Sitting of 30 March 1994

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

    Kashmir
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government to ensure that Amnesty International is given every facility to monitor the situation in Indian-held Kashmir.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The Indian Government have recently allowed visits to Kashmir by various independent organisations and groups. We did much to promote this. We shall continue to encourage the Indian Government to allow a visit to Kashmir by Amnesty International.
    Ms Lynne: Do the Minister and the Secretary of State agree that although Amnesty International's visit to India was welcome and shows much more openness by the Indian Government, they would have' shown their commitment to human rights a little more had they allowed free access to Indian-held Kashmir and allowed the prisoners of conscience—the political viziers of Kashmir—to be released? Will the Minister continue to press the Indian Government about that?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Lady said, there was a visit to Bombay and Delhi by Amnesty International. I understand that the Indian Government have agreed to further visits to different parts of India on a case-by-case basis. I must point out that other human rights groups have visited India. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross has a group of people in Kashmir at this moment, and last August the International Commission of Jurists visited India. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has also just been to that area.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: While recognising the significant human rights abuses reported by the Indian authorities, their troops and others in Kashmir, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that it is important to recognise that, in the long term, the Kashmiri problem will be properly solved only if the Kashmiri people are given an opportunity of self-determination, as originally laid down in the UN agreement on that matter? Although Kashmir may not be a sovereign state, it should at least have: an opportunity to govern its own affairs.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The important point is that bilateral discussions between India and Pakistan must take place to resolve that problem. We have always recognised that and advocated that there must be a political process and respect for human rights in Kashmir, and a cessation of outside interference in the process.
    Mr. Madden: What pressure are Her Majesty's Government putting on the Indian Government to enable the Indian Human Rights Commission to investigate alleged gross human rights violations by Indian security forces?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Discussions about Kashmir took place between Mr. Narasimha Rao when he visited this country and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I understand that in 1993, four Indian human rights groups visited Kashmir: the Committee for Initiatives on Kashmir; the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre; Citizens for Democracy; and the People's Union for Civil Liberties. All those Indian human rights organisations have been in the area during the past 12 months.

    Peru
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Peruvian Government regarding the presidential decision on the La Cantuta case and its implications for Peru in the international community.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): On 23 February, ambassadors from the European Union expressed concern to the Peruvian Government about the handling of that case. They also emphasised the need for human rights violations to be speedily investigated and appropriately punished.
    Mr. McFall: Despite international pressure on Peru, President Fujimori decided to refer that case to a military rather than civilian court. The issue is causing a great deal of international concern. The Minister will know that I led a parliamentary human rights delegation on the issue in September and have given him a copy of our report. Will he read the report regarding the opinions of judges and prosecutors, and join his counterparts in Europe and the United States in putting pressure on Peru to introduce a transparent and international system of justice that can be examined?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. It was the Peruvian Congress which altered the law to permit that case to be tried by a military court. Although the judicial process was not altogether satisfactory, nine of the soldiers have been convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from four to 20 years. The hon. Gentleman has sent me a copy of the report that he mentioned. I shall read it and endeavour to discuss it with him in due course.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Should not we bear it in mind that the Peruvian constitutional assembly passed the legislation that allowed the transfer of jurisdiction and should not we consider the reasons why it did that? Is not the least of the reasons that the elected president and

    913
    constitutional assembly of Peru have to cope with the barbaric terrorism perpetrated in that country by the Sendero Luminoso?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As I said, it was not an executive act that permitted the case to be heard by a military court; it was an act of the Peruvian Congress. Peru faces a particularly violent and ruthless terrorist threat from the Sendero Luminoso, but that does not excuse breaches of respect for human rights by the security forces.

    India
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations relating to trade he received from the Indian Prime Minister during his recent visit.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, separately, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, discussed bilateral trade and the Indo-British partnership initiative with the Indian Prime Minister during his recent visit. Both sides welcomed the success of the initiative. Since it was launched in January last year, business close to £2 billion has been generated.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Following the most welcome visit by the Indian Prime Minister, his excellency Narasimha Rao, is not the Indo-British partnership initiative, which has signed £2 billion worth of trade agreements, even more important? Does not the recent visit cement the final order of £1 billion by British Aerospace for Hawk trainers, providing jobs in my constituency and elsewhere? Is not it thoroughly good news for British industry, as a result of the 1994 Budget which deregulated industries involved in the Indian trade agreements?
    Mr. Hurd: Our exports to India are doing extremely well. They reached £1,130 million last year—a 20 per cent. increase. New contracts were signed, including those that my hon. Friend mentioned with British Aerospace. New contracts were signed during the Prime Minister's visit, in particular a memorandum of understanding for a 1,000 MW power plant in Maharashtra state worth £700 million.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Good political and economic relations with the Republic of India should be welcomed and so should our developing trade relations with the republic. I made that clear during my visit to India last week. As we all claim to be friends of the Indian Government, should not we take every opportunity to remind them of their duties and responsibilities for the human and democratic rights of all their people, including the people of Kashmir—which, as the Under-Secretary of State said, I was allowed freely to visit last week—and the people of the state of Punjab?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We do not have any substantive conversations with Indian Ministers without drawing attention to that problem, as, indeed, he did. He will know that there has been a substantial improvement in the Punjab. There are now elections there and the position has been transformed for the better since a couple of years ago.

    Middle East
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Israeli Foreign Minister to discuss the middle east peace initiative.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): At the moment my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no such plans.
    Mr. Gallie: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister is about to lead an Israeli delegation to Oman—the first Israeli delegation to a Gulf state? Does he welcome this, as he welcomed in the past the talks that were initiated with the Israelis and the PLO? Will he urge the PLO to resume its place at the negotiating table?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. The impending visit of Yossi Beilin to Oman is greatly to be welcomed. As to the second part of the question, the answer must be yes. Negotiations are taking place in Cairo at the moment and it is important that the Palestinians and the Israelis get into full negotiations as soon as possible.
    Mr. Faulds: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me that the British Government should be putting pressure on the Israeli Government, first, to accept an international presence in the occupied territories to protect the Palestinians, and, after many years of not doing so, to implement international law in those territories, again to protect the Palestinians?
    Mr. Hogg: That is an important point. The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the fact that we were a co-sponsor of the resolution passed through the Security Council on 18 March, which contained a call for an international or foreign presence in the occupied territories. The British Government support that and would be anxious to participate in such a presence if the conditions were right.
    Mr. Brazier: In any such meeting, will my right hon. and learned Friend stress the importance of taking into account the interests of the Lebanese people in the middle eastern settlement? They have rights as well, and the presence of large numbers of both Syrian and Israeli troops in their country makes their claim to independence rather hollow at present.
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend will know that Security Council resolution 425 calls for the withdrawal of the state of Israel from southern Lebanon. We support that resolution and take every opportunity to make it plain to the Israeli Government that they need to comply with it as soon as possible.

    Malaysia
    Mr. Eastham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had with representatives of the Malaysian Government to discuss trading relations with the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hurd: Malaysia and our trade with that country matter greatly to us. We cannot afford to see our hard-won market in Malaysia, a thriving south-east Asian economy, surrendered to our competitors.

    915
    I have taken a close interest in efforts to resolve the difficulties. The British high commissioner in Kuala Lumpur and his staff, and members of my Department in London, have been in close touch with the Malaysian Government, the business community and others here and in Malaysia. The Malaysian Government have made it clear that the embargo is limited to new Government contracts. Private sector business is not affected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will visit Malaysia after Easter to pursue a range of opportunities in the education sector.
    Mr. Eastham: Is not it becoming increasingly clear that the so-called job benefits of the dam scheme turned out to be entirely specious? Far more economically advantageous work could have been done with, say, gas turbines rather than the hydro scheme. Moreover, are not we denuding other, more deserving, countries of aid—countries in Africa and Latin America, for instance? Jobs would have been created if we had dealt with those countries instead.
    Mr. Hurd: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is looking into questions such as that. I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The aid and trade provision in the aid budget was introduced in 1977 by Mrs. Judith Hart, as she then was, and I think that it was justified. We tightened the rules then, but we do not see why we should find ourselves in a position in which soft aid is given only by our competitors, within the rules, and never by us.
    Mr. Couchman: In regard to the dam project—and, in particular, the Public Accounts Committee report on the issue which was published today—will my right hon. Friend make it entirely clear in discussions with Malaysia that that country, as a sovereign state, had a perfect right to diversify its power supply into hydro-electric, particularly in view of its previous experience with unreliable gas turbine supplies?
    Mr. Hurd: That is essentially a matter for Malaysia. I cannot comment on the PAC report today, but my hon. Friend is entirely right: we have invested heavily in building the friendship between our countries and we want to return relations to a sound and flourishing basis as soon as possible. Despite what is sometimes written, Malaysia's international reputation and economic success are beyond dispute and its vigorous leadership puts a strong emphasis on education, training and determination. We cannot allow the press to get between us.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that a very careful and deliberate set of negotiations will be needed to sort the matter out and get the show back on the road? In view of what has occurred over the past fortnight, the lesson is clear: do not send the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Hurd: I thought for a moment, given the job description, that the hon. Gentleman was volunteering himself. I am sorry that that is not the case.

    South Africa
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what consultations he has had with President F. W. de Klerk about the safeguarding of the interests of all the peoples of South Africa under its new constitution following elections at the end of April.
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met President de Klerk on 8 December. He made it clear that we strongly support the establishment of a stable, non-racial and democratic South Africa in which the rights of all citizens are equally respected, and we are prepared to help in any useful way.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Having had an opportunity to spend some time in South Africa recently—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Missing a three-line Whip.
    Mr. Winterton: —for which leave of absence was officially granted, and having met representatives from all population groups, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is considerable opposition to the unitary state constitution that could come into effect after the elections at the end of April? Bearing in mind the lack of safeguards for all the peoples of South Africa under the proposed constitution and the vital part that the South African economy plays in the whole of the African continent, not just for the people of South Africa, will my right hon. Friend urge upon F. W. de Klerk and other political representatives the importance of considering a federal structure to safeguard all interests in that important country?
    Mr. Hurd: It is for South Africans of all communities to discuss and resolve that point. I understand that a summit meeting is soon to take place between the leaders of the main parties. We call on the leaders of the parties to spare no effort to ensure that the transition to a multi-racial democracy is peaceful. All differences, such as those mentioned by my hon. Friend, have to be resolved by peaceful negotiations. That means speaking out clearly against violence, urging restraint among their followers and promoting reconciliation by pursuing their aims and objectives with flexibility and a view to a compromise.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that by far the best opportunity for peace and progress in southern Africa after the elections is the absolute need for people to accept the results of the elections as being free and fair? Therefore, will he not listen to the siren voices who advocate federalism and thus give encouragement to Chief Buthelezi and Inkatha, who will not take part in the elections? Will he make it clear even now that if Chief Buthelezi and Inkatha refuse to accept the elections, they will stand condemned and isolated and will have no friends in this country?
    Mr. Hurd: I and many others have made it clear over many months that the elections are crucial to the future of South Africa. Therefore, we hope that all concerned will take part in them. The hon. Gentleman mentioned observers. There will be about 40 British observers in the United Nations team, 30 in the European team and five in the Commonwealth team. A group of about 20 parliamentarians is, with agreement, going to take part also. It is crucial that the elections should be free and fair and should be seen to be free and fair.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the long-term stability of the Republic of South Africa will depend very much on the ability of the Government who are elected on 27 April to meet the economic and social expectations of the people of South Africa? What

    917
    initiatives are Her Majesty's Government taking with regard to trade and investment in South Africa which would assist economic progress in that country?
    Mr. Hurd: Like South African Ministers and the African National Congress, we are certainly encouraging British business men to look with fresh eyes at the new South Africa and to find there the opportunities that undoubtedly exist for trade and investment. The main incentive for trade and investment will be free and fair elections and an end to the violence. An end to the violence is the most crucial incentive.
    Dr. Howells: Since this is the last session of Foreign Office questions before the South African elections, will the Government take the opportunity to condemn the terrible slaughter being visited upon that country even this very day by Chief Buthelezi's Inkatha movement and his supporters in the security forces? Will the Government make clear to the people of South Africa and the rest of the world their total and unequivocal support for the free and fair elections that have been organised in that country and for the emergence of the sort of multi-party, non-racial democracy that is so vital for the economic and political well-being of the southern half of the African continent?
    Mr. Hurd: I have already met the hon. Gentleman's second point twice in answering the main question. On his first point, it is not sensible for us to start allocating blame for death and terrorism to one particular group after a particular incident. That is not our business, but it is our business, and that of all friends of South Africa, to emphasise the two points that I have tried to emphasise, I hope on behalf of the House as a whole. The elections are crucial to the future of South Africa. They will not be successful if they are marred by the terrible violence of the type that we have seen in recent days.

    China
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the record of the People's Republic of China on human rights; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): There are a number of areas where China's human rights record does not meet internationally accepted standards. These include harassment of religious believers, detentions without trial, use of torture on detainees, lack of access to legal representation and continued use of labour camps.
    Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it is in our interest, as well as that of the People's Republic of China, to keep up the pressure on China to continue to make advances in the areas that he mentioned, such as the rule of law as we know it, religious tolerance and all the matters that we regard as everyday human rights here and in other countries in the west?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right, and we take every suitable opportunity to do so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised human rights at both his meetings last year with the Chinese Foreign Minister and handed over a list of prisoners. The matter was also raised by the European Union troika. We co-sponsored the
    918
    resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, but the Chinese again got a "no action" motion passed. My noble Friend Lord Howe led a human rights delegation to China in December 1992 and we are pressing the Chinese to follow up the issues raised by Lord Howe and to send a return delegation to study our legal systems. We have invited various people here—the deputy procurator-general, prison governors and young lawyers—and we are providing training to young Chinese judges and lawyers under Overseas Development Administration auspices.
    Dr. Godman: Has the Minister read Amnesty International's report on the 14 Tibetan Buddhist nuns who have had their prison sentences doubled or even trebled for daring to sing pro-independence songs in their prison cells? If the Minister has not done so already, will he raise that disgraceful affair with the Chinese authorities? Some of the nuns are still teenagers and will serve many years in prison unless the repressive regime is told that it cannot get away with such disgraceful behaviour.
    Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious matter and I am conscious of the report to which he refers. We have raised a number of human rights issues in Tibet with the Chinese and we will continue to do so in the future.
    Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of instilling confidence in the People's Republic of China's administration of Hong Kong after 1997 would be for the Beijing authorities to exercise some restraint in their treatment of dissidents now?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The 1984 joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong lays down a series of guarantees for human rights in Hong Kong after 1997. In addition, the Hong Kong Government enacted a Bill of Rights which enshrines in Hong Kong law the international covenant on civil and political rights which the joint declaration and the future Basic Law guarantee will remain in force. However, to do what my hon. Friend suggests, which is what we and others continually urge the Chinese to do, would certainly reinforce that.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We will continue to urge the Minister to keep pressure on the Chinese Government. Does he accept that the improper claims on Tibet and the treatment of the Tibetan people deserve condemnation from all communities throughout the world? Will he continue to deal not only with individual rights, but with that territorial claim over Tibet?
    Mr. Goodlad: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, and I can give him the undertaking he seeks.
    Mr. Rogers: The Minister is absolutely right to condemn the Chinese for the conditions that prevail in their gulags, but, rather than just criticise them, why does he not take some positive action? There are 1 million political prisoners in China, many of whom are involved in producing goods and materials, which are imported into this country—especially, for example, coal, cast iron, paper, tea products and so on.
    If the Minister is really concerned about the human rights situation and the condition of people in Chinese prisons, the Government ought to block the import of those

    919
    goods under the Foreign Prison-made Goods Act 1897, in the same way as the Americans have blocked Chinese goods that are made in prisons from entering their country.
    Mr. Goodlad: The import of goods from prisons in China is, indeed, illegal, as the hon. Gentleman says, and we continue to deplore with the Opposition the use of forced prison labour. There are severe practical difficulties in identifying products manufactured by forced labour, given the complex channels of production and distribution. The United States customs authorities may detain goods on suspicion and have had some access to prison camps, but they have had exactly the same problem as us in identifying specific consignments.
    I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating general trade sanctions, since that would be damaging to the people of China rather than its Government.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new wave of repression against Christians in China, together with the continued suppression and occupation of Tibet, isolates China as the last of the evil empires in the world? Will he ask the new United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate the situation in China as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right to say that two new regulations have recently appeared in China to ban foreigners from setting up religious organisations, schools or offices, and from proselytising, giving money and supplying religious materials. The European Union has successfully pressed for a call to respect freedom of religion in the current year's draft UNHCR resolution, and we will continue to include freedom of religion among the human rights topics that we pursue with the Chinese.

    India And Pakistan (Human Rights)
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Indian and Pakistani Governments to discuss human rights.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights with the Indian Prime Minister during his visit to Britain earlier in the month. I last discussed human rights with the Pakistani Foreign Secretary in February.
    Mr. Michie: Will the Secretary of State stress vigorously that the Indian Government should make public the names of those who are in detention from Kashmir and the Punjab?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understand that a great deal of information is disclosed in that area. If the hon. Gentleman has any cases that he wishes to draw to my attention, I will of course pursue them, as they are always pursued to seek information on any special subject.
    Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that the most important human right is the right to stay alive, but that no terrorists should be given any quarter anywhere? Only yesterday, in Srinagar, there was a bomb blast in which several Indian army officers were killed. Does my hon. Friend agree that such mindless violence should be rigorously denounced?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The violence in Kashmir must be handled by the Indian security forces and forces for order, who are the Government of that area. We recognise that. It has to be handled properly and that is why our concern for human rights in that policing operation is expressed on every suitable occasion.

    Israel
    Mr. David Young: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to press Israel to dismantle Israeli settlements in Palestinian areas and to hand back the Golan heights to Syria.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We regularly make representations to the Israelis urging them to cease the construction of settlements which we regard as illegal. The Golan heights are occupied territory. Under Security Council resolution 242, Israel should withdraw from territories occupied in 1967.
    Mr. Young: In view of Prince Philip's impending visit to Israel, where he is to receive a posthumous award on behalf of his mother—[Laughter.]—his mother's posthumous award for rescuing Jewish families, is it not now time to remind the Israelis that peace will be more stable in the middle east if they return to Syria territory that they hold and which is legitimately Syrian, if they dismantle the settlements where Palestinians are harassed in their own lands, and if they further control their army units, which wish to behave to the Palestinians as the Germans did to the Jews?
    Mr. Hogg: I feel that Prince Philip will be a bit depressed by the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. But leaving that aside, he made two goodish points: first, the settlements are an obstacle to the peace process; and, secondly, if there is to be peace between Israel and Syria, Israel must be ready to withdraw from the Golan heights.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the positive involvement of Syria is central to the middle east process and, clearly, the illegal occupation of the Golan heights by Israel is a major obstacle to achieving that objective?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right—full participation by Syria in the peace process is essential. To make an effective peace settlement between Israel and Syria, it is important that Israel makes it plain that she will withdraw from the Golan heights. It is important that Syria makes it plain that there will be a full treaty of friendship between Syria and Israel.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Given that the Labour Government in Israel have made clear their willingness to discuss the return of the Golan heights and the future of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, does the Minister welcome the many initiatives that the Labour Government have taken, including the initiative mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)—the impending visit of Yossi Beilin to Oman?
    Mr. Hogg: Yes. The Labour Government under Mr. Rabin have indeed made important steps towards achieving an agreed settlement between themselves and the Arab states and between themselves and the Palestinians. However, we must recognise that there

    921
    remain a number of important obstacles—for example, how best to secure the safety both of Palestinians and, indeed, of settlers who are in the present difficulties. That question must be considered positively by Prime Minister Rabin and the Israeli Government.
    Mr. Batiste: Is not it clear that the closer any of the negotiations in the middle east gets to success, the more likely it is that extremists on both sides will do their best to disrupt them by further atrocities, such as those at Hebron? Is not the best role for this Government to get the parties to the negotiating table and keep them there, despite the severe provocations they may face, because lasting peace can be achieved only through bilateral agreements?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. As the parties to the negotiations get closer to a final agreement, there is a real risk that extremists on both sides will use violence in a way that this House understands. It is, therefore, important that the parties to the negotiations commit themselves to an early agreement, because it will reduce the risk of a permanent disruption in the process.

    European Union
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the nature and content of any provisional or draft text of any treaty for the enlargement of the European Community or Union, including details of the likely date of initial signature and the nature of the ratification process in the United Kingdom Parliament.
    Mr. Hurd: The text of an accession treaty with Austria, Finland, Norway and Sweden is nearly ready. The applicant countries and member states will sign the treaty after the European Parliament has completed its assent procedure. A Bill giving effect to the treaty in United Kingdom law will be put to Parliament once the treaty has been signed.
    Mr. Spearing: Does not the acceptability of the content of that treaty by Her Majesty's Government depend on various undertakings that the House heard specifically yesterday? Will the Foreign Secretary tell us which of those undertakings will be incorporated in the content of the treaty and, if they will not be so incorporated, where else they will be written down? Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen reports to the effect that when the undertaking said to have been given by the Commission was put to Mr. Delors yesterday, he said, "No, no, no"? How does the Foreign Secretary reconcile that answer from Mr. Delors with what we were told yesterday?
    Mr. Hurd: On the hon. Member's first point, once the treaty has been signed, Parliament will be asked to consider a Bill giving effect to the accession treaty in United Kingdom law. The Bill will seek to add the accession treaty to the Community treaties listed in section 1(2) of the 1972 Act.
    With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Commission has confirmed that its legislative programme does not envisage the use of the health and safety articles of the treaty, other than for measures directly and demonstrably relevant to health and safety at work.
    The Commission has also confirmed that proposals brought forward under the social chapter will not apply to the United Kingdom. For the purposes of the agreement,
    922
    the United Kingdom will be considered as a third country. These assurances were given by the Commission, with the full authority of Mr. Delors, and have been reconfirmed this morning.
    Mr. David Howell: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that there have been some rather confused and mixed reports about what the Commission has agreed to in the way of relinquishing health and safety and social provisions? Can he confirm that firm undertakings have been given that those functions will be relinquished back to national level? I refer to very important regulations and controls over important health and safety and social legislation of the kind that we have always backed, but have always argued are best worked out at national rather than Community level.
    Mr. Hurd: The assurances given are the ones to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday and which I have again detailed today. As I have said, they were given by the Commission, with the full authority of Mr. Delors, and have been reconfirmed this morning.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of minority and majority voting, was the issue of the threshold specifically excluded from the 1996 agenda prior to the agreement into which the right hon. Gentleman entered last weekend?
    Mr. Hurd: No, but it is now specifically included.
    Mr. Churchill: While warmly welcoming the enlargement of the Community, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that an overwhelming majority of people in the United Kingdom and a significant element of opinion among our European Union partners do not wish to see us end up in a centralised federal Europe? Will he undertake to fight all the way to ensure that, when this matter comes up again for decision, in 1996, we shall have as many allies as possible to ensure that national rights and national sovereignty are not ridden over roughshod?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Right across Europe, a growing number of people reject the idea of a centralised super-state. There was a time when people felt that in order to be a good European one had to believe that executive power should be moved gradually, step by step, to the centre. That is no longer the belief of sensible people—for example, Chancellor Kohl. However, we shall not have to wait until 1996; this will be a principal issue in the forthcoming European elections in the United Kingdom, as it is a point which separates Conservatives very clearly and plainly from both the main Opposition parties.
    Mr. John Cunningham: Before the right hon. Gentleman continues to do what he did on Monday—misrepresent the position of the Labour party and, for that matter, I believe, the Liberal party, although that is a matter for its members—may I ask whether he recognises that there is no question of the Labour party's supporting a federal Europe? No part of our policy commits us to abandoning the so-called Luxembourg compromise. Nor is there any part of our policy that would abandon our position on the need for unanimity on the issues of economic, foreign and defence policies. It is quite dishonest of the right hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.
    Mr. Hurd: It is nice to have the right hon. Gentleman so clearly on the back foot and on the defensive. What I did on Monday—or whatever day it was; I am happy to do again today—was remind the right hon. Gentleman what the Leader of the Opposition put his fist to in the Euro-socialist manifesto. I do not know whether he read it before he signed it, but what he said was that majority voting should be the norm. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is now."] It is not the norm now. I do not see how one can possibly make any sense of that sentence without supposing that it will at least dilute the unanimity rule, to which the Government hold firmly.
    Mr. Paice: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the accession of the four countries will bring a shift in the voting balance from the south to the north of the continent of Europe, and from the recipients to the contributors?
    Will he confirm also that, by 1996, we will have a good idea whether there has been a perceptible shift in the direction of Europe, which we believe could come from the accession of the four countries? Will not that be the time when we will rightly be able to address the questions of majority voting, the threshold and the weighting? If that shift has not taken place at that time, will not the Government stand up for Britain?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The three Scandinavian countries and Austria—for whose entry we have worked for a long time, particularly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—will be net contributors. It is certainly true that, when they take a full part in the discussions in 1996, they will be clearly equipped to make judwoments of their own.
    I should take the point further than my hon. Friend. In 1996, I believe that we will be looking forward to a Community not of 16 countries, but considerably larger. The arguments that have been tossed about in the House during recent months and, indeed, years will be well out of date by then. I cannot think that the European Union will be able to accommodate more than 16 members without a radical look at many aspects, both of its institutions and of its policies, such as the common agricultural policy.

    South Africa
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with the South African Government the extent of international support for the democratic process in that country.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been offered by the United Kingdom for the proper administration of the forthcoming general elections in South Africa.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are in regular contact with the South African Government and other main parties to discuss international support for the transition to democracy. We have so far pledged 75 election observers to the United Nations, European Union and Commonwealth operations.
    Mr. Grocott: Is not the crucial lesson of the tragedy in Angola—and, it must be said, the dreadful failure of the international community in Angola—that it is no use sending observers before elections and monitors during
    924
    them unless there is full support from the international community for the democratic decision once it has been made?
    While those who decide to abstain in the South African elections will have made their decision, will the hon. Gentleman and the Government do all in their power to ensure that once the people of South Africa have made their decision on election day, the full and unequivocal weight of the international community will come in behind that democratic decision?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we give full support to the democratic process in South Africa and we will give full support to the people's democratic decision when it takes place. That is why we are doing so much to help bring that about.
    The hon. Gentleman talks about other matters which must be done before elections. One thing to bear in mind is the help—in a small way, but none the less significant—that Britain is giving. Seventeen British police officers have been attached to groups involved in electoral administration, and a further nine for other electoral matters. Seven Army officers are involved and help with the media is coming from the BBC and from other consultants. We are giving practical help to the South African election process in that way.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Speaking as somebody who has lived and worked in South Africa, I am conscious of the significant role that has been played by the Government in dismantling apartheid. I hope that that will be recognised one day in the history books.
    In welcoming my hon. Friend's answer, may I ask him to assure the House that he will react positively to any further requests from the South African Government for civilian, police or military aid, which this country is so superbly equipped to offer?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend may rest assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering sympathetically requests of that nature. When they are made, they may well be accommodated in the way that he would wish.
    Mr. Gapes: Will the Minister make the strongest possible representations to Inkatha and make it clear to that organisation at this stage that its behaviour, its murderous activities and its refusal to participate in the elections will mean that there is no question of support of any kind from his Government, or even from some of the voices on the Conservative Back Benches?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has referred to a meeting that he and I hope, and I am sure the hon: Gentleman hopes, will take place shortly between all the leading representatives, including Inkatha, Chief Buthelezi, the South African Government, the African National Congress and others.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Given the wide range of political activity in South Africa, from active communists in the African National Congress to the so-called neo-fascists in the AWB, does my hon. Friend agree that many people will feel ostracised after the election in April and that, therefore, international support could be given to the idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) proposed, of some sort of federal state, so that

    925
    there will not be too many people outside a system which many will find distasteful and, indeed, extremely dangerous?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in answer to earlier questions, all these matters must be for the South African people. As I have repeated, and repeat now for the third time in the House this afternoon, there is shortly to be a meeting between all the leading parties at which we hope, and I am sure my hon. Friend hopes, outstanding issues such as he mentions will be resolved.
    Mr. Worthington: As members of the party that helped to build up Chief Buthelezi during the 1980s, will the Government use their influence in South Africa to tell him that there is no sympathy whatever for his posturing, and particularly for his role in the killings on Monday in Johannesburg? Will he say that there is no sympathy whatever for the posturing of King Goodwill in delaying the meeting that is crucial to agreement between the major parties in South Africa, and urge on them both that there have to be free and fair elections? Then we can see the true extent of Chief Buthelezi's support.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. The British Government's position has been clear for some time and it has been repeated several times in the House this afternoon.

    Baltic States
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Baltic states.
    Mr. Hurd: We are rebuilding a close friendship with the Baltic states. Trade is increasing quite fast. I visited Latvia in February and had warm and positive talks with the Foreign Ministers of the three Baltic states. Our strong support for Baltic sovereignty and independence and gradual Baltic integration into European structures will be maintained.
    Mr. Colvin: I am sure that the whole House will applaud the signing up of all three Baltic states to NATO's partnership for peace. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what will be done to evaluate their military capability? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to assist the Baltic states in setting up the so-called Baltic battalion?
    Mr. Hurd: We are helping to train the battalion composed of units from the three Baltic states as part of a multinational programme of help. Royal Marines will provide individual and company-level training. We are working on the programme with Scandinavian countries. It is very much welcomed by the three countries involved and it is a clear proof, I hope, of our support for Baltic sovereignty and independence.
    Mrs. Ewing: Given the importance of trade for the three Baltic states, will the Foreign Secretary consider the possibility of enabling those countries, perhaps through the know-how fund or the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to mount stands at international exhibitions,
    926
    particularly in Britain, at which they could learn and could also sell to this country much of the expertise they have—for example, in agriculture and forestry.
    Mr. Hurd: I will look at the hon. Lady's suggestion. The know-how fund is already active in the three countries and, as I have said, our trade and investment is increasing rapidly. We are the largest overseas investor in Lithuania, and Cable and Wireless has just won a very large telecommunications contract in Latvia. Let me look at the hon. Lady's suggestion.
    Sir Richard Body: Can my right hon. Friend assure the Baltic states that their favourable trading arrangements with Finland will continue if Finland becomes a member of the European Union?
    Mr. Hurd: That is a very important point; I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I am not exactly sure how the discussion stands, but we have certainly been strongly urging the point which my hon. Friend makes.

    Malaysia
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had with representatives of the Malaysian Government to discuss trading relations with the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Goodlad: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) earlier.
    Ms Eagle: Would the Minister care to comment on reports that Ameristar, a company taken over by Mark Thatcher, has just landed a lucrative contract with the state-owned Malaysian Oil Corporation? Does he think that this is due to merit, or to services rendered by Lady Thatcher when she gave the initial go-ahead to the Pergau dam project? Does he think that British taxpayers' money should be used as a sweetener to enrich the fortunes of the son of a former Prime Minister?
    Mr. Goodlad: I have no knowledge of the matter that the hon. Lady mentions. If it involves any point of ministerial responsibility, I will write to her.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my right hon. Friend make a point of congratulating the Malaysian Government and their defence forces on the admirable work that they have done in recent days in seeking to rescue the climbers of the British Army? Will he pay tribute to the courage of one pilot in particular, who certainly risked his life to extricate our climbers, and will he do all he can to make sure that relations between the defence forces of our country and Malaysia remain warm and cordial?
    Mr. Goodlad: I agree whole-heartedly with my hon. Friend. The contribution of the Malaysian armed forces was absolutely crucial—particularly that of the pilot mentioned by my hon. Friend. Their professionalism was absolutely exemplary; without it, the outcome could have been very different indeed.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a message of thanks to Dr Mahathir, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has written to his opposite number in Malaysia. The co-operation to which my hon. Friend rightly draws our attention shows the real

    927
    strength of the relations between the United Kingdom and Malaysia. I am pleased that the press, too, have recognised that.

    European Union
    Mr. Hoon: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the European Union's enlargement negotiations.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made full written statements to the House following the negotiations at the Foreign Affairs Councils on 7 March, 8 March, 15 March and 22 March. I made a written statement on 25 March. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made an oral statement to the House yesterday on the outcome of the negotiations on the institutional implications.
    Mr. Hoon: Does the Minister accept that the so-called concessions claimed by the Prime Minister yesterday as a significant success on social policy questions were, in fact, no more than a reminder of well-established, well-known European Commission policy for 1994?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I do not accept that at all. It was very important to get this matter clarified. The House has heard already from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the Commission has confirmed that health and safety measures will be brought forward on the right treaty base and that Britain's opt-out from the social chapter will be respected in full. This is a side issue to the main issue of majority voting, but the fact that the Opposition regard it as unimportant shows their true attitude about the social chapter.
    Mr. Dykes: Is it not interesting and encouraging that the four countries joining the European Union, subject to final ratification, are intensely patriotic countries, proud of
    928
    their ancient sovereignty and their ancient culture, yet all accept fully the acquis communautaire and all the provisions of the Maastricht treaty and future developments? Can we follow their good example, bearing in mind the fact that they have no significant opt-outs in any major constitutional areas?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. We know that those four states, which I hope will all accede on time on 1 January next year, will not agree with us about everything, but that, in the main, they will be our allies in ensuring budgetary discipline and keeping the Community diverse and outward-looking. They believe, as we do, that the nation state is the foundation and the building block for European Union.
    Ms Quin: Given the confusion in the press today, does the Minister think that a reasonable delay is two months, as has been claimed by other countries in the European Union, or indefinitely, which is what the Prime Minister seemed to imply?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The only confusion is in the mind of the hon. Lady. No time limit is specified in the binding decision taken by the Council.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since the United Kingdom liberated France during the war and the French voted no against us for 10 years because of their interests, it would not have been the end of the world if we had asked our friends in Finland, Norway, Sweden and Austria to wait two years until we had served our interests?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, but we have been able to do both. We have protected British interests and secured the accession of the four states on time next year, if that is agreed in their referendums.

