt to be an appropriate subject for the sub-committee dealing with law and institutions. I understand the basis of the noble Lord's question, but on this occasion we felt that it was inappropriate to deal with that matter.
I hope that the Government will accept our recommendations. If Regulation No. 17 has to be amended, and if it it going to take time to amend it, the sooner we get on with it the better because it has been in existence for 30 years.
I have not dealt with many of the detailed and minor but important aspects of our report. That would be an improper use of your Lordships' time. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Enforcement of Community Competition Rules (1st Report, HL Paper 7).—(Lord Slynn of Hadley.)
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, I support the introduction to the debate, which was ably and comprehensively covered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley. I join him in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Our sub-committee deals entirely with law and institutions. It does not deal with political matters, which are outside the remit of the committee. I support the noble and learned Lord in his reply.
It is sometimes questioned whether the reports from your Lordships' Select Committee on European Communities have any positive effect. In the report before the House today the committee gave a unique opportunity for legal practitioners and others to raise the problems arising from the administration by the Commission relating to competition cases. The matter was initially raised in correspondence from the joint working party of the Bar and Law Societies of the United Kingdom and in evidence to the committee. I mention that in particular to show the basis on which the investigation took place; it came from practitioners in this field.
In 1982 the committee examined the subject for the first time. Many of the recommendations contained in its report were implemented. They involved administrative changes, including the appointment of a person who became known as the hearing officer. Later provision was made in the Single European Act 1986 to establish a court of first instance. That reflected the recommendation of the establishment of a new court subordinate to the European Court of Justice which would have the duty of hearing appeals on questions of law and fact from the decisions of the Commission in competition cases. That was included in the recommendations of the 1982 report. The court's role has proved invaluable in its reviews of Commission decisions relating to competition cases. I welcome the new task that has been

533
given to the court of first instance in reviewing decisions relating to anti-dumping cases that was recently announced.
It should be stressed that in 1982 and recently in the examination of competition rules the Commission was most co-operative and helpful. I endorse what the noble and learned Lord said in relation to the full co-operation of the Directorate-General of DG IV, Dr. Ehlermann, who provided both written and oral evidence which assisted the committee to identify those areas in which changes can and will be implemented. The committee is extremely grateful to him and I strongly endorse the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord.
The problems identified fall broadly into three categories. The first two require administrative action to meet specific difficulties. The first category, which has been generally a matter for anxiety, has been access to the files by a defendant. That was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, but I wish to stress it because, in practice, they were sometimes available to defendants or to businesses involved in the cases either at the outset of the investigation or at other times only when the statement of objections was served. The procedure is clearly unsatisfactory.
The second category is to improve the conduct of proceedings. Evidence from practitioners showed that an increased role for the hearing officer would assist in dealing with procedural disputes during the course of the proceedings. It is understood informally that the Commission agrees to this proposal and is willing to implement it.
I shall not deal in more detail with the use of comfort letters and block exemptions. However, perhaps I may mention that they were strongly encouraged in the recommendations in our 1982 report in order to meet the vast backlog of notifications with which the Commission was faced. In 1982, approximately 4,000 notifications were waiting to be handled but at the end of 1992 the 22nd report on competition policy noted that approximately 1,560 notifications were waiting. Admittedly, that is a decrease but it is still formidable.
The problems with this form of comfort letter are that the measures are not legally binding and they can have consequences for third parties. Therefore the matter needs investigating. In the past few years dramatically increased fines have been imposed by the Commission without any apparent justification. We recommend that reasons for fines should be set out so that an element of transparency is introduced into the decisions.
The third category of recommendations requiring amendment to Regulation No. 17—a regulation that has governed the distribution of administrative powers between the Commission and national authorities in relation to Articles 85 and 86 of the treaty since 1962—would contribute to meeting many of the difficulties encountered at present. Among those that would be welcome is the imposition of a binding timetable, which was introduced informally by Sir Leon Brittan when he was responsible for competition policy. Deadlines can work; they were imposed by the 1989 regulation governing mergers and acquisitions. The task force appointed to handle such cases has operated effectively.
534
It must be observed that while the size of the staffing of DG IV cannot be the sole reason for failure to handle the large backlog of notifications, it was stated in the 22nd report that the number of staff was 407, of which only 44 per cent.—fewer than 200—were handling Article 85 and 86 cases. That appears in paragraph 125 of the report. The equivalent staffing in the US Department of Justice is more than 1,000; and that is without the added complication of receiving evidence in one or more of nine languages. There is a need to look at the staffing to see how it can be handled, in particular as a result of the enlargement of the Community to 16 countries. Presumably there will be an increasing workload on the Commission as regards competition cases. I do not see how it can manage with a staff of fewer than 200 and a large backlog of notifications.
In order to lighten the Commission's burden it issued a notice to give encouragement to national courts to hear more competition cases, to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Although our report supports that concept, it raises quite a number of problems: the question of which member state court is to be the forum of the complaint; increased costs arising from translation and interpretation services; the burden of costs on the complainant if the outcome is negative, which is not applicable in cases decided by the Commission; and the use of a block exemption as a solution being reserved to the Commission. Those matters may be overcome. If so, the Commission's task may well be lightened, but I believe that the matter needs much closer examination as it is possible also that recourse would then be had to the European Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EC treaty.
Whereas in most areas of Community law administration is left to member states, competition rules are administered directly by the Commission. I believe that the report has fulfilled a useful function in that the committee was able to have the benefit of discussions with experts in the field about the many anxieties which have been raised and which have faced practitioners in recent years.
It is hoped that the recommendations made by the report will achieve what are considered to be the desirable objectives of fairness, transparency and speed. It is perhaps worth pointing out that, although the proposals are based almost entirely, though not wholly, on evidence produced by British experts, they will benefit all those who practise in the field throughout the European Community. I shall listen with great interest to the Minister's reply, particularly in relation to the possible amendment of Regulation 17.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be extremely grateful for the report prepared under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and will be grateful also to the committee which produced the report that we are now discussing.
I should say at the outset that although, as will emerge, I agree with many of the observations made in the report, I have the most profound misgivings concerning certain aspects of existing procedures and

535
structures and, more particularly, profound unease as to the role of the Council, the Commission and, in some cases, the Government in connection with these extremely important matters.
believe that it will be agreed—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord agrees—that the report has certain limitations. I am not saying that that diminishes its importance or the cogency with which the arguments are conducted. However, in the main, those limitations are connected with the procedures and, indeed, the structures that carry out the procedures, starting from the commencement of the investigation until the solution of the case:. A certain amount of time elapses before the investigation commences. I hope to persuade your Lordships that that is a matter of some importance.
The next limitation of the report is that it deals with Articles 85 and 89 of the Treaty of Rome, which still applies even after the amendments of Maastricht. However, it does not deal with the enforcement powers applicable to infringements of the Treaty of Paris of 18th April 1951 in connection with, in particular, the payment of illegal subsidies. That question and the whole question of the status of the Treaty of Paris is not dealt with at all in the report. As your Lordships will see, that may be extremely germane to the views which I hold about the recommendations made in the report.
The committee's report lays down quite correctly the objectives of law enforcement which are to be found at paragraph 96 which states:
"The objectives of law enforcement are that it should be fair—justice must be done; transparent—justice must manifestly be seen to be done; swift—justice delayed is justice denied",
and your Lordships will observe at a later stage of my remarks that I shall return to that point. The paragraph continues:
"and deterrent—the sword in the right hand, as well as the scales in the left".
As the committee's conclusions are directed at Articles 85 and 89 and at the procedures in connection with them, I agree entirely with many of its observations. It is desirable that national courts should be brought into a wider sphere and be given encouragement. It is desirable that the court of first instance should be used more extensively and I shall have more detailed observations about that. Pending any changes—and I shall certainly recommend some—I agree that Directorate-General IV should have more lawyers and accountants in it in order to carry out more satisfactorily its tasks. In general, on the assumption that no fundamental changes are made, I am in substantial agreement with the report, subject to one thing only: I think that it is highly undesirable that the functions of investigation, prosecution, judgment and, ultimately, punishment or acquittal should be in the hands of one body. That is extremely undesirable. I am known to have somewhat definitive views on the EC and some of its operations. However, having discussed the matter with a number of noble Lords who are learned in the law I am fortified in tie view that that is generally undesirable.
That brings me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis concerning the nature of the Commission. In essence, the Commission is not a judicial body: fundamentally, it is a political body. If
536
justice is to be determined within the sense that most of us—and some of my lawyer friends—understand it, then it must be done within an atmosphere which is essentially judicial and not political. As I hope to be able to prove later in the course of my' remarks, being an intentionally political body, with the atmosphere of politics permeating it from top to bottom, the Commission is not really the ideal body to arrive at judicial decisions, even within the political context of the Treaty of Rome or the Treaty of Paris.
Although the law undoubtedly has political flavouring at all levels of the Community, I recommend that the judicial process—that is the process of determining results based upon the law—should be left to the court of first instance; and that cases should be referred to the judgment of that court rather than to any branch of the Commission.
I am well aware that that would entail extensive new recruitment of lawyers and their staffs for the court of first instance. Indeed, there would, perhaps, have to be opportunities for hearing in front of a single judge, and so on, because not all cases are of equal gravity or dimension. However, I put it to noble Lords that, however it is accomplished and without wishing to cast any adverse reflection on anyone, judicial functions ought to be taken out of the hands of the Commission.
If anyone doubts the political atmosphere pervading the Commission, one only has to look at reports in today's newspapers where it can be seen that commissioners are taking an overtly critical view of the United Kingdom's attitude towards the current voting procedure discussion. It has become commonplace over the past few years, especially since the advent of M. Delors, for commissioners to take sides with some member states against another member state. I believe that it is within the knowledge of your Lordships to observe that over the past few years endeavours by individual commissioners to place the United Kingdom "in the dock" have grown both in number and intensity. Therefore, I suggest that, in some form or another, the judicial function ought to be taken out of the hands of the Commission. I do so for the reasons stated in part by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and partly for the observations that I shall make.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he support the idea that it should be for national courts to hear such cases? Does he endorse that particular view?
Lord Bruce of Donington: Yes, my Lords; I have already indicated that I support those recommendations. As long as such cases are solved judicially, as opposed to having deep political overtones and undertones, I would be happy with the situation. I may not be happy with all the judgments and I may even reserve the right of the ordinary citizens to criticise judges. I see that my noble friend wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am much obliged. While I have gone some way along the road with my noble friend, I certainly do not find myself in the broad thoroughfare of his argument. Is it not right that, ultimately, the court has supervision of the matter? I