Trunk Roads (Review)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the trunk road programme review.
I announced in August 1993 that we intended to review the road programme. Today, I want to set out our proposals for a revised and prioritised programme that will ensure a more efficient, better managed and speedier delivery of the improvements that we need and which is compatible with the principles of sustainable development.
My target was to complete the review in time for it to provide the basis for the new Highways Agency, which is being launched today. The review is now complete and copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.
The Government have an excellent record of investment in delivering increased motorway and trunk road capacity, which is so vital to the economic well-being of the country, and in providing bypasses, which remove heavy traffic from the centres of towns and villages, with immense benefits for the residents and their environment.
We plan to spend about £2 billion a year on trunk roads over the next three years, which is almost double the level, in real terms, in 1979. Fifty-seven major contracts are under construction and last month I announced our intention to start work on a further 22 major contracts during 1994–95, which are worth more than £1 billion in total.
However, it is worth reminding the House that, altogether, my Department is spending 50 per cent. of its budget on roads, which account for 90 per cent. of all inland journeys in the United Kingdom, and 40 per cent. on public transport, which accounts for 10 per cent. of journeys. That demonstrates the importance that we attach to rail and urban transport systems and it clearly shows how we skew expenditure that way.
The review does not affect the three-year national roads expenditure plan which was announced at the time of the autumn statement; nor does it cover local authorities' road programmes. It has its origins in the package of measures that I announced to deliver road schemes faster.
In the past, it has taken an average of 13.5 years to get from the entry of a scheme into the programme to its opening. I aim to cut that time by up to a third. We are already making good progress. I recently announced consultation on much-needed changes to road scheme public inquiry rules. The new Highways Agency is now launched. The most important measure in the package, however, was a review of the national trunk road construction programme, with the aim of speeding up the delivery of projects with the highest priority.
The review has been the most wide ranging and in-depth for many years. There was a clear managerial need for establishing priorities. Until now, all the schemes in the road programme have been taken forward with the same effort and many of them at the same speed. That does not make the best use of resources. It wastes money and time, and creates uncertainty.
However, the opportunity has also been taken to go much wider. It is no part of the Government's policies to tell people when and how to travel. On the other hand, we must be aware of the consequences if people continue to exercise their choices as they do at present. In certain parts
930
of the country, the resulting growth will have unacceptable consequences for both the environment and the economy. Of course, there is no realistic possibility of simply halting traffic growth. What we can seek is to bring home its full cost. We must enable people to enjoy access to goods and services and to visit other people, while reducing the amount of movement needed to achieve that aim.
Increases in fuel duty, and motorway tolling, will help people to make more informed choices about the cost of using their cars. Planning guidance just published will also help to reduce the requirement to travel to reach goods and services. However, even a reduced rate of traffic growth will not remove the urgent need that we face already for new bypasses, wider motorways and safer junctions.
The review, therefore, provided the opportunity to check that each scheme was still essential, was on the proper scale, and accorded with the high standards now expected of our road improvements in a way that reconciled the needs of industry and the economy with the needs of the environment. Each scheme in the existing programme has been examined carefully to confirm, among other things, that it produces a high rate of economic benefit in comparison with its cost, and that it has the minimum effect on the natural environment.
The review has concluded that most resources should go on the two priorities of improving key routes, primarily motorways, likely to experience stop-start driving conditions in the foreseeable future, and on bypasses. The number of new trunk routes proposed in the publicly funded programme, especially those through open countryside, will be reduced still further to a total of six. Major urban road improvements should be very limited in number, in the light of the continuing substantial Government investment in urban transport initiatives and the priority attached thereto.
Schemes for which there was no acceptable environmental treatment, and those whose priority meant that they were not likely to be built in the foreseeable future—49 in all—are being withdrawn to reduce blight and uncertainty. Work on them will cease immediately.
The new prioritised borrowing represents a substantial agenda to take us into the next century. It has been drawn up as a rolling programme, which allows schemes to be added to the higher priorities as and when needs become pressing and funding is available. The highest priority schemes will receive the most urgent attention; the longer-term schemes will be taken to the next suitable stage in their preparation, and work on them will be resumed only as the programme rolls forward.
The new Highways Agency is being given specific responsibilities for environmental treatment of road schemes. We now employ a large number of landscape architects and environmental specialists to assess and advise on the best design and environmental treatment of national road schemes. I therefore concluded that the Landscape Advisory Committee, which has done such valuable work, has been superseded by the skills now available to us. I wish to express my thanks to the chairman and members of the Landscape Advisory Committee for all the work that they have done.
I turn now to some specific proposals that will be of special interest to the House.
The proposed east-west route from the M40 to the Haven ports has received a special scrutiny. As has already been announced, work on the A418 Wing bypass and the A418 west of Aylesbury bypass has been suspended. Both

931
those schemes have been suspended pending the outcome of a new strategic study from the A5 to the M40 In the Oxford area. The central section of the route—A5 to Stansted—has now been withdrawn from the construction programme because it was unlikely that an environmentally acceptable route would be found. The eastern section of the route, from the Haven ports to the M11 and Stansted, will still be taken forward.
We have also re-examined our proposals for improving the M25. I have concluded that plans to widen 80 per cent. of the M25 in the next four to five years to dual four lanes and provide capacity beyond that in the south-west sector, are still the only appropriate response to growing congestion. We will, therefore, publish draft highway orders and an environmental statement on the proposed link roads between junction 12 and junction 15 of the M25 on 7 April. The public will be invited to comment on the proposals. All views will be put before an independent inspector and considered at a public inquiry, probably later this year. Work will also progress towards publication of draft orders and an environmental statement on link roads between junction 15 and junction 16. A public inquiry will follow, probably in 1996. I consider that there will also be a need for capacity beyond dual four lanes between junction 10 and junction 12 in the next decade, but work on that project is still at an early stage and no decisions have been taken on the design. As a result of the review, however, work on increasing capacity beyond dual four lanes between junctions 16 and 21A will be deferred.
I have also decided that two proposed strategic studies in the south-east—the Kent-Hampshire study and the M3-M40 study—will not go ahead. That decision underlines my commitment to minimising the number of new routes.
Around Oxford, the two schemes on the A40—the Headington bypass and the north of Oxford scheme—will also be withdrawn from the programme, as will the proposed M12 new route from the M25 to Chelmsford.
The review gives the new Highways Agency an up-to-date agenda to deliver the road improvements that we need most, with maximum speed and efficiency. Our motorway and trunk road network needs to be maintained and improved to secure our economic well-being and environmental benefits—in particular, by keeping through traffic away from local roads—and to continue improving our already good safety record. The review has had to balance the motoring aspirations of the 1990s family with the consequences; and the needs of industry and the economy with the needs of the environment. It has achieved that and I commend it to the House.
Mr. Frank Dobson: What the Secretary of State has announced is not, as he would have us believe, an environmentally friendly road-building programme. Most of the Government's bloated roads programme stays in place; only a small percentage has been withdrawn. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many schemes have been finally and irrevocably abandoned? Some of the programme has been stretched over a longer period, sentencing thousands of households to even more uncertainty and blight than before.
The Secretary of State referred to the trunk routes in the publicly funded roads programme. Will he tell the House how many privately funded schemes are to go ahead and whether deferred public schemes could be reintroduced into the programme by the private sector?
932
The Secretary of State's announcement is not the outcome of a thoroughgoing review. It is not the product of a careful assessment of the future transport and environmental needs of our country. It has not considered the non-motoring alternatives to meeting those needs. Far from it; the new roads programme has been decided, in racing terms, by the Treasury out of Political Embarrassment. The Secretary of State has responded to Treasury pressure for a reduction in his roads budget and to the electoral pressure from local campaigners up and down the country.
For years, the Government have rejected the idea of an overall transport policy. Their only policy has been to build more roads. They produce traffic forecasts and then turn those forecasts into targets to be met. We all know that after each new motorway is built, it is quickly filled with traffic and the resulting congestion is followed by proposals for yet more road building.
Some road building is necessary. The last five miles of the A2 to Dover docks and the Al in Northumberland need to be made dual carriageways, but they are still not a top priority. The M65 in Lancashire needs to be joined up to the M6. At a quick glance, it does not appear in the programme at all. The country wants to know why the Government are persisting with madcap schemes such as relief roads for the M25 around London and for the M62 around the north and west of Manchester.
Why have not the Government taken action to try to get passenger traffic off the roads by giving drivers the chance to choose attractive alternatives? People use their cars, particularly for the journey to work, because their cars get them where they want, when they want. Surely the answer is to ensure that public transport gets more people where they want, when they want. That means more investment in better bus, train and underground services, more investment in modern projects such as the Manchester metro, the Sheffield supertram and the midlands metro.
Why has not the Secretary of State announced a shift of funds from the road programme to public transport? Why have the Government not taken action to get more freight off the roads? Why have they not got on with building the channel tunnel link, the channel tunnel freight terminals and uprating the west coast main line? Why are they persisting in going ahead with a relief road for the M62, the main trans-Pennine motorway, at a cost of £270 million for 11 miles of road? They could attract passenger and freight traffic off the self-same M62 by electrifying the trans-Pennine rail link at a cost of about £170 million. Why do not the Government accept that deregulating the bus services has forced people in many areas to use cars because bus services are no longer available?
What is needed is a genuine review of transport policy, looking at how best to help people and freight get around our country quickly, cheaply, efficiently, safely and with the least damage to local communities and the environment. They will never get that from a Tory Government.
Mr. MacGregor: I should be happy to answer all those points, but I think that I would be out of order if I dealt with every one. I know that the hon. Gentleman was late coming into the Chamber, but he has clearly not read the statement, did not listen to it and does not know what it is all about.
The number of schemes withdrawn is 49, as I said in my statement. That is a significant number of schemes that we do not believe can be delivered within the foreseeable

933
future. We have concluded that a number of schemes, some of which are substantial, are not attractive environmentally and their benefits do not outweigh the environmental disbenefits. A significant number of schemes have been withdrawn—49.
Mr. Dobson: Irrevocably?
Mr. MacGregor: They have been withdrawn from the programme.
The hon. Gentleman talked about sentencing households to blight because some projects have been put into the longer-term part of the programme. But we are reducing the blight and uncertainty by producing a more realistic timetable for all the schemes. The blight and uncertainty for many will be reduced as many of the schemes have been brought forward under the new set of priorities.
The hon. Gentleman was wrong to describe the statement as a response to the Treasury. At the beginning, I clearly gave our programme for expenditure in the next three years, and that has not been changed. I made it clear that we are drawing up a rolling programme over a considerable period with the right order of priorities. The hon. Gentleman completely missed that point.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether some of the schemes that have been withdrawn would be privately financed rather than publicly financed. The answer is no. As he will know, there is one privately financed scheme at present: the Birmingham northern relief road. A proposition for the Birmingham western orbital road may well be taken forward as a design, build, finance and operate scheme. The schemes that have been withdrawn are not part of the programme.
The hon. Gentleman commented at length on non-motoring alternatives. He has again failed to take into account the fact that we are spending 40 per cent. of the total of a substantially increased budget on public transport for 10 per cent. of the journeys. In London, the ratio is 3:1 in favour of public transport—in the railways, channel tunnel infrastructure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] The hon. Gentleman totally ignores the £1.4 billion investment that has already gone into infrastructure in the channel tunnel. He thinks that £1.4 billion is not a great deal of money and would happily spend much more, in contrast to his colleagues on the Labour Front Bench who say that they will restrain public spending. The hon. Gentleman was simply talking about spending more.
The expenditure currently being devoted to London Underground is six times more in real terms than it was under the Greater London council in the late 1970s—[Interruption.]In the late 1970s, I said—under a Labour Government. Clearly, a great deal of investment is going into the underground.
The hon. Gentleman implied that, with the exception of a few road schemes, he wants to see road-building schemes halted.
Mr. Dobson: I did not say that.
Mr. MacGregor: That was very much the impression that he gave. If he is saying that he is happy with our road-building programme—
Mr. Dobson: I did not say that either.
Mr. MacGregor: Well, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make up his mind what he is saying. Either he is saying that he wants to spend much more money everywhere, in contrast to his shadow Treasury colleagues, which belies their position absolutely, or he is saying that he will cut massively the road-building programme in order to devote more resources to other areas of public expenditure. Massive cuts in the road-building programme would have a devastating effect on the economic competitiveness of businesses in this country.
We are devoting resources and effort to transferring more freight from road to rail, but it will not be possible on the scale envisaged by the hon. Gentleman and our businesses would be devastated if he substantially cut the roads programme.
The hon. Gentleman also says that he wishes to reduce choice for families who, with their increased standard of living, want to use their motor cars.
The hon. Gentleman has neither read the policy document nor taken on board why we are taking this action. Above all, his approach to roads, freight and cars is misguided. I hope, therefore, that whenever we embark on a road project, he will come out and say that he is against it. He can then see what the public says.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Those first two exchanges have taken precisely 21 minutes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] There is no point in saying "Hear, hear" unless I get the co-operation of the House, with brisk questions and equally brisk answers.
Sir Peter Fry: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on conducting a realistic reappraisal of the roads programme, while resisting the cries of those who want to bring the road-building programme to a stop? Does he agree that, over the past 20 years, we have heard the same old story from the Opposition, who have totally ignored the fact that more and more—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have appealed to the House not to make statements. A supplementary question means one question, not a catalogue of questions. That is what I am now looking for from all hon. Members.
Sir Peter Fry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement strikes the right balance between the needs of people who want to drive their own cars, the country's economic needs, and environmental matters, which we all hold dear?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have striven, throughout my re-examination of the roads programme, to achieve that, and have put heavy emphasis on environmental aspects. I believe strongly in ensuring that everything that we do is as environmentally friendly as we can make it. That is why the number of schemes has been reduced and we have put heavy emphasis on the environmental aspects of the schemes that we carry forward.
Mr. Nick Harvey: May I welcome the announcement, as far as it goes, particularly the removal of the 49 schemes that have gone altogether? Does the Minister agree that he has given the game away by boasting that roads expenditure is, in real terms, twice the level that it was in 1979? Will he now issue a comprehensive transport Green Paper to consider the

935
alternatives, and try to do something about the 10 per cent. figure for the number of journeys made on public transport and avoid the doubling in car numbers which we are set to see?
Mr. MacGregor: That, of course, is why we are spending 40 per cent. of our budget on public transport. The annual report of my Department as part of the expenditure programme sets out the transport strategy in all its details. I hope that the hon. Member will acknowledge that, for reasons of economic competitiveness and because so many families find it attractive to travel by car and wish to use their cars more, we also have to have a substantial road programme of investment.
Sir Terence Higgins: Has my right hon. Friend's statement any implications for the timing of any development of the A27 in the Worthing area? In view of the emphasis that he rightly places on bypasses, why is his Department persisting in what is not a bypass but a through-pass? Will he ensure that Worthing has a bypass, like virtually everywhere else on the south coast?
Mr. MacGregor: I know exactly the scheme to which my right hon. Friend refers it is in the priority 2 category. It is necessary to go ahead with the assessment of alternative routes before public consultation and public inquiries. It is essential do all that work on priority 2 categories now, because it takes some time to get them to the point of construction. The issue that my right hon. Friend is raising is currently being considered in the public inquiry. We shall have to wait for the outcome of that inquiry and take decisions after it.
Mr. David Clelland: The Secretary of State will be aware that one scheme that ought to have been dropped but was not is his proposal to build a bypass to the A1 western bypass in Gateshead. Is he aware that that scheme will demolish many homes? It will not deal with the problem; it will cut a huge swathe through the most attractive green belt in Gateshead and leave thousands of my constituents living on a road island. Will he look again at the local authority's alternative scheme which deals with the whole problem, not just the one of through traffic? It demolishes no homes, it protects the green belt, it can be completed in phases and his the Department acknowledges that it is cheaper than his own scheme.
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that there are many divided views about the scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I have had deputations about it and have been there. The appropriate next stage is the public inquiry, where all the issues can be fully aired. That is what the public inquiry is for.
Mr. Simon Burns: Very briefly, may I, on behalf of myself, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), the Leader of the House, our constituents and all local campaigners thank my right hon. Friend for killing off the unloved, hare-brained scheme of the M12 to Chelmsford? May I congratulate him and his colleague the Minister for Roads and Traffic on the sensitive way in which they have paid regard to the environment in mid and south Essex. Thank you very much.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am grateful, too, for his tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic who has played a notable and
936
powerful part in the review, and I am grateful to him. The M12 proposition seemed to fall absolutely into the category that we are now anxious to avoid whenever possible—new routes through attractive and open countryside. On the other hand, where there is a transport need, we have concentrated on developing along existing road corridors. Where an improvement is needed in that area, the right way is to improve the A12 and not to have a new motorway.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: As most of the statement was about the south, will the Secretary of State give some detail about the midlands, particularly around Birmingham? The M6, which runs through my constituency, cannot be widened because most of it is 100 ft in the air. What relief will my constituents get in respect of the urgent need for some genuine bypass arrangement?
Mr. MacGregor: I mentioned some of the schemes because they have been particularly of comment and there are also schemes such as the M12, where we are making a real change. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at the full review, where he will see the proposals for the west midlands. One way of helping his particular issue would be noise barriers and sound barriers, but I would wish to engage in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman about the precise details of the scheme.
Mr. Michael Alison: The Selby bypass has been placed in the priority 2 designation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the emphasis will be on priority, rather than on a second-class designation? Will he also confirm that nothing in a priority 2 designation implies an inhibition of the statutory processes, or a delay in the introduction of bulldozers when those processes have been completed?
Mr. MacGregor: Indeed, I can confirm both points. First, priority 2 designation is not about secondary or second-level schemes; it is about the priority given to the tackling of schemes. Secondly, the work will continue to go ahead in such cases.
The point is that we wish to devote resources most urgently to getting the priority schemes through, while carrying forward the earlier stages of public consultation and public inquiry in regard to priority 2 schemes. In some cases, it may be possible to put priority 2 schemes ahead of priority 1 schemes when, for one reason or another, priority 1 schemes are held up. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that there will be no delay.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Does the Secretary of State accept that the failure to take out the M62 relief road will cause widespread dismay in my constituency and in neighbouring areas? This is probably the most insensitive scheme in the entire roads programme, and placing it in category 2 will worsen the position of people whose homes are already threatened by the insensitive way in which the Department has dealt with the whole business ever since the publication of the White Paper four years ago. It is time that the Secretary of State lived up to his green claims, and did something about such roads. He should remove this monstrous concept from the roads programme now.
Mr. MacGregor: In some parts of the country, the motorway network is already extremely congested—or it is clear that, because of economic growth and development, it will become so. It is very desirable for us to find

937
solutions to that problem, other than simply causing traffic to go off existing motorways and back on to local roads. We are sometimes faced with difficult choices. The scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers will enable a public inquiry to take place, at which all the issues can be considered.
Mr. John Butcher: May I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to representations from my constituents who asked for the abandoning of proposals to widen three junctions on the A45 in my constituency? If my right hon. Friend visited Coventry, he would be cheered to the echo by my constituents who have had blight removed from their homes.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will know, our review concluded that three projects in his constituency should be withdrawn.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Have not business leaders said that London faces ruin as a business centre because of traffic congestion? Yet the Secretary of State is continuing with the M11 link road, which will bring more traffic into London. Many people in my area will be disappointed—but not surprised, because the Secretary of State is still seen very much as a road junkie.
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the report, we are concentrating on ensuring that the bypasses around London—the M25 and inner circular routes such as the north circular—continue to be developed to meet the growth in traffic, to avoid through traffic going through London. We are also focusing on road schemes that improve the prospects for employment and economic regeneration in docklands and the east end of London. That is the purpose of those road schemes.
Beyond that, we have suspended most of the other schemes because we wish to review the radial roads. We want to cut improvements to roads that encourage commuters to come into central London by car. That parallels much of the other work that we are doing in London, which places heavy emphasis on public transport—improvements to the Jubilee line and many others, red routes and a number of other policies that we are pursuing. I think that the road policy is consistent.
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes great sense to concentrate resources on a smaller number of schemes, so that it takes a shorter time to design and build the roads themselves—and, more important, so that blight is removed in the shorter time scale? That is very welcome.
As my right hon. Friend knows, the A46 between Newark and Lincoln is hugely important to the Lincoln area. Can he give me any news about that scheme?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am grateful for all the work that he did as a Minister in my Department prior to the review and which contributed to it greatly. The A46 scheme to which he referred is a priority 2 scheme, so that means that it remains firmly in the programme.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: In his statement, the Secretary of State talked about bringing home to people the full costs of their choice of road transport. Are the Government proposing to introduce
938
ways of measuring the full costs? Will they include, for example, the cost of losing thousands of lives on the roads every year as well as the terrible environmental costs? Will the Government recognise that those costs are incalculable? Is there some significance in the fact that the Secretary of State omitted to mention the trans-European road network in his spoken statement whereas it is in the typed version?
Mr. MacGregor: If the costs are incalculable, it is difficult to calculate them. We have been doing a great deal of work to try to establish the accurate costing of all these matters. There is an annex in the consultation document that we produced last year which deals with paying for better motorways. It provides an analysis of how we are approaching that.
I simply deleted the part about the trans-European route network because I did not want my statement to be too long. I am happy to make clear the position. It stems from the decision to withdraw part of what was the trans-European route network from Stansted to Oxford. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to have a trans-European route network up to Holyhead and beyond. That will be the route from the Haven ports via Stansted and I have made it clear that that will continue. It will in future follow the existing M11, A604, A14, M6 and M54 routes.
Sir Trevor Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Bedford we have been waiting for 30 years for a bypass? Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to accelerate the development?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend illustrates that there are many demands for bypasses now. I know that only too well, as I travel regularly round the country. That is why it has been necessary to prioritise the programme. It is not possible with all the statutory procedures and in terms of the funds available, to have all the bypasses now. We cannot do everything at once. My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that all his schemes remain clearly in the programme and most of them are in priority 2, so that work will continue.
Mr. Peter Snape: Will the Secretary of State accept that the Birmingham northern relief road referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was scheduled to open in spring 1994—hat is now? It is his Department's and his predecessor's much-vaunted private sector initiative which guarantees only that there will be a further public inquiry later this year. What sort of balanced road programme proposes a reduction of 5 per cent. in what one of his predecessor's called the biggest road-building programme since the Romans, while proposing also a 24 per cent. reduction in public transport expenditure over the next three years and a 50 per cent. reduction in the railways external financing limit? Balance? What sort of balance is that?
Mr. MacGregor: The balance remains clearly that public transport is gaining in relation to the total number of journeys made on it much more than would otherwise be the case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Birmingham northern relief road project goes to a public inquiry in the summer. That is one of the reasons why I wish to prioritise the programme. There are a number of public inquiries for some of the bigger and more controversial routes and it is

939
right that there should be. For that reason, we do not wish to carry forward the processes for the whole of the road programme. If there are delays in one or two of the public programmes—the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a privately financed programme—priority 2 schemes can come forward. It would not make sense to have schemes in the longer-term programme being taken forward at the same pace.
Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Does my right hon. Friend plan to respond to the alternative package of proposals for the M25 put forward by Runnymede borough council by setting up an independent assessment of those proposals?
Mr. MacGregor: I have discussed that question with my right hon. Friend and I am very much aware of the alternative proposals. I am aware also of the strength of local feeling. On the other hand, there is no doubt that unless we do something to remove the potential congestion on that stretch of the road, the effect on local roads will be substantial.
I have been analysing Runnymede borough council's proposals. I do not think that an independent commission is the right way forward because we do not have provision for that. I think that a public inquiry at which all the proposals can be looked at thoroughly is the right way forward. It would enable a much more detailed and public investigation to take place. That is why I believe that we should have a public inquiry and I am certain that the proposals will be looked at thoroughly.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: With the local knowledge of a St. Andrews graduate, will the Secretary of State ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to think of dropping the ill-conceived idea for a second Forth road bridge, abolish tolls and make it possible for Edinburgh—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I hate interrupting, but this is not a Scottish statement. I do not think it right that he should ask the Secretary of State for Transport questions that should be put to the Secretary of State for Scotland. If he rephrases his question, I will, of course, hear him, but I am sure that he will understand that that was a question for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Dalyell: I accept your ruling, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. I am much obliged to him; he shows great parliamentary courtesy.
Mr. Kevin Barron: In March last year, the Department's regional office in Leeds agreed to the improvement of the junction of the A57 and A618 by putting a roundabout in place. As the same office told me last month that it does not have a firm completion date and that, indeed, the availability of funds will determine when work on the junction can be started, does the Secretary of State's statement mean that such road safety projects will be given priority or am I to see further fatal accidents on the A57 trunk road before the work is done?
Mr. MacGregor: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not carry the details of every scheme in my head. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Well, there are huge numbers of them. I suspect that the scheme to which he reters is a local authority scheme and therefore comes
940
within the transport supplementary grant. If that is correct—as it is a local safety scheme, it must be—I point out to him that we are giving substantial sums of money to local safety schemes within the TSG; my announcement today does not affect local authority roads.
Mr. David Lidington: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's sensible announcement concerning the east-west trunk road, but ask him what significance should be attached to his decision to give the Aston Clinton A41 bypass priority 2 in view of the fact that intolerable pressure is being placed on my constituents there by the completion of the Berkhamsted bypass about which his Department's brochure speaks very proudly today?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first comment. Clearly, in making our decision on the scheme, we took into account not only the environmental aspects but the views of many people from the counties involved, including my hon. Friend's. It seemed that the environmental objections overrode any economic benefits that might have come from that particular scheme.
The Aston Clinton bypass is in category 2. We had to wrestle hard with bypass schemes because so many were demanded across the country—a point which the strongly anti-road environmental lobbies completely ignore sometimes. We faced huge demands and it was necessary to prioritise, but all the statutory processes will still apply to that scheme.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: We appreciate the work that has already been done on the A1 in Northumberland, but when will there be a dual carriageway right through Northumberland up to Edinburgh? There has been carnage and loss of life on that stretch of the road.
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the improvement to the A1 is a very important project. It is also expensive; the work that we started in Yorkshire proves that. It is a question of timing and establishing priorities, and I think that he will find that the priorities on the different parts of that scheme are outlined in the report.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great welcome given to the news about the cancellation of the proposed M1-M62 link and is he also aware how much local appreciation there is in Roberttown and the surrounding areas that we shall continue to have green fields for future generations?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Secretary of State tell us what the statement means for Greater Manchester east? When will the M66 from Denton to Middleton be completed? When will the A6(M) Stockport bypass begin and how much of the vaunted money for public transport, of which the Minister talks, will come to Greater Manchester?
Mr. MacGregor: The M66 Denton-Middleton contract is in priority 1. That means that it has been given the highest priority.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the cancellation of the Stamford relief road is an absolute disaster for the beautiful and historic town of Stamford, which is literally being suffocated and shaken to death by an endless line of heavy

941
traffic at all hours of the day? Is there any way in which the matter may be reconsidered? In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of imposing a weight restriction on Stamford bridge? Will he also tell me whether there is any chance of the Deepings bypass being constructed, for which my constituents have been waiting with decreasing patience for the past 50 years?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is demonstrating that there are heavy demands all around the country for bypasses and, simply, it is not possible to accommodate them all. One of the reasons why the Stamford relief road was withdrawn was its extremely controversial nature. My hon. Friend will know that the A1(M) Stamford bypass remains very much in the programme. Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on his point about the bridge.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I am not sure whether to congratulate the Secretary of State on the A167 western bypass at Durham, because the decision will anger a lot and delight many.
Mr. Peter Snape: What does my hon. Friend think?
Mr. Steinberg: I am sitting on the fence. Was the decision as a result of the public inquiry? Is that road scheme now dead once and for all, because the situation is becoming worse and worse as more traffic begins to use the road?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated in his own case what I frequently find—schemes delight some people and annoy others. I noticed that he did not decide on which side of the fence he was.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is on the roundabout.
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, he is going nowhere, but round and round, whereas I have to make decisions. The scheme was withdrawn not as a result of the public inquiry, but because it was extremely controversial and we did not feel that, in the end, it demonstrated that appropriate benefits and value for money could have been achieved from it. We wrestled long and hard over the decision on that bypass. That scheme is withdrawn and will not be renewed, but that does not mean that, in future, one cannot consider other schemes. I am not necessarily making a commitment in that case, but I am making a general point that one can consider other schemes to deal with the special congestion pressures that arise. Indeed, there are some new schemes in the programme, compared with that of 1989, for that very reason.
Mr. Roger Gale: During his most welcome statement, my right hon. Friend referred twice to public inquiries. He will know that the centre section of the A299 Thanet way, which is vital to my constituents and to development area status, has been delayed for some 15 months during the public inquiry. That is in not the fault of the Department of Transport; it is due to the unfortunate domestic circumstances of the inspector, and I know that it is as frustrating to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic as it is to me and my constituents. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to review the inquiry system?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry to hear of that situation. I know that my hon. Friend has talked to the Minister for Roads and Traffic about that issue. Our review of public inquiries is designed to deal with a number of those issues. For example, there are proposals for assistant inspectors and to bring the inquiries more in line with the planning inquiries of the Department of the Environment. I certainly hope that it would help in the sort of case to which my hon. Friend referred and I should certainly be happy to talk to him and my hon. Friend the Minister about it.
Dr. Tony Wright: Is the Secretary of State aware that his remarks about the Birmingham northern relief road will draw hollow laughter from my constituents, who would have seen the opening of that road this year if the Government had not changed it from a public to a private scheme? Will he answer one question about that road? There' is a direct contradiction between the tolling design of that road and the only tolling design that was said in the Government's recent Green Paper to be environmentally and economically acceptable. The statement has not resolved that contradiction. Will the Secretary of State resolve it now?
Mr. MacGregor: The reason we have gone for electronic tolling in the Green Paper is that it is talking about tolling on existing motorways where there are many points of access and exit. We believe that putting a tolling system of the traditional plaza sort on to an existing motorway is not feasible in most cases because it would require a huge land take on an existing motorway and would not achieve the purpose of the exercise. There is a big difference between constructing a new motorway and putting tolling on to existing systems.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend tell me what is the status of the Disley-High Lane bypass under his proposals? That bypass, which is vital to the villages of Disley and Newtown in my constituency, has been on the stocks for many years; hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on it. With the increasing use of the existing A6 for heavy commercial vehicles coming from the quarries in Derbyshire to provide aggregate for Manchester airport, the bypass is vital. What is its status? Will my right hon. Friend give some reassurance that it will be in a programme very soon?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend illustrates precisely some of the problems that we face and the problems that those such as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who want to see the road programme substantially cut, simply do not recognise. I am well aware of the pressures for bypasses. However, in view of the substantial number of existing bypasses, and despite our high level of spending—it is slightly down on last year, but it is a record compared with everything in the past—it is not possible to carry through all the bypasses at the speed that everyone would wish. Therefore, we had to examine the economic benefits analysis and other matters in order to set our priorities. It is partly for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—that a lot of money can be spent on the preparation of bypasses which, in the end, are a lower priority—that I have set about the prioritisation.
The Disley and High Lane bypass certainly remains in the programme, but it is in the long-term programme and,

943
therefore, will have to wait for other bypasses to get priority. There are four other schemes in my hon. Friend's constituency, two in priority 1 and two in priority 2. That shows the heavy pressures on the programme.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that at Bramley Vale school, which is a few hundred yards from the motorway near junction 29 on the M1, 25 per cent. of the schoolchildren suffer from asthma and have to use inhalers? How can it make any sense to widen that road? I see that junctions 25 to 28 are in priority 1 and junctions 28 to 31 are in priority 2. Why does not the Secretary of State think about those schoolkids and the many more who will suffer if the Government continue to widen the road, and scrap these projects altogether?
Mr. MacGregor: Because if traffic, including heavy goods traffic, moved at a snail's pace on our motorways or was congested and held up for a very long time, and was hard to move at all, or it went back on to local roads, none of those options would be attractive from the environmental pollution point of view. Improving the main routes to ensure that traffic flows through at a reasonable speed is one of the best ways of reducing environmental pollution. The other part of it is not part of the statement today but is very important—the many measures that we are taking to reduce our environmental pollution through improvements in vehicle emission standards.
Mr. John Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will be delighted that the Poole harbour crossing and the Poole A31 link are retained firmly in the programme? That will improve the prosperity of the port of Poole and provide a big improvement in the environment in the town of Poole.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a good example of a scheme that we examined in great detail. There are some environmental disbenefits to the schemes, as my hon. Friend will know, and there are also big economic benefits. Therefore, we had to weigh the two before coming to the conclusion that we did, and I am glad that the conclusion accorded with my hon. Friend's view.
Ms Glenda Jackson: If the Secretary of State is as committed to public transport as he claims to be, why did he make outside the House yesterday's albeit welcome announcement regarding the Northern line? What choice will there be for the 56 per cent. of people living in my borough who have no access to private transport?
Mr. MacGregor: I should be very happy to answer questions about the Northern line, but I do not think that it comes within the scope of the statement on which I am answering questions. However, there will be plenty of opportunities in the future. It is certainly my intention—
Ms Glenda Jackson: Now?
Mr. MacGregor: I think that I should be out of order if I were to answer such questions now.
Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State would be totally out of order. It was very remiss of me not to be aware, until it was a little late, of what the hon. Lady was saying. Otherwise, I should have taken care of it.
Mr. MacGregor: Perhaps we shall have another opportunity. I hope so.
Mr. George Walden: I should like, first, to thank my right hon. Friend and his sensitive roads Minister for what has been done on the A418. Will my right hon. Friend now pursue his policy of prioritisation? Will he persuade the Cabinet to prioritise public spending on public transport and tell the public that they cannot have it both ways—that they cannot continue to have large public expenditure on universal benefits and, at the same time, expect investment in the subsidisation of public transport? Can my right hon. Friend also explain something that I have never understood—why the Government are against a unified transport policy?
Mr. MacGregor: I thank my hon. Friend for his response to our decisions. He is right to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is not only sensitive but robust in the way he approaches these matters. I cannot go into my hon. Friend's points concerning the wider public expenditure priorities outside my Department. However, I can assure him that particular priorities are considered thoroughly and very carefully all the time, in the context of not only global sums but individual schemes and their inter-relationship.
I sometimes wonder what people mean when they refer to an integrated or unified transport policy. I know what the Labour party means—centralised control, dictation from the centre. My view is that it is very important to let the market work on an infrastructure that is provided in a co-ordinated way by the Government. If my hon. Friend looks at the annual report of the Department of Transport he will see that we set out there the strategic objectives. Running clearly through the report is evidence of coherence and co-ordination in the whole of our transport policy—aviation, shipping and ports, as well as the road and rail infrastructures. These all fit together.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: As the unloved and hare-brained east London river crossing is not likely to proceed in the foreseeable future, and as it shares with the A5 to Stansted the fact that it is unlikely that an environmentally acceptable route will be found, will the Minister now make it a round 50 and withdraw the proposal, thereby ending the appalling blight in the Plumstead and Abbey Wood area, and introduce instead the Woolwich rail tunnel and the Woolwich metro, which would be environmentally friendly and would cost much less?.
Mr. MacGregor: We expect to announce by the summer how the whole question of the east London river crossing should be taken forward. There remains a strong commitment to the provision of cross-river links, which are needed for the east Thames corridor. The east London river crossing and the Blackwall schemes are complementary. Work is continuing, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient before starting to make his points again.
Sir Michael Grylls: Unlike most of my hon. Friends, I shall not ask my right hon. Friend for any public expenditure whatsoever. Will he look very carefully at the Runnymede proposals, to which he referred in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir. G. Pattie)? Would not it make more sense to study these before a public inquiry, which would be hugely expensive for everyone involved? If they proved to

945
be better, there would be a saving of £400 million—the amount that my right hon. Friend proposes to spend on these very unpopular link roads.
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's point entirely. I have looked very carefully at the Runnymede report. Let me explain the difficulty. Our assessment of all the various proposals in the report, many of which, as my hon. Friend knows, we are taking forward anyway, is that they would not make sufficient provision for likely traffic growth on that stretch of the M25, which is between the M3 and the M4 and is one of the busiest parts of the entire United Kingdom transport network. If our assessment is that it does not fully meet the requirements, the important thing will be for all this to be tested at a public inquiry. I believe that it is necessary to have the matter fully investigated in public. I will certainly ensure that all the schemes in the Runnymede report are investigated thoroughly in a public inquiry.
However, there are issues that go way beyond that, and that is why it makes sense to have the public inquiry. The public inquiry is only one part of the process, but it is extremely important. We will have to wait for the recommendations of the inspector which arise from that before we decide what to do next. A public inquiry is the right place for all that to be fully aired.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the Al link between the east of England and Scotland must be regarded as a key route in any analysis? Is it his intention to stand by the undertaking given by his predecessor before the election to complete the dual carriageway link between Newcastle and Edinburgh and, if so, when?
Mr. MacGregor: I recognise the importance of the A1, and I travel on it frequently. I understand its importance to Edinburgh, but all parts of the road programme and the road network have different amounts of traffic on them. In the assessment we make of how we establish priorities, we must look at such things.
We have indicated the prioritisation of the Al in the review. The hon. Gentleman will know that, of course, there is already substantial work taking place on part of the A1. Everyone who travels through that road improvement will benefit from it, even if other parts are not taken forward at the same pace.
Mr. Home Robertson: Where?
Mr. MacGregor: In Yorkshire. Improvements are taking place there already. All those who talk about the importance of the A1 to people in Newcastle and in Scotland and who travel to London will recognise that all the improvements that take place will benefit them. We must set a timetable of priorities for the whole route, but the commitment remains.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of people in East and West Sussex and further points to the east and west of Sussex welcome the go-ahead for the A27 for safety, commercial and personal travel reasons, and, not least, for tourism? Equally, the majority of people are concerned about the delay on the A26 link to Sussex's one senior port of
946
Newhaven. It is crucial to the development of that port, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the decision and move it up to priority 2.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the A27 Lewes to Polegate improvement. He knows that I know that road fairly well. It is interesting to note that some of the objections to any road-building programmes, which have been voiced in the national media, have been related to that scheme. I have been on programmes where that scheme has been sharply criticised. My hon. Friend accurately represents the local view and the view of those who will benefit from the improvement. That is why I am glad that it is priority 2.
As for the other scheme to which my hon. Friend referred, I must repeat that it is not possible to take all improvements forward at the same pace. As we complete other schemes in priority 1 and The existing construction programme, it will be possible to roll forward schemes in the longer-term programme. I have noted what my hon. Friend says.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I knew that I had a 50:50 chance of being called.
Will the Secretary of State comment on the second page of his statement where he mentions the future of the public inquiry system? Is he aware that many people view that as an ominous proposal which seeks to curtail the right of people to attend public inquiries, to put forward points of view that are at variance with the central thrust of Government policy and to bring into account matters of health, environment, total expenditure and alternatives such as public transport, rather than roadbuilding? Many are concerned about that. Could he set those fears at rest and tell us when there will be a statement on the future of the public inquiry system?
Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the proposals that we put out for public consultation. Those are freely available, and I will happily send them to him. He will see that his fears that the public inquiry system is in any way being curtailed are wrong. We are seeking to bring it up to date, to make it more efficient and effective and to enable it to do its work. We want to bring it more into line with the Department of Environment's public inquiries. I will happily wait to hear the hon. Gentleman's response to the public consultation document that we sent out.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that dualling of the A2 between Lydden and the port of Dover now has a priority rating which it never had before and that, as a result, he will undertake personally to investigate why there have been delays in the consultation process getting started? Will he do all in his power to ensure that the Highways Agency gets the work under way and that the public consultation will be put into operation this year?
Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the scheme is in priority 2. I will look into the points that he raised.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I welcome the confirmation that work is to proceed on the M6-M65 link. Does the Minister appreciate that when that motorway link

947
is completed, 11,000 cars a day will spill into Come at the end of the eastward section of the M65? Will he give further consideration, perhaps along with Lancashire county council, to building the bypasses at Colne and Earby that local people are crying out for?
Mr. MacGregor: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's comments. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will look into them.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend consider assisting Madam Speaker by taking up the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that he should publish his document perhaps 15 or 30 minutes before he makes his statement so that Members can see what it says and might well not have to ask the question that I now have to ask? Will he confirm that full dualling of the major roads to the west country, between the end of the M3 and Exeter—the A303 and the A30—has not been delayed in any way?
Mr. MacGregor: On the first part of my right hon. Friend's question, he will know that that is not a question for me now. I am going by the existing rules. On his second question, he will know that the A30 Honiton to Exeter improvement will start in the year about to begin. Certainly some of the other schemes of concern and interest to him are in priority 2.
Mr. Eric Pickles: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's announcement on the M12, plans for which have blighted a considerable part of my constituency. He mentioned the upgrading of the A12. Will he confirm that it will not be made up to motorway specifications and that my constituency will not be blighted by the son of M12?
Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm that the road will not be upgraded to motorway status. The point that I hope my hon. Friend recognizes—I think that he does, because he welcomed the M12 decision—is that it makes sense to
948
concentrate the improvements required because of increased traffic to existing road corridors such as the A12. That does not mean that they have to be a motorway.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: If my right hon. Friend is against driving new roads through beautiful countryside, why does not he score a half century, make the 49 up to 50 and drop the wretched western orbital route?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's objection to that route. At present, the proposal is suspended while we consider the design, build, finance and operate initiative that we are undertaking. In due course, perhaps I can come back to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome the retention of the two A38 trunk road schemes in my constituency as priority categories. Can my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance to the House that the project for a second Tamar crossing has been dropped?
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the two schemes to which he referred. It is interesting to note that this afternoon there have been many welcomes of the schemes that are in the programme and the objections have mainly come from those who have had to face the fact that some of their schemes will be delayed a little because of the priorities. The welcomes and objections have come from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) recognises the priority that so many people in the House and outside give to the roads programme. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a few examples himself. He went out of his way to say that we should abandon large sections of the programme that we are carrying through. I do not think that that reflects what the House feels or what the people in the country feel. We are still considering the Tamar crossing and we hope to come to a decision about it fairly soon.

Points of Order
4.40 pm
Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise a matter relating to the rights of Back Benchers. Fifteen weeks ago, on 16 December, I tabled a question to the Prime Minister about the third of a million pounds that was spent on cars for officials—not Ministers—at No. 10 Downing street, which is three times the amount spent on the Prime Minister's car. Fifteen weeks later, I have received no reply.
On 13 January—11 weeks ago—I tabled another question on a different aspect of the issue. Eleven weeks later, I have still not received a reply. Three weeks ago, on 7 March, I tabled a question asking when I was to receive an answer to the previous two questions. I have still not received an answer to that question, or to the previous two questions.
Last night, I telephoned No. 10 and I was told that various draft answers had been put to the Prime Minister, but these had been rejected and they said that they would come back to me today. They came back to me at about 11 o'clock this morning and said that they hope to put yet another draft in the Prime Minister's box tonight and, if he clears it tonight, I will get an answer tomorrow—which is not the most convenient of days, as hon. Members will appreciate—but if he does not clear it, I will not get an answer until after the recess.
The one good note in this episode came as a result of my impatience which prompted me to mention your name, Madam Speaker, and say that I intended to raise the matter with you this afternoon. In the last hour, I have received a telephone call from No. 10 saying that they have managed to catch hold of the Prime Minister who has now cleared a draft and an answer will be on the message board this afternoon.
You, Madam Speaker, are aware of the situation and I know how much you value the rights of Back Benchers. Is there anything that you can do to stop this abuse of our rights?
Madam Speaker: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has received an answer today to his questions. That has been reported to me. I appreciate that an inordinate length of time has elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman tabled his original questions. I notice that he, rightly, reminded the Department of the delay in a further question which he tabled earlier this month.
I believe that hon. Members have a right to receive written answers to questions within a reasonable period or to be informed of the reasons for the delay. I hope that, in general, all Government Departments will take note of the points I have made about this matter today.
Sir David Madel: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your help and guidance. As you know, a number of hon. Members were trying to catch your eye in the statement on trunk roads, but did not do so—that, of course, is not always possible. But sometimes we have Government statements at 10 o'clock at night. I wonder, therefore, whether after 10 o'clock
950
tonight we could resume questioning on the statement on roads which we have just heard and which is so important to our constituencies.
Mr. David Sumberg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the previous point of order? I imagine that it does.
Mr. Sumberg: It is slightly different, Madam Speaker. You rightly ask in the House that Back Benchers make their questions extremely short—we all support that. Is there any way that you can invite Front Benchers on both sides of the House to make their questions and answers equally short? That would have given me the chance to tell the Front Bench the disastrous news that the M62 relief road is still to go ahead and how that is resented by all [Interruption.]—
Madam Speaker: Order. I think that some hon. Members are not listening when I ask all Members to make their questions and answers brisk. I am equally concerned about Government Departments. I have made it known—I will put it like that—to each Government Department that I want brisk answers.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: That is news.
Madam Speaker: No, it is not news. The hon. Gentleman must not have been in the Chamber when I have constantly made it known to Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike that I want brisk questions and brisk answers. I am glad that that point has been reinforced by Back-Bench Members today.
As for returning to this matter at 10 o'clock tonight, that is a matter for the usual channels. The hon. Gentleman might use the usual channels to try his luck at getting a debate on transport at some time. He might then catch my eye during the debate and raise the points that he wishes to raise.
Mr. George Walden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have to draw your attention to the fact that, upon emerging from the Chamber just now, I found a most interesting letter in my slot which was not there when I came into the Chamber. It is headed "MacGregor announces radical new roads prioritisation". I should have liked to read this letter before I listened to the statement. I do not know how many of my colleagues are in the same position, but it suggests that there may be reason to review our curious and archaic procedures so that all Members are well informed beforehand.
Madam Speaker: I was informed this morning that the Secretary of State and his Department were doing their level best to see that something like 400 Members received the letter. As soon as it was known that a statement was to be made today, the Secretary of State and his Department and the authorities of the House went to great lengths to distribute the letter in order to ensure that hon. Members received it as far in advance of the statement today as possible.

Picture Manipulation
4.44 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require news media to prepare a code of practice to cover the principles by which pictures may be edited, altered or changed using computer techniques and to record clearly when old film is being used and when the person presenting the film was not present during its filming.
In a democracy, it is essential that accurate information be available to everyone. Rightly, at present, there are many worries about our mass media. In the Bill, I want to draw attention to an important matter, more in the hope of stimulating debate about it than, at this time in the Session, hoping that it can become an Act of Parliament.
Most people are aware of the old adage "the camera never lies". It seems to me that many people still believe it, in spite of the fact that many of them are aware that over the ages pictures have been faked—for example, the photographs of the Cottingley Fairies which were authenticated by no less than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Many pictures of the Loch Ness monster have clearly been faked and there is a very interesting series of pictures that show the way in which photographs of the Russian revolution changed as political correctness within the Soviet Union changed.Most of us have had similar experiences with family photographs. Perhaps there sits on the mantlepiece a photograph of Uncle Albert with a broad grin on his face, yet we know that, except for one picture, he almost never grinned in his whole life.
Most people also know about photo opportunities. My constituents are well aware that Members of Parliament, in particular, and royalty try to contrive to be photographed in the most desirable, but not always the most accurate, circumstances. We remember the photograph of the Princess of Wales at the Taj Mahal. She was supposed to be "all alone", except anyone who thought about it for a second or two realised that several hundred photographers were present also.
In spite of the evidence, most people believe pictures, particularly those accompanied by a well-respected voice on television, far more than they believe the written word. Sadly, few people realise just how easy it is to alter pictures or make them actually misleading. As I have said, it has always been possible to fake photographs and film. However, with the aid of computers and electronic images, what was often a slow, laborious business can now be accomplished in a few minutes. There are programmes such as Photoshop for still pictures and anyone who watches commercial television can see how computers are being used to adapt pieces of film for television adverts. Certainly within the next three or four years, it will be fairly easy to run a piece of video film through a computer programme and change the nature of it entirely.
Certainly in the last 12 months, I have seen a considerable number of examples of the way in which newspapers, in particular, have adapted and distorted pictures. In preparing for this debate, I took the trouble to write to a series of national newspaper editors and television companies. Almost all of them acknowledge that there is a problem. Of course, most of them claim that they would not dream of adapting or distorting a picture in their
952
publications or on their programmes, but they were then very keen to point out how some of their rivals were doing this.
I make it clear that I do not have any objection to a newspaper morphing the face of a politician or a football manager with a turnip to produce a cross between a human face and a turnip. I do not mind if a picture editor decides to slip a photograph of someone from the past, such as W.G. Grace, into a picture of the present English cricket team. I would not have minded if I had looked at the morning newspapers today and seen the Prime Minister's image taken out of political pictures and put into cricketing pictures or seen the English cricket captain put into political pictures. That is all fair and reasonable fun. I have no objections to photomontages or when people say that they are using library film on television.
The reason for my Bill is that I object to the fact that pictures are altered—although the readers are not aware of that fact—and may thus have a major impact on the way in which readers respond to the pictures. As a hypothetical example—I am not claiming that it has happened, but everyone will understand the problems involved—let us assume that a prominent person has acquired a black eye and is photographed with it. How colourful, painful and bloody it looks in a newspaper picture may well decide how much sympathy or disgust the public feel. Substantial problems can arise when the photograph is taken, depending on the film used by the photographer and the camera angle, but once the picture ends up on the picture editor's desk, he or she can still change its appearance to make the wound look more gory and much worse, using a few movements of a programme such as Photoshop. That can make the picture far more dramatic and can change people's perception of the black eye, which might have been caused legitimately by a bang against a door, but, when processed, looked as if it had been caused by something more significant.
The same applies in child abuse cases, as we have seen several times lately. After the case and someone's conviction, a picture appears in the newspaper. It is extremely easy to make the bruises or other injuries shown in the picture that bit more graphic, with a little work using something like Photoshop.
As I only have 10 minutes, I must move quickly to the problems of moving pictures, which are often also distorted. During the summer recess, I rang one of my colleagues in the shadow Cabinet as I wanted a word with him, only to be told that he was away on holiday. I had no objections to that, but when I turned on the television news at six o'clock and saw him at a meeting of the shadow Cabinet my first reaction was, "I'm not going to vote for him again." When I checked the picture very carefully, I realised that the television company was using a piece of film showing a shadow Cabinet meeting several months before. Had I been one of my hon. Friend's constituents, I would have been annoyed to have seen him on television after being fobbed off by someone who said that he was not available.
I understand the problems for television companies and for politicians. The companies are reluctant to show people at what they call business, such as walking through doors or along the road, or clearing their desks. However, if they continue to use film from the past, without saying that it is library film, they are in danger of producing a false impression and there are many examples of that.

953
I have considered the regulatory processes—the Press Complaints Commission and organisations set up under the Broadcasting Act 1988 do not really regulate such matters. That is the point of my Bill—to deal with that problem.
If newspapers change the slogan on a T-shirt, for example, to that proclaiming one newspaper to another, when it was not changed, or if they take out the background in a picture of Nelson Mandela because it suits their presentation and if library film is continually presented on television as if it were current film, it will discredit the media and a lot of problems may result.
People in this country have a right to know that pictures used in the mass media are what they are represented as being—accurate pictures of what is happening. I also argue that if material used on television does not show something that the person doing the voice-over saw taking place, that should be made clear. If old films are used, that should also be indicated.
If we do not observe those standards, we are on a slippery slope towards unsatisfactory mass media. I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill and that it can further the discussion of what is and is not reasonable when pictures are changed in print and on television.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Jim Caliaghan, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Martin Redmond and Mr. Don Dixon.

PICTURE MANIPULATION
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett accordingly presented a Bill to require news media to prepare a code of practice to cover the principles by which pictures may be edited, altered or changed using computer techniques and to record clearly when old film is being used and when the person presenting the film was not present during its filming: and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 84.]
Orders of the Day
  OPPOSITION DAY
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  OPPOSITION DAY

    Private Pensions
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to announce to the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.55 pm
    Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
    That this House deplores the widespread abuse and unscrupulous techniques used to sell private pensions, which have prejudiced individual clients and induced them to leave occupational pension schemes and the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme to invest in pension provision which offers no real prospect of security; notes the evident failure of self-regulation; and, recognising the need for transparency and full disclosure of terms and conditions governing policies, condemns the failure of Her Majesty's Government to act and calls for effective direct regulation of the pensions and financial services industry.
    For the avoidance of doubt, I must make it clear that the Opposition see an important place for private pension provision in the legitimate range of choice that is open to people who are preparing for retirement. The state is in that business, as are occupational pension schemes and private schemes. The mix will vary from person to person. All the possibilities should complement each other as people strive to construct the package that suits their needs. We are certainly ready to recognise the place of private pensions, but we are not starry-eyed about the way in which they are operated or about the problems that we face. We are certainly not prepared to ignore their shortcomings and the difficulties that were predicted and which have recently come to haunt us.
    Our charge is that the Government have suspended their disbelief and critical faculties for political purposes. A blockage has inhibited their right and duty to act, with the result that a large number of people's interests have been prejudiced. Government policy has been marked by inaction and has allowed unacceptable practices to develop, as is widely recognised. Many people's pensions have been severely prejudiced. The Government have been something of a passive spectator as the confusion has grown. There has been muddle and the self-evident inadequacy of self-regulation, and to some extent Ministers have been bound by their own dogma—
    Mr. Ian Taylor: For the sake of accuracy, it is wise to define self-regulation. We are talking not exactly about self-regulation but about regulation by professional organisations; that distinction is sometimes lost on members of the public. We are not talking about self-regulation in the other sense of the word.
    Mr. Dewar: I shall come to that when I mention the debate about the Personal Investment Authority and its future and the widespread reservations that have been expressed about the composition of its board. In the public's mind, doubts about self-regulation rightly arise when a regulatory organisation is dominated by the industry that it purports to regulate. The industry has

    955
    significant reservations about the proposals in that respect. I give the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) an undertaking that I shall return to that subject later and that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) will deal extensively with the regulatory machinery when he closes the debate.
    I want to set out the charges on the indictment because it is only fair that the Minister should be aware of the nature of our complaints. The first complaint relates to the active encouragement that the Government gave people to contract out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. Since 1988—the figures vary a little—I gather that. about 6.5 million people have moved into approved pensions policies, which has been paraded as a triumph for freedom of choice and as a flagship of success—
    Mr. David Shaw: Quite right.
    Mr. Dewar: I was going to say paraded as a flagship of success for the hard right, but I thought that that description might be a little unfair on the Minister. The hon. Gentleman's cries encourage me to use the phrase with total justification and I adopt it accordingly. Indeed, if one looks back—
    Mr. Peter Thurnham rose—
    Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman let me proceed?
    If you look back to 1988, you will find, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that most of the usual suspects were on the scene of the crime and very much involved. The present Chief Secretary, the present Secretary of State for Social Security and the Prime Minister himself were all, to varying extents, involved at about that period.
    As I understand it, about 5 million people are in approved pension schemes at the moment, and that is a matter for concern rather than congratulation. My complaint is that neither the industry nor the Government made any attempt to explain the pros and cons. The Minister will remember that in January 1988 his Department embarked on an advertising campaign on which it spent £1.2 million, in effect, to advertise a product—the approved private pension that people would take if they contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. That advertising campaign is now widely recognised as uncritical and unbalanced. SERPS was—literally—visually portrayed as a straitjacket from which the individual was invited to break out to the promised land. Many people uncritically took that advice and find themselves disadvantaged as a result.
    There was no discussion about, for example, the variation in the performance of funds, the influence of the condition of the stock market and the level of interest rates at the time of retirement, or the advantages of index linking in SERPS where there was a revaluation in line with national average earnings. There was no discussion of commission and charges in the private sector—which I am told can often amount to 20 per cent. of total contributions even in the case of those policies. People were invited, without reservation, simply to move on a promise; none of the shades of black and white were sketched in or referred to in the Government's or the industry's advertising. It is now obvious that great damage was done simply because there was no wish to let the arguments get in the way of the selling line.
    Mr. John Butterfill: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to imply that all those
    956
    who opted out of SERPS will have been disadvantaged, because that is his how his remarks might be interpreted. Obviously, some will have been, but many will have had advantages.
    Mr. Dewar: I totally accept that that would be the height of irresponsibility and I would not for a moment try to do that. I shall discuss the numbers in a minute or two. They are difficult to define, as the hon. Gentleman, who I expect has expertise in that matter, will appreciate.
    Some ground rules for judgment are emerging, which are broadly accepted by the industry and by outside commentators. The real test—
    Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
    Mr. Dewar: I will give way briefly, but I must not take too many interventions.
    Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem that was outlined in 1986 was that the number of people with occupational pensions had remained static for 20 years, and that the Government were trying to persuade a large number of people to take on the benefits of enhanced pension provision? The 5 million people who have done that since then have acquired real benefits, have they not?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Dewar: Some of them, but not all. I know that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) takes a great interest in these matters and is an advocate. I am sorry, he is a barrister. I must remember the English language as distinct from the Scottish terminology; it is the same profession, as the hon. Gentleman recognises. He will remember—if he does not, I remind him—that when the National Association of Pension Funds Ltd. responded to the Green Paper "Reform of Social Security" in September 1985, it expressed specific anxiety about the Government's claim that the introduction of SERPS had stagnated the growth of private pension provision in the form of new occupational schemes.
    The national association also argued:
    "It is our firmly held view that a collection of money purchase personal pensions can be no substitute for the security of a defined benefit final salary scheme.
    It argued in favour of occupational pensions, but was worried that many people who were not entering occupational schemes were opting out of SERPS in order to go into APPs where there were real and substantial difficulties in terms of their age profile and salary level. I will now discuss those subjects.
    Mr. Heald rose—
    Mr. Dewar: I will let the hon. Gentleman in for the last time.
    Mr. Heald: Do not the hon. Gentleman's reservations relate to an entirely different issue—the reform of occupational pensions in the Social Security Act 1986? The new personal pensions have enabled 5 million more people to enjoy enhanced pension provision. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that no one can argue that that is anything other than good?
    Mr. Dewar: I hear a mutter of applause run round the ranks of the faithful. If every one of those people had ended up with enhanced pension provision and had been

    957
    advantaged by the switch, it is unlikely that I would be complaining, or that I would be backed by a wide range of professional opinion inside the industry.
    I am arguing, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North is familiar with my arguments, that a very large number of people—62 per cent., according to the Government's figures—have earnings of less than £10,000 a year and many are too old and ought either to have remained in SERPS or ought by now to have returned to SERPS to maximise their advantage. It is untrue to suggest, therefore, that the rush to contract out, which the Government promoted and encouraged, is an unqualified blessing or that it has not left many people disadvantaged.
    No doubt people will argue about the pivotal age above which it is a disadvantage to remain contracted out. Let us take a comparatively conservative figure, and assume that the age is 40 for men and 35 for women. If one adds to that the people who have earnings of less than £7,500 a year, one finds that 53 per cent. of men and no less than 71 per cent. of women should now contract back into SERPS. That is what I am assured by actuaries—I do not pretend that I have done those calculations myself. Many of those people should never have left SERPS. Suppose that one wants to be ultra-cautious. If one takes the pivotal age as 45 for men and 40 for women and an income of £6,000 a year or less, one finds that 39 per cent. of men and 54 per cent. of women are in that situation.
    I am prepared to listen to arguments. I know that the Prudential, for example, takes ages of 49 and 42 as the pivotal ages whereas the Norwich Union takes 45 and 37. There is a range of professional opinion, but there is no doubt that all those companies and experts accept that there are very large numbers of people—perhaps as many as 2.5 million—who are contracted out and in whose interests it would be to return to SERPS, many of whom never should have left SERPS.
    I know that that is rather brutal language, but it is a scandal—a scandal which is no less serious because it was so long unrecognised and no less cruel because many of the victims were, and probably still are, unaware of their plight. We are talking about something that is a result of the Government's impetuous love affair with the private sector. I do not for a moment decry the contribution that the industry makes, but we cannot have that type of uncritical policy, which has done so much damage.
    I noted that in the Observer last Sunday—the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) will have read the article—a partner in a well-known law firm specialising in pension matters described the consequences of the Government's policy as "mind-blowing." I think that that is not unfair.
    Mr. David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that it was disadvantageous for millions of people to leave SERPS. Why, then, in previous speeches, has he criticised what he regarded as the generosity of the rebates for people who were leaving SERPS and taking out personal pensions? Surely those two arguments are inconsistent.
    Mr. Dewar: No. I do not think so at all. If I want to prejudice the hon. Gentleman—if I want to persuade him to do something against his interests and I offer him an inducement to go down a road that is greatly to his
    958
    disadvantage—it seems to me that I am insulting him twice. All I am doing is ensuring that he takes the wrong decision, against his own best interests. That is what happened. A very large number of people were impressed by the contracting-out terms, especially the 2 per cent. premium. They therefore moved over without considering the real arguments and ended up in a very unfortunate situation. That is not true of everyone, as I said, but it applies to as many as 2.5 million people; that is an awful lot of people and something about which the House should be concerned.
    I seem to remember that the hon. Member for Havant and I have discussed the matter before. He will remember the National Audit Office report that calculated that the Treasury was taking on a burden of about £9.3 billion, if I remember rightly, in the expectation of great savings later, which turned out to be only £3.4 billion. Even if we take a Micawber approach to the good housekeeping of Government, it is clear that we were invited to endorse an extraordinary piece of arithmetic and a bad buy for the taxpayer. Tragically, it also ended up being a bad buy for many of the people who took the inducement—I use the neutral term—that was offered.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are talking with the benefit of hindsight? One of the reasons for the relative imbalance is that we have had a world recession. Stock markets and property markets have failed to perform in the way in which we had hoped, which has affected with-profits life insurance policies and pension policies. Had the expectation that markets would continue to improve been met, the hon. Gentleman would not be making the analysis that he is making today.
    Mr. Dewar: I accept that there has been a substantial movement that has complicated the calculation, but, in fairness, it was said by many people at the time that dangers existed and problems might well materialise. The trouble was that no one referred to it directly—it was not included in Government guidance and I fear that within the industry no one pointed out those dangers to the people who were going to put themselves in that risky position.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend share the view of other Opposition Members, who are astonished that Conservative Members should seek to defend the indefensible? Does he agree that the fact that people lost out had nothing to do with the world recession? People on low pay lost out because the onerous charges that were levied by insurance companies far outweighed any benefits that they received from their new pensions.
    Mr. Dewar: I shall come later to onerous charges. I have long since lost my ability to be astonished at Conservative Members' defence of the indefensible; I do not confine that remark to the narrow technical subject of pensions.
    I refer the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) to the comments of National Association of Pension Funds, with which he will be familiar. Its memorandum in response to the Green Paper states:
    "The Government must be prepared to explain to the public just what a personal pension means, especially in terms of the mechanism for buying one (including full disclosure of administration and commission costs), the uncertainty of performance (as their value must perforce be variable with market conditions), and the lack of any guarantees or discretionary protection."

    959
    If those things had been pointed out by the industry, by those selling and by the Government when they advertised the option, some of the sadness and disadvantage to which I have referred might have been avoided.
    The association's memorandum continues:
    "Stringent investor protection is essential if the proposals for personal pensions are to gain any semblance of public acceptability. We do not believe that sufficient protection to investors in personal pensions can be provided through the self-regulatory framework being devised".
    I agree with all but one part of that quote. The association said that the proposals would not have a semblance of public acceptability. Sadly, the public were not that wise and they took the proposals at face value. That is one reason for our present difficulties.
    The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West challenged me about what was being said when the proposals were introduced. Slightly later, in March 1990, the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation, in its enforcement bulletin No. 7, was extremely critical of the industry's—not the Government's—advertisements, It stated, somewhat optimistically:
    "few advertisements indicate, with any degree of precision, for whom opting out may not be suitable and accordingly an inappropriate contract might be sold which would not be in accordance with the high standard of conduct expected by Lautro of its Members."
    It urged:
    "Members must ensure that they do not accept applications in respect of opting out unless they are certain that the applicants, who respond to such advertisements, have been given details of all the information pertinent to their situation prior to making any decision to opt out of SERPS."
    That warning from a self-regulatory organisation was largely unheeded. It might well have been a warning and a condemnation of the Government's advertising programme as well as that of the industry.
    The Government's approach has been thoroughly unsound. No doubt they will now argue that a change is coming: that we no longer have the 2 per cent. premium to which the hon. Member for Havant referred; that there is now a 1 per cent. premium for people who are over 30; and that we shall soon move to age-related rebates. I accept that there is an argument for that, but the changes are an implied plea of guilty. It is interesting that the new advertising campaign, which states that people should read the small print of private pension policies, has not been funded to the extent of £1.2 million but in the rather more modest sum of £100,000. There is a little less energy and enthusiasm behind that campaign. I warn hon. Members that the damage will continue unless information and advice are genuinely and impartially given.
    There are advantages to SERPS, which has been undersold. If that continues, the spin that is put on the sales pitch by representatives of the private pensions industry will still continue to tempt the unwary.
    Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is not in the Chamber at the moment, but I wonder whether the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), will comment on how the Opposition view his pamphlet entitled "Private Pensions for All". Will the Opposition take that pamphlet on board or are they still waiting for the social commission for justice to determine their policy?
    Mr. Dewar: The Commission on Social Justice is a very social commission, but the hon. Gentleman is as confused about its title as he is in his attempts to divert me.
    960
    If he is interested, I shall send him an interesting speech that I made the other day on that and related subjects. I shall not go into a general tour d'horizon as he has invited me to. I am talking about what happened to those who contracted out of SERPS and also occupational pension transfers. I know that that subject will interest the hon. Gentleman.
    All I am saying to Ministers is that they have a problem with what has happened with SERPS and they bear a measure of responsibility for it. The Secretary of State and his colleagues have evinced malice towards SERPS in the past. The 1988 raid, which we all remember, was masterminded, if that is the right word, by the present chairman of the Conservative party. Hostile forces are still gathering round, including the deregulation task force proposals for reform. I hastily concede that the proposals have not yet been adopted by the Government, but they chime in with a lot of other things that are happening. Take paragraph 357 of a Department of Social Security paper:
    "Consider replacing SERPS entirely with occupational and personal pension schemes."
    There has been a lack of enthusiasm and an underselling of SERPS, which has made a significant contribution to present problems.
    We understand that the Securities and Investments Board will move on to consider the problems of those who have contracted out of SERPS once it has completed its complicated and important inquiries into transfers from occupational pensions. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that and comment on how he imagines compensation can be given to those who have clearly lost out and been disadvantaged. It may be that the industry will have to foot that bill, but the Government have more than a moral responsibility to ensure that that happens. I am interested to learn whether the Minister is now prepared to accept that mistakes were made—that there was error and a failure to give proper warning—and what are his proposals for making redress.
    I shall deal now with occupational pensions and the way in which bad advice and sharp-selling techniques have resulted in people transferring from occupational to personal pension schemes. Some 11 million people are in occupational schemes. It will be no surprise to hon. Members to know that we regard their strength as vital. It is important that those who have been involved in occupational pensions and have contributed to them can look forward with confidence to retirement. There is no doubt that public confidence was shaken tragically by the wicked fraud carried out by the late Robert Maxwell, but there is another scandal of which we are becoming aware and which may be of greater proportions. It may be cumulatively more damaging. It is less dramatic because it does not involve the death of an individual at sea and the same smell of scandal. There is not one person on whom the spotlight can concentrate, but the system has allowed many people to be tempted. It has allowed many people in the industry to abuse trust and make a mockery of professional ethics. Many people have left occupational pension schemes and are prejudiced in their retirement prospects as a result.
    This is not a matter for fine judgment. We all know that LAUTRO has said that it is hard to conceive of circumstances in which it is right for someone to leave an occupational pension scheme in which he or she could have a continuing interest in order to transfer to a private pension policy.

    961
    There are problems of charges, commissions and instability of outcome, but the essence of the problem is that people have surrendered the employer's contribution. That makes no sense, yet it has happened on a wide scale. Even where a person has left the industry and is in an occupational pension scheme in terms of preserved rights, he or she must still be extremely careful before attempting to move. In the mining industry, for example, some people have been taken to the cleaners in a deplorable way by moving to a personal pension scheme that looks attractive on the surface but provides no widow's benefit, life assurance cover or any of the other factors that would be highly relevant to the individual concerned.
    Mr. John Greenway: As the hon. Gentleman will discover if I am lucky enough to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have sympathy with much of what he is saying. But does he accept that many miners, for example, left occupational pension schemes because they were disgusted with the treatment that they had received and wanted nothing whatever to do with the mining industry in future?
    Mr. Dewar: I shall wait with interest to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. But to try and shift the blame and suggest that people cut off their noses to spite their faces in a fit of pique is extraordinary. If people were in that turn of mind, those selling policies had a duty of care to advise them that they should do nothing in haste or anger. I am afraid that that duty of care was not exercised.
    Mr. Eric Clarke: I was a member of the trustees of the miners' pension fund. We had to counteract the propaganda that was put out to those individuals by giving them the facts. I admit that the situation had been going on for some time and we did not spend a lot of money on advertising, as those people did. But I assure my hon. Friend that we gave the facts and tried to counteract the propaganda. There is no way that people just opted out. When redundancies set in, the salesmen came in.
    Mr. Dewar: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. I know, from my personal contacts, of the efforts that were made by trustees of the miners' pension fund and many individuals in the industry to try to make good the evident lack of impartial advice available to those contemplating a transfer.
    It is important to estimate how many people are involved in transfers. I accept that the figure that is often bandied around, of up to 500,000 people, may be an exaggeration. That number of people is potentially at risk, but I am quick to concede that we do not know how many are actually at risk and have suffered loss. Everyone who has had the staying power to remain in his or her seat for a debate of this kind will be familiar with the KPMG report commissioned by the SIB. Of 735 files, which were not taken from the down side of the industry—press reports say that both Standard Life and TSB were among the companies sampled—astonishingly, only 9 per cent. showed evidence of substantial compliance with the guidance and acceptable standards. In 77 per cent. of cases, no real financial analysis was made of the potential customer's situation; in 95 per cent. of cases, agents of
    962
    insurance companies failed to comply with good practice; and in 89 per cent. of cases, independent financial advisers failed to comply with good practice.
    Those are frightening statistics and a frightening profile of how the private sector carries out its duty of care to potential customers. As I said, it is not fringe companies but established blue chip firms that are involved. For example, a preliminary investigation by the Select Committee has revealed that Standard Life has 75,000 transfers, 15,000 of which are through direct sales and 60,000 of which are through independent financial advisers. I notice from its returns that Legal and General is having to make provision against compensation. The Refuge group is also making provision of £11.6 million in its accounts for 1993. That is an enormous sum given that its declared profits for that year are only £24.3 million. Many other companies, including National and Provincial, are also having to make provision in their accounts.
    Yesterday, we had the extraordinary spectacle of Norwich Union—a household name of, I hasten to say, high standing—taking 800 of its staff off the road for a month for intensive training in selling techniques. That could be said to be good news, but it is also an indictment of what has happened that a company of that stature must take such extraordinary action.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Economic Secretary, who is on the Government Front Bench today, was a member of Standing Committee E in 1986 and will remember the assurances given by the now Home Secretary that such a thing would never happen. The Opposition withdrew amendments because we were prepared to accept those assurances, despite the fact that the now Economic Secretary was busy lobbying Labour Members outside the door of the Committee Room to support amendments being moved against his own Minister. And he is now a member of the Government.
    Mr. Dewar: I must simply accept from my hon. Friend what happened on that occasion, as I was not there to see it. Perhaps the Economic Secretary, who will close this debate, will deal with that interesting insight into how matters worked in those days. I will certainly be in my place to hear him and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be in his place, too.
    I do not wish to spend much more time discussing examples, as they have been in the press and we have all seen them. They include teachers, policemen, miners and firemen. Some are now receiving compensation payments of £20,000 and more—I saw one of £50,000—to replace gaps in their occupational pension contributions, which may have run for only four or five years. The case histories are frightening; they are also frighteningly familiar—sweet-talking, diagram-drawing, word-juggling salesmen persuading people to take action because they were interested only in the kill and the commission that it brings. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from what has happened. It is a cruel deception.
    Sometimes, an ex-employee would be brought in to persuade his former workmates to move to private pension policies. I remember a case of a senior shop steward who, sadly, had been made redundant but saw a way out of his financial difficulties by taking a job with an insurance company and flogging policies to his former colleagues. The fact that he did not last long with the insurance company adds to the despair and dishonour of the story.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: May I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said? The insurance companies were taking on redundant miners simply to get from them the names of other redundant miners so that they could approach them and sell policies to them.
    Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the Secretary of State will condemn that when he has the opportunity.
    Such problems are built in when an industry's sales force lives by commission. It then becomes extremely difficult to create a system that holds the interests of the customer in high regard. Until we can move away from that heavy dependence on commission, I fear that even the most respectable firms will have great difficulty in performing as they should.
    There is even something about the language. It seems an odd point to make, but I noticed that Hill Samuel, which is part of the TSB group, is selling its financial services arms and handing over its direct sales force to Allied Dunbar, a subsidiary of BAT. The chief executive of Hill Samuel, Mr. Hugh Freedberg, explained why he was selling to Allied Dunbar by saying that a life company needed
    "a warm, captive customer base".
    He explained that he did not feel that he had a warm captive customer base.
    Perhaps I am being over-sensitive, but that seems an interesting insight into the attitude of very senior management. At the end of the day, it is they who must take responsibility for what happens on the ground. They cannot shrug it off by saying that a salesman went out of control or went native. It is an insight into how senior management view the industry.
    I welcome some of the changes which no doubt the Minister will mention: the SIB report, a cooling-off period of 14 days, a duty to check on the lump sum that would result from the occupational pension scheme and a reasons-why letter. All that may be helpful, but it is also necessary to look at commissions and charges.
    I have made some inquiries, as best I can, with people within the industry. I understand that when buying a policy on an annual basis, it is common to pay 50 per cent. of the first year's premium in commission. There may be another 20 per cent. for supervisory commission and another 20 per cent. for administrative costs, advertising costs and so on.
    The Minister may be interested to hear about an odd happening a few years ago, when the Office of Fair Trading decided to inject competition into the industry. It therefore removed the need to stick by LAUTRO and agreed rates. Commission rates then went up. They went up because there is no competition if customers do not know what they being charged; they are there to be plucked.
    Paying lip service to competition was damaging the interests of the buying public. I believe that we must have transparency and disclosure. I welcome the fact that new rules will apply from 1 January 1995, but it is not enough. We must work harder to give people the right advice, to make sure that they know the facts instead of having to look at the complicated tables they might find in Money Management.
    People need more accessible league tables. The Minister and his colleagues are fond of league tables. More accessible league tables, on performance for example, might be a useful tool.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that sales on commission only were one of the root causes of the problems
    964
    surrounding homes equity schemes, which we have debated at length in the House? Salesmen in receipt of commission only, brandishing respectable cards from distinguished insurance companies, were able to hoodwink innocent people into parting with large sums of money. That led to the collapse of those schemes and all the problems and resulting heartache.
    Mr. Dewar: I agree entirely. There was downright cruel abuse. The trouble was that the self-regulatory organisations in the industry could not get to grips with it and stop it. That is one of the worries; it is a good example of treating too easily all the talk about a new start with a new SRO.
    Finally, I turn to effective regulation and the need to examine commission charges. I understand—and I underline that word—that there are statutory powers to set charges that have been used only in a limited way. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that those powers exist and say a word or two about his intentions in that respect. There is no doubt that the abuse of commission and the lack of transparency are a real problem.
    My contention is that the present system of regulation has failed. The Minister may be tempted to argue, as others have told me privately, that massive evidence of abuse is an advertisement for self-regulation. I have been told that, without the success of self-regulation, we would never know that people were being done and diddled left, right and centre. I hope that the Minister will not use that argument and will recognise that it does not wash.
    There have been departures from acceptable standards on such a widespread scale that the problem is now endemic. As the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) made clear, the SROs in profusion, lined up in column of route, have been unable to do anything about it.
    The latest one is the Personal Investment Authority, the PIA, which perhaps is just about to reach the starting line. I do not disagree that taking FIMBRA, LAUTRO and parts of IMRO and simplifying the system may be better than what went before. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central will say more about this, but the history of the PIA so far has not been encouraging. We have lost one chairman, Sir Gordon Downey, and acquired Joe Palmer of Legal and General. I am not sure where the balance lies, but it has also spent about £6 million on starting-up costs and all we have is a first-class row between various people about whether they want to have anything to do with it. The Prudential, for example, was a big player in the market and takes the view that direct regulation without self-regulation is the right answer.
    We also know that Standard Life has withdrawn its support from the PIA. I have seen the memo that Jim Stretton on behalf of Standard Life gave the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. Talking about the present system, he said:
    "The resulting structure is unnecessarily cumbersome, inadequately accountable and will, because it is still called self regulation, be less trusted by the public. In addition the multi-tiered approach to regulation is unlikely to give rise to the firmness of purpose which I believe to be essential. I don't think we can go back to true self-regulation, since it would appear to the public, albeit unfairly, that the industry has acted to minimise its own regulation … Regulation should be carried out by a single tier body which, if it is not part of a Department of Government, should report directly to a Department of Government".
    It is clear that the PIA will have a large job on its hands convincing not only the public but part of its own industry.