537
shall argue for greater transparency in the process of decision making other than that which the court now ultimately has as regards supervision of the matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, that is right as regards the end process rather than the process of justice itself. I am not anxious to bring my noble friend all the way with me in such matters. Indeed, that would be out of tradition with the relationship that I enjoy with my Front Bench which I am most anxious not to disturb unduly. However, I welcome my noble friend's support periodically.
I revert now to the Treaty of Paris. I do so because the competition rules also apply to it. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminded us in the course of the debate which took place in your Lordships' House on 25th October 1993 on the steel industry:
"Article 4 of that treaty states that certain acts are recognised as incompatible with the Common Market and shall accordingly be abolished and prohibited. Item (c) in that list is:
'subsidies or aids granted by states, or special charges imposed by states, in any form whatsoever'."—[Official Report 25/10/93; col. 719.]
Further, Article 54 of the treaty lays on the "High Authority" (which at a later stage became the Commission) powers to carry out certain duties. It reads:
"The 'High Authority' may facilitate the carrying out of investment programmes by granting loans to undertakings or guaranteeing other loans. However, if the High Authority finds that the financing of a programme or the operation of the installations therein planned would involve subsidies, aids protection or discrimination contrary to this Treaty, a decision to this effect by the High Authority shall have the effect of prohibiting the undertaking from drawing on resources other than its own funds. Undertakings which disregard such prohibition may be fined up to an amount not exceeding the 'improperly devoted' funds".
That is further reinforced by Article 95 of the same treaty.
It is quite clear that over a number of years there have been wholesale violations of the Treaty of Paris condoned by the Commission. In support of that, perhaps I should draw noble Lord's attention to another report by the Select Committee of this House. It is entitled Restructuring of the EC Steel Industry (HL Paper 30) and was published on 1st March. Of course, it was too early to have been taken into account by the noble and learned Lord's committee which was dealing purely with Articles 85 to 89. The findings of the committee are astounding. Perhaps I may just give your Lordships a flavour of what the committee said. Paragraph 5 on page 5 reads:
"As part of the package, and at the United Kingdom's insistence (Q 10), a more rigorous monitoring system was set up, which requires the Commission to report directly to the Council, to identify illegal subsidies".
I shall have some observations to make as to why the Council should, at this very late stage, seek to persuade the Commission to do something which it ought to have done long ago. The Commission has been aware of the situation for some time.
I should like now to refer to some of the evidence in that respect which the committee considered. For example, I refer noble Lords to Mr. Moffat's views given in evidence on 27th January. He is the leader of the steel industry in the UK. He said:
538
"In our view, the Commission has a duty to police the industry to ensure that ECSC law is not flouted … If a Government feels strongly enough about a situation, by not agreeing, in effect, it uses the veto".
The Commission has done nothing and the Government have not exercised any veto. Therefore, the illegal subsidies which have been going on for years, still continue. In case the Minister is a little embarrassed, I should point out that at a later stage the Government agreed with Mr. Moffat, so it is no good saying that such views are not those of the Government. Indeed, I shall deal with the Government's views in a moment. Mr. Moffat continued:
"We still have a situation now, for example, in Germany, that a company that was made bankrupt, a company called Saarstahl in the Saar, whose main shareholder walked away from it, which was a State-owned company incidentally, was subsequently declared bankrupt and the Government of the Saar quite openly since then has been propping it up with State money to the extent of even paying the wages. The Commission to date, despite protests from British Steel among others, to our knowledge has not formally challenged the situation and yet it is a month now since the Council of Ministers meeting where words like that were spoken".
At that stage in the proceedings, the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, made an intervention by saying:
"In that context, where a Member State makes a complaint to the Commission that State aid is enabling one of the aided companies concerned to under-price, the Commission will launch an investigation, in particular under Article 60 ECSC".
However, it has done nothing of the kind, despite the fact that those illegal subsidies are openly published in German newspapers. Then Mr. Moffat described the meeting with the Minister, Mr. Sainsbury, stating:
"I met with Mr. Sainsbury two of the United Kingdom's largest constructional steel companies who are customers of British Steel, not very long ago, pointing out where subsidies are existing, and the fact that they are in competition with people who are being subsidised".
Yet nothing at all was done about that. That prompted the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, to comment on this matter at a later stage, saying,
"Can I get one thing absolutely clear? I have understood, correctly I hope, that this was not subject to QMV? It was a situation which Britain could have vetoed if we had had the guts".
The QMV in that quotation refers to qualified majority voting. The answer to that question was "Yes".
The Government's own position on this matter is made abundantly clear on page 9 of the evidence when Mr. Sainsbury, on 10th February, replied to a question from the chairman. Mr. Sainsbury stated:
"I think the most important part of the agreement is the emphasis on the elimination of future running cost subsidies and the monitoring arrangements to control that agreement … and the attitude of the Commission to those are I think much stronger than anything in the past, together with the important point that the Commission have to come before the Council to report on their monitoring".
The first meeting with the Council is 24th April.
I could give further examples of the present situation and I could record, while I am about it, the attitude of Her Majesty's Government within the Council of Ministers. Mr. Sainsbury records his account of the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 17th December. In referring to a lack of support of his arguments from Germany and France, Mr. Sainsbury stated:
"I have to say that at the end their support was, perhaps, not as robust as one might reasonably have expected, but other factors come into play and maybe other Community activities which they were concerned about influenced their eventual decisions".
He concludes,

539
"So every time I looked along hoping to get a bit of support, it was silence. I am afraid".
This is what happens, apparently, even after Maastricht when we are supposed to be right at the heart of Europe. We look for some support to persuade the Commission to take action, as it is required to do under the Treaty of Paris, and we receive no support from anyone, possibly of course because other deals have been done and the non-intervention of the Commission is probably part of some package deal.
I suggest to your Lordships that this is wrong. I am suggesting—as I indicated that I would—that there must be speedy justice because justice delayed means that justice is not done. In this case three or four years have passed since the Commission became aware—this was documented and relayed to the Commission—that certain member states were in breach of the subsidy requirements of the Treaty of Paris and yet the Commission has done nothing. In the next few days, possibly tomorrow, we shall be able to determine how much esteem and resolution the Government can muster in support of their position, allegedly at the heart of Europe. We shall probably know the position after tomorrow. In the meantime your Lordships ought to give serious examination—I put it no higher than that—to the degree to which the Commission is either competent or has the political will to enforce the law of competition in cases where it does not suit it, for other reasons, so to do.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I shall be brief not only because I do not have the depth or detailed familiarity on this matter of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, but also because we on these Benches in general warmly support the recommendations of this report. It is important to put the report in the wider perspective of the ever-growing pressure of international competition particularly from Japan and the Asia-Pacific region but also from North America.
It is right that the single market should be unambiguously competitive. It is worth referring to the political issue that both the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, mentioned. Of course the European Commission is full of politics, just as the British Government are full of politics, but I am glad to see that the concept of fortress Europe cosseting its European champions, giving special protection to those who would fight on Europe's behalf, seems to have largely given way to a Europe which will be internally and internationally competitive.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, have said, the evidence of Dr. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann of Directorate-General IV and the attitude of DGIV towards the work of the committee are encouraging and indicate the substantial commitment of the Commission to competition in an enlightened and rational way. The sub-committee, which was so ably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and of which I had the honour to be a member, had to grapple with the tension between competition administrators and business. Mr. Daniel Goyder of the MMC put it well
540
when he alluded to the necessary compromise between competition administrators, who want a tough law, and industry, which wants a relatively liberal law. I believe that what industry actually wants—this is apparent from the CBI's evidence—is speed and natural justice. Industry wants things to be done properly. The key issues which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, referred to, of access and procedures and the strengthened role of the hearing officer, will greatly contribute towards the ability of companies to obtain what they see as greater natural justice.
I address my next remark to the Minister. I know that the Government are dedicated to subsidiarity. Of course it is relatively easy in the case of mergers to see how subsidiarity operates. I, personally, am glad that the review of merger control has been postponed for another three years and that therefore the triggering threshold is unchanged. However, I wish to ask the Minister a specific question on that. The threshold is, of course, in no way index linked. Are the Government at all concerned about the attrition—if one cares to call it that—of the threshold as a result of inflation?
However, subsidiarity on other competition issues is much less easy to discern. I was struck by the evidence of Sir Bryan Carsberg who took a positive attitude. He thought that, by and large, there was no tension between national competition authorities and European competition authorities. However, it is true to say that competition law is far less well developed in some other countries of the European Community than it is in Britain. I should be interested to hear the Minister's observations on that.
Finally, I turn to comfort letters. They have been a considerable success as a decongestant of a rather gummed up system. They precisely illustrate the tension which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was getting at between a quasi-judicial procedure and an administrative procedure. Naturally our committee, which had several distinguished lawyers on it, tended to say that we should make comfort letters more judicial, as it were, make them in some way more binding and give them greater authority. I am not sure this is the right way to proceed. I believe the merit of comfort letters is that they are a thoroughly practical way of stopping the system becoming gummed up. My slight fear is that, if we make them more formal and more legalistic, they will not perform that useful function. As the noble Baroness said, fairness, transparency and speed are the object of the exercise, but I hope that in relation to comfort letters the Government will not take the report of our committee too literally.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I begin by reiterating the congratulations which I offered earlier, in an intervention, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and other noble Lords who served on the Select Committee. They have produced a formidable and influential report.
The noble and learned Lord paid a wholly justified tribute to Dr. Ehlermann, who is a very distinguished director-general of DG IV, which deals with

541
competition affairs. He is a gentleman whom I have known for some considerable time, and I claim to be a friend of his. I find him a very impressive man indeed. I am confident that he will be receptive—as I hope commissioners will be—to the proposals for change which have been adumbrated in the report.
I wholly support the areas of change on which the noble and learned Lord concentrated in his opening remarks. All of them are constructive, and it is to be hoped that they will not require any amendment of Regulation 17. However, if they do the opportunity will arise in the not too distant future. The opportunity will also arise to reconsider the suggestion that there should be an organisation independent of the Commission to deal with these issues. As my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington recognised, that opportunity will occur in 1996 when the Maastricht Treaty falls to be reconsidered. Having said that, I agree with the conclusions reached by the committee on that point.
The Commission has been extremely receptive in the past to ideas that have come forward from your Lordships' House. That bodes well for the future. The Commission has tried to avoid the possibility, so far as is conceivable, of amending Regulation 17 and certainly of amending the treaty. That is the art of the possible, as the noble and learned Lord put it on page 167 of the report.
The objectives of law enforcement are set out succinctly in paragraph 96 of the opinion of the committee. Even if the Commission falls short of those objectives in some measure, ultimately the court is in a position to supervise the position. Therefore, many of the apprehensions of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington can be put at rest. The important point is that in the overwhelming majority of cases these are issues which can and should be dealt with by the Commission, although the requirement for transparency may be missing in one material respect, namely the one to which I referred in my intervention and to which I wish to return in a moment.
The emphasis upon consistency of approach and equality of treatment is correct. That goes to the heart of the purpose of Regulation 17, which requires effective co-ordination and liaison between the Commission and the competent authorities in member states.
I am pleased that the report recognises that the Commission overall has emerged well from this test of balance at a time when it is being obliged to assume even greater burdens of responsibility in this field. I am also pleased that the report stresses that the effectiveness of the implementation of the principles depends largely on the level of resources provided to the Commission as well as the procedures which are laid down. There can be little doubt that, with the additional burden of responsibility which the Commission has had to assume in this regard, as in so many other regards, it is as well to recognise that the resources available to the Commission in terms of its officials are very slender. If the member states want to see these procedures working better they have to give attention to that factor. That will not please my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, but it is a reality of life.
542
I return to the point which the noble and learned Lord indicated was not within the remit of his committee. I find it very difficult to see how one cannot reflect, when thinking in terms of the enforceability of competition law, on the way in which the Commission goes about its business at the level of the decision of the college. I have some reservations about that which I believe can be cured by greater transparency on the part of the proceedings when they reach the college. Those two issues—the quasi-judicial and the political—are inseparable.
Major issues can arise which affect certain member states, or there may be an issue of Community interest as it is perceived by members of the college—and I assure my noble friend that it is not always a matter of Satan at work because genuine views are held about the question of what is a Community interest, which is fundamental in this regard. In such cases the commissioner himself or herself, unless it is the commissioner with responsibility for the dossier, is unlikely to have read the file and is certainly unlikely to have read the evidence. The commissioner will rely very heavily upon some measure of scrutiny which is undertaken by a responsible member of his or her cabinet, and upon a resume of the case which is prepared by that person. That may be an unsatisfactory way of dealing with matters.
In addition, there is no doubt that from time to time deals are struck. That is not done ignobly. That happens when governments undertake quasi-judicial or administrative determinations. I believe that the answer would be for much greater transparency where divisions of that kind occur so that the parties to the dispute and the public know what arguments have been canvassed in the college of commissioners in pursuit of their ultimate finding. In any event, that is a matter over which the court can exercise its jurisdiction to ensure that ultimately justice is done. That approach would be wholly in pursuit of the argument of greater transparency which the Commission has adopted in its express views about Maastricht. I see nothing untoward in that regard.
In relation to the question of co-operation between the national courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86, I have taken the opportunity to have some interesting discussions with a colleague of mine—who will be known to the noble and learned Lord—Stephen Kon, who is a former chairman of the Solicitors' European Group and who is a notable practitioner in this field of law. He had some interesting things to say, which I should like to rehearse to the House, in relation to the difficulties which a practitioner encounters in dealing with these issues, particularly in making a choice between advising a client to refer a matter to the Commission or to the national court.
I think that the Commission notice fails to address fundamental problems concerning the application of Regulation 17. In a sense, it tinkers at the edges. The real problem which is avoided lies, in my view, in seeking to approximate the laws of member states as regards both the substantive and the procedural application of Articles 85 and 86 by the national courts

543
and the Commission respectively. The notice endeavours to finesse the system without dealing with the substantive or procedural rules. The net result is that major difficulties in the domestic enforcement of the competition rules are likely to persist.
The first point I would make in underlining that position is that perhaps the most acute difficulty arises in relation to the Commission's sole jurisdiction in being able to grant an exemption under Article 85(3), pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation 17. The only truly effective means of enforcing European Union competition rules before the domestic courts would be for the domestic courts to have jurisdiction to apply Article 85(3). It has been argued that that would prejudice the uniformity of application of that article, even though people who frequently argue the point seem to accept the unsatisfactory nature of its enforcement. In his evidence to the Select Committee, Mr. Jeremy Lever QC argued that the Commission had been unable to provide the public law service required in applying Article 85(3), rarely granting exemptions and using no formalised procedure for comfort letters, many of which are not preceded by Article 19(3) notices or by publication in the official journal. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Holme, said in that regard, but I happen to disagree with him.
Additionally, Commission decisions granting exemptions are not binding as to fact or law on national courts and they are able to refer any finding as to the legality or validity of those decisions to the European Court of Justice under Article 177. It has been held in the European Court that national courts are competent to assess the legality of any European Union instrument. It has also been established that negative clearances are not binding on national courts.
So even if the Commission gives priority to exemption cases which are before domestic courts, any Commission decision can be no more than persuasive before the domestic courts. Moreover, since European law forms part of English law, a formal decision of the Commission cannot provide evidence which is admissible in the United Kingdom, and the same must apply to a Commission opinion given at the request of a national court.
I turn to focus on the issue of the Commission and the national courts, because clearly there is a need to add greater efficiency to the proceedings. One of the declared objects of the notice which the Commission has issued is better to define relationships between the Commission and national courts so as to increase the dialogue between them and to enable the Commission to focus on those proceedings which have a sufficient Community interest. However, given the Commission's monopoly of granting exemptions under Article 85(3), parties whose agreements are subject to domestic court proceedings will find that there is little alternative but to await the outcome of the Commission's consideration of a request for an exemption. Together with the encouragement given by the notice for national courts to ask questions and seek guidance from the Commission, it may well result—and that is acknowledged in the report—in a backlog of cases both before the domestic courts and before the Commission while the parties wait
544
for a decision as to exemption pursuant to Article 85(3). Alternatively, they may wait for the Commission's response to questions referred by a national court.
In its notice, the Commission stresses that it will not accede to requests for information unless they come from a national court, either directly or indirectly, through parties which have been ordered by the court concerned to provide certain information. In the circumstances, it is possible to foresee serious log-jams, with everyone waiting on the Commission. That is the very problem which the notice is intended to resolve.
The dilemma for legal advisers is to decide whether to advise their clients to opt for deliberation before the national court or before the Commission. Given the limited number of cases where the Commission will have sufficient interest to intervene and the very slow and unsatisfactory procedures before the. European Court of Justice, there are likely to be only a limited number of cases where a party will be well advised to complain to the Commission.
Even if a case has a European Union interest and the advice would generally be to take the matter to the Commission in the first instance, if the primary object of taking such proceedings is to claim damages, it must be right, subject to Article 85(3) considerations,. to take the matter to the domestic courts directly, since a Commission decision would be of only limited use because it does not bind, as a matter of fact or law, the national courts.
Working on the basis that legislation is not to be introduced in the near future at European Union level to amend Regulation 17 and to approximate national laws, what can domestic courts do to make the application of the notice as effective as possible? It would appear that perhaps the right way forward is for the court itself to take the lead to deal with some of the fundamental procedural difficulties by way of a practice direction in providing guidelines in an appropriate case as to the way the courts in this country, for example, intend to apply the notice. The guidelines may have to be changed in the light of experience.
There are a number of fundamental matters upon which guidance can be necessary. Whether the domestic courts will, as a matter of practice, seek the advice of the Commission or request the Commission to intervene in proceedings as amicus curiae and, if so, in what circumstances are clearly matters which need to be determined. Some have expressed the view that in legal and jurisdictional terms it would be unsound for a domestic court to seek the views, opinion or advice of an administrative authority. I am not convinced by that but it is an issue that will have to be decided.
If the domestic courts are to seek the advice of the Commission, then there are serious evidential issues that have to be considered. Quite rightly, the courts here have been reluctant to accord any authority to statements of objection. There is no reason why greater authority should be given to the views of a Commission official.
Those are difficult issues but ones which have to be dealt with by the domestic courts. The domestic courts have a limited knowledge of the application of those articles. The question, therefore, is how they can

545
become better informed. It is not a new matter because, particularly in relation to issues like the difficulties of discovery and the general difficulties of judges dealing with complex economic issues, those are issues which are dealt with already in the patent courts. Perhaps, just as in the commercial courts there is a commercial users' committee which can deal with special procedural requirements, it might be worth while following that route.
Finally, there is no good reason why national courts should not take a pro-active and dynamic approach in applying Article 85(1) to determine on their own account that an exemption will or will not be given. If they require the aid of the Commission, they should seek such aid in accordance with strict time limits. Article 177 could be used to seek legal interpretation. Such an approach should avoid unnecessary delays and encourage the Commission to speed up its own procedures, and as regards Article 177 the parties will remain free to appeal to a higher court and ultimately to the European Court of Justice.
I have taken some time, I fear, in dealing with the matter but I thought it was as well to put the issues on the record. Having done that, I conclude as I began by congratulating the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues on an excellent piece of work.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he give the House the benefit of his observations for the record? What action should be taken in the event, as has already happened, that the Commission has known about breaches of the Treaty of Paris of 1961, has known about them for the past three years, has all the details in its possession and so far has neither investigated them in detail nor endeavoured to prosecute them? What action would the noble Lord recommend that either national parliaments or anybody else should take in order to ensure that the Commission itself makes an active endeavour to enforce the law in this respect on the basis of information that has been in its possession for a long, long time?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is one of the easiest questions that my noble friend has ever asked. I suggest that all that he has to do is to write to Dr. Ehlermann. Perhaps he will get a reply in the not too distant future.
6.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it is always a pleasure to respond to one of these debates, and particularly so after the introduction and contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley. I very much welcome the opportunity that this gives me to respond.
I am pleased to welcome this thorough, thoughtful and clear report. In the Government's view, competition enforcement is a central element of Community policy. An effective competition regime is essential to the success of the single market and—as the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said—the competitiveness of Community industry.
546
The Government have delivered to the House a written response to the Select Committee's report. Our written response addresses each of the Select Committee's specific recommendations, and I hope that noble Lords have had sufficient opportunity to consider it.
Perhaps I may also say at the outset, in response to the intervention that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, right at the beginning of this debate, that the Select Committee concentrated on procedure in institutions rather than on Community policy. Accordingly, I too shall confine my remarks to those subjects.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, again entertained the House at some length with his views of the European Community, its institutions and some of its faults. The noble Lord particularly concentrated on illegal subsidies under the Treaty of Paris, which is a very interesting subject. But it is very much outside the remit of the Select Committee report, so if the noble Lord does not mind I shall not address that issue.
The committee's conclusions are aimed at remedying perceived defects in the fairness, transparency and speed of European Commission procedures in competition cases. The Government fully endorse that objective. We are committed to removing unnecessary regulatory burdens from the shoulders of business—whether from the United Kingdom authorities or from the European Commission. Any procedural unfairness constitutes an unnecessary burden; so does lack of transparency; so do delays in case handling—until a case is disposed of, businesses cannot be certain whether their transaction is permissible or prohibited, and they are left in a state of lingering commercial uncertainty.
For those reasons the Government are actively involved with other member states and the Commission in seeking ways to improve procedural fairness and to speed the handling of cases under Community competition rules. The Select Committee report is an extremely valuable contribution to that continuing debate.
In considering various options, the Government need to bear in mind other considerations as well. We are determined to remove unnecessary burdens on business. But we are also committed to ensuring that this should not prejudice the effective and consistent enforcement of the rules—because it is in everyone's interest that serious anti-competitive practices should be stamped out. Consumers benefit from the increased choice and lower prices which effective competition enforcement can offer. Industry and commerce benefit from the opportunities for enterprise, and the stimulus to greater productivity and innovation. These fundamental points must never be lost sight of when we consider these matters. And the rules must be applied consistently throughout the European Community. There must be no suggestion that the competitiveness of British businesses is suffering because the rules are being applied more stringently in this country than elsewhere.
As with all proposals for deregulation, a balance has to be struck. Let us remove regulatory burdens, yes; but not to the detriment of effective and even enforcement of competition rules. And while it is desirable to speed

547
up case handling, that must be balanced against ensuring proper procedural protection for all the parties involved. It is within that basic framework that the Government are approaching these issues.
I now turn to the Select Committee's specific recommendations. Noble Lords will have noted that the committee very sensibly divides its recommendations into first, those which involve practical reforms requiring no legislative change, and second, those which could only be achieved by the Council agreeing to amend Regulation 17.
Perhaps I may make one point about the Government's attitude to the recommendations. We think that all the recommendations in the committee's report are worth considering. But in the immediate term we would prefer to see whether those which require no significant legislative change can be made to work before the Community and member states have to embark on the process of negotiating a revised version of Regulation 17. Past experience shows that such negotiations can be very time-consuming indeed. We would be concerned if time and energy were to be diverted away from the immediate, and necessary, task of implementing practical improvements in the Commission's enforcement procedures. Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, and my noble friend Lady Elles asked specifically about that matter. I hope that that is helpful.
As I have mentioned, the Select Committee sees its recommendations as addressing perceived defects in the fairness, transparency and speed of European Commission practices. Taking those issues in order, I should like to comment briefly on the committee's main recommendations.
First, in relation to fairness, the Select Committee had to address itself to complaints from business and practitioners that, in competition cases, the European Commission is—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said—"simultaneously the detective, the prosecutor, the negotiator and the decision maker". That was perceived to have a potentially adverse effect on the Commission's impartiality—and in particular, on the feeling of a company under investigation as to whether it is being given a fair hearing. As my noble friend Lady Elles said, there are worries about disputes over access to the Commission files.
The committee's suggested remedy focuses on the role of the hearing officer. The Select Committee recommends that the hearing officer's functions be widened so that he can perform a similar role in disputes: about whether (and when) a company under investigation should be allowed access to the Commission's files on the case; about time limits in the procedures; and so on. The Select Committee also recommends that more hearing officers should be appointed, and that at least one should be of a higher grade.
The Government agree with the Select Committee on the need for internal reforms within the European Commission -to improve impartiality and fair treatment in its procedures. The Commission must be fair, and be seen to be fair. There needs to be a clear and consistent
548
commitment from senior officials in the Commission's competition directorate to ensure that. Precisely how it achieves these reforms is essentially a matter for the Commission. But the Select Committee's proposals certainly represent one possible way forward, and we urge the Commission to consider them. Initial responses from the Commission have been favourable, and welcome that. If the hearing officer's role is to be enhanced in this way, we believe that its functions will need to be clearly defined. As I said in my opening remarks, care will need to be taken to strike a balance between, on the one hand, protecting the interests of the company under investigation, and, on the other, ensuring that elaborate procedural protection cannot be abused by parties so as unreasonably to delay effective enforcement.
As a further recommendation, the committee suggests that there should be a right of interlocutory appeal from a ruling of the hearing officer to the European Court of first instance. The report says that a change to Regulation 17 would be desirable to achieve that. But while we welcome examination of that proposal, so far as possible we would prefer to see whether internal reforms worked before deciding on the need for reforms involving an amendment to Regulation 17. One would also have to bear in mind that the merits of any interlocutory procedure would need to be balanced against the risk of possible further delays in competition enforcement—in particular where appeals without real substance might be lodged. If, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, suggested, a way could be found of instituting interlocutory appeals and deterring appeals without substance, without having to amend Regulation 17, the Government would wish the proposal to be very seriously considered.
Turning now to transparency in Commission procedures, the Government believe that, in this complex area, it is essential for businesses and practitioners to be as clear as possible about how things work, and the implications of the decisions that they take. Greater clarification on those points should ease the regulatory burdens that they face.
We therefore look to the European Commission to take steps along the lines of those recommended by the Select Committee: updated guides to competition procedures; and, where fines are imposed, a Commission statement of the reasons for the particular fine. On that last point, we note the anxieties expressed to the Select Committee about similar infringements being punished by fines of a different level. We understand that it has become practice to set out the reasons for fines fully in Commission decisions. In the interests of certainty, and of retaining confidence in the system, we believe it essential that the application of fines should be consistent and be seen to be consistent.
Moving now to the Select Committee's recommendations for improving the speed of Commission case handling under Articles 85 and 86, the Government believe that there are a number of practical measures which could be taken to reduce the Commission's backlog of cases and thus help speed up case, handling. All options should be carefully considered on their merits.