    965
    I see no advantage in having an SRO. I have every sympathy with people who say that there has to be a substantial public interest representation on the board. I also understand the interests of those who say that what is happening is no longer self-regulation. In any event, it is quite clear that there is little point in having the SIB if it has endlessly to negotiate and compromise with an SRO beneath it before it can make any progress. Whatever happens to the PIA, direct regulation is inevitable.
    The Secretary of State was probably not in the House—I was in the House only by chance—on 12 January when the Economic Secretary was speaking. I heard a remarkable series of exchanges about Lloyd's. I shall not go into that. The people who spoke made it clear that they had had bruising personal experience and in that sense they were parti pris. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), a senior ex-Minister in a Conservative Government said:
    "It is totally unreasonable to expect the self-interested to be self-regulating."—[Official Report, 12 January 1994; Vol. 235, c. 288.]
    That in some ways encapsulates the difficulty and is a view with which I have a good deal of sympathy.
    Pensions are of course enormously important. It is a cliche to say that they are arguably the most important purchase an individual makes in his or her life. Even a modest money purchase policy will build up a fund of £100,000 or more in its lifetime, but there is no area where ignorance is a greater enemy and in which it is more common.
    People can contract back into SERPS if they know about DSS form APP2, if they are aware of the arguments and the reasons and if they know about the actuarial projections, but few in fact do. Many people—certainly it was true of me and arguably it is still—are not aware of the complexities, at least in full. They tend to buy a pig in a poke. They need protection and they have not had it. I do not object to the state promoting investment and saving for retirement; in fact, I welcome it. I recognise that, in 1992–93, tax relief on employees' contributions was worth £2.3 billion, and that tax relief on employers' contributions was worth £2.7 billion. The concession that makes investment income in a pension fund tax free cost £5.7 billion. That amounts to about £10 billion altogether—a lot of money, given in a very important cause.
    We must do more than that, however. We must offer the right framework and guidance, and try to avoid a repetition of the deplorable confusion that was predicted and has come to pass. We also have a duty to try to ensure that proper compensation is offered to those who have suffered.
    The Minister is bound to have read an article by Norma Cohen that appeared in the Financial Times on Monday 28 February. I read it with interest, because it gave an account of a gathering that I remember very well—at Chevening in, I think, July 1992.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Was the hon Gentleman there?
    Mr. Dewar: Indeed I was not: that is why I am so curious about what happened. I do.not even know who was present, but many civil servants and Ministers were. Oddly enough, I was told that Dr. Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute was present; I wonder whether he has had some say in the approach to these matters.
    966
    I say that because I must warn against over-enthusiastic blanket endorsement of every action taken by the private sector in regard to pensions. Let me draw the Minister's attention to a "radical agenda", edited by Dr. Pirie, which was published last year. According to that agenda,
    "For fully funded private schemes much higher figures would be achieved"—
    in return per annum, that is.
    "Indeed, calculations show that if contributors paid half as much into a private scheme as they pay to the state plan, they could be ten times better off in retirement as a result."
    I suppose that the phrase "could be" is quite important, but if that is an example of the kind of advice that the Minister has been listening to, I am not surprised that we have got ourselves into considerable difficulties.
    We are told by the FT that
    "On the opening day of a strategy session called by Mr. Peter Lilley, the social security secretary"—
    whom I see sitting before me—
    "a group of ministers and civil servants was alerted to the potential cost of persuading people to opt out of occupational and state pension schemes into personal pension plans.
    The warning came from Mr. David Clark, then deputy secretary for pensions, in a paper to the assembled group … A minister recalled: The paper said that, in some sense, personal pensions have been a tremendous success"'—
    that is fair enough—
    '''but there are a few time bombs ticking away there.' The time bombs had been set ticking just eight years earlier when, as a former official put it, the government became 'mesmerised' by the allure of personal pensions".
    If such a time bomb was indeed identified at that Chevening meeting, it is interesting to contemplate what Ministers have been doing to defuse it and to help those who have already been damaged. The metaphor has problems, because presumably the time bomb has not gone off—or perhaps it has, with a series of explosions: there have certainly been casualties.
    There is a clear duty to guide and protect, and the Government are culpable because they have failed to discharge that duty of care. The House—and, more important, the country—will want to know what they intend to do about it.
    5.43 pm
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    'welcomes the extension of individual choice of pension provision brought about by the Government's pension reforms, which has resulted in substantial increases in funded pension provision through both occupational and appropriate private pension schemes; welcomes the Government's steps to ensure the effective regulation of occupational pensions and to ensure that individuals have adequate information to make informed choices about provision for their retirement; and welcomes the measures being taken by the Securities and Investments Board, with Government support, significantly to improve investor protection.'.
    I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue. The Government's objectives are cleat to ensure a wide range of choice for people to provide pensions for their retirement, to develop a secure framework within which informed choices can be fairly made, and to encourage the growth of fully funded private pension provision on top of the basic state pension. Unfortunately—although the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made some valid points, with which I shall deal—the Opposition's motives are equally clear.
    The Opposition do not like private pensions; they would prefer people to remain in or return to the state

    967
    system. They latch on to legitimate concerns about mis-selling, solely to frighten people back into the state earnings-related pension scheme. Today's debate is simply an exercise in scaremongering: the hon. Member for Garscadden did not mention any of the steps being taken by the SIB to reassure people that they will suffer no loss as a result of joining a private scheme. Hon. Members will be able to check that in Hansard.
    By contrast, precisely because we favour private pensions, we are genuinely determined to tackle past problems of mis-selling and to prevent them from recurring. I shall explain shortly what is being done; first, however, let me remind the House of the position before the 1988 reforms. Then, many people had good reason to be unhappy about the choices—if any—that were available to them. Private pensions often just did not meet people's needs; pension rules reflected an outdated assumption that people stayed with one employer throughout their working lives, and anyone who changed jobs was particularly vulnerable.
    Even if an employee moved after as long as four years in an occupational scheme, all his employer was required to do was return his contributions to him. The employer was not required to provide him with a pension when he retired. If the employee left behind his rights to a pension, he would be given a frozen handshake: the value of any pension rights that he had built up could be set in ice, to be melted away by inflation so that precious little was left by the time he retired. An employee who changed jobs did not have the option of taking the value of his pension with him.
    We ended that unfairness, introducing three new rights for people who changed jobs. We gave people the right to a deferred pension after just two years in a job; we gave those who changed jobs the right to have the pension that they left behind protected against inflation; and we gave people the right to take the value of their accrued pension rights with them when they moved jobs. In 1988, we also gave people a wider range of choice in regard to pension arrangements, so that they could choose what best suited their needs.
    Mr. John Greenway: Before my right hon. Friend ends his catalogue of the considerable improvements in pension legislation that the Government have made, may I ask him a question? Does he agree that far too many elderly widows have no income other than what the state provides, because the occupational pension died with their husbands?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is a great expert in the field, and I shall consider what he has said; but it will depend very much on the rights—
    Mr. Greenway: The system has been changed.
    Mr. Lilley: I am sorry; my hon. Friend must have meant that that used to be the position. I assumed that survivors' rights apply in such cases.
    Following those changes in 1988, individuals can now join an occupational pension scheme if their employer runs one. They can invest in a personal pension—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was given a very reasonable hearing, and I intend the Secretary of State to be given one as well.
    Mr. Lilley: Such people can invest in a personal pension, or they can choose to stay in SERPS. We gave people the right to top up their pensions, either by contributing extra to their employer's scheme or by making free-standing additional voluntary contributions. We also made new choices available to employers: we introduced new arrangements to allow them to set up contracted-out money purchase schemes, and we made it possible for them to contribute to their employees' personal pensions.
    There should be no doubt about the overall success of our reforms. When personal pensions were introduced, critics predicted that they would grow at the expense of occupational pension provision; the opposite has happened. There are now more occupational schemes, including 16,000 new employers' contracted-out money purchase schemes; they cover just as many people as before the introduction of personal pensions. Now, the 5 million holders of personal pensions are additional to the 11 million members of occupational pension schemes.
    More people are committing more of their own money to boost their retirement income. When we launched our reforms in 1988, individuals and their employers contributed just £260 million to personal pensions; last year, the annual amount invested had grown nearly tenfold, to £2.5 billion. Members of occupational schemes have also been saving more for retirement. The growth in investment in top-up pensions—free-standing additional voluntary contributions—has been dramatic.
    In 1988, individuals committed just £20 million to free-standing AVCs. The amount invested last year had grown over twentyfold, to £420 million.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Is not the Secretary of State being too modest in his claim about the reason why most people have moved to alternative schemes? It is due almost entirely to the fact that the Government have undermined all faith in the basic state pension by cutting it almost every year that they have been in office.
    Mr. Lilley: That is nonsense. If the hon. Gentleman is contradicting the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that people should have been opting out because it is to their advantage to do so, he should discuss that with Opposition Front-Bench Members.
    The figures that I have just given reveal that there has been a massive increase in provision for pensions. Employees and employers invested £30 billion in pensions in 1992. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the success of our reforms in building a solid foundation of funded pension provision for the future.
    In the United Kingdom, we now have a healthy and diverse mix of pension provision—state and non-state, occupational and personal, salary-related and money purchase. Nearly 11 million people now belong to occupational pension schemes. Five million have personal pensions—10 times as many as originally forecast—and over half of them are under 30.
    We want to make it attractive to people of all ages to make private provision, and to encourage even more people to do so. Private provision is good for the individual and for the economy. When the state finances pensions, nothing is saved or set aside for the future. This year's contributions are used to pay this year's pensions. It is pay-as-you-go. By contrast, in private schemes this year's

    969
    contribution is saved and invested. It goes into British industry to build up the assets that will pay for the pensions in 10, 20 or 30 years' time, when people retire.
    Very few of our European partners have developed funded private pensions on anything like the scale that we have. As a result, Britain is far better placed than most of our partners to face the growth in the number of retired people in the next century without imposing a huge tax burden on the economy.
    Over £500,000 million is invested in pension and life insurance schemes in the United Kingdom at present. That is more than in the rest of the European Community, in similar funded schemes, put together.
    Mr. David Shaw: In relation to the £500,000 million invested in life insurance and pension schemes, is not my right hon. Friend concerned, like me, that some £80 million of that went missing and was under the management of a man who was promoted recently to the Opposition Front Bench for his connections in taking £80 million away from the Maxwell pensioners?
    Mr. Lilley: I cannot comment on individuals, but I am sure that everybody will work out the wider context in which my hon. Friend is commenting.
    European countries that have less-developed private funded pension schemes are now seeking to emulate our success. They are only now beginning to address the problems that we began to address a decade or more ago. In France, the state pay-as-you-go scheme is in massive deficit. Last month, the French Government published plans for funded private pension schemes not unlike those in Britain. The previous Italian Government introduced measures to reduce the burden on their state scheme, and established tax incentives for private pension funds.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to intervene, but can it be placed on record that the statement made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is factually incorrect?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has just placed it on record.
    Mr. Lilley: I will not get involved in that little dispute.
    In Spain, debate is under way about the problems of pay-as-you-go schemes and the need to expand private pension provision. Across Europe, other Governments are following the lead that we have set.
    There are of course concerns, and four have arisen about private pensions. First, there is the security of pension fund assets. The Maxwell affair raised serious questions about the security and regulation of occupational pension schemes. That is why I established the pension law review committee under Professor Goode. The report has been widely welcomed, and I have been consulting since then with a view to legislation which will reassure people that they can have the fullest possible confidence in the security of their pensions in the future.
    Mr. Dewar: Is the Secretary of State still hoping to have that legislation in the next Session?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot prejudge the parliamentary schedule. I can say, in the
    970
    privacy of this exchange between the hon. Gentleman and myself—I hope that it will be overheard by the Lord President—that I hope that it will go ahead next year.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): It has been overheard.
    Mr. Lilley: Subject to the Queen's Speech.
    The second area of concern is the mis-selling of personal pensions to people wrongly advised to leave their occupational pension scheme. The Securities and Investments Board has established that the standard of compliance with record-keeping requirements and so on has been poor. That is deplorable, but not, in itself, evidence that clients were wrongly advised, or that they suffered financial disadvantage.
    The Securities and Investments Board is now carrying out a major exercise to establish the extent of the mis-selling. Clearly, any past mis-selling must be put right. Anyone whose future pension arrangements have been jeopardised must have a remedy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made that clear. The chairman of the Securities and Investments Board gave a public commitment in December when he said:
    "I am confident that the great majority of firms in this business will co-operate and ensure that none of their customers will suffer as a result of bad advice. In any case the regulators will use their powers, as necessary, to ensure appropriate remedies."
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will those who were unfortunately caned in the London and Bishopsgate scandal and who lost £80 million be recompensed?
    Mr. Lilley: As my hon. Friend will know, we have taken steps. We set up the Maxwell pensions unit. I hope—and I believe that the trustees now foresee—that there will be sufficient recovery of assets to restore the pension rights of those who had them put at risk as a result of the Maxwell scandal.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted a statement from Mr. Large. If he looks at the proceedings on the Financial Services Bill, Standing Committee E, November 1986, he will find almost exactly those words used by the Minister responsible for putting through that legislation. If we had an assurance then from the man who is now the Secretary of State, why should we any more believe today a statement by the chairman of the SIB?
    Mr. Lilley: That could not have been the case, because, at the time to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, the situation did not exist. If he had listened carefully, he would have heard that Mr. Large was referring to mis-selling that has occurred. He said:
    "the regulators will use their powers, as necessary, to ensure appropriate remedies."
    Existing personal pension investors need not be alarmed; nor should they be panicked into any precipitate action by scaremongering from Opposition Members.
    The regulatory bodies have already acted to prevent and deter future mis-selling. Yesterday, we heard that the Norwich Union suspended its sales force because its staff training scheme did not meet new standards. That followed a monitoring visit by the authorities. An unauthorised financial adviser was recently gaoled by the High Court for flouting an SIB ban.

    971
    Regulators have shown themselves ready to impose substantial fines—over £700,000 in one case—where companies have broken the rules. The SIB's regulatory steering group published last week its first report and recommendations on future preventive measures to ensure high marketing standards. I am glad that the hon. Member for Garscadden welcomed that. Once the board has completed its investigations, there will be a full report.
    At the end of the day, no one is better placed or has greater interest in monitoring the progress of pension arrangements than the individual to whom they belong. That is why the Government are committed to giving individuals proper access to information to help them choose the right pension and monitor its performance. We have taken action in a number of ways.
    Following directions from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, the Securities and Investments Board recently published proposals to give greater transparency to charges and commissions. The proposals will begin to take effect from July this year. In future, anyone selling personal pensions must reveal to potential investors how much he stands to gain in commissions by making a sale. Illustrations of personal pension benefits must reflect the actual charges levied by a provider, so that investors can compare the cost of different products.
    Mr. Flynn: On 15 March 1990, I complained during Prime Minister's Question Time about what I described as the wicked mis-selling of personal pensions. Many other hon. Members had complained before and have done so since. The Prime Minister rejected the charge at that time. Why on earth have the Government and the regulatory bodies not taken action until now?
    Mr. Lilley: The regulatory bodies are taking action, and promising to remedy the situation where mis-selling has occurred.
    As I said, we believe that the effective disclosure of charges and commissions is the best way to protect consumers from overpriced products and the dangers of biased advice in future. The Securities and Investments Board's proposals are a solid step towards improving the marketing of personal pensions and helping investors to make well-informed decisions.
    My Department has also taken action to help potential investors to make informed choices about personal pensions. Last June, we published a new guide for people who are thinking about buying a personal pension. The guide advises people to consider all their pension options, including any employer's scheme that might be available, before making a decision.
    If an individual decides that a personal pension is his best choice, the guide advises him to shop around before choosing a particular scheme. A month-long national press campaign to advertise the guide has just finished. Guides are available from citizens advice bureaux, and we have set up a special telephone line for individuals to order their copy directly. So far, more than 250,000 copies have been distributed.
    We have also published a guide for people who have recently taken out a personal pension plan to help them get the best out of their scheme, and we shall shortly issue a guide to personal pensions for self-employed people.
    I can also announce that we shall shortly be issuing guidance for employers who want to give advice to their employees about pensions. The Financial Services Act
    972
    1986 requires that anyone carrying on the business of giving financial advice should be authorised. Apparently, some employers mistakenly believe that the Act therefore constrains them from advising their employees on pensions. For most employers, that will not be the case as long as they adhere to simple rules.
    Employers can give all the help and advice they want about their own scheme without breaching Financial Service Act rules. They can also advise employees on personal pensions in general as long as they steer clear of the merits of any particular pension scheme. Our guidance will help employers who want to help their employees make informed decisions about their pension.
    Mr. Willetts: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his remarks are very significant, because many employers believe that the Financial Services Act inhibits them from giving such advice? His statement will encourage them to give the advice that many have wished but have been afraid to give.
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The leaflet, which is crisp, punchy and comprehensible, will shortly be available. People will realise that they are able to give advice which they thought—mistakenly—they were not able to give.
    The third concern is that people may have opted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme into a personal pension when it was not in their interest to do so. SIB's investigations so far have concentrated on the sale of personal pensions to those transferring out of occupational schemes. The chairman of the SIB has said that he has no evidence so far of systematic non-compliance with selling practice rules in cases of movement from SERPS to appropriate personal pensions, but the SIB will be examining the matter, and my officials are already discussing with SIB officials how to handle this phase of the work.
    When the SIB has completed its investigations, we shall know whether any poor advice has been given to those contracting out of SERPS, whether any investors have been disadvantaged, and the extent or scale of any problems.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
    Mr. Lilley: I shall give way in a moment.
    If the SIB discovers that investors have suffered disadvantage through being given bad advice, the SIB will expect effective remedy to be provided by the companies responsible.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Why does the Secretary of State omit from his list of things that are wrong the major problem, which is that a huge number of people cannot look forward to a reasonable income in retirement? A report entitled "Better Pensions for All", written by Bryn Davies—an acknowledged expert—and published by the Institute for Public Policy Research, estimates that 9 million working people who need to make additional provision for their retirement cannot look to existing forms of provision for a practical way of doing so. A huge number of people will not benefit at all.
    Mr. Lilley: That is rich, coming from a member of a party that has been critical of all our measures to extend the availability of pensions. In 1979, only 43 per cent. of retired people had an occupational pension. The figure is

    973
    now more than 60 per cent, and for newly retiring people it is nearly 70 per cent. The figure will be higher still when joined by the figures for those with personal pensions.
    Mr. Dewar: I think that it was the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) who suggested in a parliamentary answer that 60 per cent. of people who had contracted out into an APP were not paying an additional contribution, which is a matter of concern. Because of the charges and costs, will those people have any significant pension at the end of the day? Has the Minister any comment to make?
    Mr. Lilley: Obviously, I want more people to make ever better provision, appropriate to their resources. I am glad that significant numbers of people go beyond the minimum, which is more or less the equivalent of what they would receive under the state scheme. They will have better provision by opting out and topping up. One company—Prudential—recently revealed that 70 per cent. of its investors with personal pensions are paying more than the minimum, which is equivalent to SERPS and financed by the rebate. We hope that others will increase their percentage, too.
    Much of the discussion has been due to misunderstanding of published figures and of remarks by Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte. Following recent articles, Coopers has issued a press release which aims to
    "set out the background to the reports which have appeared in the press in recent days which have misrepresented our views … there must be a real danger that unnecessary distress could be caused to those people affected".
    I agree. Much of the coverage reveals a misunderstanding of what the figures show.
    It is important to remember that the figures refer to a single year. They therefore represent only a snapshot at a point in time of the profile of personal pension holders in that year; but it is the earnings over a lifetime that determine an individual's pension. Some commentators have also focused on the number of investors shown in the table as having zero earnings in the particular year, and suggested that those personal pensions must therefore have been mis-sold. That is not necessarily so.
    Mr. Flynn rose—
    Mr.Lilley: I shall continue a little before giving way.
    If a person became unemployed in 1991, having started his policy in 1988 while he was working, he would appear in the tables in the zero earnings column, but that would not necessarily mean that he had been mis-sold a personal pension. As soon as the individual began working and paying national insurance again, DSS contributions to his personal pension would resume. Of course, while he was not earning, he would not in any event have been building up any pension entitlement had he not opted out of SERPS.
    Mr. Flynn: While the Minister is attacking the accuracy of Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte's conclusions, would it not be fair of him to state its main conclusion, which is that 2.4 million people are worse off because they opted out of SERPS and into a personal pension? He may be right and the figures may be inaccurate—it could be 3.4 million or 4.4 million people.
    Mr.Lilley: That is precisely the type of remark of which Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte's press release is trying to disabuse people.
    Mr. Flynn: Could it not be 3.4 million or 4.4 million?
    Mr.Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should read the press release. He would then find that Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte does not agree with that analysis. It believes it to be mistaken and says that, because of the performance of the stock market and the value of the opt-out rebate that people receive, there is every likelihood that people who took out a pension during the period of the rebate—up to last year—will have a pension which is to their advantage.
    Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the Secretary of State comment on the following statement from the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte press release? It states:
    "Given the impact of commission insurance charges, this means that contracting out is now only likely to be of significant benefit to higher-paid people in their 20s and 30s who are prepared to take some investment risk."
    Does he accept that suggestion?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should look at the whole press release. He will find the point that I have just made—that, in general, people in that period would have received an advantageous pension. What we all know about the point of age, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is that we are pledged to, and will, introduce age-related rebates designed to make contracting out attractive to people across the whole age range. Also, in the interim period, we introduced the 1 per cent. additional rebate to extend the viability of the existing system until that age-related rebate structure is in place.
    Mr. Dewar rose—
    Mr. Lilley: I have given way an awful number of times. Could the hon. Gentleman ration himself and possibly intervene again if he is really desperate? [Laughter.] I have given way infinitely more than the hon. Gentleman ever does.
    The new opportunities and flexibilities that we have brought to pension provision are of clear benefit to millions of people. If there are dangers that the availability of choice can be abused, our response is clear. It is to ensure that past errors are put right, to ensure that further safeguards are put in place for the future and to ensure that sufficient information is available for sensible choices to be made.
    That is the fundamental difference in the debate between Conservative Members and Opposition Members. Our response is to make choice better informed. Their response is to assert that choice should never have been allowed in the first place. Our policy is to encourage funded provision which reduces the burden on future generations. Their policy is to keep people dependent on the state and to add to the commitments of taxpayers in the future. Our approach to alleged mis-selling—
    Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Lilley: In a moment.
    Our approach to alleged mis-selling of personal pensions is to see that it is investigated and, if necessary, put right. The Opposition's approach is to seek political capital from it and to alarm millions of investors unnecessarily. I entirely recognise that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), as mentioned earlier, is

    975
    unusual in his party, in that he wishes everybody to have a compulsory private pension. Those are interesting ideas. It is a reflection on his Front-Bench spokesmen that they are so uninterested in those ideas.
    Mr. Field: We shall see how the Labour party fights the next general election: that is the crucial point.
    I intervene as somebody who believes that we need a system in which people are in the state scheme and in a second pension scheme as well. I tried to intervene when the Secretary of State made the point that the Government were concerned to reduce liability to taxpayers. I want to bring him back to the SERPS debate.
    Given that phrase about responsibility to taxpayers, does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that he has a responsibility to offer advice to those who are currently on low incomes and who may receive a low income over the next few years, that it is not in their interest, or in the interest of the taxpayers, for them to opt out of SERPS? Does not the responsibility go beyond the individual? Should not the taxpayer, at the end of the day, also have some say, whether it is wise or unwise to opt out, and does not the right hon. Gentleman have a duty to exercise that responsibility on behalf of taxpayers?
    Mr. Lilley: I mentioned that we have published a leaflet, made it widely available and advertised it heavily, to enable people to give advice on the sort of factors that they should take into account in deciding whether to opt out and what sort of pension provision to make.
    It cannot be said that it is always wrong for someone on a low income to take out a personal pension instead of being in SERPS. That would depend on the structure of costs. That is why we have done the next important thing, which I also mentioned, of making it clear to people what the costs are, by introducing transparency. Then people will be able to see whether it is worth their while and to compare and contrast.
    It is the underlying duty of those who market personal pensions to give best advice. There is evidence that that. has not always been done. That has been jumped on hard—and quite right too. I have absolutely no interest in overlooking any mis-selling in the past. We must get it right, and put it right. The industry has a vested interest in getting it right, so that it can continue to provide a valuable service.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Lilley: With respect, I have given way to everybody. So that the debate may continue, perhaps I may draw my remarks to a conclusion. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to contribute to the debate again, as he has already through my willingness to give way.
    Our pension promises have already brought the prospect of increased prosperity to millions of people. We have more employer schemes. We have more people taking responsibility for their own retirement income, and we have built a solid foundation of funded pension provision which is the envy of the rest of Europe. We have done that through increased choice and wider opportunity. Those will remain the characteristics of our policy in future.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The fine words of the Secretary of State seemed almost designed to conceal a scandal of our age—what occurred in pension transfers. It seemed that much more of a scandal because
    976
    it involved some of the most reputable and well-known, household-name insurance companies. The one consolation is that a number of those companies are such well-established and well-funded institutions that there is at least the prospect that most of the people who suffered from mis-selling may be able to be compensated. Indeed, the regulatory authorities must insist that all those people be compensated. The size and the scale of the scandal and the involvement of so many reputable companies must be a concern. I expected it to be reflected in a larger proportion of the Secretary of State's speech than it was. Only in his closing lines did he recognise, in response to an intervention, that the Government cannot condone the mis-selling that went on; only then did there seem to be any acknowledgement of what happened.
    The sale of personal pension plans was a huge exercise. It has been estimated that more than 6 million have been sold since January 1988. A third of them were sold through independent financial advisers and the rest through tied representatives—large companies and other large companies acting as their tied agents. It is significant that two thirds of the personal pensions were sold by big companies. Much attention has been given to independent financial advisers and there have been some bad apples in that barrel. There have been many concerns in relation to people being given extremely bad advice which was based on commission. However, two thirds of the problem was generated by companies who had no business to do anything of the kind. They had the resources and the experience to do the job properly and failed to do so.
    Penalties have been imposed on Legal and General Group plc, and Norwich Union Insurance Group is suspending 800 sales staff. That was significant enough for the Eastern Daily Press that this morning it was the only newspaper in the entire country that did not lead on the trials and tribulations of the Prime Minister. It led on the suspension of 800 Norwich Union staff. It is quite a big issue in Norwich, which illustrates the seriousness of the matter for large and well-known insurance companies. Norwich Union will not be the only company to be affected. Many more will be affected and will have to pay out a lot of compensation.
    However one considers the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte figures and however cautious one is about them, they clearly suggest that a large number of people on very low earnings have been wrongly advised to contract out of SERPS. As I understand it, contracting out will not simply include people who are substituting a personal pension for a state earnings-related pension, but will include people who, by transferring out of a contracted-in pension scheme, are giving up a combination of an occupational pension and a state pension for a personal pension. A number of people will have done so with earnings insufficient to cover the charges levied by life insurance. [Interruption.]It is an unusual privilege to be presented with a note from the Government Benches while I am making a speech. I shall come to it due course.
    It is believed that 500,000 people have transferred into personal pension schemes since 1988. The KPMG study reveals that only 9 per cent. of client files have been treated with "substantial compliance" by firms undertaking pension transfer. That leaves room for the possibility of great financial disadvantage being afflicted on clients who left more suitable occupational schemes. The KPMG report does not quantify the losses. It was not set up to do that. The report quantifies the lack of compliance. The lack

    977
    of compliance was almost total; virtually no one was complying with what they were supposed to be doing. But 37 per cent. of the schemes were suspect or unsatisfactory and suspect, implying that the advice was misleading, perverse or seriously wrong. That is a serious problem.
    Among the groups concerned were a number of especially vulnerable people—for example, redundant mineworkers. About 58,000 mineworkers were persuaded to move £736 million of pension fund money into personal pension schemes, followed by 23,000 steel workers, 27,000 teachers and 32,000 nurses. I know from experience in my constituency that redundant mineworkers were hired by insurance companies to provide the names of other mineworkers who could then be approached. Meetings were organised and great promises and offers were made.
    The present situation is that I have mineworkers coming to me—some of them have been lucky enough to obtain fresh employment; they are the lucky minority—who are going into a local authority pension scheme. They discovered that if they had remained in the mineworkers pension scheme, they could have transferred rights and benefits into the local authority scheme which they cannot now transfer. They have been severely disadvantaged and must be compensated under the terms that SIB described, and to which the Secretary of State referred. I intend to make it my business to see that any mineworkers in my constituency who are so affected are compensated.
    When we look back on this whole episode—what happened and why—we must look first at the role of the Government. At the time, the Government heavily advertised the desirability of transferring into personal pensions. They heavily encouraged opting out of SERPS by offering rebates and the 2 per cent. inducement. The Ministers involved are now respectively the chairman of the Conservative party, the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, and the Prime Minister, who was the Under-Secretary of State in the Department at the time. I ask whether one would buy a personal pension from any of those three. They certainly carry a heavy responsibility for what happened, because they were involved in creating the climate in which it was wrongly assumed by millions of people that it would be better to have a personal pension than to be in an occupational pension scheme or the state scheme. It may have been better in some cases, but in many cases it was not.
    Mr. Butterfill: Before the Liberal party seeks to gain too much of the moral high ground on this issue, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that for the past two years his party has failed to nominate an officer to the all-party group on occupational pensions, despite repeated requests to do so, and he is the sole representative of his party in this important debate.
    Mr. Beith: If I must appear before the Almighty on judgment day and say that I am sorry that I failed to submit a name for the all-party pensions group, and the three right hon. Members whom I mentioned must appear before the Almighty and say that their advice may have led many thousands—perhaps even millions—of people to finish up with much lower pensions than they should have had, I shall be in a more comfortable position than they are. To
    978
    assist the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) with that relatively minor matter, I shall certainly try to do so.
    Mr. Heald: The right hon. Gentleman complained about the advice given by Ministers to opt out of SERPS. Is not it Liberal party policy to abolish SERPS, as its 1992 manifesto says? If that is right, how on earth will all the people in this country who want enhanced pension provision get it?
    Mr. Beith: The advice must be against what is available and what the alternatives are. In the long term, it is not sensible for us to suggest to people that through SERPS we can give them a better deal than good occupational pension schemes, or, in some cases, personal schemes can provide. The question is what advice was given to people for whom that was not the right choice at the time. The wrong advice was given both by insurance salesmen and by the Government in the general background that they provided.
    The second failure was that of LAUTRO and FIMBRA. They did not produce any detailed rules until 1992. To some extent, LAUTRO appeared to have been captured by the trade that it was supposed to be regulating and simply did not discharge the job that it was given to do. In mitigation, one can say that those bodies had only just been set up and that it was difficult for LAUTRO and FIMBRA effectively to operate against the background that I described. The fact remains that it was a failure—and the biggest failure was that of LAUTRO. The biggest failure involved the biggest institutions.
    Part of the background was the growth of tying. A large number of other financial institutions—banks and building societies—became the sellers of only one company's products. That immediately put the consumer in a very dangerous position. If a consumer goes into a shop to buy a washing machine, even if the salesman is on commission for what he sells, at least he is selling one of a series of washing machines and will give some advice about it. It may not be an ideal position, but it is better than consumers finding their friendly building societies saying, "Of course you can have a mortgage; we can arrange it. By the way, your insurance will be with this company or that company. We have combed the market and in every respect that company provides the best products". That provided an unsatisfactory background for many financial decisions—personal pensions in some cases, endowment insurance in many cases and a whole number of other decisions.
    There was a lack of training for staff in those organisations for the job that they were doing. A large number of people went into banks, building societies and even insurance companies expecting to do one sort of job. They then found that they were under heavy pressure to make sales in a sophisticated area in which someone was not buying a small policy or an addition to his savings portfolio but was committing the whole of his pensionability—the whole of his future. That placed a heavy burden on people who were not trained to carry out that responsibility.
    Then there was the commission system with all the pressure that it provided in the absence of any real public understanding of how great the commissions and, indeed, the charges were. When I say the commission system, I am referring not only to the commissions paid to independent financial advisers but to the commission-only sales forces of some insurance companies and the employment terms of