549
One method is to use comfort letters as an alternative to a formal decision when companies apply to the European Commission for clearance or exemption, provided that the companies indicate their willingness to accept that. Issuing comfort letters requires a less formal procedure. So it is quicker and reduces the case backlog.
We endorse the Select Committee's view that comfort letters cannot be expected to provide legal certainty against third party liability. The committee makes practical recommendations for enhancing the legal status of comfort letters, so as to provide more legal certainty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, referred to the recommendation for comfort letters to be followed by a formal decision. We have set out our specific comments on those recommendations in our written response. I should like to make the general observation that, again, a balance needs to be struck. Enhancing the status of comfort letters requires more procedural formality, which inevitably reduces some of the advantages in terms of speed.
The Select Committee also recommends the publication of further block exemptions in appropriate cases. We agree that consideration should be given to further block exemptions, provided that it would not prejudice the effective application of the competition rules. We understand that the European Commission intends to carry out an empirical study to identify new categories of agreement that could be granted block exemption. We welcome that.
Another possibility for practical reform would be the institution by the Commission of systematic monitoring of incoming competition cases. This would allow the Commission to prioritise cases according to their commercial, economic and legal importance. In this country, we already have some experience in this area with the codes for enforcement authorities which we have established. Targets are set, the attainment of targets is monitored and it becomes possible to set more challenging targets in subsequent years. We believe that such codes are easily implemented, and would quickly repay the effort devoted to introducing them. Indeed, this January the Office of Fair Trading published a Code of Practice on Enforcement which set new self-imposed time targets for various stages in its handling of competition cases. We commend this approach and would see it as a way of increasing efficiency in case handling at Community level.
In general, the Government believe that these practical reforms ought to be explored and tested before more radical steps to speed case handling, involving legislative change, are explored. But I emphasise that we do not wish to rule out any option.
I note the committee's anxieties about resourcing. My noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, have today reiterated similar worries. But I do not need to remind noble Lords that the decisions on resourcing and recruitment need to be made against a background of severe constraints on public expenditure, not only in this country but throughout the Community.
I welcome the realism shown on that point by Dr. Ehlermann the head of DG IV when he appeared before
550
the Select Committee (paragraph 68 of the report). Experience shows that there is scope for increasing the effectiveness of staff deployment in DG IV. The Commission's latest reports on competition policy show that during 1992, the last full year for which we have records, the Commission's case backlog under Articles 85 and 86 was reduced by more than 30 per cent. while the numbers of staff allocated to such cases rose by 4 per cent. The proposals to which I have referred for increasing efficiency and reducing the case backlog could help to alleviate many of the resource problems which DG IV now faces.
My noble friend Lady Elles referred to the Select Committee's recommendations for the introduction of mandatory time limits for cases under Articles 85 and 86. Last year the Commission introduced self-imposed time limits for consideration for certain types of joint venture under Article 85. This new procedure, which required no legislative change, seems to have worked well. We welcome the Commission's willingness to consider extending the system to other types of case. But the important point is not whether time-limits are self-imposed or mandatory but that effective steps should be taken to ensure that the Commission in practice is able to accelerate its procedures.
The Select Committee's report also recommends that investigation and assessment of appropriate cases should be delegated to national authorities. The Government see decentralisation of cases under Articles 85 and 86 as one possible way of speeding case handling and one which ought to be and is being fully considered. As part of that consideration, various issues will need to be looked at and properly addressed, including the kind of cases which could appropriately be delegated, the extent to which delegation of such cases would reduce the Commission's caseload and so help to speed up procedures and how to safeguard consistent application of the Community rules between member states.
We are not seeking here to reject the suggestions out of hand. On the contrary, we want this and other proposals for reform to be fully considered. In any event, we believe that there is a wider role for national authorities to play in providing information to the Commission on local market conditions in their territory. But to reiterate, we believe that it is essential to assess each proposal on its merits, to see how effective it would be in achieving our desired objectives.
Regarding the notice on co-operation between the Commission and national courts, the Government broadly endorse the Select Committee's assessment and recommendations. In general terms we welcome the notice; but for various reasons, such as the costs of litigation, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, the courts' inability to take exemption decisions under Article 85(3), we agree with the Select Committee that it cannot be expected to reduce the Commission's case backlog significantly. We believe that it is premature to make the legislative amendments needed to grant to national courts the right to grant Article 85(3) exemptions. As I said earlier, we would be concerned at the implications of a consistent application of Community rules.

551
I should like briefly to turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, on merger control. The Government believe that it is premature to he considering a change in the level of the turnover thresholds either up wards or downwards. The regulation has been in force for little more than three years and we consider that further experience needs to be gained before amending it.
There is here a considerable agenda for reform. While many of the Select Committee's recommendations are for the Commission to implement, the Government are participating fully and will continue to participate fully in the debate about how best to achieve the desired improvements.
We sent a copy of the Government's response to the Competition Commissioner and we asked him to give serious consideration to the points that we make. I am pleased to be able to tell you that Mr. Van Miert has replied very fully and positively. He too welcomes the report and has indicated his intention to implement many of its recommendations, while sharing our hesitations about others.
Last October, the Commission and the directors general from the various national competition authorities discussed ways to increase effectiveness of the competition rules through the involvement of national authorities and by improving Community procedures. A working party was set up at official level to consider these issues, and report back. The UK is on the working party, and in that forum the UK is putting across many of the points that I have been making.
The report of the Select Committee, and the views expressed by noble Lords here today, offer valuable and stimulating contributions to the continuing debate. I have also mentioned the positive attitude of the Commissioner. The Government intend to take all these points fully into account as discussions with the Commission and other member states progress.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, earlier, the noble Lord mentioned that he proposed not to deal with the matters that I raised in the course of the debate in regard to the steel industry. From that, are we to take it that the authoritative representations made on 25th October 1993 by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, supplemented by representations of the British steel industry, are to result in no action being taken on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? Does the noble Lord think that the steel industry should be entirely exempt from the competition rules? If it is not to be outside the competition rules, why the inaction of the Government in relation to the Commission's deliberate refusal to initiate investigations ?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is to assume nothing of the kind. We have discussed the situation in the European steel industry many times; notably, just before Christmas when my noble friend Lord Goschen responded to a debate similar to that that we have had today on the steel industry; we have also had numerous Questions dealing with he steel-industry. My point was simply to state that the report we are considering today had little to do with some of the more general points in regard to the
552
European Commission's work and particularly steel policy. It is for that reason that I did not specifically respond to those questions.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and the other noble Lords who took part in the debate. It is gratifying for the committee that the Minister accepts a substantial number of its recommendations. The last time I came with a report from the Select Committee I was virtually told that the Government liked the style but not the content. This time I go away with greater cheer.
I want to comment on just three points. The first is of considerable importance. I understand that the Government would prefer changes which can be made without amending Regulation 17. But at the heart of our report and our recommendations is the proposal that the decisions of the hearing officer should be subject to judicial review. I ask the Minister to bear in mind that that recommendation—perhaps to my surprise—was warmly received by the legal profession, by, I believe, the Commission and by those members to whom I spoke at the Court of First Instance.
This is the moment when this proposal is likely to gain support. It would be extremely unfortunate if it were allowed to lapse merely because nobody was prepared to look again at Regulation 17. T hope the Government will feel that it is the right course for the United Kingdom Government to take the point forward to the Council if it is found to be necessary for Regulation 17 to be amended. That is at the heart of our report.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that we had left out some matters. Certainly we did. We left out mergers, subsidies and state aids, and that was quite deliberate. We were trying to ensure that business enterprises can be protected in the way their affairs are investigated but at the same time that the competition rules are enforced. Those are all different matters which fall for another day.
Thirdly, the suggestion was made by the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Bruce of Donington, that the Select Committee should have looked at the difficulties arising from possible political divergencies and influences in the Commission. They persuaded us no doubt that there is a problem here. But they convinced me totally that it was not a problem which falls to be considered by the Select Committee under this heading. It is plainly a general question and not one related purely to competition procedures. In any event, the question seems both to overlook the role of the staff of the Commission in the work that they do and to underestimate the supervisory role of the Court of Justice.
In the discussions leading up to the Maastricht Treaty Germany alone proposed that there should be an independent agency to take the decisions in this area. Other member states opposed it. What is important is that the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice are there to supervise decisions of the Commission from

553
the point of view of their legality. I should like to refer to one answer given by Mr. David Vaughan, QC, during the oral hearing. He said,
"I think one of the things that the Court of First Instance has done is to make it very clear to everyone that whether they are a tribunal, a court, or whatever they are, they expect them to comply with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention. I think that clearly will lead the Commission, if they continue on that jurisprudence, to think very carefully about whether in fact their structures are right to deal with this question and whether they should not have a better system for arriving at the right answer".
Finally, the relationship between the Commission and national authorities is a difficult question which will require profound and detailed consideration by the Commission and by member states. In our report we put forward a number of suggestions which we believe need to be dealt with first. I hope that the Commission and the Government will carry them forward. But it must not be forgotten that in dealing with those matters we are not simply considering the United Kingdom; we are considering other member states which may have different systems of competition procedures. I thank your Lordships for the attention given to the report of the committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insolvency (No. 2) Bill
6.37 p m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Railways (Rateable Values) (Amendment)Order 1994
6.38 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 24th February and 14th March be approved [10th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the orders standing in my name on the Order Paper be approved en bloc.
Of the five draft orders before the House today, three relate to Scotland and two relate to England and Wales. First, I wish to say a few words on industrial derating.
554
The progress towards a common poundage and full harmonisation of valuation practice north and south of the Border, have reduced the need for industrial derating in Scotland to be retained. We accordingly are continuing to phase-out industrial derating in Scotland in line with the progressive reduction of rate poundages which continues in 1994-95. Those cuts in poundages next year result in a further reduction in non-domestic rates of £60 million. The Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994 therefore sets a level of industrial derating of 10 percent.—a reduction from 17.5 per cent. in the previous year.
For mines and quarries, the same level of derating is continued by the Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1994 which carries forward other valuation provisions, which also apply south of the Border.
Turning to the other Scottish draft rateable values order before the House today, this prescribes a formula for the determination of rateable values for 1993–94 and 1994–95 of Scottish Football League grounds. Scottish Football League clubs, the league itself and the Scottish Football Association have over a number of years argued that the different methods of valuation which apply to this class of subject on either side of the Border have resulted in an unfair rating burden being borne by Scottish Football League clubs. The Government have not felt that it is possible to prove that case with certainty, and have been assured by the Scottish Assessors and Valuation Office Agency jointly that cross-Border harmonisation of values, if not of method, was broadly achieved at the 1990 revaluation. We have however concluded that the method of valuation for this class of subject should be seen to be as similar as possible on either side of the Border in line with our overall harmonisation policy.
Within the draft order before the House today are formulae which seek to mirror the effects of the non-statutory English scheme of valuation. These produce a rateable valuation on the basis of an individual club's home league gate receipts in the antecedent year for the 1990 revaluation. Most affected clubs will benefit from the order although the valuation of a few may rise. Clubs which have incurred significant costs in modernising grounds to meet the requirement of the Taylor Report or which have built new stadia recently are likely to see particular benefit.
Next, I wish to refer to the first draft English and Welsh order before the House: the Telecommunications Industry (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1994. This revises the recalculation factor which is used to update rateable values in England and Wales for Mercury Communications. At present, the revaluation factor works by applying a formula based on cable lengths to England and Wales separately. The existing factor has had the effect of increasing the company's rateable value in Wales by some £21,000 for each extra kilometre of cable laid, whereas in England the equivalent figure is only £2,000. To resolve this inequality, the order before the House provides for the recalculation factor to be based on increases in length in

555
England and Wales together for the year 1994–95. Similar provisions apply in respect of other industries south of the border, including British Telecom.
Finally, I come to the other draft English and Welsh order. This makes provisions for the change in rateable occupation of railway property as a consequence of the privatisation of rail services. The provisions of the Railways Act 1993 allow for transfers of property between the British Railways Board and other companies. the largest of these transfer schemes is the one that concerns Railtrack. On 1st April Railtrack plc will become a new government owned company and the occupier of the majority of the property previously owned by the board.
The order simply divides what would have been the board's rateable values for 1994–95 between the board and Railtrack. The ratio of the split is 95 per cent. for Railtrack and 5 per cent. for British Rail. The values are given separately for England and Wales. Similar provisions will be proposed for Scotland but, owing to the different statutory framework, they will be brought forward at a later date, along with related matters concerning Scottish public utility rateable values for next year.
The provisions of these orders have been the subject of formal consideration with ratepayers and others concerned. I believe that the measures that I have described represent fair and reasonable proposals. I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 24th February and 14th March be approved [10th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994
6.48 p m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 7th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the first two sets of regulations provide for the uprating of the financial eligibility limits for civil legal aid and for advice and
556
assistance. The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994 raise the lower disposable income limit for civil legal aid from £2,293 to £2,382 a year. The regulations also increase the upper limit from £6,800 to £7,060 a year. The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1994 provide for a similar uprating in relation to advice and assistance. In these cases the calculation is carried out on the basis of weekly income. The regulations raise the lower limit from £61 to £63, and the upper limit from £147 to £153. The regulations also revise the scale of contributions for applicants with disposable income between the upper and lower income limits for advice and assistance.
These proposed changes represent an increase of 3.8 per cent., matching the uprating level of income-related social security benefit. They are entirely straightforward and do not introduce any new provisions into this area of the legal aid system. The regulations are proposed to come into force on 11th April, the day when the annual social security uprating comes into effect.
The third and fourth sets of regulations provide for the extension of assistance by way of representation, which is a form of advice and assistance under the legal aid arrangements, to cover a number of straightforward cases and to exclude the same cases from eligibility for criminal legal aid. These are technical changes designed to streamline and improve the administration of the legal aid system.
We will also shortly be laying before the House a number of further regulations under the negative resolution procedure to enact a number of further minor and technical amendments and improvements to the legal aid system in Scotland.
These regulations make provision for the uprating of eligibility limits and for other useful, if minor, changes to the system of legal aid in Scotland. I commend them to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the house on 7th March be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl, like ourselves on this side of the House, is concerned with the question of access to justice. The matters that he has raised have been debated in another place to a large extent and various issues have been raised. We await further consideration of what took place there. I will not detain your Lordships' House by discussing these matters in detail.
I raise only two issues. First, I should like to ask the Minister how the new figures compare in real terms with the levels that applied from 1989 onwards. Secondly, since the alterations were made in 1989 perhaps he can tell us how many applicants have refused offers of legal aid because the contribution that they have been required to make in respect of civil litigation is too expensive. Are the Government satisfied that the alterations that are made by these orders increase access to justice by litigants and that that has been maintained and not diminished by financial restrictions? I know it is not possible for the Minister to answer those

557
questions at short notice, but I shall await his reply in due course when he is able to write to me on these matters.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, asks two important questions. Unfortunately, the information is not available in the form requested at present. I can however say that in the large majority of grants of civil legal aid no contribution is payable. The noble Lord is absolutely correct in what he says: I do not have the information with me. I undertake to write to him on both points.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Russia
6.49 p.m.
Lord Kennetrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards Russia and its relationship with its former subject and allied states.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the coming weeks the future of our relations with Russia will be decided, and so will the whole shape of international affairs, by intent or default. We may return to a version of the cold war with Russia set up as the grand opponent, or we may tailor our policies and reactions to others' policies and reactions so as to avoid that and get on with making our world sustainably habitable.
A few days ago Edward Shevardnadze, Gorbachev's foreign minister, now president of Georgia, on his return from Washington reported:
"As for the danger of the cold war—and there were quite a lot of questions referring to this issue [in the United States] … a danger of recurrence is real … I spoke about the inadmissibility of this sort of confrontation, at every level … with the president … at the Congress … at the Senate …".
To decide these things aright we must understand what has been happening, not just push the worst case analysis button and accept the file as gospel. What we have seen over the past few years has been a triple event: the simultaneous dissolution of a thousand years of absolutism, four centuries of empire and 70 years of a communist command economy. Our own Mr. Rifkind has recently said that we cannot allow Russia to resume control of the CIS. Indeed. But there are 24.5 million Russians still living in the former imperial territories, and the only infrastructure and organisation there are the old imperial and communist ones.
So there are now multiple moves to re-attach the snapped links; to reconnect the networks and to establish "our own Maastricht" in their phrase, in order to live. Even the Polish Foreign Minister now advocates the reinstatement of CMEA-type economic partnerships in Eastern Europe. Poland was indeed interested in close association with NATO, but security concerns and economic interests, he said, can and should be distinguished. This is a straw in the wind. Ukraine meanwhile—another straw in the wind—is to be the first member of the CIS economic union also to have an association with the European Union. And, when Finland joins the European Union, it will have an immense common frontier with Russia.
558
To quote Mr. Shevardnadze again:
"I tried to explain in my discussions that despite the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the territory which it occupied remains a single socio-economic space…. I am convinced that all the new independent states should be viewed as a whole. Otherwise the stability of even the largest and most influential of them may be undermined by instability on its borders".
The difference between the Russian empire and the other European empires was that they walked and the rest of us sailed. The CIS countries touch Russia; their histories, their economies and their societies interpenetrate. In last Monday's International Herald Tribune, George Kennan recalled the situation in 1949; critically fluid, like today's. In 1946 he had proposed containment of the Soviet Union; with the Marshall Plan and the Berlin blockade containment "won", he advised discussion and possible collaboration. He writes now in his nineties,
"One of the great disappointments of my life [was] to discover that neither our government nor our West European allies had any interest in entering into such discussions at all".
Instead, we procured,
"the vast and useless nuclear arsenals that … remain today a danger to the very environment of the planet [and] 40 years of communist control in [Eastern Europe. And] all of this because we were too timid to negotiate".
The ball now is in our court far more decisively than it was in 1949. Today, we have a rather sensible Russian Government to deal with. It rules a dilapidated great power attempting to find itself again, to regain a valid self image. The self image it knows, and which reality still proclaims, is that of a great power. Prime Minister Chernomyrdin is balancing on the knife-edge between inflation and the social collapse threatened by the previous "shock therapy". "Pay no bills" seems to have been a prime element of it. Western governments have now recognised that democratic reform and laissez-faire market economics can be incompatible.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, told me last week in a Written Answer that the G7 Ministers are now to,
"urge the Russian Government [that] a credible system of social support",
should operate alongside its efforts to achieve,
"macroeconomic stabilisation",
and that the IMF and the World Bank have been instructed by their member governments to the same effect. That is belated common sense.
Kozyrev and Churkin are, for the time being at least, highly constructive, seeking collaboration through the UN, the CSCE in Bosnia, in Eastern Europe and in keeping the peace in their own "near abroad". There is a new and constructive chairman of the Duma, Mr. Rybkin, who did a fine job during his visit to the United States Congress. I trust that we shall soon see him here.
President Yeltsin himself is in a subdued mood after the cold bath of the December elections and after Mr. Clinton's hearty, but short-lived assurances of "partnership". The Duma's amnesty for the October Parliamentarians has let him off quite a lot of hooks. His suppression of the old Parliament was quite unlawful, despite our support for it, and state trials would have shown that up. It is a great pity that so much American and British opinion holds that Gaidar and his friends were the goodies, the real "reformers", and that the rest are nothing but hardliners wanting to restore communism by force.

559
The Western governments ought now to throw off their illusion that Russia might have been instantly transformed into an obedient, textbook democracy-cum-laissez faire market. Russia is moving towards some kind of democracy and markets are beginning to operate, but, when stability is reached, even if it is a stable market democracy, it will be entirely Russian in its characteristics and not American. The "state" element will be stronger than Western governments would instinctively approve—more like the Far Eastern model, which we cannot claim does not work.
After the December elections when democracy worsted shock therapy, Mr. Chernomyrdin felt able to call the former orthodoxy "economic romanticism" and to reject the romanticism while keeping the reform. Romanticism it was, particularly when Western governments were doing nothing to stem the outflow of capital from Russia and the other ex-Soviet CMEA states into Swiss and other Western banks. This is said now to amount to a billion dollars a month from Russia alone. For Ukraine, officials say that there are something like 7 billion to 8 billion dollars in Swiss banks, the press says nearer 18 billion. Our Western governments tolerate this haemorrhage on the grounds, I believe, of economic ideology. But it can only stultify the hope we and the Russians share for their prosperity. It is like bleeding a haemophiliac.
In the real world Russia will be nobody's poodle; and we must integrate Russia into the international community. Not only history dictates that, but the facts of life do, too: the nuclear weapons, the Security Council veto and the massive resources of raw materials that include much of Europe's oil and gas supplies. It would be idiotic if we shooed them out of Europe into an Asia where they also belong.
It will be hard to insist that Russia should not have military installations and spheres of interest outside their borders while the US may. If the United States goes on interpreting "manifest destiny" too energetically, it will find opposition rising up. Japan could become a nuclear superpower quite quickly; China is building up its strength. Today the United States is tangling with each of them and Russia is perhaps making overtures to them which could well be reciprocated.
What about the institutional problem? I believe that we should now call it that. We have NATO; a military alliance formed for collective defence against an easily identified and clearly threatening adversary. That adversary not only no longer threatens, it no longer exists. NATO is a fine implement that no longer has an obvious purpose. So what should we do with it? The danger is quite clear. It is that, if we integrate Russia too closely with it, NATO could come to be feared and resented all round the world. It could increasingly look like the White North under arms. Its very existence would he bound to provoke the question of its purpose. That is beginning to happen. It was risked with NATO's Sarajevo ultimatum We were lucky that Russia weighed in as she did and NATO bombs did not fall.
I had a Written Answer on 14th March saying:
560
"On 11 March NATO's Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs led a PFP briefing mission to the CSCE in Vienna, during which he pointed to the complementary nature of the work undertaken in the two fora."
Was that the first contact? That is an interesting question. Mr. Wörner has said that the Partnership for Peace and action in the North Atlantic Consultative Council,
"will aid in bringing about the conditions under which the CSCE can become the core of an effective pan-European security system".
I hope so. That is a route which would make sense. Mr. Wörner was echoed by Mr. Kozyrev a few days ago,
"It is the CSCE that should play the main role in making the system of Euro-Atlantic co-operation truly stable and democratic".
To that we should say "snap".
It may be, strangely enough, that out of poor little Bosnia a solution will come. Mr. Zhurkin showed exemplary skill in both getting the Serbs outside Sarajevo to withdraw or hand over their guns and at the same time restoring America's UN balance after a bad wobble towards unilateralism. The Coldstream Guards' band playing on the Sarajevo football field could turn out to have been celebrating not only the beginning of peace in Bosnia, but also the beginning of a new European order in which Russia and the United States play co-operative roles in facing the problems that the whole world faces: starvation, population, environment, trade, currencies, drugs and arms.
7 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for calling attention in his Unstarred Question to the matter of Russia and her former subject nations and former allies, if you could call them that. I fear that I shall not entirely follow the noble Lord's line, but perhaps it is as well to have two or more views on these matters.
To make sense of Russia, one must have regard to her history in the long term both under the Tsars and under the communist regime. The last time that the map of Europe looked at all like it does now was immediately after the revolution in 1918-20, when the nationalities, including Ukraine, enjoyed a brief period of independence. However, the Russian empire was swiftly reconstructed under the title of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Certain areas of the Russian empire were not regained immediately; namely, Finland, Poland and the three Baltic states.
In 1939-40, the Soviet Union tried, and failed, to subjugate Finland. She did, with Hitler's agreement, subjugate the Baltic States and East Poland. However, between 1945 and 1950, a whole area of Europe which had never previously been occupied by Russia was overrun and brought under a cruel and oppressive tyranny which survived until 1989. The list of those countries is impressive. In addition to Poland and the Baltic states, which had formed a part of the old Tsarist empire—at least, half of Poland had—those countries included East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Eastern Austria, Romania and Bulgaria. The extent of empire gained was enormous and the monster was still