    979
    those involved in other institutions, whose jobs or promotions were on the line if they did not sell more pension or insurance products.
    The insurance industry recognises the scale of the failure and what it must do Ito provide compensation. Most insurance companies are engaged in working on that task now; it is going ahead. I hope that it will not be delayed too much because I am worried about the number of people who may not yet realise that they should make a claim for compensation in that way, and the need to ensure that those claims are quickly and adequately processed.
    What about the future, now that all that has happened? The new SIB rules are welcome. Those rules require, for example, transfer value analysis and a better basis for making judgments about this sort of thing. There are rules for cooling-off periods and rules placing restrictions on independent financial advisers as to whether they are capable of and equipped to carry out business of that sort. However, the rules do not go to the heart of some of the problems. They do not deal with the commission system or the dependence of staff in tied banks and building societies on the sales that they make to keep their job or level of income. The rules do not deal adequately with securing disclosure across the board.
    There remains a great gap in all this. There is still no adequate provision of fee-based advice, so that someone can go to a genuinely independent adviser and say, "I want to know what is the best bargain for me. I will pay you by the hour for the advice that you give me". There are places in the market where such advice can be obtained, but people do not generally realise that it is obtainable. People do not always realise that they need to have such advice or that it is not what they are getting. The only way in which the commission system will cease to have the bad influence that it has is if more fee-based advice is available and people can see that it is genuinely to their advantage to pay a relatively small sum of money up front to get decent advice.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as long as we have a situation where it seems that those who pay commission to an independent adviser are paying a sum of money and those who buy from a direct seller are not suffering from the same disadvantage, fee-based advice will not become popular? We all know that those who buy direct are paying for in-house salesmen, expensive advertising and everything else—and they are paying in exactly the same way—but that is not immediately apparent to the consumer.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman makes more fully the point that I compressed too much. When I talk about disclosure across the board, I mean that people should be able to make a proper comparison of what they are paying through an independent financial adviser and what they pay if they go to a bank or building society and do business through the staff of those organisations, what they pay if they deal with an in-house insurance company of one of those organisations, and what they pay if they deal with one of the companies that do all their business through direct sales. There are charges, commissions and remuneration packages in every case. These can and do influence the sort of advice that is given, and this is something that the customer needs to know.
    Then there is the issue of the Personal Investment Authority, which is getting off to a pretty shaky start. I
    980
    identify two particular problems that are crucial to the future. One is the weakness in the consumer or independent director system. The criticism here is the opposite of that made by Standard Life and by the Prudential. My contention is that consumers or independent directors are not in a very strong position. They owe their appointment to the chairman and other directors, and their approval to a body created by those people. Several of them are directors of building societies anyway and are therefore already enmeshed in the system—some of the disadvantages of which I have sought to describe. That being the case, they are not in a strongly independent position. When it comes to challenging the accepted wisdom, the fact that, in effect, they are being paid £1,000 a meeting—£12,000 a year—to serve on this body might just deter somebody from upsetting those on whom he depends for reappointment. Perhaps that is an unjustified fear, but it is one which some people will hold and it casts doubt on the effectiveness of the independent side.
    However, some of the companies involved adopt the attitude that there are now too many of these independent people about and that, as it is not really self-regulation, they will not have it. That was initially the view of Standard Life, although I believe that that company has now accepted that it should be regulated, and that remains the view of the Prudential. In my view, it is indefensible that the Prudential should be allowed to shop around as to who regulates it. Technically it is regulatory arbitrage, but I regard it as an unacceptable notion. I hope that the Securities and Investments Board will say that its agents regulating the Prudential will be the Personal Investment Authority, or, at least, that the Prudential will be regulated according to precisely the rules that govern those regulated by the Personal Investment Authority. I hope that the Prudential will not be able to earn one jot of regulatory lightness by deciding to go elsewhere for its regulation.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that several Conservative Members agree entirely with the remarks that he has just made. It is up to us to ensure that the public realise that a body that tries to choose a regulatory authority to suit itself is not one with which they can deal confidently.
    Mr. Beith: My remarks carry that implication.
    Then we come to the crunch question that is implicit in the Labour party's motion: is there a statutory or direct system that would have saved us all this trouble and would be a great deal better? We must face the fact that there has to be practitioner involvement somewhere along the line. Otherwise, people simply will not be wise to what the trade was getting up to. There must be practitioner involvement to make the system work effectively. Could that be achieved satisfactorily with a Government-appointed regulator and some sort of practitioner committee structure? Perhaps it could, and perhaps that is the direction that we should have taken. What there is no scope for is a completely detached system of regulation which purports to have a strength that the present system does not have. We can improve the present system by making it more independent and accountable—accountable to Select Committees of the House of Commons, for example—so that it has some focus of accountability. But there is no easy, clear distinction between, on the one hand, what is known as self-regulation and, on the other hand, statutory regulation. Self-regulation is statutory in that there is a

    981
    wide range of Government involvement. It has directors who are not part of the industry. Statutory regulation means some kind of practitioner involvement. Any system is a compromise between those elements.
    Moreover, I do not believe that if we had had something that might be called statutory or direct regulation we should have prevented all that has happened in this episode. There are several reasons. The first is the atmosphere and background that I have described. Indeed, it is rather difficult for Opposition Members to imagine that the Government would have made a better job of restraining personal pension growth when their policy was to promote just that. It is rather far-fetched to think that, in this regard, they would have done better than LAUTRO.
    I intend to vote for the motion as it rightly focuses on a serious problem and on the need to strengthen regulation. However, I counsel against assuming that the word "direct", which appears in the motion, or the alternative that is sometimes used—"statutory"—implies a simple alternative system that would have delivered the goods, and will do so now. There are still marked weaknesses in the system that we have. We need huge improvements in respect of disclosure, the way in which the commission system works, the provision of fee-based advice and the independence and accountability of the regulators. But we must start from where we are and learn from experience.
    Tomorrow's financial regulation problem will not be personal pensions; it will be some other product. I am afraid that, inevitably, this debate is about the stable door and the horse that has bolted. We need to make the system effective to guard against sophisticated new financial products that would pose new threats to ordinary people who do not understand the complexities. That is all the more reason for working from here to build a better regulatory system than we have managed to achieve so far.
    6.35 pm
    Mr. John Butterfill: I should like to preface my remarks by reminding hon. Members of the entry in the Register of Members' Interests that shows that I am an adviser to the British Insurance and Investment Brokers' Association, which, together now with the National Federation of Independent Financial Advisers, represents about half the financial advisers in the country. I have taken a consistent interest in this matter—starting with the Committee stage of the Financial Services Act 1986, to which reference has been made, and continuing in my capacity as chairman of the all-party group on occupational pensions.
    It might be helpful if I were to sketch in a little of what I see as the background to the problem. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has done the House a service by bringing this matter forward for debate. There remain a number of very serious issues that the House must confront, and the opportunity to have a long and comprehensive debate of this nature is very welcome. However, we must look back to find out why this situation has arisen.
    First, why were occupational pensions derided by so many people? I believe that the answer to that question was provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he referred to the restrictions imposed by so many schemes. Many hon. Members may, even today, be victims
    982
    of those restrictions. I have a pension scheme in which I participated when I was in my 20s. That will pay less than £100 on maturity, when I am 65, as it was frozen when I left it in my late 20s. So many people were in a similar position that there was deep suspicion—now, fortunately, removed by Government action. Then, it was necessary to rely on the discretion of trustees.
    Personal pensions have a very important application for certain types of individual. Those who are relatively high earners and those who are likely to change their jobs often may well find that personal pensions suit them a good deal better than occupational schemes. For those people, personal pensions were, and probably remain, entirely appropriate. When all this was going on, there was immense public approval for the Government's proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Opposition Members who say "Oh!" should look at the newspapers of the period—and not just those supporting the Conservative party, but all sorts of newspapers. They were saying how wonderful these proposals were. Television programmes said much the same thing.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that most of the clamour of approval came from the self-interested advertising and promotion efforts of the industry itself, which wanted to benefit from massive commissions?
    Mr. Butterfill: Of course the industry was advertising, but I do not by any means accept what the hon. Gentleman says. He ought to do himself the favour of looking back at the newspapers of the period, where he would see article after article advising people what a wonderful thing this was.
    The proposals coincided with the banks' and the building societies' surge into the market. These institutions decided that this was a lucrative business in which to become involved, and they therefore used all the marketing pressure of which they were capable. That had not previously happened, and pensions had been largely the domain of the traditional insurance companies. That marketing pressure is what led to an expansion of those schemes beyond all expectations. It was expected when they were first introduced that there would be about 5000,000 sales initially. The actual figure was 3.5 million. As my right hon. Friend stated, the current figure is more than 5 million. The success of the schemes exceeded everybody's expectations, and that put a lot of pressure on the industry.
    Although most of the problems have arisen out of opt-outs or transfers, it is true that we have as a result a huge additional capacity which would not otherwise have existed. Many more people have been persuaded to save for their retirement in a way which overall can only be a good thing.
    What are the problems that have arisen? The first is the inadequacy of the regulation. It is quite clear that there was a total inadequacy within the regulatory structure, and I lay much of the blame for that not just on the self-regulatory bodies but on the Securities and Investments Board. There has been a total failure to address the problem of disclosure.
    The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) graciously allowed me to intervene on that subject. Disclosure is not merely the commission being paid to the salesman but the total disclosure of all the costs associated

    983
    with the product, what the effect will be if there is an early surrender and what other restrictions may be placed on the investor.
    All those factors are needed for a person to make a balanced decision. The investor does not need to know how much commission the salesman is getting, but how many pence in his pound will end up being invested on his behalf. Regrettably, there is still a failure in the regulatory arrangements for that to become sufficiently clear. A lot of progress has been made, but more progress still must be made.
    I made those points in 1986 on Committee. I remember that the Prudential told us that it was quite impossible to calculate what we were suggesting, although actuaries disagreed at the time. The actuaries have been proved right and the Prudential, once again, has been proved wrong. I believe that it is wrong today in its approach to the problem.
    The other problem was that there was poor training of sales staff. That was manifestly because the huge increase in the volume of business forced companies to take on people who had probably never sold insurance or pension products in their lives and who knew very little about it. Undoubtedly inadequate training still exists, as Norwich Union has evidenced.
    Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend surely will recall that another all-party group, of which I am chairman, went to LAUTRO for the first time more than three years ago and the problem of the lack of training of appointed representatives was identified. Does my hon. Friend agree that Norwich Union's decision and announcement yesterday shows how much we are getting to grips with it?
    Mr. Butterfill: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He and I have taken a long and consistent interest in the issues. It is long overdue that the major companies—particularly those with direct sales forces—ensured that they were adequately trained.
    It is a reflection of the inadequacy of the training that the KPMG report—I have here also an analysis of the report from the Association of Consulting Actuaries—shows, interestingly, that pension schemes sold by independent financial advisers—IFAs—tended to be much better advised than those directly sold by the insurance companies. One might expect that that should be the case for all sorts of reasons. An independent adviser would be more likely—indeed, would be required—to look around the market at a variety of products before coming down in favour of one on behalf of the client, whereas those who are tied can offer only the product of their own company.
    That factor is also probably due to the fact that many of those recruited had very little experience of the nature of occupational pension schemes. At least the IFAs knew something about them. The new recruits may have been car salesmen yesterday—
    Ms Abbott rose—
    Mr. Flynn rose—
    Mr. Butterfill: I will give way to the hon. Lady.
    Ms Abbott: I am grateful to both hon. Gentlemen.
    Does the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) agree that it rather suits the industry to harp on about training? I do not wish to minimise the importance of training, but it seems that the industry would far rather
    984
    talk about that than about the structural problems of a commission-driven system that drives people to make sales that they ought not to make.
    Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Lady anticipates remarks which I was going to come to later. I will address them now.
    The hon. Lady may know that I have made a number of speeches and have written articles in national newspapers about the commission problem. It is entirely inappropriate that people should be commission-only salesman, and should then be expected to give impartial advice. I do not believe that it is possible that somebody who relies on making the next sale to feed his family can be as impartial as he should be in giving advice. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it has been a deliberate policy of insurance companies to have semi-trained staff, and that the average time that people stayed in those jobs is about eight months? Is it not in the companies' interests to do that because the poorly trained staff sold policies in a less conscientious way and did not understand what was going on? Were not they also employed to sell policies to workmates, ex-workmates and families? When they had done that, they were of no use to the insurance company. Has not that been a deliberate policy for many years?
    Mr. Butterfill: I accept that there may have been an element of that, but I do not think that that would have been a deliberate or conscious policy for most companies.
    All the requirements of the regulatory organisations which are now in place lay great emphasis on training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will agree that unless we have properly trained sales staff it will be impossible for people to feel confident about the advice they have been given. Training is of paramount importance for the future, and it should have been in the past.
    Not only was there a lack of experience of the nature of occupational schemes, but many of the trustees and those who were running occupational schemes were not altogether unhappy about losing some of their beneficiaries. Some were good and advised people to think two, three or four times about transferring or opting out. However, others did not because they saw that a burden on their company would be lifted.
    It is also true that many of the trustees advised the actuaries who were acting for them in calculating transfer values to disregard all the discretionary benefits that would accrue to their member. As a result, many of the transfer payments were much less than satisfactory because the person selling the new scheme did not know enough about it. The people involved were therefore unable to get adequate advice on that subject.
    Yet another problem was that those who were given that advice did not always take it. It has not always been mis-selling. One can quote a large number of examples of people who were advised not to do it, but nevertheless said that they wanted the independence from their occupational scheme. They did not trust the company or the occupational scheme, or they may have thought that the company might not have a secure future.
    One of the disadvantages of occupational schemes, as against personal pensions, is that they rely on the continuing existence of the company that is operating the scheme. If the company goes into liquidation—as some of

    985
    my constituents who were members of the Pynford scheme have found to their cost—the pension goes out of the window. That scheme has been frozen for about three years, and that is another disgrace, which I may bring to the attention of the House on another occasion. There have been many more problems than were immediately apparent.The hon. Member for Garscadden—
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Butterfill: I should be happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Taylor: At this point in his excellent speech, my hon. Friend has raised the fact that there are some problems with occupational schemes. In the context of the debate, we must focus on that aspect, too. Occupational schemes are a problem not only in the circumstances that he mentioned, but when an employee has to leave the scheme because of a change of job. There are difficulties if occupational schemes exist and there is no availability of personal pensions. We have to get the balance right in the debate.
    Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
    One of the criticisms that I would make of the otherwise excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Garscadden is that he over-egged the pudding in describing the extent of the problem. There is a danger that in doing so we will discourage people from making personal provision. There is no doubt that we should encourage people to do that, but at the same time we should ensure that there is a framework in which they can do so securely.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman referred to the framework in which people take decisions. May I ask him a question about the regulatory framework? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that Joe Palmer, with his record at Legal and General, is fit to lead the Personal Investment Authority? The three early-day motions that I have tabled on the matter are fairly delicately put together. Would it not be good if some Conservatives Members signed the motions to show the industry that people in the House are prepared to say what the industry regularly tells us is the case? The industry has no confidence in that man because of his track record at Legal and General.
    Mr. Butterfill: I regret that I do not join the hon. Gentleman in that view. Mr. Palmer has considerable experience of the industry and is widely respected in the industry. The measures that he has taken in setting up the PIA, which was not an easy task and which I shall speak about later in the debate, have been admirable. The PIA is not perfect by any means, but Mr. Palmer is doing a good job and I wish him every success.
    Before I gave way, I was referring to the extent of the problem. In the analysis that the Association of Consulting Actuaries made of the KPMG report, there are two time scales. One is the time when sales took place before additional guidance was given by the regulatory organisations. The other is after additional guidance was given. Most of the errors that were identified by the KPMG report amounted to inadequate record keeping. It is true that systems were not in place to ensure that those who sold the products kept adequate records. The lack of adequate
    986
    record keeping does not of itself necessarily denote that there has been mis-selling for which people would need to be compensated.
    The report also says that in other cases, although the record keeping was all right, there was some suspicion that the advice that was given was not entirely impartial and not as good as it should have been. In other cases, there was a combination of that suspicion and inadequate record keeping. Those were the worst cases. If one takes the total of good selling, before guidance, coupled with mere inadequate record keeping, 61 per cent. of all the pensions sold were dealt with satisfactorily.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is trying to put a wholly unjustified gloss on that report. The report said:
    "Of 735 client files revealed, only 9 per cent. of the files showed evidence of substantial compliance with the main conduct of business rules."
    Mr. Butterfill: To assist the hon. Gentleman, I am stating that those who have some expertise in the matter—the Association of Consulting Actuaries is independent and expert, as I hope the hon. Gentleman concedes—have analysed that raw statistic to show what that failure to comply comprises. In many cases, it is simply a failure to fill in a form or keep an adequate record on a file; it is not evidence of mis-selling. I urge the hon. Gentleman to study the reports again in detail and to study the parliamentary brief prepared for Members of Parliament by the Association of Consulting Actuaries. The brief goes into far more detail and he will find it informative and instructive. One of the dangers in the debate is that people speak from too little knowledge of the reality of the position. It would be helpful if some hon. Members were better informed.
    On the basis that I have just described, 61 per cent. of pensions were adequately sold, but in some cases poor records were kept. In only 7 per cent. of cases in which the records were all right was the advice suspect. I do not defend the figures. They are appalling, but they are not the 90 per cent. failure to comply that some people have suggested. All that I am saying is that there is a danger that we over-egg this particular pudding and frighten a large number people, who may have received perfectly satisfactory service from the industry, into believing that all of them, or almost all of them, have been sold an inappropriate product.
    Mr. Dewar: The last thing that I would want to do is scaremonger. The pie chart that records sales after the regulators issued guidance, shows that 47 per cent. were both unsatisfactory and suspect and 11 per cent. were suspect. Even if we take that improved performance, 58 per cent. of the total of sales were either unsatisfactory and suspect, or suspect. That is a very unsatisfactory situation. It does not justify scaremongering, but it certainly justifies a great deal more concern than the Secretary of State showed this afternoon.
    Mr. Butterfill: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he is misreading the pie chart. If he looks at it, he will find that after regulation 20 per cent. of sales were passed. The 47 per cent. which he said were unsatisfactory were so because of inadequate record keeping.
    Mr. Dewar: And they were suspect.
    Mr. Butterfill: No. Only 22 per cent. were unsatisfactory and suspect. It is the darker grey on the pie chart. I agree that the chart is not terribly clear. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the satisfactory sales and those in which there was merely inadequate record keeping, he will see that, following guidance, the number of non-mis-sold or non-suspected mis-sold products rises to 67 per cent.
    Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that at this stage there is simply no evidence on whether clients have been financially disadvantaged, so one cannot draw conclusions as to what the losses are?
    Mr. Butterfill: That is right. Perhaps we should pass from here to a different aspect of the matter. I merely sought to make the point in response to the hon. Member for Garscadden that the scale of the problem was nothing like as big as some commentators on the subject have led us believe. It would be dangerous for us to leave the House having given people the impression that almost everyone who was sold a personal pension had been necessarily disadvantaged. The reverse is the case. It is estimated by the Association of British Insurers that probably only about 10 per cent. of all of them will require some form of compensation and that probably only 3 per cent. will require substantial compensation. That is still a significant and disturbing statistic, but it is nothing like so bad as may have been suggested.
    Ms Abbott: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but I am bound to do so because he is referring to an analysis of the KPMG report. I have a copy of the report. The hon. Gentleman has referred throughout to failures in record keeping. The report says, for example, that in 85 per cent. of cases there was no evidence of appraisal of pension alternatives. In 76 per cent. of cases, there was no evidence that the salesman had found out whether the client wanted to retire early. To talk about record keeping in a bland way suggests that the failures were merely technical minutiae. We are talking about the absence of elementary information used to decide whether the recommendation was in the person's best interests. The hon. Gentleman should read the report; it might help him.
    Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I have read the report. She is misinterpreting what it says. When the report says that there was no evidence of those questions being asked, it means that on inspection of the file it was found that no record had been kept that those questions were asked. It does not mean that the questions were not asked; it merely means that the salesmen concerned were sloppy in their approach and did not write the information down. It does not imply that the questions were not asked; nor that the comparisons were not made.
    As I have been trying to explain to the hon. Lady, it is a purely clerical analysis and where further analysis of those problems has been done it has found that the problem is nothing like as serious as the raw statistics suggest. I should like to make some progress now as many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
    It is significant that the figures.show that the regulator that comes out best is the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation rather than the Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation. That supports my suggestion that those
    988
    people who sought independent advice did rather better than those who bought directly from the insurance companies.
    The other concern I have about the KPMG report is that the Securities and Investments Board told us that it undertook the investigation because it looked at the records of the companies that it regulates through the Securities and Investments Board regulatory organisation—predominantly banks and building societies—found that there were serious problems and therefore instructed KPMG to look at everyone else.
    However, the SIB did not give us the benefit of an analysis by KPMG of the firms that the SIB was regulating. It would be very interesting to have a comparison, because we may find that the situation in those companies that the SIB was regulating directly was even worse than that in the companies being regulated by the self-regulatory organisations. That has caused considerable suspicion in the industry as a whole.
    What went wrong? I believe that the SIB totally failed to regulate the retail sector properly and I think that it goes back to the beginning of the process. Those of us who were present for the Committee stage of the Financial Services Act envisaged that the retail sector would be regulated properly. I was appalled when the SIB permitted the establishment of two regulators—FIMBRA and LAUTRO, one to regulate the independent sector and the other to regulate those products that were sold directly or through tied agents.
    It always seemed to me that that would be a recipe for disaster, but powerful influences within the industry were pushing the SIB in that direction. That factor, coupled with the regulatory arbitrage which the SIB has permitted by allowing certain people to be regulated by the SIB itself, has caused much of the current problem.
    There has not been consistency of regulation. From the beginning, the SIB should have insisted on a single retail regulator. There are those who ask, "Did the SIB have the power to do that?" I believe that it would have had the power if it had insisted on it ab initio. If it now needs further powers, I hope that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—my views on this subject are very well known to him—will take the necessary steps to give the SIB the power to direct people to that self-regulatory body by whom they must be regulated. We should also get rid of the four different regulators—there will, I hope, shortly be only two, but that is still too many. I wish the Personal Investment Authority well, despite my reservations about it.
    I believe that the SIB brief to KPMG was inadequate, for reasons that I have outlined already; I think that it should have looked at its own regulation as well. Its response was, frankly, a little hysterical and it has raised unjustified fears among the population. That has had an unfortunate side effect: because of the scare created, many independent financial advisers cannot get the professional indemnity cover that they need in order to trade.
    I think that the insurance industry as a whole must come forward with cover for IFAs as an industry initiative; otherwise, the IFA sector will disappear altogether. It is high time that the industry accepted overall responsibility for regulation. I have long taken the view that the insurance industry should be responsible for regulating itself properly and that it should not indulge in the factional in-fighting in which it has engaged in the past. When that

    989
    happens, we will see a satisfactory resolution of the problems. If that means statutory intervention by this or any future Government, I will be the first to support it.
    How can we remedy the problems of mis-selling? I believe that there are adequate remedies and I pay tribute to the industry in that it is now taking the steps necessary to solve the problems. People can be reinstated to their former occupational schemes where those schemes are willing to take them back. Of course, not all schemes are willing to do that, as the National Association of Pension Funds has pointed out. Some schemes told people that they should not leave and warned them that if they did the schemes would not have them back. It will be very difficult for those schemes to say, "All right, we accept that you did not take our advice, but we will have you back after all."
    However, some schemes will take people back and people will have to return with a sum of money sufficient to compensate them for what they have lost, which must be paid by the company that sold them an inappropriate product. That much seems clear. Alternatively, people who wish to return to a scheme could enter a new scheme set up by their original company. If people cannot return to a scheme, additional payments will have to be made into their personal schemes so that they are in no worse a position than they would have been otherwise.
    There is an urgent need to look at the whole structure of the industry. I agree with many of the things suggested by Professor Goode. It is essential that we establish an independent pensions regulatory body, and I hope that my hon. Friend will bring forward legislation to achieve that at the earliest opportunity.
    However, I am disappointed by some parts of Professor Goode's report. For example, I am very disappointed that it does not recommend the training of trustees, as many pension funds face the problem of inadequately trained trustees. There should be provision for training and, in the future, all pension trustees must be required to go through a process of not just vetting, which is obviously necessary, but training in the duties that they are required to perform.
    I think that we should immediately end regulatory arbitrage. We should have a statutory PIA if necessary. The industry must take responsibility for all its products, however they are sold.
    There should be much stricter controls on tying-in. I believe that there is still a serious danger in that sector. People are at their most vulnerable when they go to financial institutions to borrow money—usually in connection with house purchase, but also for other purposes. At that time, the financial institutions may say, "It is a condition of your loan that you have some insurance cover or a pension product that will pay out at the end of the day."
    There is huge implied pressure on the borrower to buy a product through the provider of the money. The potential for abuse in that area is enormous. Hon. Members will recall the concerns that I expressed on this subject in earlier debates. I honestly believe that it may be necessary to consider making that form of covert tying-in an offence under the regulatory code as it develops.
    However, I do not think that we should throw out the baby with the bath water so far as occupational schemes are concerned. There have been many comments to the effect that occupational schemes should preserve their money for
    990
    the benefit of beneficiaries and when there is a surplus in a scheme the company concerned should not be able to take a contributions holiday. I understand what motivates people to say that, but I believe that it is a dangerous concept.
    In a personal scheme, the risk on inflation and investment return is taken by the pension holder. In an occupational scheme, the risk on both of those factors is taken by the company. If the company is required to make up any deficiency, it ought to be permitted—if the markets go well—to have a rest from making contributions at times when there is a surplus. If we do not permit companies to do that, I believe that most companies will abandon occupational pension schemes altogether and offer only money purchase schemes. That would be to the detriment of the entire industry and the general public.
    In summary, although the Opposition have done us a favour by giving us the opportunity to have the debate, they cannot take the high ground because they have consistently frustrated and opposed measures to increase personal pension provisions.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), in a press release in June 1990, threatened to turn private pension provision on its head. We cannot therefore take any comfort in what the Opposition might have done had they been in power and we can congratulate the Government on having encouraged ever-greater provision—80 per cent. of people now can rely on more than their state pension. In the United Kingdom, the total amount invested in private pension provision is more than that in the rest of the European Community put together. The Government have much to congratulate themselves on, but there is still more work to be done in the regulation of the industry.
    7.10 pm
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is somewhat surprising to hear the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) attacking the Opposition for their reservations about personal pension schemes when the personal pension system and the Government's fanatical enthusiasm for it have caused the major problem that we are debating.
    The problem is a major scandal and the Opposition were right to offer notes of reservation and to tell the Government, "Hang on, think about it. This could be dangerous." They warned that the benefits would be less than those from the state earnings-related pension scheme, occupational pension schemes or other methods of provision. We were right to make those warning noises and surely cannot be criticised for them.
    The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West should have criticised the Government, because they perpetrated the problem, in collusion with the industry, which was greedy for commissions—commissions which were never effectively regulated and disclosed. The hon. Gentleman served on the Standing Committee that considered the Financial Services Bill in 1986, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). We heard frequent assurances that the new system would be regulated and publicised and that it would be clear to the consumer whom he was paying for what. It never turned out that way and it is only now, all those years after passing that legislation, that we are getting decisions on commissions.

    991
    The system has never been properly regulated. The industry was greedy for commissions and was in collusion with a Government who were fanatical about privatisation. People were pushed out of a good scheme into something substantially inferior. That is the scandal and that is what we are talking about. Massive advertising campaigns by the industry conned those people into contracting out. Through massive Government advertising, people were told to grab the money that they were giving. The Government spent £1.2 million on advertisements to encourage people to get out of the state scheme, in collusion with the industry, which would benefit from the incoming commissions.
    We have heard many quibbles from Conservative Members—especially from the Minister—about the number of people involved. Let us stick with the Coopers and Lybrand estimate of 2.4 million, which is equivalent to 40 per cent. of the people who opted out. That percentage—the chief victims—includes all those on low earnings of under £10,000 a year. The contributions that they can pay on such earnings make their scheme too inadequate to out-perform SERPS. In addition, they are paying a substantial commission to belong to the inadequate scheme. Those are the people who have been robbed—the less well off and the very people whom we should have been doing most to protect; but they have suffered most from that scam.
    I am aware that other reports put the figure at 3.2 million, which is equivalent to 60 per cent. of those who opted out and in Yorkshire and Humberside it is higher still, at 66 per cent., or a total of 315,000 people, most of whom are on low pay and have suffered because of the scam.
    The Minister said that we should not count people who had lost their jobs since they took out their personal pension. Of course we should. The burden of commission, most of which was front-loaded, falls on them especially heavily because the contributions that they made while in work are mainly drained away by it. They must be counted among the people who have suffered and they are included in the 3.2 million figure
    The heavy burden of charges and commission are the real problem. It is estimated that they amount to about one quarter of total contributions during a lifetime. The scheme must be not merely brilliant but supercalifragilistic if it is to increase performance to the extent necessary to cover the huge drain imposed by commissions.
    The industry is so greedy for commissions, but they make private pensions cover so inadequate. That is why the Coopers and Lybrand report states that contracting out is of "significant benefit" only to highly paid people in their 20s and 30s, who are prepared to take an investment risk. Those are the only people who should have been encouraged to contract out. The regulators should have compelled the campaign to concentrate on them and the Government should have concentrated their efforts on that group, although they are often sophisticated enough to know what they are doing. The campaign should not have concentrated on the mass of low-paid people who were taken out of the state scheme.
    Let us estimate the enormous cost of the scandal—about £11.5 billion to bribe people to opt out, including an allowance for the savings to the SERPS scheme. The Government spent £11.5 billion to encourage people to opt out of SERPS. There was also a cost to policy holders—principally the commissions, charges and mis-selling that
    992
    took place—amounting to £3.5 billion, as well as the cost of compensation for the people who suffered because of opting out. The last figure depends on how adequate compensation is and I have seen no proposals that satisfy me that people will receive adequate and reasonable compensation for the loss that they suffered. I saw one estimate of £1 billion, which has been put aside by pension companies to cover the liabilities that they will incur because of the scam.
    Let us be conservative in our estimates and say that it is not £1 billion but £2 billion. If we add all those costs together, they make a total of £18 billion to make the pensions of a significant section of our population worse. That is a tragedy and it is doubled by the fact that the Government were a conspirator, in collusion with the industry to achieve that end.
    The tragedy is compounded by the fact that, to crown the labours of the toiling hosts of Crossmans, Castles and all those who tried to develop an adequate pension system for this country—those efforts were mainly made by the Labour party and Labour Ministers, who, through great difficulties, attempted to develop comprehensive and effective pensions coverage—it was time to give the country a proper, effective and fully comprehensive scheme. Instead, the Government opted for the gimmick of privatising and opting out, in collusion with the industry, and thus wasted all that time and money and conned a significant proportion of our people.
    The Government have failed in their task of developing a proper scheme and providing effective pensions for the great mass of our people. They have coupled that failure with breaking the tie between earnings and pensions that a Labour Government introduced in the 1970s and sustained throughout their period in power. The basic state pension is, therefore, much meaner than it should be.
    We assume that society will be richer in 30 or 40 years' time—not much richer if this Government stay in power, given their present economic performance and such a fragile and feeble economic recovery—but most people will have pensions that are much worse than the average earnings of people around them. In other words, the standard of living of the elderly will not keep pace with that of society. Most people will be affected by that.
    In addition, 9 million people will fall down the holes between the various schemes. That is the estimate in the Institute for Public Policy Research document—an excellent document, which I recommend to all hon. Members—by Bryn Davies, who is the director actuary of Union Pension Services, and an acknowledged expert in the field. He says that three groups cannot now look forward to a reasonable level of income in retirement.
    First, there are those people who do not belong to an occupational pension scheme for sufficiently long periods in their working lives and who, for one reason or another, have not taken out personal pensions. Secondly, there are those people who belong to an occupational scheme but change their job so often that the rights that they accrue are much lower than those that would be built up by a long-serving member of the scheme. Thirdly, there are those people who have taken out a personal pension, but cannot afford to pay the level of contributions needed to provide worthwhile benefits. Those are the major sections.
    Therefore, 9 million working people need to make additional provision for their retirement, but cannot do so in any of the existing forms of provision. Those existing

    993
    forms offer no practical way for those 9 million people to make provision for their pensions. Therefore, they will be in difficulties when they retire.
    The fact that the Government, who should have been developing proposals to cover those people and sustain them in old age, have wasted their time pursuing that frivolous gimmick, which has been so damaging to less well—off people especially, is a sign of how irresponsible the Government have been about pensions. They are happy to provide for the better off; they are happy that people on substantial earnings can provide for themselves, but they are not prepared to do anything to safeguard the standards of those people who fall between the different schemes and cannot now be covered by any of them.
    The tragedy that we are debating is yet another indication that self-regulation has failed, and it has failed especially in that sector. The state, which should have been keeping a close eye on and protecting the interests of pensioners, colluded with the industry to push them out of a good scheme into a less adequate scheme, to damage their pension entitlement.
    It is a regulatory failure because the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Orgnisation is criticised harshly by, for instance, the Consumers Association. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West did not want to quote the Consumers Association, but it is pretty damning in its criticisms of FIMBRA, which has acted much more as a self-protection society than as a guarantor or defender of the wider public interest, and especially the interests of those people who were conned.
    The Life Assurance and Unit Trust Regulatory Organisation has been, as the Consumers Association said, fairly supine in the matter. The Securities and Investments Board has done better, but the Consumers Association makes a number of important points, which I should mention. Even though the SIB has done better than the regulators beneath it, it has made no provision for addressing what went wrong, and no provision for calling to account those who are responsible.
    Mr. Butterfill: I am interested to know how the hon. Gentleman can tell us that the SIB has done better because, as far as I am aware, as I said earlier, the SIB did not authorise KPMG to examine its own internally regulated companies. Indeed, there are many grounds to suppose that the companies that were regulated by the Securities and Investments Board have performed worse than most of the others in the market.
    Mr. Mitchell: The steering group that the SIB has set up to run the review is dealing solely with the compensation arrangements—I am quoting the Consumers Association's criticism of the SIB and its view that although the two subordinate regulatory bodies have been supine, passive and inadequate, the SIB has done only slightly better. One of the reasons that the Consumers Association gives for that is not the reason that the hon. Gentleman gave, but the fact that the SIB is not calling any of those responsible to account.
    As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West said, the big institutions involved must have known what was going on. They do not simply sit in some Olympian cloud, while the harried sales force is off conning people throughout the
    994
    country. They either instruct the sales force or they note what is going on. The fact that those people have not been—and will not be, apparently—called to account is one of the most monstrous things about the business. Those are huge, powerful institutions, in which the public need to have confidence, yet they have allowed—perhaps encouraged—sales people to go on a rampage round the country, conning 2.4 million people.
    The Consumers Association adds that consumer representatives have been excluded from the steering group and the advisory committee, and it adds that the very regulators who failed to protect the consumers in the first place, and to prevent the breaches of good selling practice and best advice, are now themselves investigating the potential misconduct that has resulted.
    There has been a serious regulatory failure. The Government connived in it for ideological reasons when they should have been protecting the public, but in that situation the regulators should have stood firm and controlled the situation. They did not; they failed. It is another nail in the coffin of self-regulation.
    I believe that self-regulation cannot work. I have done so for some time—since we went in for the self-regulatory frenzy of the 1980s, which started with the Lloyd's Act 1982. Self-regulation has obviously been a conspicuous success in Lloyd's. That frenzy continued through the Financial Services Act 1986, which was opposed by the Opposition, who demanded an independent statutory regulator. It continued in banking and the building societies. It continued in the Companies Act 1989, when we set up effective self-regulation for the accountancy profession with the recognised supervisory bodies. A fetish has been made of self-regulation, which the Government seem determined to extend to the whole country. I do not know whether they want a self-regulating country, but they certainly want a self-regulating financial sector.
    Self-regulation has not worked; it has failed and it is time to dismantle it. Self-regulation cannot work. The mafia cannot regulate the mafia. It is impossible. It is a structure which is over-elaborate, which is overlapping, which is confusing, and which, in the case of the Personal Investment Authority, is stumbling before it even starts, as the Government attempt to fill that gap. The authority cannot work because it has no firm base and no clear powers. Only an effective statutory base, setting out its responsibilities, and an independent role can make it work.
    The Government tried to over-compensate by over-elaborate rules, as they did in the Berrill regime in the SIB. Then they went into reverse and tried to simplify it all again, throwing everything into confusion, but the PIA is bound, of its nature, because it is inadequately based and its role is unclear, to be complex. One cannot effectively, through those puny regulatory bodies, regulate the huge big business interests that are involved in that and other areas.
    The big insurance companies, for instance, have not been regulated. Even now, they are not being called to account. In the case of the big six accountancy houses, the puny structure of professional self-regulation in accountancy and audit is supposed to call to account five or six multinationals, whose fees run into about £3 billion a year, when they permeate the institutions of accountancy and dominate all the committees of accountancy, running the regulatory structure in their interests. It simply cannot be done. We should not continue with self-regulation. It has failed and must be brought to an end.

    995
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), whose efforts in this sphere I much admire, is moving gradually towards supporting a structure of independent regulation. I welcome that process. It is a big advance because Labour Members did not advocate—not, at any rate, during the 1992 election—a structure of independent regulation after the vice-chancellor of the university of Waikato was transferred from his job involving responsibility for trade and industry. However, we are advocating it now, which is right.
    We have moved towards the idea of a statutory independent regulator—a new Securities and Investments Board. I welcome that, but it does not go far enough. The structure that I should like to see put in place would be based on the exchange commission in the United States. We should set up an independent, super-regulator with powers to call people to account, to investigate, to prosecute, to fine, to disqualify—all the necessary controls. To support that organisation, a series of commissions should be set up, all of which should be independent, should include representatives of the public interest and should cover the various sectors involved.
    Those sectors include banking, where we want an independent regulator and accountancy. We should have a securities and investments commission rather than the puny private company that we now have. We should have a company sector responsible for corporate governance. The structures should come underneath an independent securities and investments commission. That would give us effective, powerful independent regulation. We need that independence and the openness of an open sunshine policy because the City's reputation suffers without it, and a lot depends on that reputation.
    The type of scandals that been have allowed to go on and have not been stopped by self-regulation have tarnished that reputation. The financial sector's reputation suffers from the sort of scandals to which we have referred. The inadequacy of accountancy and audit becomes exposed and causes growing public concern unless there is effective independent regulation of accountancy and audit. The reputations of the financial services, the City and the financial sector on which the economy lopsidedly depends are at stake. They will not be saved unless we have an effective guarantee of the public interest in an independent regulator.
    7.32 pm
    Mr. David Willetts: The Labour party's attitude to personal pensions lies behind this debate. That attitude is, at best, one of unease and, at worst, one of total hostility. That hostility is shown in the motion because it does not only criticise the poor advice given to people considering what to do with their pensions—a problem which every Conservative Member recognizes—but it describes personal pensions as offering
    "no real prospect of security".
    That shows that the motion goes far beyond a discussion of procedures into the substance of personal pension provision.
    I want to make clear the risks and benefits of personal pensions. Many people refer to the obvious risk in personal pensions: the performance of the capital asset that someone has acquired depends on the performances of the stock market and the gilts market. With such pensions, one takes a risk that depends on the future performance of the capital markets. No one can know what will happen to the stock
    996
    market in the next 20 years. That is one of the problems with the speculative stories about how much personal pensions are worth.
    Equally, there are gambles involved in a traditional occupational pension—a gamble on the person's career, on whether he will stay with one employer for 30 years or move around, on whether he will have a period of unemployment, and on whether he will be on peak earnings at the end of his career. When one changes from an occupational pension to a personal pension, one shifts from a pension that inevitably has an element of risk, because one does not know what one's future career will be, to a pension that has an element of risk because one does not know what will happen to the value of one's savings in the capital markets. Neither pension can guarantee total security and many people would rather take a gamble on the future performance of capital markets than on the future shape of their careers, because many more people now move around more in their jobs. That is why we can expect personal pensions to expand as the labour market changes. It is the Labour party's inability yet again to understand the big economic changes and big changes in the labour market which is the source of its continuing hostility to personal pensions.
    We should recognise that there are two distinct problems the problem confronting people who have opted out of SERPS into personal pensions; and that confronting people who have transferred from occupational pension schemes and have gone into personal pensions. I shall consider each problem in turn.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is not in his place. I find the Labour party's sudden concern about the pension entitlements of people who have left SERPS rather bizarre given what it has been saying over the past two years. Many of us in the Chamber will recall previous speeches by Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in which they denounced the incentives given to people leaving SERPS. We were told that those incentives were too generous, and in particular that the total value of the Exchequer's liabilities that were being saved as a result of people leaving SERPS was much smaller than the total value of the rebates being given to people who left SERPS. If that argument is correct—and we heard it persistently from the Labour Front-Bench team—it cannot also be the case that those people who have left SERPS to take out personal pensions are as severely disadvantaged as many members of the Labour party now claim. The figures do not add up.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the mythology of the Conservative party involves its justification for reducing the value of SERPS—the demographic time bomb involving the number of elderly people? Does he agree with the statement
    "we are not facing a crisis caused by the increasing number of elderly people"
    at the end of a chapter in a book written by someone called David Willetts?
    Mr. Willetts: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that plug for my pamphlet. I do not believe in a demographic time bomb. There are good arguments for leaving SERPS and encouraging personal pensions that do not depend on the demographic time bomb arguments. I believe in people registering claims on future resources for their retirement through private contracts and private

    997
    savings. That is the Conservative approach to pension provision and that is the argument for personal pensions and against SERPS.
    The figures that the Labour party has bandied around about the expensive rebates for people leaving SERPS are not consistent with the argument that we have heard today about the supposed problems of people who have left SERPS to take out personal pensions.
    It is widely accepted that the financial benefits of leaving SERPS are particularly strong for younger people. We all acknowledge—it is a something that the Government are reviewing as they move towards age-related rebates—that younger people are most likely to benefit from leaving SERPS and taking out a personal pension. The figures prepared by bodies such as the Institute of Fiscal Studies and the Carnegie inquiry into the Third Age clearly show that the typical person leaving SERPS is someone at the beginning of his working career. A research paper for the Carnegie inquiry states that the take-up rate for personal pensions among men aged 22 to 26 who have left SERPS
    "approaches 50 per cent. whilst for those aged 47–51 it is little over 10 per cent… high take-up rates among younger workers are not surprising if individuals engage in a rational economic calculus of future returns from various types of pension schemes."
    By and large, those leaving SERPS have been younger workers who have probably taken a rational economic decision.
    It has made sense for younger workers to leave SERPS and more than half of them have done so in order to take out personal pensions. They have many decades ahead of them during which their personal pensions can accumulate in the saving schemes that they have taken out, whereas under SERPS they had only 20 best years during which to accumulate an entitlement.
    My final point about SERPS is that the Labour party's feeling for it is rather odd given that SERPS is essentially a negative means test. It is not a system that gives most to those with least; it is earnings related and gives most to people who earn most. One of the problems with SERPS is that people with low and intermittent earnings do not accumulate much of an entitlement. Admittedly, such people will accumulate modest entitlements to personal pensions, but they are not well served by SERPS either. Personal pension provision simply reflects the bias within SERPS—both are clearly earnings related.
    Another problem that has caused much concern is people who had occupational pension entitlements. That is a much smaller group than the many millions who opted out of SERPS to take out a personal pension, and people's worries about it are much better founded. It seems odd for anyone whose employer was contributing to his or her pension scheme to opt instead for a personal pension with no employer's contribution. Many personal pension providers now accept that personal pensions taken out in those circumstances are unlikely to be as favourable as remaining with an occupational pension.
    Another category is people who have already left an occupational pension scheme, perhaps because they are no longer in employment, or have changed employment. What were those early leavers to do with the lump sum remaining in their original occupational pension scheme? Those people are subject to scrutiny in the notorious
    998
    KPMG document circulated by the SIB, entitled "The KPMG Study on Pension Transfers". Some of the Labour party's interpretations of the document are simply not consistent with a clear and close reading of the text. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) pointed out, the study is essentially concerned with evidence on whether clerical procedures have been followed. Although there may be a problem, we cannot be sure of its size simply on the basis of that study. It is concerned with evidence about record keeping, but that is not the same as saying that there is evidence that bad decisions were taken.
    Opposition Members have no evidence that I am wearing shoes, but that does not mean that they have evidence that I am not wearing shoes. If, after much careful scrutiny, an extremely pedantic accountant comes up with a report saying that they have no evidence that I am wearing shoes, it would be no basis for their announcing that the Conservative Benches are full of people who, sadly, do not possess footwear. That is one of the ambiguities that Opposition Members have been shamelessly exploiting in the past few hours.
    We must also recognise the crucial point made at the beginning of the report:
    "There is no automatic connection between a client's file not evidencing compliance and the client suffering financial disadvantage. But non compliance will, in some circumstances, result in financial disadvantage."
    Of course it will in some circumstances. The crucial question is how many people are in those circumstances. This much-touted report simply fails to deal with that.
    May I consider some of the policy issues that arise from this debate? A parallel can be drawn between the story of personal pensions and the story of personal share ownership. One of the Government's successes in personal share ownership was spreading it widely. The focus was then on ensuring that share ownership was also deeper, which was the origin of marvellous initiatives such as personal equity plans.
    The same story applies to personal pensions. The initial success was spreading personal pensions much more widely. The objective must now be to make people's personal pensions deeper—worth more. That means that, alongside taking the rebates that were available from the national insurance fund, we must also ensure that many more people contribute from their own savings and that employers contribute. Instead of always looking at the bad news, we should welcome the fact that a third of people with personal pensions already contribute directly from their own savings. I hope that a consequence of this debate and the debates that have gone on for the past few months is that, in future, more people will recognise that if they want a substantial pension when they retire, they must be prepared to save up for it now.
    I also hope that employers will contribute to personal pensions. Looking ahead, there seems to be a sensible compromise between a pure, stand-alone personal pension and traditional occupational pensions which do not take account of changes in the labour market. That sensible compromise is a group personal pension in which an employer identifies a personal pension provider and contributes a top-up for those who take out a personal pension with that provider. Such schemes have lower administrative costs than when individuals take out their own free-standing personal pensions. At the same time,

    999
    they have the crucial advantage of personal pensions, in that every individual accumulates his or her carefully defined pot of money.
    The Department of Social Security's research reveals clear evidence that many employers have been worried about advising on pension matters and encouraging group personal pensions because they were afraid of breaching the terms of the Financial Services Act 1986. Many of the Opposition's criticisms of that Act are misconceived. The problem is not simply that some financial advisers have not followed its terms, but that it created a monopoly by saying that only certain categories of people could give financial advice, excluding others who may in the past have been happy to do so. Employers felt that, unless they were prepared to go through the cumbersome procedure of registering under the Financial Services Act, they could tell their employees nothing about pension provision.
    The speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of this debate made it clear that employers can give advice to their employees. If employers feel able to give that advice, and if they work with their employees in developing group personal pension schemes, personal pensions will not just be widely taken up in future, but will also deepen. Thus we shall fulfil the Conservative vision of people accumulating their own pot of savings, through their efforts and assisted by their employers, to ensure that they have a high standard of living in their retirement.
    7.49 pm
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The financial services industry is a large industry. It employs about 2.5 million people and is a crucial part of our economy; some 18 per cent. of our GDP may well be linked to the financial services industry. Most of those who work in it are decent, honest and truthful in their personal lives. That has to be said at the start of a speech which will contain a number of criticisms.
    There are problems in that industry that require regulation. Although we must be careful that over-regulation does not damage competitiveness or risk-taking, we have to ensure that there is sufficient regulation to protect the consumer. We are debating whether self-regulation is really adequate.
    The Treasury Select Committee, of which I am a member, is currently examining that issue. Clearly, it does not seem to have been adequate until now, because we have had a series of scandals and we have had to reorganise the SROs, FIMBRA and LAUTRO. From July, some areas under their control will be passed to the Personal Investment Authority. The PIA will also have a greater independent element.
    I was struck by the comments of a number of those who gave evidence to the Select Committee, who saw self-regulation as an important concept whereby the industry would begin to run itself. They were quite critical of the position we are approaching, in which the PIA has a large independent element. That means that we are moving away from self-regulation towards more independent regulation.
    Some parts of the industry take the view that if we are to move away in that sense from self-regulation, we might as well have single-tier statutory regulation. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said that the move to statutory regulation from self-regulation may not
    1000
    be such a big step in practice, because the elements of each system may contain parts of both. Indeed, a statutory system may well have practitioners closely involved in the way in which it is run.
    The man from the Pru, Mr. Mike Newmarch, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee, took the view that we should have a single-tier statutory system which would be a much more accountable and effective form of regulation. Indeed, the Pru announced today that it would prefer to be directly regulated by the SIB. That is all part of the industry's ability to shop around for the regulation that it wants. In a sense, I disagree with that element of the current SRO system, but the Pru is trying to make the point that a single tier of statutory regulation through the SIB or a similar organisation might be the best route.
    There is a strong case for change and for a move towards a system of regulation that can inspire greater public confidence. The key issue is confidence. The current scandals will become more serious. The home loans scandal and the pension transfer scandal will find their way on to the front pages and undermine public confidence in that important part of our economy. It is not necessary just for the consumer and for the industry; it is necessary for our economy and our country to have confidence in the financial services industry. That confidence does not exist at the moment.
    The Countrywide Independent Advisers told the Select Committee that the public feels little better provided for than it did before the Financial Services Act and, as we have already heard, the Consumers Association regards the present regulatory system as unacceptable and not providing a basis for any confidence.
    The pension scandal should not be underestimated. It threatens not just to expose incompetence and bad advice from some salesmen; it will also further undermine the whole financial services industry. When the SIB says that 500,000 workers might need to be compensated, when there is talk of £2 million to £3 million—and when the Association of British Insurers is suggesting that it could be £300 million—in compensation, there is a significant crisis of confidence in the financial services industry. That crisis must be addressed by the Government.
    If that amount of compensation or anything like it has to be paid, someone will be paying for it. The people who will be paying for it are those who pay premiums into the various parts of the financial services industry. It will hit the consumer. That is the nature of the problem.
    There is more than the problem of individual salesmen being incompetent or dishonest. Some of the media have suggested that that is the central issue, but there is also institutionalised incompetence and dishonesty within some companies that have had respectable reputations to date. As we are now beginning to understand, they have institutionalised both incompetence and dishonesty within their procedures by employing barely trained salesmen for short periods on commission only.
    The Norwich Union has now suspended its work force, having admitted the inadequacy of its training after the SIB drew attention to the problem. We should not be to quick to criticise the Norwich, because it took action. If we are too critical and if there is too much publicity, other companies may well be deterred from taking that necessary action.
    Evidence to the Treasury Select Committee—I have not had the opportunity independently to evaluate it, so I am just reporting it—was that companies such as Abbey Life

    1001
    have sent salesmen off to work after half a day's training with a copy of the "Yellow Pages". Allied Dunbar employs most of its sales work force on a commission-only basis. General Portfolio has indulged in pyramid selling.
    Not all companies have done that. Others, such as Clerical and Medical, are moving towards a salaried sales force. It seems to be working for them. All that shows the degree to which we should be concerned about the standards of many, until now, respectable companies within the financial services industry.
    A local concern has already been mentioned. Some 67,000 miners and 27,000 teachers have transferred their pensions from occupational schemes into other schemes where they may well be much worse off as a result. Three pits my constituency have closed, and Daw Mill, the only remaining one, has lost half its work force. As soon as the redundancies were announced, the salesmen were trying to encourage the miners to transfer out of their pension schemes and to invest their redundancy payments in particular ways.
    Many people lost because those who were advising them were not competent to do so. They were called independent financial advisers, and in some cases they were not independent enough—and certainly they were not good enough to give advice. Today, the chairman of FIMBRA told the Select Committee that he saw the biggest issue facing the financial services industry as incompetence, as did the chief executive of the PIA when she gave evidence to the Select Committee.
    Turing to the PIA, after hearing from both the chairman and the chief executive of the PIA, I am not convinced that they would restore confidence. Mr. Joe Palmer, the chairman of the PIA, was formerly associated with Legal and General, which has recently been fined because of the lack of proper regulation of its work force. To put in charge of an organisation that is seeking to restore confidence in the financial services sector a person with such a record does not inspire confidence in me, and I suspect that it will not inspire confidence in the public. Also, Miss Colette Bowe is associated in the public mind with the Westland scandal.
    It does not reflect upon the honesty, integrity or ability of either of those individuals. Although it may be understandable to have one person who has been associated in the public mind with a scandal being placed in charge of a regulatory organisation which is trying to restore confidence, to have in charge of such an organisation two people associated in the public mind with scandals is not the right approach.
    I hope that I have made it clear that what I have said does not reflect on either the competence or the integrity of those people, as individuals; it reflects more on the perception that the public may well have of an organisation that—if it is to continue—desperately needs public confidence. I suggest that, if those two people remain in place, it will not have that confidence.
    Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to attack Miss Colette Bowe—who was a civil servant at the time of the Westland incident—in quite a personal way, when she has no opportunity to defend herself, and, I believe, was not in any way criticised for her personal conduct at that time?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) may well have wanted to intervene on what the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) was saying, but it was in order.
    Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I clarify what I said? The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) made a valid point, and I did not raise the issue without giving it some consideration, but I am rather worried about the position in which the PIA has put itself.
    When I heard that those two people would give evidence to the Treasury Select Committee about the PIA, I at first hoped that we could have some confidence in that institution. Having heard the evidence and examined the issue in more detail, however, I do not think that such confidence can exist.
    Let me repeat that I do not wish to impugn the backgrounds or integrity of individuals; I am saying that our objective should be not only to establish institutions which—along with those in charge of them—are competent, but to ensure that they are associated in the public mind with images that lead to confidence and faith in those in charge.
    I am not making a personal attack. I am saying that, as spokesmen and spokeswomen for the public, we have a duty to ensure that we place people who will secure public confidence in the institutions that we are discussing.
    I am also concerned about admission procedures relating to the PIA. I shall not go into the matter in detail: suffice it to say that about 6,000 firms are involved, and some 100,000 salesmen; the PIA has a staff of 350. Many of those 350 people are not involved in direct regulatory work. The size of the problem with which the PIA is required to deal is not reflected in the resources available to it.
    Whoever leads the institution, I have grave doubts about whether, in its present form, it can make the necessary series of visits to all companies; moreover, it may not be able to examine what Miss Bowe, in evidence to the Select Committee, called "sick companies" in the detail required to establish whether disciplinary procedures should result from the question marks hanging over them.
    The case can be argued for two tiers of regulation. There should, perhaps, be a less stiff constant regulatory system for big companies that achieve adequate standards and meet inspection limits; firm regulation is needed for smaller companies, however. Such companies often work quite close to the margins, and we must ensure that they are properly regulated.
    The commissions issue has already been mentioned. Some advocate a move to advice for which fees are paid. That is clearly a better arrangement, but I am not convinced of its practicality. The public seem to accept that they must pay for legal and accountancy advice, but they do not expect to pay for advice on pensions, mortgages or insurance. Before we can enforce changes in commission procedures—we may be able to tighten them up, but not abolish commission altogether—we shall need a cultural change in people's attitude to financial institutions.
    Disclosure of commissions is important, however. I welcome the rules that the SIB now seeks to implement—not only those relating to disclosure of commissions, but all the other disclosure rules. Mike Newmarch—the man from the Pru—suggested to the Select Committee that the

    1003
    public would not understand most of the disclosure regulations. I think that he meant that genuinely: many financial products are very complex, and people would need some understanding of them to appreciate their terms fully. Nevertheless, I think that the fact of disclosure, of itself, gives people an opportunity to understand much better what they are purchasing. If we are to retain the present system—the Government have given no indication of a move to a different one—the SIB must do more to ensure and enforce full disclosure.
    As I suggested today to representatives of FIMBRA—who agreed—there should be a system enabling me, when approached by someone trying to sell me a financial product such as a pension, to telephone a regulatory organisation and find out whether, at any stage, that person has been barred from practising as a financial adviser. I should be able to do that easily and immediately, just as my clients can telephone the Law Society and find out whether I, as a solicitor, am on the roll.
    Not only should people be able to find out whether a financial adviser is currently on the roll, or has been removed from it; they should be able to discover whether question marks have been placed over that adviser's behaviour in the past. FIMBRA currently feels that it ought not to provide such information, although it will reveal whether someone has been removed from its register. The PIA does not seem to be clear about whether it is moving in that direction; I hope that, if it continues to exist, the public will have easy access to such a register.
    A number of other issues are relevant to the debate, although we have probably discussed them before. Let me mention a local issue. My constituents are concerned about employers' ability to skim off the so—called surpluses from pensions, and about circumstances that can arise when employers sit on the boards of pension funds.
    Atherstone Components, in my constituency, was in trouble, and persuaded the pension fund to buy all the plant and machinery in the factory. The company then went bust, the plant and machinery was worth nothing and the pension fund was massively depleted. As a result, the pensioners may not receive all the money that is due to them.
    We also need to ensure that only those who are genuine independent financial advisers can call themselves that. People should not be able to use that general phrase when they are working on commission—unless it is fully declared—or working for only one company.
    The fundamental issue is the conflict of interest between advisers and their clients in a deregulated market. Banks, building societies, insurance companies and pension companies all seek to make money out of their clients by providing services. The Government have tried to solve the problem by introducing self-regulation; instead, they have created a rather ramshackle and complex structure of overlapping self-regulatory authorities, which have presided over a series of growing scandals—the Lloyd's insurance market, Guinness, Levitt and, perhaps biggest of all, the pensions scandal.
    If the Government are not going to move to statutory regulation, they should take seriously the difficulties that many in the industry see arising at the PIA. There is no public confidence in it. There is a desperate need to ensure that there is public confidence. The industry must succeed for the sake of the British economy. It is an industry that consumers need and in which most of the public are increasingly beginning to lack confidence.
    8.9 pm
    Mr. John Greenway: I welcome the debate. It is a timely opportunity for the House to discuss and consider some important matters. I disagree with most of the Opposition motion.
    I remind the House of my interest. I have worked in the insurance and pensions industry for over 20 years as an insurance broker. I am an adviser to the Institute of Insurance Brokers. Perhaps most important in terms of this debate, I am an elected member of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council which regulates some, although not all, insurance broking firms under the Financial Services Act 1986.
    It may interest the House to know that the IBRC is a statutory regulator, answerable to the House through the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, operating under the provisions of the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 and subsequent amendments. It has a majority of practitioner members, all of whom are elected, which in my experience greatly assists its effectiveness. The registration council was set up to regulate the profession of insurance broking, and I should like to pay tribute to its founder, Mr. Francis Perkins, who sadly died recently, and for whom a memorial service was held in the City of London today.
    The IBRC is authorised by the Securities and Investments Board as a recognised professional body. That provides authorisation only for those insurance brokers whose business profile is not wholly or mainly the giving of investment advice. The registration council currently authorises some 1,460 insurance broking firms under the Financial Services Act, out of a total of about 3,850.
    The chairman of the council, Mr. Ian Ritchie, wrote recently to all the authorised firms requesting details of any pension transfer business that they had undertaken. No less than 99 per cent. of authorised firms have responded to the survey, and the council's provisional assessment of the responses is that there has been a small number of pension transfer cases transacted by firms authorised by the council. I should make it clear that that relates to people transferring out of occupational schemes into personal pensions.
    Seven cases have been identified. It does not yet relate to any who have opted out of SERPS into personal pensions, although my impression is that the number will not be as great as in other sections of the market.
    I cannot give the House any idea about the position on pension transfers with those insurance broking firms that are regulated under the Financial Services Act—not by the council but by FIMBRA. There are about 735 such firms. It may surprise some hon. Members to learn that there is a division of regulation under the Financial Services Act of members of the insurance broking profession. It arises entirely because of the drafting of the Financial Services Act and the "wholly or mainly" provision. The registration council has consistently argued that that anomaly should be removed, but that is an issue for another day.
    The IBRC scope rule permits firms authorised by the council to transact only life assurance and pensions business, not give other investment advice. It is a narrow scope rule. It is important to remember that the registration council provided perfectly adequate regulation of insurance broking firms for that class of business long before the Financial Services Act came into being.

    1005
    Under the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act, the council continues to have a statutory duty, answerable to the House, to oversee all the work of all insurance broking firms for all their business, even that part of the business, such as pension schemes, for which they may be authorised under the Financial Services Act by FIMBRA.
    I am sure that the House will see that that leads to considerable difficulty, of which the House should be aware. Intermediaries—insurance brokers—are sometimes struck off the council's register as a result of disciplinary action, often for failing to provide the required evidence of continuing solvency. Yet their authorisation with FIMBRA continues. They drop the term "insurance broker" from their letterhead and continue to give advice about general insurance, subscribing to the Association of British Insurers' code of practice.
    The insurance ombudsman, Sir Julian Farrand, in his latest report criticised strongly the ABI code of practice as inadequate. He has constantly called for all insurance intermediaries to be supervised by the registration council, but that idea has not found favour with the ABI or the Department of Trade and Industry, which appears to take the view that statutory regulation of intermediaries can create a barrier to entry to the profession or business, and that it would be anti-competitive.
    In essence, if an intermediary is to give advice about life assurance and pensions contracts, he must be authorised by a recognised body under the Financial Services Act; otherwise, it is a crime to give advice. However, he does not have the same statutory obligation to be authorised by anybody to give general insurance advice. General insurance is not the subject of this debate, but it is important for the House to understand that that is what is adding to the confusion in the marketplace about the status of various independent intermediaries. The House needs to grasp this issue firmly.
    Too much confusion of the differing objectives of regulation and competition policy lies at the heart of many of the problems that we now see in the Financial Services Act regime. It certainly undermines its effectiveness. That is nowhere better illustrated than in commission payments.
    There is justified concern that if one company pays a higher level of commission than another, it can influence or be an inducement to the advice of an adviser and the choice or recommendation of the company. That problem dogged the life assurance and pensions industry for years. When the Financial Services Act was introduced, life offices agreed a maximum commission scale, which most people in the industry believed was in the interests of the consumer.
    What happened? The Office of Fair Trading advised that the maximum commission agreement was anti-competitive, and it was scrapped. The result was a bidding up of commissions, with life offices doing deals with high street banks and building societies through tied agency agreements, under which over-the-odds commission has been paid for new business in personal pensions and in endowment policies linked to mortgages. The commission scramble coincided with the changes in pensions legislation which allowed pension transfers and allowed individuals to opt out of either occupational schemes or SERPS into a personal pension plan.
    1006
    Some six years later, what do we find? The problem of commission and disclosure of status remains unresolved, because of the continuing confusion between the need for strong regulation in the consumers' interest and the anti-competitive argument from the Office of Fair Trading. We still await the outcome of the SIB consultation on the new commission disclosure regime upon which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor insisted.
    I would not argue that all independent intermediaries and insurance brokers are whiter than white—some are not—but independent intermediaries have undoubtedly been disadvantaged by the current regime, while so-called tied agents, or appointed representatives, who currently outnumber them by about 10 to one, have gained considerable business volumes, often at the expense of the quality of advice to the consumer. It is my deep suspicion that, when the inquiries into pension transfers are fully unscrambled and resolved, we shall find that the problem was mostly in the tied sector, where people were not properly trained to give advice.
    It is therefore crucial that, in any new disclosure regime to be approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Director General of Fair Trading, in which I am absolutely sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will have a considerable involvement, independent intermediaries and tied agents are put on an equal footing.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the confusion has been the concentration in many debates on the divide between the independent and tied sectors? The consumer requires good advice, and there is a suggestion that somehow "independent" advice does or does not mean good advice, and that "tied" advice does or does not mean good advice. We need good advice, whether it is independent or tied, and we need the same standard for both.
    Mr. Greenway: That is true, but the situation is even worse. General intermediaries—household names such as AA Insurance Services and Swinton Insurance—are tied in respect of life assurance. How can they possibly say that they are giving independent advice across the board when, on the general insurance side, they are giving advice from a range of companies while under the Financial Services Act they are tied?
    That is why so me firms are no longer regulated by the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. It highlights the extent of the confusion in the minds of the public. I was going to deal with the PIA, but my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) reminded me of another important point, for which I am grateful.
    It has been said time and again that the public will have greater transparency about where the problems lie in respect of the PIA and who regulates or authorises whom. The trouble is that, unless we square the circle across the insurance industry in terms of intermediary advice, there will continue to be the confusion highlighted by the Consumers Association in its evidence to the Treasury Select Committee the other day. It said that visiting an insurance broker was like going to the worst kind of disreputable second-hand car salesman. I look forward to seeing the Committee's minutes of evidence to clarify that quotation, which has been reported heavily in the financial press. The trouble is that that notion is not true.
    The problem is that people do not know the difference between intermediaries who give the best advice and

    1007
    volunteer for effective regulation as all insurance brokers do—as I have already said, there is no statutory requirement to be registered, and one needs to be registered only if one uses the words "broker"—and the typical Arthur Daley outfit which should be drummed out of business. It is a tragedy that that still remains the case.
    There are encouraging signs that the commission explosion to which I and other hon. Members have referred is at an end, and that we may yet see a return to the more sensible arrangements of some years ago, when commission had to be earned over a longer period, thus creating a much better link between the quality of advice and the commission received—if a policy lapsed immediately, one received almost no money. That is not what happens at the moment.
    It is often suggested that some policyholders dlo not understand the long—term nature of the policy they are buying. On the face of it, that cannot be said of pension policies—one cannot possibly expect to benefit from a pension policy until one reaches retirement age. What has confused the issue, and what lies behind much of the criticism that we have heard today, especially from the Opposition—to the effect that people received bad advice about, for example, opting out of SERPS into a personal pension—is the ability to opt in and out.
    People were sold long—term contracts for perhaps 25 or 30 years, whereas their personal circumstances were such that, after two or three years of premium payments, large chunks of which were swallowed up in commission and charges, they had to opt back into SERPS, if they were given the right advice. That is one of the issues that the Government must sort out in their review of the incentives for people to opt out of SERPS.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) made a brilliant speech, in which he made it absolutely clear that, although it has to be conceded that there has been bad advice on pension transfers, the scale of the problem may be rather smaller than has been suggested. Although there will be different views about the extent of the problem, it is clear that the industry itself is making excellent progress in putting matters right.
    The problems of pension transfer cases are not, as the Opposition would have us believe, evidence that self-regulation does not work—quite the opposite. It is only because regulators, under the supervision of the SIB, have acted as they have that the issue has come so forcibly into the public domain. That is not to say that FSA regulation was perfect when some of the pension transfers about which we are concerned took place.
    I have already outlined the problems caused by the commission structure. A matter of even greater concern was the inadequate supervision of life offices by LAUTRO, which meant that far too many representatives were giving advice without proper qualifications or training. More than three years ago, LAUTRO told the all-party insurance and financial services group, of which I am the chairman, that it was tackling the problem head on. We now need to examine the results of its activity.
    At that time, more than 200,000 individuals were authorised as appointed representatives or tied agents by LAUTRO for its member firms. We are now down to fewer than 90,000. Why has the number dropped so remarkably? It is because LAUTRO, like FIMBRA and the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, has introduced a regime whereby one will not be authorised without having passed the exams for the professional qualification, with either the
    1008
    Chartered Insurance Institute or the Society of Financial Advisers which is being set up. The industry is now moving towards a situation in which everyone who gives advice will have to have a proper professional qualification before doing so.
    LAUTRO realised that Norwich Union had not come up to scratch or met the required professional standard. I dare say that other life assurance companies will receive similar treatment. We should applaud what has happened, and the fact that standards will improve, because that must be in the interests of consumers.
    I fail to see how a statutory regulatory regime would have made a scrap of difference to the regulatory improvements that we are now beginning to see. If there is any sadness in this, it is that Norwich Union thinks that it should have an 800-strong direct sales force strong to sell life assurance and pensions contracts. When I was involved with the day-to-day running of my firm, life offices such as Norwich Union used to offer their policies only through insurance brokers and other genuine independent intermediaries, including the banks and building societies in the high street. Of course, that was before the FSA.
    With the notable exception of the Bradford and Bingley building society, high street banks and building societies no longer offer independent advice—only tied advice. That is one of the problems that the FSA has created of which we should not be proud, but we call be proud that the industry is at least putting right the quality of advice. Self-regulation is now beginning to deliver a significant improvement in the regulation of investment advice for the benefit of consumers.
    In the context of pensions transfers, the current regulatory regime has taken the appropriate action. If the FSA had introduced a statutory regulatory regime, as some suggest is now appropriate, it would not have brought the benefits that some people believe it would, because the same officials at the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury and the Securities and Investments Board, or its equivalent, would have drawn up and implemented the various rule books.
    It is not meant as any personal criticism of any Minister past or present, but I also strongly suspect that if Ministers had been more directly answerable to the House for regulatory failures, they would have been more, rather than less, defensive in answering questions. We must not forget the lesson of the Barlow Clowes affair. In that case, the ombudsman report said that the officials in the DTI were not sufficiently streetwise to see what was going on in the industry. That is why we must maintain a strong practitioner involvement in all the regulatory regimes.
    A number of hon. Members have mentioned the Personal Investment Authority. I simply want to say that the costs of regulation envisaged are far too high, and I fail to see how a 40 per cent. increase in costs for FIMBRA members next year could possibly be said to achieve the Personal Investment Authority's objective of more efficient and cost-effective regulation.
    The PIA has not done its homework soon enough and adequately enough on professional indemnity insurance, and it now recognises that. While there has been a lot of consultation already in the formation period for the authority, it would have been better if the prospectus recently published had been more of a consultation document rather than a "take it or leave it" proposition, which has so angered and outraged people in the independent intermediary sector.