561
not satisfied. The rest of Europe, including this country, was placed under threat and forced to form the defensive alliance that we now call NATO.
The havoc which Russian rule wrought in its subject territories is part and parcel of what we are trying to cope with now. They were subjected to the economics of the madhouse. Services such as shops, telephones, travel and communications were systematically run down. Police terror replaced police protection for most of the time in most of the areas. Furthermore, as I said, the monster was not satisfied. A whole group of third world countries, many of which had been part of the British empire, were destabilised and some were placed under Soviet-style regimes which took their orders and their armaments from Moscow. Civil wars were fomented throughout the African continent.
I could go on, but I say this because I believe strongly that Her Majesty's Government ought not to forget these facts of very recent history—and nor should we. Certainly in the past few years, there has been a huge change and the empire has gone back to the heartland of Russia itself. That is most welcome, but I believe that we should be very wary before we satisfy ourselves that the leopard has permanently changed its spots.
The fact is that, historically, Russia has always threatened her neighbours. Some time ago I watched a television programme in which the actor Peter Ustinov, himself of Russian descent, observed that Russia was more invaded that invading. Mr. Ustinov's Russian blood has made him over-patriotic, because that just is not true. It is so far from the truth that it makes one gasp and rub one's eyes, but it is a view which is held by many people who have failed to analyse historical fact. Let us take a bit of recent history. Russia was invaded by Hitler in 1941. That is a fact. In the two previous years, Russia herself had invaded Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Eastern Poland and part of Romania. Afterwards, the Russians said that they had done that because they wanted to go further west in anticipation of a German invasion. Any excuse, it seems, is better than none to overturn one's neighbours' borders, deport millions of their populations and subject the rest to police terror, poverty and starvation.
We can accept that Russia has changed only if we can be sure that she does not go back to her old bad habits. I believe that she should be encouraged to keep her army at home and I absolutely disagree with the idea that it ought to be used for peacekeeping. We have seen only too recently what Russian peacekeeping can lead to in Afghanistan. The possibility that Mr. Zhirinovsky—or someone of his persuasion, whether nationalist or communist—may succeed Yeltsin as president is too real for us to take any chances with the situation today.
We should be wary of voices that tell us that we must not "upset Russia". Mr. Zhirinovsky and his friends are upset already and no amount of appeasement will modify their scandalous ambitions. They are very near to the levers of power and, in my view, the West—that is, NATO—ought to act now to guarantee at least the central European nations which are already committed
562
to democracy and stability. That is the Visegrad group. The Russian army (under any guise) should not be seen again in Warsaw, Prague, Budapest or Berlin.
I should like to quote from the editorial in the Financial Times of Friday 18th March. It starts with what the West should be doing instead of what it is doing. That is quite common in newspaper commentaries. I quote:
"First it must remember that Russia is both a nuclear power and Europe's most threatening neighbour. Its problems cannot be approached as if the country were the Philippines or even Brazil".
It later states:
"The claims inherited from the Soviet Union greatly exceed the resources upon which the Government can lay its desperate hands. The budget deficit is supposed to be 10 per cent. of the gross domestic product. In fact, it is at least 15 per cent. before meeting the defence minister's demand for a doubling of the military budget".
What is the purpose of doubling the military budget? One has a right to ask that. Are the aid and loans which are being given and which will be given going to go, as so often in third world countries, by direct or indirect ways into even heavier armaments? And this is at a time when we have what I think is the absurd Options for Change and when every country in the West (except, I understand, France) is reducing defence expenditure. What price the peace dividend now? It might be a very heavy price indeed.
There are enough straws in the wind to make one feel uneasy. There is the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned for ethnic Russian minorities in the newly independent states. That is an understandable concern, but we ought not to forget that a similar concern was Hitler's excuse for first destabilising and then destroying Czechoslovakia.
It was reported last week that Mr. Rutskoi, recently released from gaol, favours a referendum throughout the former Russian territories on the question of whether the former Soviet Union should be reconstituted. These are the sorts of policies which are favoured by communists and nationalists alike, but not by the present government. But we would be optimists indeed if we were to expect the present government to be in power for much longer. Already President Yeltsin has been forced to backtrack on his assurance given to President Walesa of Poland last August that he had no objection to Poland joining NATO. That was last August, not very long ago. We do not know what we may hear next August or next year, but we should follow the advice that I was given as a young man when I was selling cattle in a poor market, "Hope for the best and prepare for the worst".
I do hope for the best. I hope that what I am saying may not be true, but I fear that a lot of it—in fact, most of it—is true. The best way that we can help Russia out of her semi-bankrupt condition is to encourage her to help herself. If the government there can bring the bureaucracy under control and create conditions suitable for stable investment, I am sure that that investment will come. Russia is a huge country with unlimited possibilities. As I have already said, we ought to be very careful that aid and loans do not find their way immediately into armaments. Like all countries and people, the Russians ought to be encouraged to cultivate their own garden and to leave their neighbours in peace.

563
If those neighbours—the former client states—are left in peace, there is, in my view, a good chance that they will prosper, especially in central Europe and the Baltics. What they least need is the dead hand of Russia in a peacekeeping or any other guise. The next time round, their loss of independence may mean our loss of independence. It nearly happened to us 45 years ago, but we were lucky. I end with a fairly trite quotation, but a true one: The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Let us not forget that.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, enables us to debate an issue not just central to our foreign policy, but one that presents the West with fateful options and challenges our fundamental views. But we must clear our field of vision of received ideas born of insufficient knowledge and entrenched distortions.
Sometimes I fear that we lack, or perhaps do not make sufficient use of, our sophisticated tools of political seismography to measure that great earthquake which was the fall of the Soviet Empire. General de Gaulle, in a prophetic statement 30 years ago, said that if the Soviet Union, the last of the great empires, were to implode and crumble, the Russians would have not one but a dozen Algerias on their hands. Today, nearly five years after the annus mirabilis, we view our relations with Russia sometimes with alarm, with wariness and with intemperate disappointment. That is only partly justified.
We should not be setting ourselves unattainable tasks for building a new order by believing that what took five, six, seven centuries of democratic evolution in some Western polities can be achieved in a country which, in a thousand years of history, had only eight-and-a-half years of qualified parliamentary rule. It would be equally naive to think that a government in Moscow—any government in Moscow—would ever desist from doing all in their power to preserve what can be preserved of the former Soviet Empire, and to widen its sphere of influence and push its security border further west.
The Russian revolution was not the end of history but the return of history to its habitual rhythms and patterns: power politics, the balance of power. It is not a fashionable but an enduringly valid notion. No one can say with certainty hew that Russian revolution will turn out. Is it entering a new stage? Will it take a Bonapartist turn? Russia could well be ruled by an amalgam of pan-Slav, neo-Fascist and recidivist communist forces, but more likely by an authoritarian compromise coalition, weary of quick new wealth and paternalistic in character, which would free the market slowly and sluggishly improve the quality of life.
If Boris Yeltsin is the best man for us to back at this moment, as I believe he is, so be it; but let us not focus all our policies on one man. It is easy to condemn a Zhirinovsky, but it would be dangerous to overlook or underrate men and movements in between the two political poles. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that we must not label politicians as "goodies" and "baddies". We are far too apt to talk of former
564
communists, neo-Stalinists, apparatchiks, obdurate managers of the military/industrial complex. There are so many answers and so many possibilities, and also some for the better.
We must not become casualties of oversimplification. Basically we have no reason and no right to insinuate ourselves and interfere in the internal affairs of Russia, to be condescendingly prescriptive. Only two principles should guide us. One is our enlightened self-interest and the other the insistence on a minimum threshold of human rights observance. We have not always been very clear in defining the former and we have been far from successful in attaining the latter. But one conclusion we can draw is that if one sets out with maximalist ambitions, holding inadequate means of implementation, one ends up making abject concessions, trampling over both moral principles and human lives. That is the lesson of Yugoslavia.
Essentially, our central policy towards Russia should be to recognise that she is still a great power politically and a superpower militarily. She must be conceded a sphere of influence that includes the CIS countries—the Ukraine, White Russia and the greater part of the Caucasian and Central Asian republics—all countries which for obvious reasons of economic independence, transport and demographic complexity, must be encouraged—yes, encouraged by us—to find an honourable and bearable modus vivendi with Moscow. Since we are clearly unable and unwilling financially, let alone militarily, to bear those sacrifices which in theory could achieve all the national aspirations of all those countries, we must confine ourselves to using such persuasive powers, such clout as we have with Moscow, to ensure that a code of human rights hold; sway, that a loose co-operative grouping does not infringe sovereignty unduly. We must prove that economic freedom in the area is in Russia's own interest and will allow her to plug into the circuit of world trade.
But at the same time as we concede to Russia that right to some form of rehabilitation, we must be quite clear about the fate of the lands between the Baltic and the Black Sea, and more specifically those countries in the heart of Europe which felt themselves betrayed by the West and oppressed by Hitler and Stalin—countries which of their own volition and in the West's vital interests must be allowed to form an integral part of the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance. Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Slovenia (a small country which lives up to all the tests of eligibility) should speedily and unequivocally—phased in certainly with all current reservations—be allowed to join. We should have seized the opportunity and taken the Russians at their word when President Yeltsin and Foreign Minister Kozyrev publicly raised no objection to such a policy. Since then, Moscow has changed its tune, perhaps encouraged by the lack of determination shown in the Western camp. But I think the window of opportunity has not been slammed: there is still hope and need for negotiation.
The Baltic countries present a different problem. No self-respecting Russian government, Left, Right or Centre, could tolerate the guns of another great power or alliance pointing at St. Petersburg from the territory of

565
a next-door neighbour. To a Russian ear the word "neighbour", as George Kennan, who has already been quoted in the debate once put it,
"does not have that friendly, warming sound it has to an American or Canadian. To a Russian, neighbour means Tartar, Turk and Teuton".
A statute of neutrality, in the strictest sense of the word, must be elaborated for the Baltic states, together with built-in safeguards for the substantial Russian minority. Young Russians born in Riga, by now as much a Russian as a Latvian city, must not be punished for the sins of their fathers.
I said previously that one of the priorities for Britain and Europe should be the integration of the Visegrad states into the European Union. Overwhelmed by other events at home and abroad, and perhaps misled by oversimplified reporting, we are not aware of how much progress has been made in some of those countries. It is true that the romantic shine of the velvet revolution has dimmed, but it is to be hoped that the present restoration is made up of coarser and perhaps more durable cloth. Of course some of the charismatic figures of the first phase have left the centre stage and are now writing books and editorials or lecturing abroad, but new men and women (important men and women) are at the helm and are producing results.
Poland has the biggest rate of growth in all Europe. The Czech Republic is economically a going concern. On the other hand, the Slovaks suffer from their self-induced divorce from Prague. To the Slovak leader, Mr. Mejczar, one might exclaim with Molière:
"Tu l'a voulu, Georges Dandin!"
Hungary lags behind somewhat and is in danger of becoming enmeshed in ethnic quarrels with Slovakia and Romania. But still there is progress to report.
The need to be precise in clearing up the position of those states in central and eastern Europe within the framework of wide-ranging negotiations with Russia is urgent and must not be left in limbo. It is high time that after half a century of changing frontiers, moving millions and the most horrendous cycle of ethnic barbarities in the history of man, eastern Europe, the fulcrum of the vast Eurasian land mass, might enjoy some of the blessings of a truly civil society.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for asking this Question and introducing the debate. He made a characteristically thoughtful speech. He has long been a serious student of matters in the former Soviet Union and in eastern and central Europe. While I do not agree totally with all that he said, I believe that he introduced the debate with a thought-provoking speech.
The developments inside Russia and its relations with the countries of its former empire are some of the most important issues for western foreign policy. Whatever our views about the best way out, I believe that we have all replaced the original feelings of satisfaction, excitement and euphoria about the ending of Communist tyranny with an awareness of what the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, called the unwisdom of
566
the maximalist position. Countries which have known little democracy for many centuries have suddenly converted. There has been the sudden dissolution of an empire, the creation of a new capitalist society in place of a communist command economy and the creation of a pluralist liberal democracy. In many ways, those are proving to be impossible demands in the kind of timescale that is being suggested. In Russia in particular, the recent elections gave a stark warning of the reaction of ordinary citizens to the impossible demands that have been made on them.
I was interested in the virtually unanimous verdict of foreign observers of the elections that the voting process was fair. I am associated with one of the international media organisations which monitored the elections. I was struck by its finding that the state-owned press and television and radio allocated equal time and space to the contestants. Against that background, one must meditate on the fact that Mr. Zhirinovsky emerged as the principal victor with nearly 23 per cent. of the votes. However, we must also recall that during the election he was given more editorial space in the western press than in the Russian press.
The conclusion must be that that reflects in Russia a mood of economic hardship and, perhaps more importantly, of national humiliation. That is shared by many Russians. John Lloyd, one of the most perceptive journalistic observers of events in Russia, recently remarked in the Financial Times:
"These are hard times in Russia, and fears are growing that the country is becoming ungovernable, or governable only with an iron hand".
The developments inside Russia are putting pressure on the other CIS states. Stalin was particularly fond of the old proverb that one cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. It is turning out to be more difficult to restore the original eggs of a 70 year-old omelette. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was right in describing the reality of life in Russia today as being a series of CIS countries in which there is a great mixture of ethnic groups, but in which there are substantial Russian minorities almost everywhere.
I turn to the impact that the developments in Russia are making outside its immediate boundaries. One can take Belaurus as an example. There are moves for its reabsorption by Russia and moves for monetary union between Belaurus and Russia. The vital gas supply pipelines which served Belaurus have been taken over by Moscow. That is bound to be a disturbing development to democrats in the Balkan states and the Ukraine with their vision of a Baltic to Black Sea bloc, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld. That in turn would be bound to lead the Visegrad states to seek firmer security guarantees. The Ukraine may react by clinging on to its nuclear weapons instead of observing the agreement reached about their disposal. Such instability would feed the dangerous advocates of the new doctrine in Russia—or perhaps a revision of the old and dangerous doctrine of Brezhnev—of justified military intervention.
That gloomy analysis may be over-pessimistic; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, may feel that it is. However, it underlines how far the western response to