    1009
    Nevertheless, I believe that, on balance, the PIA represents the best alternative available for resolving the current difficulties of the financial services industry, especially those relating to compensation and consumer complaints. Opposition Members should at least welcome the fact, as I do, that my noble Friend Baroness Turner of Camden, who used to sit on the IBRC, will be the ombudsman for the PIA.
    There may need to be some further legislative change to help the PIA on its way. Perhaps the best thing that could happen in the next two or three weeks is for the PIA to recognise that a start date of 1 July is probably too ambitious, and to consider a three-month delay so that we can resolve some of the problems.
    Mr. Hawkins rose—
    Mr. Greenway: I will not give way, because I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
    It is undoubtedly a matter of great concern if individuals have been given wrong advice about their pensions. The financial services industry recognises that fact, and is keen to put matters right. Nevertheless, we should ask ourselves what happens when people make bad choices in other facets of their lives, such as buying the wrong house or the wrong car or the wrong shares, or putting their money in the wrong building society. Do we have, or do we expect to have, a regulatory regime to deal with every silly mistake that consumers make? I believe that we should not expect that.
    The last thing I would urge of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary not to overlook, because it was never answered in the retail regulatory review that the SIB set up on the instructions of the Chancellor 18 months ago, is that we still must work out where the balance should be struck between caveat emptor—let the buyer beware—and a proper regulatory regime for the benefit of consumers.
    8.33 pm
    Ms Diane Abbott: Over and over again, we have to listen to Conservative Members get up and make self-serving speeches in defence of the financial services industry. I should like to say a few words on behalf of the consumer. The essential point about the pension transfer scandal is that it goes to the heart of what is wrong with our financial services industry and the regulatory regime with which we have been saddled after 14 years of Tory Government. The Consumers Association described the financial services industry as one which is
    "characterised by a level of incompetence, greed, arrogance and fraud".
    That just about sums it up. The problem that we face in 1994 is that, as a result of financial deregulation and the policies of the Government, more and more people are being exposed to the workings of the financial services industry, and the regulatory system is failing them. As more and more ordinary consumers whose mothers and fathers would have never had any dealings with insurance agents or stock brokers or the financial services industry have become engaged with them,-it becomes clearer that the regulatory system has failed.
    Where did the pensions transfer scandal start? I believe that it started, as did so many of the ills that currently beset us, in the triumphalist atmosphere after the 1983 election.
    1010
    After that election, a group of Thatcherites based at the Centre for Policy Studies began their so-called campaign to free the pensions industry. It was not about freeing the pensions industry, but about freeing the City to make vast profits out of hapless consumers by selling them insurance and other products. Norman Fowler, the then Secretary of State responsible, set up a retirement study group which involved a number of people including Mark Weinberg, the then chair of Allied Dunbar Assurance plc. At the time when the Government were involved in that project, Derek Bandey of the National Association of Pension Funds Ltd. Said:
    "I kept warning the Government that there is more freedom, and more security in a fund managed by elected trustees than in private pensions managed by a bank or an insurance company."
    The association also said:
    "It would be obdurate and shortsighted of the Government to disregard the strength of feeling about the very real disruption that must follow if the proposals are implemented … We regret that the stability necessary to provide for the long-term retirement needs of the working population is now to be destroyed",
    and destroyed it was.
    The Social Security Bill 1986 contained incentives for people to go into their private pension—a 2 per cent. rebate on national insurance contributions—and it was described at the time as a cowboys' charter. Some Conservative Members have talked about the benefit of hindsight, but, at that time, people tried to put to the Government the dangers that would follow from deregulation and opening up ordinary people to the attentions of the cowboys in the financial services market.
    As it happens, at the Department of Social Security in those days, there was a Parliamentary Under-Secretary called John Major. When he was asked about the possibility that many people might lose under the new regime that he was bringing in and what he would do to stop people losing out badly, he did not quite say that it was nothing to do with him, but he said:
    "The concept of turning this into a one-way risk-free option is entirely alien."
    In other words, people were going to lose and he had no plans to do anything about it. In that Bill, John Major turned down statutory limits on commission charges which would have been the answer to many of the problems that we face today. He turned down statutory limits on administrative charges which would have also spared many people the financial misery that they face today.
    With the Social Security Bill 1986 and with the green light being given to the private pension industry cowboys, the cowboys went to work and we now see the results. The KPMG survey, to which hon. Members have referred many times—I shall not repeat what has been said-was a careful analysis of 735 client files which found that 91 per cent. did not comply with regulations and that 37 per cent. were suspect.
    Conservative Member after Conservative Member has bobbed up to say that the press and Labour Members were making too much of the report, that the report was concerned only with technicalities and that there was not much to worry about. For Conservative Members to say that the KPMG report is simply a matter of technicalities is like Al Capone saying that he was done for his tax problems. The KPMG report revealed, and the further inquiries that the SIB is conducting will reveal, that tens or hundreds of thousands of people will have lost out because of the activities of pensions salesmen. They were not pensions salesmen who did not know, or who had not read

    1011
    the right forms, or who had not been trained, but pensions salesmen who were driven by a commission-led system so that they did not care about the outcome as long as they could bank their commission. Some Labour Members will be able to speak from personal experience about the damage that those pensions salesmen have wrought in their communities.
    Let us hear less from Tory Members about the problems being mere technicalities. The problems are structural and relate to the workings of an under-regulated sector and commission-led salesmen. One of the characteristics of the debate on the pension trusts debacle has been a high degree of complacency from both the industry and Conservative politicians. Tory Members said that the pension transfer scandal shows that self-regulation works and we should look at how the industry has moved to deal with the matter. The fact is that it has taken from 1988 until 1993 for the regulatory authorities to do anything about a problem that was foreseen when the legislation was introduced.
    A series of representatives of the industry have appeared before the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and breathed complacency and smugness. Colette Bowe, the executive-to-be of the Personal Investment Authority, said that the problem with pension transfers was largely an issue of competence. We had Mr. Newmarch from Prudential" which was heavily involved in selling pensions to mineworkers to their financial detriment. Mike Newmarch said that Prudential had examined its affairs carefully and found little evidence to support any need for concern among the pension transfers that it had arranged. Up and down the country, people who bought private pensions from Prudential say differently. Mr. Newmarch talked about the possibility of poor selling on the margin.
    Worst of all perhaps, Godfrey Jillings, the chief executive of FIMBRA, said that the SIB, in pursuing its investigations into pension transfers, made a mountain out of a molehill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Kenneth Clarke, showed more complacency.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Lady knows that if she is referring to current Members, she must give the constituency-in other words, Rushcliffe, Huntingdon or Sutton Coldfield. Perhaps next time we can have the constituency.
    Ms Abbott: The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: You should know.
    Ms Abbott: He is no colleague of mine. He came before the Select Committee reeking of complacency and said that the SIB appears to be dealing with the matter; it seems to be on top of the problem. He should tell that to the thousands of pensioners who now have a shadow of fear over their old age because they believe that, as a result of the activities of private pension salesmen, they will be worse off than if they had stayed with their occupational pensions.
    Why are the issues important?.They are important not only because the industry is anxious to have its interests catered for. They are important, first, because of the personal plight of the ordinary people who have incurred serious financial losses and who are living in a shadow of
    1012
    fear; and, secondly, because we have a Government who are committed to moving key elements of the welfare state into the private insurance sector.
    We have heard the discussions and we have read the papers about the possibility of not only expanding the private pension sector but moving sickness and unemployment insurance into the private insurance sector. If the Government tell ordinary people that the things that they took for granted in the past—security in sickness, security in old age and security in unemployment—will be moved into the private pensions sector, the Government must give them an assurance that the financial services sector is properly regulated. However, that assurance cannot be given at present.
    The issues are also important because in the 1990s patterns of unemployment are changing out of all recognition. When I left school in the 1970s, people left school and sought a profession, be it hairdressing, advertising or banking; we were looking for a job for life. However, young people leaving school now are looking at careers where they will move through a whole series of employers. Perhaps they will work much more on a freelance basis than we or our parents envisaged.
    When we talk about a working environment in the year 2000 and beyond, people will not be looking at a single employer for life. They will be looking at a series of employers, a higher level of self-employment than we have seen and a higher level of freelance work than we have seen. That makes it important for the financial services industry, as it relates to personal portable pensions, to be beyond reproach and properly regulated.
    The issues are also important because they shed light on the problems that are built into the financial services industry, to which I referred earlier, and the predatory nature of the industry. That predatory attitude is leaking into the activities of banks and building societies. We all find in our postbags complaints from people about the changed attitude in the high street banks and building societies.
    The question that the House must address is what should happen now. One thing that should happen is that we should hear fewer complacent and self-serving
    speeches from Tory politicians and paid representatives of the industry. First, the financial services industry needs to be called to account for the pension transfer scandal. If necessary, people must be prosecuted for mis-selling. With all the soft soap and the talk about the matter being one of technicalities, there is a danger that the guilty people—the managers of organisations who deliberately drove their salesmen to meet targets, regardless of the benefits of the product that they were selling—will go untouched. First and foremost, the people who bought the pensions and incurred a loss want to see the industry called to account; it must not be allowed to get off scot free.
    Secondly, it is important that any investigations into what happened should be made in the open. Last but not least, all the consumers who have lost out should be fully compensated. It is important that Ministers realise that it should not be for the individuals who bought the private pensions to think that they might have been sold a dodgy or inadequate pension. The industry must identify those people and contact them all. Where there has been a loss as a result of mis-selling, the people must be compensated. That is what consumers want to know. It should not be up

    1013
    to them to know that they have been sold a poor product. They must all be contacted, and they must all be compensated.
    Another thing that should happen is that Ministers must look seriously at a system of commission-only financial advisers. I have no doubt that if we clear away the verbiage about training and competence, at the heart of the problems is a commission-only system which drives people to make sales, whether or not the product that they are selling is in the long-term good of the client.
    We must also ensure that we have proper disclosure under whatever regulatory scheme eventually unfolds. I have lost count of the times that representatives of the industry have told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee that we cannot have disclosure because the consumer would not understand it and would not know what to do with the information. That attitude is patronising, arrogant, smug and self-serving. Of course, there must be elements of disclosure which even the simplest consumer like myself can understand. The industry must not be allowed to get away with saying that it will not disclose commission and relevant information because the poor consumer will not understand.
    Above all, what should happen is that the Government, who are committed to a large and expanding financial services sector, and who some of us believe are committed to moving elements of the welfare state into the private insurance market, must look seriously at the financial services regime. If the current regime has failed, and if the PIA is dead on arrival—as some of us believe—the House must look sooner rather than later at a tough system of direct statutory regulation.
    On the pension transfer issue, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe said that anyone who has been adversely affected can see their way to a remedy. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Thousands of people who may have been adversely affected do not know what the remedy is, and they want the Minister to shed some light on the issue tonight.
    The Government seek to dismiss the idea that the question of legislation on financial services can be opened up once again. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has dismissed the notion of statutory regulation. He said to the Select Committee:
    "At the moment I have seen nothing which suggests to me that it calls for fresh statutory provision."
    Far too many hon. Members who speak about the subject of financial services, far too many who serve on Committees and far too many people who advise the Government represent vested interests and, essentially, represent the industry. It is time the House listened to a balance of voices. If the intention is to open ordinary consumers up to the attention of the financial services industry, people deserve an industry that is cleaner, better regulated and more honest than the current one. The pensions transfer issue is a major scandal—a fact that all the speeches by paid advisers to the industry will not alter. The public are waiting to hear what Ministers plan to do, especially about the structural problems in financial services and about regulation of the industry.
    8.50 pm
    Mr. Ian Taylor: This has been an extremely good debate which has demonstrated a great deal of expertise on the Government side of the House. No amount of jibing by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) will cover the lack of real knowledge of the issue that has been evident in some quarters of the Opposition. Lack of knowledge does not help the consumer.
    I immediately declare my interests, which are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I advise the Commercial Union and Barclays de Zoete Wedd Investment Management. I happen not to advise them on insurance, as that is not my field of expertise, but on economic affairs. In any event, I am not speaking for either organisation this evening. Thus I have no embarrassment in declaring my interests. If some Opposition Members were capable of being retained by large companies the quality of debate on their side might be improved.
    The difficulty that has been evidenced is that many Opposition Members are against long-term capital accumulation and are therefore hostile to the principle of private pensions. The problem is profound. It is not the main subject of this debate, but I draw attention to something that influences the way in which people think whenever these problems emerge. There is a problem in relation to transfers out of occupational pensions and SERPS into private pensions—that is what we are addressing today—but there is nothing inherently wrong with private provision. It is very important that that be recognised and underlined.
    Another very important point is that, looking forward 20 years, it is almost impossible to conceive of any provision by the state out of current revenue—by which I mean a year's taxation—being sufficient in terms of pensions. In other words, we need means other than state provision to enable people to have a tolerable life after retirement. Those problems will not get any easier, partly because of the changing age profile, which I do not want to over-stress. The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) shakes his head. I hope that he will continue to shake his head after his retirement, when there will be a relatively much smaller working population.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I am conscious of the time, but I shall give way once to the hon. Gentleman as I have mentioned him.
    Mr. Flynn: As I said, there is no demographic time-bomb to justify this. If it is not now possible to provide a decent pension out of public funds, why was it possible for the 30 years following 1945?
    Mr. Taylor: The argument about a demographic time—bomb will continue for ever. The hon. Gentleman should consider whether state benefits alone have ever been sufficient. Many of us would like pensions to be much higher. The problem arises in relation to the taxability of the public. Bearing in mind the degree of people's readiness to bear taxation, we shall never achieve pensions sufficiency. My point is that the situation will get worse and that there will be more reliance on personal pensions.
    Another reason for the need for personal pensions, which has been mentioned by one or two hon. Members, is the change of jobs during the expected working life of any

    1015
    person. Indeed in this respect the situation may become quite dramatic. The experts now say that a young person starting work can expect to change his job between 10 and 20 times during his working life. In those circumstances, an occupational scheme alone would not be sufficient. This is a real concern. People need to think very carefully about the sort of personal pension provision they make. Occupational pensions have drawbacks. I shall not go into those, as I intervened during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).
    There is no doubt that any personal pension scheme involves risk. Every scheme must carry that health warning. The public should understand both the benefits and the risks of personal pensions. There are benefits that derive from funding, but there are risks attached and some of the risks have been discussed during the debate.
    In addition, considerable mistakes were made during the 1980s. Before becoming a Minister, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who will reply to the debate, was a very outspoken but constructive critic of the whole process of the Financial Services Act. I pay tribute to the work that he did when that legislation was going through its Committee stage. There have been mistakes. Clearly there are difficulties in the whole question of transfer out of SERPS. This is too big a subject with which to deal in great detail, but I have to say that the savings will be much smaller than was anticipated. Here we have a matter to which the National Audit Office has drawn attention. There will also be continuing problems relating to people's ability, under the Social Security Act 1986, to opt back into SERPS. I fear that any savings that the Government hoped to make over a period will be reduced unless some of the incentives are age-related. Thus, the Government must think very carefully about the way in which they target further incentives to contract out.
    The second area of mistakes relates to transfers out of occupational schemes, and the third concerns the inadequacy of explanations about maintaining adequate levels of contributions to pension schemes. It is one thing to start properly, but if contributions are allowed to decline, problems about the adequacy of the fund will clearly arise. Despite tax rebates of £6.9 billion between 1987 and 1992, there may not yet have been an adequate shift to long-term savings for people's retirement. Hon. Members have not focused on that additional worry today.
    The size of the problem is in dispute. Part of the reason for this is that the figures are not fully available. The Association of British Insurers has estimated that more than 6 million personal pensions have been sold since July 1988—about one third of them through independent financial advisers and the rest through tied representatives. Transfers and opt-outs from occupational pension schemes account for nearly 10 per cent. of the total. That is a useful background, but it is difficult to know the extent to which bad advice has been given in any of the new schemes. FIMBRA issued a report dated January 1994 which records a high level of evidence on client files that there was inadequate documentation on whether the client was made
    "fully aware of all relevant matters to enable him to make an informed decision when comparing the accrued rights in the occupational scheme with the likely benefits from the receiving plan."
    That is not sufficient evidence that proper attention was not paid. It is very difficult to get an estimate from the negative to the positive—
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Taylor: I should love to give way, but I am conscious that several other hon. Members wish to follow me. The hon. Gentleman must forgive me. I am not ducking out of it, but I am trying to be kind to those who wish to get in on the debate.
    The Association of British Insurers has estimated that the final cost for insurance companies will be between £200 million and £300 million, rather than the figures of over £1 billion which have been widely touted. Final estimates must wait for the SIB guidelines which will be made in terms of being able to assess the problem. Market performance will of course have an influence on the final figures in any event.
    On SERPS, the Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte report stated that it is
    "unlikely that insurance companies will need to make provisions in their annual accounts for bad advice in respect of individuals who have contracted out."
    In no way do I fall into the trap set by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington—that I am insensitive to the problem. It is agreed that there is a genuine problem. But there is no point in exaggerating the problem and causing concern to or scaring people who have taken out a private pension.
    There is also a problem of regulation. Have we yet got it right? I do not believe that a statutory regulatory formula is a panacea. There are plenty of points of evidence that indicate that the Government are fallible in regulation. A professionally related procedure—what is known as self-regulation—within a statutory procedure seems to be the right way of going ahead.
    However, as some of my colleagues with a greater knowledge of those matters have pointed out, a self-regulatory procedure has to be effectively run. In my mind, it has not yet been so. There are clear difficulties and many regulatory authorities had not got their act together by the time that there was a big push for personal pensions. Many of them did not seem to realise how much of the problem they should take into account. Many of them were swamped by the numbers and therefore were giving the problem inadequate attention.
    The setting up of the Personal Investment Authority is welcome, but it has been clearly set back by internal difficulties. That is not a satisfactory arrangement and the public are right to be concerned. I look forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary on that. I am not advocating a move to a different system—just that the present system should be more efficient.
    We must help those who are disadvantaged by mistakes that have been made. There needs to be some procedure that the public can use with confidence to enable them to assess whether they have a problem. In many cases, that is one of the biggest difficulties.
    I have noticed in some newspapers that one or two independent bodies are, on a fee basis, prepared to assess people's personal pensions to see whether there is a difficulty. Arrangements should be made by the industry to ensure that every person who has made the transfer is visited by someone independent of the insurance company to give quick advice on whether there should be a case for compensation, to help complete forms stating the basis of the claim, to sort out documents, to advise on the

    1017
    appropriate claim and the level of compensation and to assist in dealing with the insurance company and pension trustees.
    Those are basic things which otherwise may be rather too complicated for personal pension holders to take on. There will have to be some pressure through the industry to enable occupational schemes which people have opted out of to take people back, although there will be difficulties if the trustees find that they cannot take back people who have subsequently left a company. That area must be clarified, and I hope that it is given urgent attention by the industry.
    For the future, it is clear—I echo some of the speeches made earlier—that employers must provide more advice to those in occupational schemes, and explain to them the full benefits that they are currently obtaining and which they could put at risk by transferring prematurely to a personal pension..
    The issue of advisers working for commission only has already been dealt with exhaustively.
    The suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) that employers should be in a better position to make contributions to personal schemes so that there is almost a joint venture is a good way forward.
    Finally, training is absolutely essential. There should be training for the sales forces of insurance companies and it should be made sure that all salespeople can pass set examinations. The Prudential may be worried about transferring to the PIA because its sales force may not meet the examination requirements, but I think that the Prudential has a lot to answer for in its current activities. There should be more training and preparation for the trustees of pension schemes. I noticed with interest a proposal by Sir Martin Jacomb that the Securities and Investments Board should issue a code of conduct for trustees which would be enforced by the chancery courts. Those are positive ideas. The industry is looking at its problems. There is no doubt that the events of the past year have created a difficulty.
    We should certainly ensure that people who transferred their pensions on sound advice are not encouraged to revisit that decision. Where people were given bad advice and, as the Association of British Insurers has said, have been materially disadvantaged as a result, the problem should be rectified. Everyone in the industry should co-operate in rectifying it so that dependence on personal pensions in the future is not undermined by a lack of confidence now.
    9.4 pm
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I found it strange earlier to hear a Conservative Member talk about risk and how people should be more capable of dealing with risk on a personal basis. When one thinks that we are faced by the party of the Lloyd's losers and a Government who, like some mad member of Gamblers Anonymous, threw money at the pound to the tune of £8 billion to try to keep it afloat, one doubts whether the Government could tell anyone about taking risk sensibly.
    I wish mainly to speak to the part of the motion that states:
    "That this House deplores the widespread abuse and unscrupulous techniques used to sell private pensions, which have prejudiced individual clients and induced them to leave
    1018
    occupational pension schemes and the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme".
    In speaking tonight, I have to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who has assiduously raised this problem in the House in the past couple of months and with whom I have had a number of conversations. I wish to focus particularly on the problem of mis-selling because that is what this is about. That is what has been going on under the present regulations.
    Under the rules laid down by the financial regulator, sales people have a duty to provide the best advice possible and to sell only suitable financial products. Under almost no circumstance can I imagine that the best advice would be to leave a final-salary occupational pension scheme with a current employer for a private pension. Yet 500,000 people are calculated to have done just that. Employers usually make additional contributions to an occupational scheme. Occupational schemes often provide additional benefits not available with a private pension. The pension received is guaranteed.
    The transfer value—the sum of money that one can move—is often worth a lot less than the value of the contributions to the occupational pension fund. So why do transfers occur? What inducements were offered to encourage people to leave such schemes? We must come to the conclusion that, with the regulations in place at the moment, mis-selling took place. We must worry that without stringent Government regulation, mis-selling will continue to take place.
    The case is not so clear when an individual transfers funds from an employer's scheme into a private pension after he has left the scheme. In a number of cases, it would still be advisable to stay in the occupational scheme and transfer to the new employer when employment is found, but many people left in that circumstance also.
    We have also been told that a small group of people were affected. When one is talking about what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described as often the single biggest financial transaction in people's lives, it should be deeply worrying that 500,000 people took that decision. It is not a small number. It is a large number. There are only 5 million people in personal pensions schemes, so 10 per cent. of them left a safe occupational pension scheme. Something was certainly going wrong.
    Where the Opposition are locking horns with the Government is over the general background of the bribes given by the Government costing, we are told, £18 billion. I am used to that. I have just been debating, in the Committee considering the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, water and the water transfers. It cost the Government almost £12 million to transfer water from public into private hands. It seems that the Government are good at bribing people to take on their ideologies.
    Then there is the problem of commission selling and particularly sole commission selling. Commission is the only source of income for the person who has been told in sparkling adverts, "Your life can be like this: £40,000 a year and more; a house in the country." They have to go out and keep meeting the targets of their company or the broker for whom they work or they will be out of a job. I believe that that is what drove people to mis-sell. Unless we regulate against that, we shall never stop it.

    1019
    The Securities and Investments Board investigation has been referred to. On 8 December, the SIB announced that it was reviewing the position. The KPMG study came out on 16 December.
    We have had some dispute about the facts, but only 9 per cent. of the policies sold totally complied with the regulator's rules. If that is not an indictment, I do not know what is. Fifty-four per cent. were unsatisfactory. We have had disputes about whether they were unsatisfactory because they did not fill in the form correctly, forgot to send back some records or forgot to keep a piece of paper that they should have kept, or whether it was something more serious. The fact is that on neither side of this Chamber can hon. Members give a definitive definition of that—54 per cent. were unsatisfactory, 8 per cent. were suspect and 29 per cent. were unsatisfactory and suspect.
    The moderate estimate of the number of people who suffered is 500,000, but there is no way of knowing for sure, basically because 83 per cent. of the cases, as the Securities and Investments Board reported, have insufficient information to tell. That must tell us something about the atmosphere in which people operate when they take out a pension. That is not something for which the Government or the industry can pat themselves on the back. That situation should not have existed; there should have been regulation in a much more disciplined way.
    There is no way of knowing how many individuals involved were opting out of the current scheme—how many people were actually in work in an occupational pension and were persuaded to leave that safe haven and go into the situation which they are now in, where they cannot guarantee an adequate pension for their old age.
    Mis-selling basically takes place because of the drive for commissions. I remember many years ago in university—I would not call myself by any means an expert—running the student insurance bureau and working with the experts and doing it for no pay; doing it because I thought it was a good idea. I think that such expertise is very important. We have heard that when people are selling on commission, they have been trained for eight weeks. Eight weeks is not adequate. They are trained for eight weeks and then sent out to chase their friends—the people in their former industries, such as the people who may have worked beside them in the coal industry. It then became like a chain letter, moving from friend to friend, feeling somehow that it was a reference and a recommendation and getting deeper and deeper into the same trap as had been set for the first members who went into the scheme.
    The time scale of the years that it will take for the SIB investigation to come to pass is in the document. The letter that I received on 23 March had a huge list of the recommendations, but the time scale on page 25 was interesting. It says that the date is November 1994, which is as soon as is practicable, but the report mentions June 1995, with a review in September 1995. That is far too long and it is actually far too late for the 500,000 people who have been sold a pup by the people who were selling only on the basis that it was better for them, either because it had been tied to one company or because of the high commissions which they earned.
    Insurance companies whose sales people encouraged people to opt out will be liable for compensation. But if in 83 per cent. of the cases we cannot tie them down to the actual liability—why they were or were not at fault—obviously they will have difficulty getting that money. The calculation is that the bill will be £1 billion if compensation
    1020
    is paid in full. I do not see the industry coming forward and offering that £1 billion to compensate individuals. I have a funny feeling that the message that we got from some of those who are paid to speak in the House on behalf of the industry is: people should take their own risks and take their own falls. That is not good enough in a pension scheme, whether that pension scheme is sold under Government ideology in the private market, is put together as an occupational pension in a company or is the state earnings-related pension scheme, which I believe we should be giving people as a fall-back position.
    The regulated insurance companies have said that they were optimistic about the growth rates in their estimates. I suggest that they must now be optimistic in their compensation calculations to make adequate recompense for the things that have been done.
    We have heard that people can opt back into SERPS. That is at least one bolt hole for which many people will be grateful, and I am sure that many will take it when they realise that it will not be as profitable to remain in a personal pension plan, with the administration charges and commission charges taken off before their investment is put into anything worthwhile.
    The problem is with occupational pension schemes and the attempt to get re-entry into pension schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen has been doing a survey of companies and only two—British Airways and British Telecom—have said that they will automatically allow current employees to re-enter their schemes; whereas every other company said that they would either not allow it or would allow it only at their discretion and, in most cases, with some restrictions. None would allow former members to re-enter. The coal industry is one example where former members who have retired or widows cannot re-enter the scheme and they have lost their benefits. Most schemes have rules that forbid re-entry. Only one—BP' s—provided independent financial advisers to members thinking of opting out: in other words, advisers to provide a balance to the commission salesmen—to the people who are selling for tied companies and want to keep their target up because their job and future salary depend on it.
    The Government have said that it is up to the companies, but—on behalf of those 500,000 people—I must say that that is not good enough. The Government must ensure that those people who have lost are adequately compensated. The Government must intervene in some way because they created this monster, which has caused a great deal of distress for people with pensions in the private sector.
    The Government, together with the pension sales force and the company, are culpable and they should ensure adequate recompense and direct regulation. It is not good enough for the Government to say that insurance is just another market. We are talking about people's long-term futures and their security in old age. If the Government want to have any credibility, they must consider moving in that direction.
    We have heard of the LAUTRO actions, which restrict the number of people selling in the market and ensure that they are better educated. That probably means that they will not sell bad policies through ignorance, but it does not mean that the tied-policy selling will stop. It does not mean that selling on commission will stop, or that the idea of getting the bigger car and house and faster life style will not be depicted in the advertisements, which will still say, "Do you want to be a self-made entrepreneur? Come and

    1021
    join our company." What that means is selling people things on commission and if they are selling insurance, it will be sold just as hard as cars or anything else that people buy. However, it is different with cars, washing machines and hi-fis. We are talking about people's long-term security in their old age.
    I suggest that the Government should look seriously not only at their ideological differences with the Opposition but at the ways in which we could meet and do something for the 500,000 people who find themselves in trouble, the 2.4 million people whom Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte estimates to be in trouble and facing a negative situation and possibly, with direct regulation, ensure some credibility for the insurance industry.
    9.16 pm
    Mr. Michael Colvin: I shall deal with the narrow subject of regulation, especially self-regulation. I am not an expert and I appreciate that there has been much expertise in evidence in the Chamber today. We have heard from many hon. Members with interests in the industry, either as practitioners or as members of the Treasury Select Committee and the Standing Committees that dealt with legislation on such matters.
    I agree with the Government on the principle of self-regulation, which is the best method because in that way one ensures the maximum amount of expertise as close to the regulators as possible. Regulation is a very complex task and widespread practitioner input is essential for it to stand a chance of being carried out effectively and efficiently. I hope that there will be a change in the constitution of the Personal Investment Authority board, to give it a majority of practitioners.
    The Government's aim of creating a single regulator, in the form of the PIA, for the retail financial services sector is the right one. The elimination of regulatory arbitrage would a fundamental step forward for consumer protection and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) welcomed that. Those arguments were developed by Sir Kenneth Clucas in his report two years ago, but I am worried that the proposals have since been wrongly constituted.
    It seems that the original intention of creating a level playing field failed to materialise. The present system fails to apply consistent standards across the board. For example, the bank assurance sector is not subject to the compliance and training requirements imposed in the independent sector. Also, it does not require individual registration, which independent financial adviser members of the authority will continue to carry.
    The PIA promised comprehensive and permanent funding for the investors' compensation scheme, but that has not happened. The PIA expects the present figure of 7,200 IFA companies to be whittled down to 5,800 in the new authority. That means a loss of about 1,400 companies and those will probably come from the independent sector, as it is highly unlikely that either. the banks or insurance companies will be refused membership.
    The PIA will not deliver the promised step up in standards that we have read about. That is not even a guarantee that standards will remain at current levels.
    1022
    Developing professionalism in financial services is the best way of ensuring the health and probity of the sector. However, the PIA has rejected the training and competence proposals that would ensure that step change in approach. The admissions process would be an invaluable opportunity to vet all those operating in financial services, but the PIA has dropped its original intention to implement individual registration, and I should like to know why. It seems to me that the only step-up guarantee that has been given is in the costs of regulation, so let us not be under any illusions about that. Increased costs will, in the long term, have to be paid for by the consumer. The consumer has a right to be protected against fraud and malpractice—we all accept that—and the consumer interest should be the guiding principle of any regulatory system, but, if the costs are to increase, the consumer should be guaranteed a similar increase in protection.
    I hope that the Minister will tackle those anxieties when he replies to the debate, but the key question is: to whom will the PIA be accountable? Some of us are not satisfied with the PIA reporting to the SIB. The PIA and SIB seem to be trying to move away from self-regulation without bothering to refer to Parliament. As a result of that lack of accountability, some members of the industry have begun to suggest a statutory regulatory regime without fully understanding what they mean.
    There is an obvious duplication of effort and interest between the PIA and SIB. I believe that their roles should be separated. I should like the PIA to be created a designated authority. It would then have to report directly to the Treasury, while it would be released from its overlap with the SIB.
    I believe that the PIA should be headed by a fully independent chairman, free from industrial ties. I think that it was LAUTRO who told the Finance and Services Select Committee earlier this month that there is no one left in the industry with a totally clean record and the day-to-day responsibilities should be overseen by a chief executive who has a thorough and developed understanding of the financial services sector.
    I hope, therefore, that the Treasury will delay the implementation of a single retail regulator—the PIA. That would require the extension of the life of FIMBRA and LAUTRO—a task which I believe that they are more than ready to perform. The Government should not give a commitment to the PIA in its current form, the industry should not have to join the PIA in its current form and the consumer should not have to accept the PIA in its current form. The omissions from the PIA's prospectus should be rectified to reflect the original spirit of the single retail regulator that was proposed two years ago. Until that is done, I do not believe that anyone can apply to the PIA for recognition with real confidence.
    I want the step change in self-regulation that we have heard about to be a step forward—not, at the very best, a step sideways.
    9.22 pm
    Mr. Alistair Darling: I agree with the conclusion that the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) has reached, although not the reasons for it, and I shall discuss the Personal Investment Authority later.
    This has been an extremely useful debate because hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that a debate on

    1023
    regulation is long overdue; that is one reason why the Opposition have devoted one of their Supply days to the discussion of this matter.
    We are discussing, first and foremost, a matter of public interest. A pension is probably the most important thing that someone will ever buy. It is security for perhaps 20 to 30 years following retirement—sometimes almost half a lifetime. Buying a pension is more important than buying a house. We are also discussing an important industrial interest, however. Two and a half million people are employed in that industry and it produces 18 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product. It is therefore important that Parliament gets the regulatory system right. The problem with pensions is that the wrong choice made now may not become apparent for 25 to 30 years. Perhaps the only decent thing that Robert Maxwell did was dramatically to remind people that their pensions are vulnerable, and that nothing can be taken for granted.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) discussed pensions. I shall discuss regulation, which has dominated much of the debate.No Government and no regulation can ever take the place of an individual's judgment. However, a Government can and must ensure, first, that there is choice and competition in pension provision—that means providing knowledge—and secondly, and perhaps more important, that there is effective and efficient regulation.
    The issue before us tonight is not one of private against state provision; that is a false division. This is not the place to decide whether or not—or how many—pensions were mis-sold. That should be the function of an independent and detached regulator; it is not an issue which we can decide in the House tonight. The question before us is whether we have the confidence in the system of regulation that the Government have set up. I think that the answer for the Opposition, for a growing number of people in the industry and for the public is that we do not have confidence in a self-regulatory system. For that reason, we believe that the Government should bring it to an end.
    It is interesting that Conservative Members blamed the regulator but said that the system was all right. That seems to be inconsistent. The problem is that people want to make an informed choice, but are unable to do so. Far too many people may have become prey to unscrupulous salesmen or the casual approach of management. We should not always blame the insurance salesmen. It is evident that the management of some of the insurance companies must have known what was going on, particularly in the late 1980s. It is unfair and wrong simply to blame the infantry—the generals must take their share of the responsibility.
    We currently have ineffective and expensive self-regulation under the Financial Services Act 1986. That self-regulation has been dominated by the self-interest of certain vested interests in the trade. Those same self-interested parties fought the disclosure of commission and have been going about trying to talk down any concerns about the KPMG study into the possible mis-sale of up to 500,000 personal pensions. Those same self-interested parties are now only reluctantly facing up to the fact that the wrong advice was given in far too many cases; I do not know in how many cases, but I know that even the most conservative estimate shows that far too many people were given wrong advice in that crucial sector.
    For most people, a pension provides security in retirement. A decision about pension provision is probably
    1024
    the single most important decision that a person ever takes. But for the Government in the late 1980s, pension provision provided an opportunity to allow a lethal combination of inadequate regulation and the promotion of a pensions free-for-all. It provided an opportunity to peddle Tory dogma. Some unscrupulous companies saw private pensions as providing rich pickings from vulnerable people.Self-regulation has failed to protect the public interest and must be replaced by effective and efficient direct regulation. I do not mean regulation by the Government or the civil service; I mean direct regulation to end the nonsense of self-regulation.
    In order to understand what happened in the late-1980s, it is important to remember what was happening with pensions. In the same year as the Government handed over regulation to private interest, they were vigorously promoting the sale of private pensions through the Social Security Act 1986. The Government spent £1.2 million of taxpayers' money on a dramatic advertising campaign.
    It is extremely silly and stupid for the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) to say that the Opposition are holding this debate because we are against private pensions. We believe that state and private provision are complementary; they go hand in hand. I see the difficulty of that the hon. Member for Havant faces. He was director of the Conservative research department during much of that period in the late 1980s. Rather like a child who is reluctant to give up his comforter, many Tories are reluctant to give up the dogma, which they have clung to, notwithstanding the fact that it has failed.
    State and private provision are complementary. It is necessary to make an extremely complex series of calculations in order to reach the right decision about whether someone should opt for a private pension. It is abundantly clear that for many people, those calculations were never made—or if they were, the wrong conclusions were drawn from them. We must ask why possibly up to 500,000 people were wrongly persuaded to leave their occupational schemes. Common sense tells us that two people contributing to a pension scheme is better than one.
    We must ask why possibly 2.5 million people were wrongly advised to leave SERPS. Despite what the Secretary of State said about the Coopers and Lybrand advice, it was given. There would have to be good reasons to persuade elderly people or those on low incomes to leave SERPS and go for private pensions.
    Let us consider the events in the mid-1980s that led to the difficulties—to so many people being exposed to salesmen who depended on commission to make ends meet and on sales to keep their jobs. We should remember that the public are paying for the mistakes made by the industry. The public—the policyholders—have to pay for the failures of Tory dogma, which was put into practice in the late-1980s. When we consider those events and what Ministers were saying, it is not surprising, as many of my hon. Friends have said, that people were gulled into believing that private was always best.
    When he was the Secretary of State for Social Security, the present chairman of the Tory party circulated a press release dated 13 April 1988
    "During the next few months there will be dramatic new opportunities for the public in pensions. Everyone will now have the opportunity of a pension of his own … Every worker … needs to realise the new opportunities that there will now be."
    The advertising campaign showed an individual strung up in a straitjacket, which emphasised the Government's