567
the break up of the Soviet Union has failed. As the noble Lord. Lord Weidenfeld, said, it is not too late to do something better about the situation. However, I depart from his more modest views and refer to the United Nations' Economic Commission for Europe. In its latest annual report it called on the G7 nations:
"to commit themselves to a long-term reform programme on the scale of the post-war Marshall plan".
The Economic Commission for Europe stated:
"One of the worst outcomes would be … a list of short-term measures, hastily put together with a maximum of publicity".
That is too accurate a description of the West's reaction to the problems. The Economic Commission for Europe urges western governments:
"not to neglect other eastern European countries in their concern for Russia. A broader, regional perspective of the transition to market-based economies is needed".
Those are wise words which even at this stage we ought to heed.
Of course the problems of Russia, the CIS countries and the eastern and central European countries that were former Soviet satellites are different from the physical ruin of western Europe at the end of World War Two. What is needed is something on the same imaginative scale as we had at that time. The responsibility rests principally on the countries of the European Union. These developments, with all their risks and dangers, underline the need for the European Union to get together its political and economic diplomacy and its defence and security policies than has hitherto been the case. The European Union should take the lead in a new Marshall plan for the 1990s in Russia, the CIS countries and eastern and central Europe.
The prosperity and possibly the peace of our European continent are at stake. With the ending of the Cold War and that tidy bi-polar situation, with the balance of nuclear power terrifying as it was, it becomes increasingly a European problem and a European responsibility. I wish that I could see the European Union equipping itself to fulfil that responsibility. I wish that I could see the British Government taking an effective lead in that matter. Against the magnitude of the developments on our Continent, the response of the European Union is inadequate. As was said a few days ago by my noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter in the defence debate, when one is dealing with matters such as these the idea of inter-governmental arrangements for a joint foreign policy or movements towards a more effective security policy is a recipe for indecision rather than decision. If the European Union is to be effective in our dangerous modern world it must move towards more effective decision-making powers instead of bogging itself down, as the British Government are doing, in arithmetical questions of maintaining a voting minority, which is art absolute recipe for indecisiveness.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, the House is indebted to my noble friend Lord Kennet for tabling this Unstarred Question for debate this evening and for the profundity of his speech. The House will be grateful also to the characteristically eloquent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, who was right to remind us of
568
the seismic changes that have occurred with quite remarkable speed in regard to the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire. As a number of your Lordships have said, we must bear that in mind when considering our approach to the current situation. In my view. the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, made a perfectly justifiable plea for a re-orientation of the thinking about this issue both by the European Union and Her Majesty's Government.
This is also a timely debate because the news that one read in the Financial Times this morning—and perhaps the noble Baroness can bring the House up to date as to any further changes—was of an apparent failure by the Russian Government and the IMF to reach an accord on the further loan of 1.5 billion dollars which was designed to aid economic reform.
That is part of the general aid package—as I understand it, the second tranche—and part of the total 43 billion dollar package which was agreed by the G7 in Tokyo last year. The loan that we are thinking of, and to which I have just alluded, is small viewed against the immensity of the problems confronting Russia at present. But we need to recognise that that would be seen as an emblem of some hope and confidence on the part of the West in the survival of a reformed Russia and the burgeoning of its democratic reforms, limited though they have been in practice up to the present time; and would help to curb further economic decline and to stay impending moral and fiscal bankruptcy.
There is a view, which I hope will be rejected by the Government, that there is increasing evidence that if the money were to be given, it would be simply thrown away because the Soviet Union does not have the ability to use it prudently. That would be a gesture of despair and would be untimely in the extreme.
We need to maintain a sense of proportion about the package that was, and perhaps still is, on offer. It is only 0.5 per cent. of Russia's GDP but its significance is infinitely greater in terms of both the signals that it will provide and the prospects of success for extreme nationalists whose power increases in direct proportion to the degradation of the state, its economy and of society generally. I believe that our future is inextricably bound up with the ultimate success of Russia as a democratic state.
The risk of failing to address the problem adequately, as my noble friend Lord Kennet pointed out, and as was reiterated by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, is that the people of Russia will regard it all as hopeless; or, it may be that even if democracy survives, Russia will turn away from Europe towards China and Japan with regard to its trading policy and its overall global commitments. The worst scenario is that Russia will simply sink into totalitarianism, with all the attendant risks for us.
I cannot help feeling that much of the advice which was offered to President Gorbachev and then to President Yeltsin by the Chicago-school type economists and ideologues—ideologues not only in government but also in the IMF—has been utterly misconceived. That is a point that has been echoed in the debate. 'To have expected that the Russian leadership could have transformed the command economy of the Soviet Union

569
into a free market economy in a stable western-style democracy without any real appreciation of the alphabet, let alone the language, of the two concepts was fanciful in the extreme and has proved to be immensely damaging.
Any talk of gradualism on the part of the Russian leadership was not only questioned but denounced by those great pontificators whose record in the West has scarcely suggested that imitation in Russia and elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe was bound to succeed. But belatedly, as my noble friend Lord Kennet reminded us, there has been some recognition of the need for social stability.
The situation of Russian decline has been accompanied by a sense of quite remarkable national humiliation. Some years ago, in 1990, I went to what was then the Soviet Union just before it collapsed. That sense of national humiliation was evident. People were able to speak freely and they spoke freely about that. They spoke freely about many other things. They spoke freely about their lack of confidence in Gorbachev at the time. They spoke freely about the evident hopelessness of the position unless we were prepared to accommodate the needs of the Soviet Union in our international policies because without that, and without some firm international aid, they could see no future.
Of course, on the basis of that short visit, I cannot speak as an expert. I was only there for a few days. I should need another two days at least to become an expert. But that sense of national humiliation is dangerous and it has been compounded by that appalling haemorrhage of capital, to which my noble friend Lord Kennet referred, which has desperately weakened an already desperate economy.
There is disillusionment, massive unemployment, dreadful inflation and burgeoning crime and the fear of it. People do not feel safe in their own homes these days. Senior academics and scientists are paid a pittance for their services, even if they have the opportunity to provide those services. Like so many of the former satellite states, Russia has many highly trained academics, scientists, technicians and technologists. Health is increasingly threatened by the degradation of the environment. Therefore, it is no small wonder that unpleasant overt racism and ideas of expansionism and totalitarianism are favoured by people like the opportunist Zhirinovsky, whose ideas have appealed to so many.
I believe that to suggest that that man is simply a clown could be a major miscalculation in itself. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, referred to the elections in Russia. One wonders—and I only say this parenthetic-ally—how and from what source Mr. Zhirinovsky obtained his resources for the purchase of television time in those elections which seemed to be totally out of proportion to the television time allocated to others, except the Government.
I am not at all comforted by the Government's response to that serious state of affairs if it is reflected by a speech made in another place by Douglas Hogg, a colleague of the noble Baroness, on 2nd April last year. Of course it is right that our ability as a nation to
570
influence the direction of the changes taking place in Russia is limited politically and economically, as he said, and that essentially, it is for the Russian people to decide substantially the future of their country. But we are able to play some part as a member of the European Union; and, indeed, individually. It is ominous to say, as the Minister did on that occasion, that if Mr. Yeltsin ceased to be a reformer—that is to say an economic reformer, permitting industry to remain in the state sector—it would lead, in the Government's view, to the possibility of a withdrawal of support. If that is the idea underlying British foreign policy in that respect, I believe it to be extremely dangerous. Latterly, Mr. Yeltsin and his advisers have come to the view that a policy of gradualism would make much more sense. I only wish that that had been the voice of reason that prevailed much earlier.
Is the aid programme currently being offered (even if the IMF deal were to go through) sufficient? Is it aimed at the right objectives? Inward investment generally is stagnating as large western multinationals wait for political and economic stability to take root before they undertake substantial investment in Russia, and indeed in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Of course, there are exceptions. But one cannot help generalising in a sense in such a short debate. It really is a chicken and egg situation.
I read today in the Guardian newspaper an article written by Margaret Sharp who canvassed the concept of a grand Marshall Aid type programme, shifting resources into the shattered economies of Eastern and Central Europe. It is not just a question of shifting money into Eastern and Central Europe; it is a question of the provision of expertise, of technical and financial aid packages and of the provision of transferred technology. I thought that there was a great deal of substance behind the article. She writes that we would be talking of something equivalent to a provision on the part of the West of something like £77 billion. That is an enormous amount of money. However, like Marshall Aid in the 1940s, it is not a question of being philanthropic. The aid programme which at that time buttressed democracy in reviving ailing Western economies and which enabled American industry to prosper with orders from Europe, was not only something which created prosperity in Europe: it also created prosperity for American industry. The European Union could not be in greater need of that today with 20 million people out of work, many of whom are youngsters, with new jobs desperately needed and re-equipment and re-skilling to cope with the new technologies vitally required.
There is also the question of support through such a programme for small and medium-sized enterprises which are so important. The quality of the aid programmes is also important. I would plead for much more emphasis to be given to the environmental ingredient which should, by European Union requirements, be an essential component of all policies. The levels of urban pollution of rivers, seas and other areas —and also of land—are incredibly high. There are inadequate waste and water-treatment facilities. Health and even life is threatened on a scale unknown in

571
Western Europe. It is a decomposing environment which not only threatens millions in Russia, and elsewhere but also the citizens of the European Union. The safety of nuclear installations has big question marks over it, many of which are based on the Chernobyl-type installation. We really should worry about that.
Are we responding sufficiently? Clearly, the views of most speakers in the debate tonight are in the negative. What priority are the Government giving to promote sustainable development in Russia and in the burgeoning democracies of what were former dictatorships ? I know that the Government would say that the Know-How fund is all important. Indeed, according to the Prime Minister. it seems to be the main focus of the United Kingdom's environmental and industrial aid to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In fact, the Know-How fund strategy statement utterly ignores the issue of sustainable development, despite numerous ministerial proclamations. The amount of environmental aid is minuscule; nor does the Know-How fund operate any formal environmental procedures. Environmental issues are simply not central, but marginal. At worst, they are even regarded as irrelevant by the Government so far as concerns Eastern and Central Europe.
It is not enough for the Government to shelter behind the PHARE programme (which does prioritise questions of the environment) since, as the Minister, on 14th October 1991, said:
"The problems are so great there is no concern about the replication of assistance".
I shall conclude on the question of defence upon which I shall say a few words. The "Partnership for Peace" —the provision for the former Warsaw Pact countries which want to obtain eventual membership of NATO —sets out the basis of co-operation with NATO. Should Russia still, as the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said, a great power despite its political and economic distress (as evidenced by its skilful diplomacy over Bosnia) be granted a special status, having some voice in which Central and Eastern European countries would be able to join ? It rightly asks,
"Who is to bear all the costs of standardising weaponry and equipment?"
What is the Government's response to that and, indeed, to the wider questions posed by other speakers in tonight's short but invaluable debate?
7.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having tabled tonight's debate, which we have enjoyed. With our European partners, Britain re-established relations, first, with the Baltic states in August 1991 and then, between December 1991 and March 1992, we recognised the 11 successor states to the Soviet Union and Russia as its legal continuation. Since then our policy has consistently been to seek to help the new countries consolidate their independence and sovereignty. We are
572
doing that by supporting political and economic reform, both bilaterally and through multilateral organisations and the international financial institutions.
What is abundantly clear not only from your Lordships' contributions this evening but also from every exchange that we have had—which are ever more frequent, not only with the Russian federation but also with other members of the former Soviet Union and with the countries of central and eastern Europe—is that this time of very great change is not static: the pace is actually changing at a different rate in different countries. Their own relationships are extremely fluid. Therefore, in what I say to your Lordships tonight I shall not be dogmatic about what will or will not happen. However, I shall try to respond to some of the points raised and to ensure that our concerns are properly conveyed to the House.
There is no doubt that relations between Russia and many of the former Soviet Union states are close and they continue to be so. The economic and trading links remain important. In some areas, the links are being underpinned by the institutional development of the CIS (the Commonwealth of Independent States). We accept that Russia has important and legitimate political, economic and strategic interests in other parts of the former Soviet Union. But the independence and sovereignty of its neighbours are paramount. Those are the principles that we expect Russia to uphold in all its dealings with its neighbours.
Russia's relations with its former allies in central Europe are now, I believe, based on respect for each other's independence and sovereignty. However, I take to heart the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, about the distrust which still exists as regards a number of relationships as they change country by country. We strongly support the important principle of independence and sovereignty but we also believe that we should encourage good neighbourly relations.
The central European countries are all seeking closer integration with the West. They turn to us before they think of continuing links with Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union. The West supports this aim and we expect Russia to respect the wishes of those countries in turning to the West. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in his interesting opening remarks talked about the historical political process. I do not believe that that is yet over because democratic institutions and major economic reforms will not be achieved overnight. It is quite clear that while there has been substantial progress since the disintegration of the old USSR at the end of 1991, there have inevitably been a number of setbacks along the way.
We cannot and should not ignore the emergence of an extreme nationalist party but I urge your Lordships not to over-react. Zhirinovsky did not win the election; in fact only about 50 per cent. of the people voted. His party is not the biggest in the Duma, but in saying that I would not wish your Lordships to think that we are in any way complacent because I believe that the time is right now to reinforce and not to relax our efforts in underpinning the achievements of Russia to date. In that sense continued western support for its reforms is

573
essential. I have no doubt that a stable, democratic Russia is in all our interests but there will be a number of ways of achieving this.
I noted with great care what the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said about the reading of Zhirinovsky's showing in the polls. Like many others, I believe it was very much a protest vote. Certainly it played on emotions and national pride, but I believe it would be dangerous to draw firm conclusions, because the same view was not taken within the federation as seems to have been taken by many western commentators about that election. Further, things have changed, even since that election. Russia is now going through a great sensing of its own values and strengths. The Duma is finding its feet and it is gradually gearing up to a peaceful existence. It is holding debates and its members are looking forward to new elections in 1995. It believes that its election process has only just begun. Its main business has been the budget where there has been a clear debate between the agriculturalists and the industrialists. The Parliament is also now addressing the all important question of the social safety net. I shall return to economic matters in a moment.
Mr. Chernomyrdin, the Prime Minister, has to conduct a difficult balancing act and that is an area where we should be giving support for the reforms that still continue. I wish to say a few words about the military angle before discussing other matters. It was my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton who said that the Russians should keep their army at home. They are, of course, increasingly repatriating their army from all the satellite countries in which it was placed. However, we must be absolutely clear that Russia has decided that it could not afford to keep its army all over the place. Although there are some tendencies for the Russians to be more active in the south at the present time, in Tajikistan, for example, I believe there is a clear understanding between most of the former Soviet Union countries and Russia that Russia should only maintain a presence in those countries at the latters' invitation. Certainly, Mr. Grachev, the Minister of Defence, seems to be moving in that direction.
There is another aspect in all this that is important and that is the way in which the conventional forces in Europe treaty is playing its role. That is largely an unsung role, but I believe this is an opportune moment to say that in the 16 months to November last year Russia destroyed 799 battle tanks out of a total of 3,692 pieces of equipment reduced. At the end of the reduction phase in November 1995 Russia will have destroyed over 3,000 tanks and over 7,000 armoured combat vehicles, artillery pieces, combat aircraft and attack helicopters. Certainly the inspection visits that have taken place since the treaty came into force in July 1992 have not shown any evidence of wilful evasion of the obligations. We shall continue to watch that process with the greatest of care.
This is going on at the very time when the Partnership for Peace, endorsed by the NATO Summit last January, aims to develop a practical working relationship between NATO and the individual states of the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe,
574
NATO's partners. Its aim is to enlist partners' assistance in peacekeeping operations and to guide their armed forces towards compatibility with those of NATO countries. The individual programmes under the Partnership for Peace could include joint military exercises and planning and training. There is also provision for monitoring progress towards respect for international treaties such as the one I mentioned; the civilian control of the military and the transparency of defence budgeting. Partnership for Peace has been offered on a non-discriminatory basis, as it will be for each partner to determine the level of its involvement. However, that level will be known to all other partners. I believe this is an important part of the developing relationship between the central and eastern European countries and the countries of the former Soviet Union, particularly Russia.
The scheme does not entail membership for partners, but it offers a clear perspective on that goal and it allows the active partners to consult NATO in the event of a direct threat to their territorial integrity, political independence or security. General Grachev has said that the Russian Federation intends to sign the Partnership for Peace. We certainly hope that that will happen because the closer the partners work together in the Partnership for Peace, the greater the knowledge and accountability that will be required between partners. I believe that that is highly necessary for the stability of these emerging democracies. For our own part Britain is helping with the resettlement planning for redundant soldiers in the Russian Federation Army and a good deal of help has already been given as regards demobilisation. There was one argument—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is there any assumption, whether overt or just assumed, that the joint peacekeeping operations that Partnership for Peace might lead to should invariably be under the United Nations?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no assumption, nor is there any overt requirement, that it should be so but we shall have to see how international peacekeeping develops. I shall discuss the question of Bosnia in just a moment. However, it is clear that there has to be an open relationship in UN peacekeeping, particularly when forces which have not traditionally worked together suddenly start to work together. We are learning all the time, as I saw for myself in Bosnia last week.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made one comment to which I must respond. He said that there was no obvious purpose for NATO. We have heard that allegation before. From what I have just said, and from what I hear on almost a daily basis, it is clear that there is a very obvious purpose for NATO in the minds of Central and eastern European countries. They are literally queuing up to join NATO because they believe that there is a vital role for NATO. It is a role in which they want to be involved.
When the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, spoke about expansion of NATO I was minded to say to him that that enlargement which is sought by many countries is by no means a straightforward issue. It is highly complex

575
Alliance security guarantees are a serious undertaking. We would have no wish to create new divisions within Europe nor to diminish the effectiveness of the alliance. I believe that NATO will enlarge but that will only be when the time is right. That is why at the NATO Summit in January leaders stated clearly that they welcomed and expected enlargement but did not give any timetable.
We know that the Poles are extremely keen to join NATO. As my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton said, any link between the Poles and NATO should not give rise to a confrontational relationship between the applicant nation and the Russian Federation. My noble friend will understand from what I said earlier about the Russian Federation wanting to join the Partnership for Peace that we do not believe on the present showing that that is likely to be a problem.
The central aspect which the central and eastern European nations are seeking is conflict prevention and peacekeeping. In that regard they see NATO as the main provider rather than looking to the United Nations as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, implied just now.
Perhaps I may say a word about the CSCE. When the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Kosyrev, spoke recently about his proposals for a European security architecture he envisaged a co-ordinating role for the CSCE as the overarching regional political forum. That proposal is based on the Russian mistrust of NATO. However, on the current showing we do not believe that the Kosyrev proposals are likely to be taken up. We believe that the CSCE has an important role to play, but we retain our doubts about the possibility that it might be a co-ordinator of other security organisations. I know that many who are active within the CSCE framework do not see CSCE as a co-ordinator of others.
We have heard much tonight about the relationship between Russia and her neighbours. I believe that there will continue to be difficult discussions with most of them, but we shall always urge all sides to deal with those difficulties constructively and flexibly. That is why we look at the relationship between Russia and the Ukraine, which has been exceedingly strained at times over the past three years, in order to see where we can be of assistance. They have an agreement on nuclear weapons and Russia's role in helping to implement that agreement. We hope that that will be the basis of a more co-operative relationship. But that agreement will only be of real value when we see them working together to reduce their nuclear weapons. When and how we can help them is a matter which is constantly being considered by mernbers of NATO. That is an area in which NATO countries will have a major role to play.
We have heard a great deal tonight about the financial needs of Russia in particular, but those needs extend well beyond the Russian Federation. We have been adamant in the European Union that we should all be outward looking to the needs of the countries of the former Soviet Union and the central and eastern European countries. The European political and economic order is aimed at establishing stability and prosperity from the Atlantic to the Urals. Much of the work on the developing relations between the European Union and the countries to the East has involved frank
576
political dialogue and helping, through various means, to underpin the development of liberal trading relations. Certainly the partnership and co-operation agreement which is close to completion with the Ukraine gives a good indication of how that is done. The negotiation of an agreement between the European Union and Russia is also well advanced, giving a good indication of how the development of relations can be carried through. However, that can only be achieved on a case-by-case basis, and I believe that it will be some time before there is formal agreement between the European Union and all the countries we are discussing tonight,
So far as concerns the position of the United Kingdom—about which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton—Davis, asked a number of questions—we have pledged well over 1.8 billion dollars for support for Russia, both bilaterally and multilaterally. The G7 programme of phased support, linked to progress on reform, is worth over 46 billion dollars to Russia. Our Know-How funds, which the noble Lord did not seem to realise were so much valued in Russia, were doubled last year to £120 million and the annual rate of disbursement is rapidly increasing. By the end of the current financial year in a couple of weeks' time some £30 million will have been, spent on more than 100 projects. There are many more in the pipeline.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Know-How fund is not only highly regarded by British industry, it is said time and time again by the recipients to be the most effective means of helping them because it is flexible. We channel aid to the institutions, the cities and the regions as they are prepared to change, and we do not go through central government. Therefore, the danger which my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton mentioned of it going to a bank somewhere does not exist with the help that we give through the Know-How fund.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not question its value. I suggested that it seemed to ignore or pay insufficient attention to the environmental component. That was my point.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if I misunderstood the noble Lord, I apologise. Indeed, we have taken account of the needs of the environment. However, one has to have the assistance and willingness of the Russians to implement some of the environmental changes. They say that they recognise the problems, but recognising the problems is only the first step. There has to be a willingness to act—and some of the central and eastern European countries have accepted help and support from us in that very field of nuclear safety. We have spent more than £3 million in the past few years on assistance in relation to reactor safety and nuclear fuel. We take nuclear safety extremely seriously. Our bilateral help, which is mainly technical co-operation, is contributing greatly to improved nuclear safety.
As regards the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's nuclear safety account, we have contributed more than £8.25 million. We work through the Atomic Energy Authority in trying to improve many of those aspects of nuclear safety which are so essential.

577
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also asked me about the report of the IMF on its most recent visit to Moscow. I do not have the detailed report to hand but conditionality on macro-economic support is important as a means of influencing the governments' decisions. I believe that the targets for deficit and inflation in the draft budget would in principle be acceptable to the international financial institutions. However, it is not yet clear how the Russian Parliament will react to the budget because that budget would impose monetary discipline at the expense of larger scale support for agriculture and industry. I was making that point earlier when speaking about the Duma.
We certainly have a critical role to play, both bilaterally and through the European Union, in assisting the former Soviet Union. TACIS rather than PHARE —the programme for the central and east European countries—is a wide-ranging programme. It is targeted on many different sectors such as public sector training and agriculture. There has been some impatience—indeed, I have expressed it myself—at the slow rate of disbursement of the TACIS fund, but we are working for improvements in its management. I shall discuss it later this week in Brussels.
TACIS is operational in all former Soviet Union countries, and not just Russia. Above all, what we have sought to do with British aid to the former Soviet Union and the central and eastern European countries is to help countries to help themselves. The Know-How funds are particularly targeted to do that and not to allow spending to go towards armaments. If my noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton would like it, I shall give him some good examples of the Know-How fund by letter, so as not to detain your Lordships too long tonight.
We are seeking to help Russia, the 11 CIS countries
578
and all the central and eastern European countries, in my noble friend's words, by helping them to help themselves. There is no doubt in my mind that in the past four years they have come an extremely long way. There is no single prescription for them. We do not know, for example, whether the CIS will become a genuine Commonwealth of Independent States or remain a loose economic alliance between some or all of them. Some see benefits in close co-operation. Russia is bound to dominate by virtue of her economic power and the sheer size of the country. But we look to Russia to conduct her relations responsibly because that is essential for stability and prosperity in the region as a whole.
By contrast, the situation in central and eastern Europe has normalised to a great degree. Eventual membership of western institutions is very much on their agenda. For its part, the West needs to build a relationship with Russia, such as the one already established with the Czech Republic. But one thing we must never do is to allow Russia to have a veto over what happens in central Europe. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, that we shall not allow that to happen. We want a democratic and prosperous Russia, at peace with herself and her neighbours. We shall do all we can to support that goal and ultimately that is the only guarantee of long-term regional stability and security for all Russia's neighbours and allies.
I thank all of your Lordships who have spoken in the debate. We have much work to do to help Russia and the former Soviet Union and the central European countries forward. Noble Lords can be assured that Britain will do at least her part in that and will encourage others to do likewise.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past eight o'clock.

  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES: UK REPORTS
  INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES: UK REPORTS
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WEU: UK DELEGATION ACTIVITIES
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WEU: UK DELEGATION ACTIVITIES
  GIBRALTAR: PICKETING
  GIBRALTAR: PICKETING
  INDONESIA: ARMED FORCES
  INDONESIA: ARMED FORCES
  TURKEY: MPs' APPEAL FOR PROTECTION
  TURKEY: MPs' APPEAL FOR PROTECTION
  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: PRE-EMPTION
  WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: PRE-EMPTION
  AIRPORT SERVICES: COMPETITION
  AIRPORT SERVICES: COMPETITION
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION: FUNDING
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION: FUNDING
  MERSEYSIDE: RAIL LINK WITH CHANNEL TUNNEL
  MERSEYSIDE: RAIL LINK WITH CHANNEL TUNNEL
  CYCLING POLICY
  CYCLING POLICY
  A13: SIGNING TO M25
  A13: SIGNING TO M25
  FACTORY AND DISTRIBUTION CENTRE DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHERN FRANCE AND SOUTHERN BRITAIN
  FACTORY AND DISTRIBUTION CENTRE DEVELOPMENT IN NORTHERN FRANCE AND SOUTHERN BRITAIN
  EC FINANCIAL PROJECTS: CURRENCY DENOMINATION
  EC FINANCIAL PROJECTS: CURRENCY DENOMINATION
  CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT: 150th ANNIVERSARY
  CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT: 150th ANNIVERSARY
  SHIPPING: SUBSIDIES
  SHIPPING: SUBSIDIES
  "BETTER INFORMATION FOR BETTER EDUCATION"
  "BETTER INFORMATION FOR BETTER EDUCATION"