    1025
    belief in the importance and desirability of private pensions. It was not until four years later that the Government started printing advertisements on a much reduced budget that emphasised that it was important to read the small print. It is not surprising that many people made the wrong decisions or that many in the industry saw an opportunity that they had never had before to sell pensions to people who should not have bought them.
    We accept that, for many people, it was appropriate to go into private pensions. There was nothing wrong with that. The choice of many others to do so, however, was ill-advised. Those are the people who will suffer. If a mistake is made, it may take many years to discover it and many years for the contributions to be made up and for the rightful position to be reached.
    It is interesting to consider the comments of the Prime Minister in 1986, when he was just starting his first job as a junior Minister with responsibility for social security. Although he expressed concern that there might be a problem with mis-selling pensions, he said that he was confident that
    "the Financial Services Bill will provide a cooling-off period."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 4 February 1986; c. 27.]
    It was eight years before the cooling-off period was applied to the sale of personal pensions—eight years during which many people were wrongly sold pensions and were made to suffer for the rest of their lives as a result.
    The Government have to accept that, because of the dogma that they peddled in the late-1980s, many people may have been sold policies that they should never have bought. The Government must accept a major responsibility for the climate that prevailed at that time and for the fact that many people may have lost substantial sums of money. Of course we blame unscrupulous insurance companies. Many insurance salesmen were unscrupulous in their techniques. The problems, however, would never have arisen if the Government had not created the lethal combination of inadequate regulation and a Government-sponsored promotion of a pension free-for-all.
    There were warnings at the time. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) to say that no one knew. We hear the same excuse for the tax increases. We are told that no one knew that the economy was in a mess. Just as there were people who knew that the economy was in a mess, there were organisations, including the CBI, who warned in the mid and late-1980s what would happen with a pension free-for-all. Many in the industry also expressed concern, as did the National Association of Pension Funds. The Government deliberately chose to ignore those warnings because they did not want to know. They peddled their dogma with reckless disregard for the consequences of their action.
    The Securities and Investments Board is already investigating the possible mis-selling of 500,000 private pensions to those who were persuaded to come out of the occupational schemes. It is interesting that many in the industry and many self-regulatory organisations such as FIMBRA and LAUTRO are extremely resentful that Andrew Large of the SIB decided to make that inquiry public. That speaks volumes for the weakness of self-regulation dominated by trade interest. It is fundamentally important that the regulatory system should
    1026
    have the public's confidence. It must be seen to be impartial and detached. It is singularly unhelpful when we see the self-regulatory organisations appearing to act as trade organisations and trying to play down what in anyone's view is a major scandal. I do not know how many people were affected, but I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there has been a serious problem. We shall not know the answer for some time. But for Conservative Members, and the Secretary of State who is no longer here, to say that it is all rubbish and is simply cover for Opposition Members seeking to attack certain pensions is grossly irresponsible—
    Mr. Butterfill: Who said that?
    Mr. Darling: The Secretary of State for Social Security said it during his brief appearance tonight. I understand that he had his mind on other matters. He is delivering the first Spectator lecture and it must have been a dreadful inconvenience to have to come and explain Government policies to the House before he pushed off. He tried to minimise the problem. It can do public confidence no good when the Secretary of State and some of the regulators attempt to rubbish the concerns that have quite rightly been raised.
    The SIB should also mount an urgent inquiry into the question of commission. Many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, have drawn attention to the problem, but all the training in the world and all codes of best practice will be undermined when salesmen are desperate for commission to feed themselves and their families and desperate to sell policies to keep their jobs. Some salesmen have been sacked for not selling enough policies. It is time that the industry faced up to the fact that, if that structural problem is not tackled, problems will increase.
    Members of the public will increasingly look to the financial services industry to make provision for themselves, but, in turn, they rightly demand that the Government provide an efficient and effective framework of regulation, which does not exist at present. A growing number of people in the industry realise that the system is deficient and that confidence, which they need as much as the public, has been badly damaged.
    A review of the regulatory structure is long overdue because we now have a dog's breakfast of regulation, which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) touched on. Had the hon. Member for Havant bothered to stay for the rest of the debate, he might have found his hon. Friend's contribution instructive.
    It is absurd that the Personal Investment Authority must bid for members at the same time as negotiating with the SIB for recognition. While the PIA is making regulations, the SIB is also making regulations under which practitioners must work. That cumbersome duplication is expensive, and the expense must be borne by the public.
    The PIA, due to open in July, has yet to start vetting some 6,000 applications, yet it says that it will examine each application individually. We shall believe that when we see it. It has still to agree its rules, regulations and qualifications, yet it wants people to join by 5 April.
    Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman said that he agreed with the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). Is he now saying that insurance companies should, like the Prudential, hold out and not join the PIA? If so, what confidence can there be in the meantime, before a fundamental change is made in the system?
    Mr. Darling: My position on the PIA is that I wholly welcome an opportunity to bring together LAUTRO, FIMBRA and bits of IMRO. My fundamental criticism of the PIA is that its roots are in a self-regulatory system that has failed. It is clearly a stop-gap rather than a permanent solution. I have spoken to people with all views in the industry and more and more believe that PIA can only be a stop-gap solution. They look to the Government, possibly in vain, for firm leadership on the matter. The public and the industry want a system that will last for 10 or 20 years and command universal confidence. One might have thought that that was not too much to ask, yet I do not suppose for a minute that we shall hear anything about it tonight.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) said, people are concerned about the PIA's chairman because he was chief executive of the Legal and General insurance company when it was fined a record £400,000 for gross breaches of LAUTRO rules on three occasions. It is not surprising that people wonder whether he is suitable to lead regulation of the industry. I note in passing that, in the same year as those fines were visited on Legal and General, it managed to raise its contribution to the Tory party from £28,000 to £40,000. Conservative Members may be grateful for that, but the public expect better and are legitimately concerned about the establishment of the PIA.
    The time has come for us to recognise that direct regulation is necessary. By direct regulation, I mean regulation by the SIB which would be answerable to Parliament. The SIB board should have a blend of practitioner and public interest.Practitioners should have a substantial input into regulation, not least because the industry will pay for it. It is important to have people who know and understand the problems, but it is equally important for those people—both from the industry and the Government—to be seen to be impartial and detached. We should remember that the Government have a vested interest in covering up some of the problems that are of their own making. We need a board that is seen to be impartial and detached to police the industry, and it is high time we got that. We shall be publishing a consultative paper early in the summer, but, in the meantime, it is important that people realise that the present system is simply not working.
    There is grave concern about the lack of training and the lack of competence. I agree with the hon. Member for Havant that ticking boxes and answering questionnaires is not an adequate check on whether proper advice is needed, but we need to imbue the industry with a greater a sense of long-term commitment and professionalism. We need the kind of professionalism that enables a salesman to say to a prospective customer, "No, you should not buy this policy," rather than attempting to sell a policy at all costs.
    Direct regulation needs to be put in place now because it will be cheaper and more effective and will command the confidence not just of the industry but, more important, of the public. It will avoid duplication and the present nonsense of horse trading for membership and continually reacting from crisis to crisis. We ought not to be having such debates in the House; we should have complete confidence in the regulator to investigate any allegations of wrongdoing, properly to police the industry and, above all, to enforce the rules and regulations without fear or favour.
    There is a growing problem in the financial services industry. The pension transfer illustrates those problems
    1028
    and is one example of them. For some reason, the Government seem paralysed and are not prepared to do anything about it. Before he became a Minister, the Economic Secretary used to say there were many criticisms of the regulatory system, but, since taking office, he has said nothing about it. Not surprisingly, the Chancellor has not turned his attention to the matter in detail.
    The industry employs 2.5 million people who look to effective regulation to carry out their trade. The public depend on the financial services industry and will increasingly look to it for pensions and savings products. People look to the House and the Government to start to govern and put in place a regulatory system that commands public confidence, but I suspect that when the Minister replies, we shall yet again listen in vain for assurances as the Government continue to abdicate their responsibility in this crucial sector.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for me to clarify that my reference to Atherstone Components was a reference to a company which has been taken over in the past three years by reputable directors, and that the pension scheme to which I referred was the Burlington pension scheme which is the one being questioned by those workers now at Atherstone components?
    Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for clarifying his earlier statement. I hope that all hon. Members, before they make speeches and comments, will ensure that what they have to say is absolutely correct before they stand in the House and make such statements. [Interruption.] Order. That applies to all Members of the House, irrespective of their status.
    9.43 pm
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Anthony Nelson): We have had a serious and measured debate, as befits the subject, which is of serious concern to many of our constituents and has raised anxieties beyond the House. I say immediately that I welcome the opportunity of answering what I think has been a forthright and measured debate on an important subject.
    The Government give high priority to investor and depositor protection and I shall seek to argue that, in a number of ways, we have sought significantly to enhance the protection of both. We also have an interest in free and fair markets. The employment in the industry to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) referred is extremely important, as are the liquidity and trade it brings to the country. However, while a balance must always be struck between the needs of an important industry—as part of our economy—and the protection of investors and depositors, I must make it clear that, in the context of our responsibilities, the Government and I will always place more emphasis on the latter.
    In the short time that is available for me to respond to an extensive debate, let me observe the proper courtesy and refer to some of the points raised by hon. Members. Following the opening speeches by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made an important point about commission-driven business. That point was picked up by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Garscadden.

    1029
    There is a lot of sloppy thinking about this matter. I do not agree with those who say that commission must be outlawed; I do not believe that it is necessarily a bad thing. I also believe that, if we highlight commission as the cause of some of the serious problems that have undoubtedly arisen, we may not be dealing with the real cause of those problems.
    If commission related to these or other products were outlawed, it would certainly lead to a diminution in the number of distribution outlets. Moreover, many people who would otherwise want to give advice—tied company representatives—would find themselves in a difficult position if they could not give that advice, whether on a commission basis or objectively. There is a danger that people would be even less well informed about the products on offer.
    Surely transparency of commission is much more important. There should be much more clarity about what is involved in buying a product: we should ensure that people understand what they are getting into.
    If I may presume to make one small criticism of the debate, I think that there was inadequate discussion of the awareness of the investing public: precious few hon. Members mentioned that. The Government—as well as the House, in various capacities—should turn their mind to how we can ensure that our constituents are more aware of the novelty and content of products, and the risks involved.
    We can seek to construct a system that will create greater public confidence in the industry, but we cannot deny that "caveat emptor" must play its part. The taxpayer cannot always pick up the bill for things that go wrong, any more than he can provide an absolute guarantee that everything will go right. We must place some emphasis on protecting the individual.
    Dr. John Reid: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Nelson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress in the limited time available. I will try to give way later.
    The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed mentioned the PIA. I reiterate my belief that its establishment may have advantages. I am subject to some limitation: I must wait for a report that I am expecting from the Director General of Fair Trading about the competition aspects before I can extol the PIA with more enthusiasm.
    However, although it may not be the only show in town, I think it is the best show in town and that it is "on track". I hope that the various constituents of FIMBRA and LAUTRO will view it favourably. I also believe that it should not, and will not, be deflected by the self-interest of some of its detractors. I hope that its prospectus will be carefully and favourably considered.
    The right hon.Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also spoke of the need for tougher statutory regulation. I would argue that that is exactly what we have tried to introduce, within the ambit of the Financial Services Act. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, with his revolutionary approach, would seek to cast aside our present system in favour of a lurch into the unknown—a new direct, dirigiste statutory system of regulation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, we do not support such a system.
    1030
    What I found most incredible about the speech of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was his comment, after he had made the points that I have mentioned, that he did not agree with the motion but would nevertheless vote for it. That is another typical example of the Liberal Democrats' wish to appeal to all aspects of opinion.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), whom I acknowledge as chairman of the all-party occupational pensions group, made an outstanding speech. He spoke about the KPMG report, and said that the scale of inappropriate selling may not be as widespread as some alarmists have suggested. I agree entirely.
    The degree of non-compliance with the rules of conduct does not necessarily translate itself equally into the extent of possible mis-selling or disadvantaged selling. That is why the Securities and Investments Board has established a steering group to look into these matters and take a considered and careful analysis of the extent to which things have gone wrong.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West also said that the SIB should have insisted from the beginning on one self-regulating organisation rather than two for the retail sector. Because he was a member of the famous Financial Services Bill Committee, my hon. Friend will remember that there was an argument in the mid-1980s about not having a streamlined, simplistic approach towards regulation, and that there might need to be diffusion.
    With the benefit of hindsight, that was an erroneous judgment about how things should or would turn out. The legislation does enable a more streamlined structure to be delivered, and that is exactly what is happening.
    The Government's approach has been to seek to maximise within the existing legislation the powers that are available. Andrew Large's report, which I wholeheartedly endorse and support, is determined to do exactly that, by bringing about a quantum leap in the standards and adequacy of investor protection, by using its powers of enforcement, by having more adequate standards of monitoring, and by ensuring that the competence of the SROs to oversee is more adequately met. I believe that it has already signified that such changes are in the making.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West spoke also about the problems of professional indemnity insurance. The PIA is aware of the problem. Cover is available, but I acknowledge that it is at a price. I expect the PIA to look at that.
    My hon. Friend made an important point about the training of trustees. That was looked at by the Goode report. It made a number of recommendations in that regard, one of which was that companies should allow time off for their employees who are trustees of occupational pension trust schemes, so that they can engage in training. I attach great importance to the training of trustees, and it is an important recommendation.
    The hon. member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is not currently in the Chamber, but he raised the problems of the cost and burden of commission charges. He said that he felt that, in future, pension provision would be inadequate. That point was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who said that he did not expect a demographic time bomb to explode. However, a theme running through much of the debate was whether

    1031
    provision, in addition to that provided by the state, will be adequate for the long-term future, and whether it will disappoint those who have contributed to it.
    We know that the size of the working population in this country will diminish relative to the pensioned population. Currently the ratio is about 3.3:1. Over the next 50 years, it will reduce to 2.5:1. That need not necessarily bring about major problems if the economy continues to grow, and grows substantially, and if both the private and public sectors can maintain their obligations.
    However, if the state is not to place an impossible burden on this and future generations, the case can be argued for increasing private provision. That is why the Government have supported the case for personal pensions. That is why the arguments for deferred consumption and displacing spending now for longer-term provision to care for an increasingly elderly populace are well made, and will be delivered more efficiently through the private rather than the public sector.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Havant made an extremely telling and compelling speech. He denounced Labour's inability to understand that the labour market has changed. Such changes make more appropriate our provision for personal pensions rather than for a monopoly of state schemes. My hon. Friend also said that the concern about transfers was better founded than that about opt-outs. That is absolutely correct.
    The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) said that there was a crisis of confidence in the industry. That is an overstatement. There is legitimate concern about the problems that we have been debating, but it is in no one's interest to be alarmist. The Government have sought to be neither alarmist nor complacent about those problems. The hon. Gentleman said that the PIA might not have sufficient resources, but it has also been argued that it is going to make too much of a demand by way of subvention on its members.
    It is true that the projected costs for the new PIA will be more than the sum total of the existing running costs of LAUTRO and FIMBRA, but good regulation costs money. Also, there is a clear trade-off between the cost of compensation, which is made if there is inadequate regulation, and the cost of regulation itself. The prospectus for the PIA contains reasonable and modest proposals for funding such activities.
    The hon. Gentleman also spoke about Mr. Palmer and Miss Colette Bowe, the chairman and chief executive of the PIA. I consider Mr. Palmer to be well qualified to do the job. He gave considerable public service as a member of the board of the SIB, and it is hurtful and inaccurate to suggest that he is unfit to fulfil the valued role that he is currently undertaking.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale spoke about the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. It is interesting that it has a lower incidence of problems with transfer business: that is indicative of the IBRC's high standards. He also said that a new disclosure regime must put tied agents and independent intermediaries on the same footing. That is an extremely important point, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin). People must understand that the intention is that there should be a more level playing field between tied representatives and independent financial advisers.
    For many years, we have been all around the houses on the issue of commission disclosure, and it was only when
    1032
    my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer faced up to the problem, made a decision and ensured that it applied not only to independent financial advisers but, on an equivalent basis, to the management charges of the tied sector, that we witnessed a significant change, which has been widely welcomed not only in the financial services industry but by the investing public.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
    Mr. Nelson: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I wish to deal with the points that have already been made.
    The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) spoke up for the consumer, and I congratulate her on that. She said that the industry must be beyond reproach. I agree that that is an aspiration which the industry should always hold before it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) did not advocate statutory regulation, but said that the present system must work better. I agree, and that is exactly the course on which the Government have embarked.
    My hon. Friend called for redress for those who have been disadvantaged by the problems that we have discussed, and the complicated issues involved in assessing exactly how that can be brought about are now being considered by the working party and steering group of SIB. I attach great importance to the assurance given by the chairman, Mr. Andrew Large, that redress must be forthcoming, but it must not be at the taxpayer's expense. Why should the taxpayer stand as an indemnity behind such cases? It must be for the industry to put right any mistakes that have been made.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours rose
    Mr. Nelson: I shall give way in a moment.
    The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) said that there was inadequate training for representatives. I share his concern to deliver higher standards of training in this respect. It is one of the issues that the PIA should be considering.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, with whom I feel a special sympathy for having to make a speech at 9.16 pm at the tail end of a long debate, welcomed the PIA in principle; I thank him for that. He asked to whom it will be accountable. The answer is that the PIA will be accountable to the SIB. It will have to determine whether the PIA, as an SRO, is conducting and fulfilling the statutory requirements. It will be possible for such authorisation to be withdrawn if it is not fulfilling those requirements.
    In that and other ways, I believe that the Government are delivering a step change in standards of investor and depositor protection in the country. We have taken very seriously the concerns that have been expressed in the debate, as I am sure have members of the PIA and the industry more widely.
    We must ensure for the future that we have a system of private pensions that meets people's aspirations, but delivers them the security they require. We must have for the future a system of personal social security that not only relies on the provision of state finance but allows people to make provision for themselves.
    Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 309.

    Division No. 190]

    [10.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dixon, Don

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Dobson, Frank

    Ainger, Nick

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dowd, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Eastham, Ken

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Enright, Derek

    Austin-Walker, John

    Etherington, Bill

    Banks, Tony (Newham Nw)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Barnes, Harry

    Fatchett, Derek

    Barron, Kevin

    Faulds, Andrew

    Battle, John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Fisher, Mark

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Flynn, Paul

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bell, Stuart

    Fraser, John

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Galloway, George

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Gapes, Mike

    Benton, Joe

    Garrett, John

    Bermingham, Gerald

    George, Bruce

    Berry, Dr. Roger

    Gerrard, Neil

    Betts, Clive

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Blair, Tony

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Blunkett, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Boateng, Paul

    Gordon, Mildred

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Gould, Bryan

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Graham, Thomas

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

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Burden, Richard

    Grocott, Bruce

    Byers, Stephen

    Gunnell, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife Ne)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hardy, Peter

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Canavan, Dennis

    Harvey, Nick

    Cann, Jamie

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Henderson, Doug

    Clapham, Michael

    Heppell, John

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clelland, David

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Home Robertson, John

    Coffey, Ann

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cohen, Harry

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Connarty, Michael

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Cousins, Jim

    Hutton, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Ingram, Adam

    Cummings, John

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jamieson, David

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Janner, Greville

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jones, Barry (Alyn And D'side)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, Sw)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

    Keen, Alan

    Denham, John

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Dewar, Donald

    Khabra, Piara S.

    1034

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Radice, Giles

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Randall, Stuart

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lewis, Terry

    Redmond, Martin

    Litherland, Robert

    Reid, Dr John

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rogers, Allan

    McAllion, John

    Rooker, Jeff

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooney, Terry

    McCartney, Ian

    Rowlands, Ted

    Macdonald, Calum

    Ruddock, Joan

    McFall, John

    Salmond, Alex

    McKelvey, William

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    McLeish, Henry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McMaster, Gordon

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Short, Clare

    Madden, Max

    Simpson, Alan

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mandelson, Peter

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marek, Dr John

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

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Snape, Peter

    Martlew, Eric

    Soley, Clive

    Maxton, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Meacher, Michael

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Meale, Alan

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Michael, Alun

    Stevenson, George

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Stott, Roger

    Milburn, Alan

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Miller, Andrew

    Straw, Jack

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Morley, Elliot

    Turner, Dennis

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Vaz, Keith

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Wallace, James

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Walley, Joan

    Mullin, Chris

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Murphy, Paul

    Wareing, Robert N

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Watson, Mike

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Olner, William

    Wilson, Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Winnick, David

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Worthington, Tony

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wray, Jimmy

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Pope, Greg

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Tellers For The Ayes:

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Mr. Eric Ilsley and Mr. John Spellar.

    Prescott, John

    Purchase, Ken

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Alexander, Richard

    Bates, Michael

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Amess, David

    Bendall, Vivian

    Ancram, Michael

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Arbuthnot, James

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Ashby, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Booth, Hartley

    Atkins, Robert

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bowden, Andrew

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Bowis, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    1035

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Brazier, Julian

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bright, Graham

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gorst, John

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Burns, Simon

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Butcher, John

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Butterfill, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hague, William

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Cash, William

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Churchill, Mr

    Hannam, Sir John

    Clappison, James

    Harris, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hawksley, Warren

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hayes, Jerry

    Colvin, Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Congdon, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Couchman, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Cran, James

    Horam, John

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

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

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

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Day, Stephen

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Devlin, Tim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Dicks, Terry

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jack, Michael

    Dover, Den

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Jessel, Toby

    Dunn, Bob

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Eggar, Tim

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Elletson, Harold

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Key, Robert

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Knapman, Roger

    Evennett, David

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Faber, David

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Fabricant, Michael

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

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knox, Sir David

    Field, Barry (Isle Of Wight)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Forman, Nigel

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Legg, Barry

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Leigh, Edward

    French, Douglas

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Gale, Roger

    Lidington, David

    Gallie, Phil

    Lightbown, David

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Garnier, Edward

    Lord, Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Luff, Peter

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    1036

    Macgregor, Rt Hon John

    Shersby, Michael

    Mackay, Andrew

    Sims, Roger

    Maclean, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Madel, Sir David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Malone, Gerald

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Mans, Keith

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Marland, Paul

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Marlow, Tony

    Spring, Richard

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sproat, Iain

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mates, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Stephen, Michael

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Stern, Michael

    Merchant, Piers

    Stewart, Allan

    Mills, Iain

    Streeter, Gary

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Sumberg, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Sykes, John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thomason, Roy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Norris, Steve

    Thurnham, Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

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

    Ottaway, Richard

    Tracey, Richard

    Page, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Paice, James

    Trend, Michael

    Patnick, Irvine

    Trotter, Neville

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Pawsey, James

    Viggers, Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Pickles, Eric

    Walden, George

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waller, Gary

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Ward, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Richards, Rod

    Watts, John

    Riddick, Graham

    Wells, Bowen

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Whitney, Ray

    Robathan, Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wilkinson, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Willetts, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Wilshire, David

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Sackville, Tom

    Wolfson, Mark

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Wood, Timothy

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Yeo, Tim

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Tellers For The Noes:

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Derek Conway.

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 190.

    Division No. 191]

    [10.15 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Dykes, Hugh

    Alexander, Richard

    Eggar, Tim

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Elletson, Harold

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Amess, David

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Ancram, Michael

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Evennett, David

    Ashby, David

    Faber, David

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fabricant, Michael

    Atkins, Robert

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Baldry, Tony

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Bates, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Batiste, Spencer

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gale, Roger

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gallie, Phil

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Body, Sir Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Booth, Hartley

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Boswell, Tim

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gorst, John

    Bowis, John

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Brazier, Julian

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Bright, Graham

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hague, William

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Burns, Simon

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Butcher, John

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Butterfill, John

    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

    Hayes, Jerry

    Churchill, Mr

    Heald, Oliver

    Clappison, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hendry, Charles

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Colvin, Michael

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Congdon, David

    Horam, John

    Conway, Derek

    Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Couchman, James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Cran, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jack, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Devlin, Tim

    Jessel, Toby

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Duncan, Alan

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Key, Robert

    Dunn, Bob

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    1038

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knapman, Roger

    Sackville, Tom

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knox, Sir David

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shersby, Michael

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sims, Roger

    Legg, Barry

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Leigh, Edward

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lennox-Boyd, Mark

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lidington, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lightbown, David

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Spring, Richard

    Lord, Michael

    Sproat, Iain

    Luff, Peter

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    MacKay, Andrew

    Steen, Anthony

    Maclean, David

    Stephen, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stern, Michael

    Madel, Sir David

    Streeter, Gary

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Sumberg, David

    Marland, Paul

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sykes, John

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Mates, Michael

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Thomason, Roy

    Mills, Iain

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Thurnham, Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tracey, Richard

    Nelson, Anthony

    Tredinnick, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Trend, Michael

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Trotter, Neville

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Viggers, Peter

    Norris, Steve

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Walden, George

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waller, Gary

    Page, Richard

    Ward, John

    Paice, James

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Waterson, Nigel

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Watts, John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wells, Bowen

    Pawsey, James

    Whitney, Ray

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Whittingdale, John

    Pickles, Eric

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Willetts, David

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wilshire, David

    Richards, Rod

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Riddick, Graham

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Wolfson, Mark

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wood, Timothy

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Yeo, Tim

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell and Mr. James Arbuthnot.

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Austin-Walker, John

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Barnes, Harry

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Barron, Kevin

    1039

    Battle, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Bayley, Hugh

    Henderson, Doug

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Hinchliffe, David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Hoey, Kate

    Benton, Joe

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Home Robertson, John

    Betts, Clive

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Blair, Tony

    Hoyle, Doug

    Blunkett, David

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Boateng, Paul

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

    Hutton, John

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Ingram, Adam

    Burden, Richard

    Jamieson, David

    Byers, Stephen

    Janner, Greville

    Callaghan, Jim

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Keen, Alan

    Clapham, Michael

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Lewis, Terry

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Litherland, Robert

    Clelland, David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Loyden, Eddie

    Coffey, Ann

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Cohen, Harry

    McAllion, John

    Connarty, Michael

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    McCartney, Ian

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Macdonald, Calum

    Corston, Ms Jean

    McFall, John

    Cousins, Jim

    McKelvey, William

    Cryer, Bob

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    McLeish, Henry

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    McMaster, Gordon

    Dafis, Cynog

    Madden, Max

    Dalyell, Tam

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Darling, Alistair

    Mandelson, Peter

    Davidson, Ian

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

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

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Denham, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Dewar, Donald

    Maxton, John

    Dixon, Don

    Meacher, Michael

    Dobson, Frank

    Meale, Alan

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Michael, Alun

    Dowd, Jim

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Milburn, Alan

    Eastham, Ken

    Miller, Andrew

    Enright, Derek

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Etherington, Bill

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fatchett, Derek

    Morley, Elliot

    Faulds, Andrew

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Field, Frank (Blrkenhead)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Fisher, Mark

    Mullin, Chris

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Fraser, John

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Galloway, George

    O'Hara, Edward

    Gapes, Mike

    Olner, William

    Garrett, John

    O'Neill, Martin

    George, Bruce

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Gerrard, Neil

    Pickthall, Colin

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Pike, Peter L.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Pope, Greg

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Gordon, Mildred

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Graham, Thomas

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Prescott, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Gunnell, John

    Radice, Giles

    Hall, Mike

    Randall, Stuart

    Hanson, David

    Raynsford, Nick

    1040

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Vaz, Keith

    Salmond, Alex

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wallace, James

    Short, Clare

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Simpson, Alan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Skinner, Dennis

    Watson, Mike

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wicks, Malcolm

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

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

    Wilson, Brian

    Soley, Clive

    Winnick, David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wray, Jimmy

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Stevenson, George

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Mr. John Spellar and Mr. Eric Illsley.

    Straw, Jack

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the extension of individual choice of pension provision brought about by the Government's pension reforms, which has resulted in substantial increases in funded pension provision through both occupational and appropriate private pension schemes; welcomes the Government's steps to ensure the effective regulation of occupational pensions and to ensure that individuals have adequate information to make informed choices about provision for their retirement; and welcomes the measures being taken by the Securities and Investments Board, with Government support, significantly to improve investor protection.

  PETITION

    Residency
    10.29pm
    Mr. Douglas French: I wish to present a petition on behalf of my constituents Eddie and Pauline Khor of 5 Coltman close, Swallow Park, Gloucester, against the deportation order that they face.
    Mrs. and Mrs. Khor originally came from Malaysia to study in the United Kingdom. They have been resident here for eight years and have integrated fully into the local community in Gloucestershire.
    Mr. Khor is a chartered quantity surveyor and Mrs. Khor a qualified accountant. They have never claimed any state benefits, are completely self-sufficient and present no drain on the nation's resources.
    The petition has 3,000 signatures as testimony to their popularity, their many friends and the belief of local people that they should be allowed to stay in this country. Their young son Ben was born here.
    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 Eddie and Pauline Khor sheweth That they and their son, Benjamin, wish to remain in the United Kingdom as permanent residents.
    Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House request the Home Secretary to exercise discretion and grant residency to this family outside the immigration rules. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Point of Order
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Alan Simpson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As some of my constituents have told me that their employer, Asda, has informed them that unless they are prepared to work on Easter Sunday they will be sacked, and as those are illegal and coercive practices which are in breach not only of the Shops Act 1950, but of the commitments given in this House about the Sunday Trading Bill, which is being considered in another place, have you been informed of any Government intention to make a statement on the matter?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes):Madam Speaker has received no such indication.

    Peanut Allergy
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Kirkhope.]
    10.31 pm
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this Adjournment debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his attendance, and other hon. Members for theirs, at a debate which will be constructive and of interest to many people outside the House.
    I accept that, at first glance, the subject of the debate is not one which immediately commends itself as suitable for parliamentary debate. It is legitimate to ask why the peanut should be allowed to keep the House at work beyond the conclusion of the main business of the day, on this of all days—the last evening before we break before Easter.
    Before going any further, I must tell the House about the peanut, which is not a nut, but a vegetable belonging to the pea or bean family. It comes from a herbaceous plant that grows to about 2 ft tall and whose stalks, after flowering, bury into the ground, which is where the nut matures; hence its name of groundnut.
    Groundnuts are native to Brazil—the home of all real nuts, although I am looking around me to see whether there are any others—and are grown all over the world, perhaps most famously by Mr. Jimmy Carter, the former President of the United States.
    A less happy peanut growing enterprise was that set up in east Africa by the Labour Government after the second world war, to solve this country's food supply problems, which failed at the then enormous cost of £40 million.
    Despite that setback, peanuts are increasingly popular in this country. In 1992—the latest year for which figures are available—we imported 138,000 tonnes compared with the 121,000 tonnes in 1988. Hardly a reception takes place in this Palace that does not feature the popular peanut and there is hardly a child in the country who does not have strong views about the desirability of peanut butter at teatime. The peanut is part of everyday life and is here, no doubt, to stay.
    In introducing the subject, I intend to do no such damage to the peanut as was perhaps done to the egg on previous occasions.
    I am not the first Member of Parliament to raise the subject of peanut allergy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) raised it in a written question to our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in January, and early-day motion 834, in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) and some of her hon. Friends refers to it.
    Peanut allergy has already been the subject of a number of press articles in the past few months, in The Times, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Sunday Mercury and the Leicester Mercury—my local newspaper—all of which reported on that issue generally or with reference to individual cases, some fatal, some nearly so, but all acutely distressing to the families concerned.
    My interest in peanut allergy was provoked by a constituent, Mrs. Shirley Hammond of Oadby, whose six-year-old daughter Jessica suffers from that condition. Mrs. Hammond wrote to me in January, having seen a

    1043
    television programme that dealt with the allergy and its fatal consequence in the most serious cases brought about by anaphylactic shock. I shall read a little of that letter:
    "12 months ago my daughter … almost died with this condition."
    She had eaten a handful of peanuts at school. She was rushed to hospital in Leicester where, fortunately, her life was saved by speedy action by the medical staff who recognised the symptoms, but Mrs. Hammond was told that her daughter's condition was not only rare, but one which she would not grow out of. Her letter continues:
    "My life and my family's life has since changed quite dramatically; life-saving courses taken at St John Ambulance and injecting lessons taken"
    so that she now knows how to give Jessica adrenaline, the antidote to the allergin, in an emergency. Delay of as little as five minutes has, in some recorded cases, proved to be sufficient to kill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who is in his place, has mentioned to me a case involving a little girl in his constituency who unwittingly ate a biscuit containing peanut and died as she ran the few yards to the school sanatorium—a young life literally snuffed out in seconds.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: One of my constituents died from eating a pretzel which had peanut oil coating. The daughter of another of my constituents fortunately survived, but was very ill after eating fish that had been coated with a batter which had peanut oil in it. It is a very serious matter for those people who are affected.
    Mr. Garnier: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support in this matter.
    As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North has also referred to a case in his constituency, involving the daughter of a Mr. and Mrs. Crocker of Pulham. This is not the esoteric issue that some might think. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has recounted to me a similar incident in his constituency. As the hon. Lady has just mentioned, there will be other hon. Members with similarly tragic stories of sudden deaths caused by anaphylactic shock brought on by peanut allergy.
    Mrs. Hammond's letter goes on:
    "Having had 12 months of being educated on this subject I write to you, not as a paranoid mother nor as a scaremonger, but as someone who feels very strongly"
    about it. I have now met Mrs. Hammond twice in my constituency surgery and can testify to her rationality, her calm and considered manner and to her deep and wholly natural concern for the health and safety of her child.
    Jessica Hammond is not alone in suffering from that potentially lethal allergy. Mrs. Hammond tells me that approximately 600 cases of life-threatening reaction to peanuts have been recorded and that that allergy is the fastest growing variety of food allergy or intolerance. Seven other children aged between three and seven years old at her daughter's primary school have been recognised as sufferers and the school, thanks to the common sense and wisdom of the head teacher, Mrs. Sonja Hudson, has in place contingency plans to cope with any emergency brought about by contact with, or ingestion of, peanuts or peanut products.
    You will not be surprised, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I tell you that Mrs. Hammond has started a support group, the Peanut Allergy Support Group, in Leicestershire, an organisation whose aims are, I believe,
    1044
    complementary to those of the Anaphylaxis Campaign based in Ash near Aldershot. The chairman of that association, Mrs. Reading, had a daughter, Sarah, who died at the age of 17 having eaten grated peanut sprinkled on the top of a piece of lemon meringue pie bought in a supermarket. The aims of those groups are to educate the public about potentially fatal food allergies, to increase awareness of them among health professionals, especially general practitioners and those working in schools, to encourage research into the causes, means of prevention and treatments for them, to campaign for legislation compelling caterers to the public to list the ingredients of all food and drink on sale, and to campaign for legislation to compel clearer labelling of food products containing peanut, peanut extracts and oils.
    I agree with those aims, with the exception of those calling for legislation.
    I do, none the less, want the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the food industry, the retail trade, food scientists, dieticians and others concerned with public health to co-operate in an effort to ensure that practical steps are taken, and taken soon, to resolve the difficulties that legislation could cause, so that it is not necessary.
    What does intolerance do to an affected person? Most commonly, it causes swelling around the mouth. If it causes only the lips to swell, that is unpleasant, but not necessarily dangerous. But if it causes the throat to swell, it can constrict it and inhibit breathing. It can cause a skin rash like a nettle sting and it can cause allergic reactions to the whole body—anaphylaxis, in which the blood pressure becomes dangerously low. It can also bring on an asthma attack.
    Before discussing the worrying matter further, I shall put the risk in perspective. Without doubt, peanut allergy has been lethal in a small number of cases, but vast numbers of people with nut allergy manage very well without suffering a dangerous reaction. According to Dr. Martin Stern, a consultant clinical immunologist at Leicester general hospital, it is possible, with sensible precautions, for a sufferer from peanut allergy to be far more at risk from death from the ordinary incidents of life and old age than from the allergy. Only 2 per cent. of the population suffer from some form or other of food intolerance, and within that group are those suffering from allergic reactions, including the other forms of real nut such as hazelnuts and walnuts.
    I have spoken to representatives of the Food and Drink Federation and, from what they have told me, I am sure that their members are only too well aware, not only of the concerns of people such as Mrs. Hammond, but of the need to do something about them in a practical way. There has been some useful work already.
    Following the 1984 report on food intolerance by the Royal College of Physicians and the British Nutrition Foundation, those organisations were involved—with the British Dietetic Association, the FDF and the Leatherhead Food Research Association—in an initiative to establish a central source of information about the composition of food to assist in the professional management of food intolerance. That led to the establishment in 1987 of the food intolerance databank, which sought to list products that were free from one or more of the most common causes of food intolerance, such as milk, egg, wheat and soya.
    At that time, it was felt that peanuts were fairly easy to exclude from the diet, so it was not seen as a priority to

    1045
    include foods that did not contain peanuts. The databank is updated annually, and consideration was given earlier this year to extending its scope to include such foods. However, given the lack of understanding about the precise cause of the reaction, and thus the difficulty in identifying which part of the peanut is responsible, it was impossible to establish a medically correct definition of "free from" in the case of peanuts. Therefore, it was not possible to extend the databank.
    For similar reasons, it is understood that the anaphylaxis support group has recently abandoned its attempt to produce a list of products that sufferers from peanut allergy may eat with safety. The group also appears to share the view that the establishment of a list of products that are free from peanuts per se would be of limited value and, more critically, potentially dangerous to any individuals who might react adversely to peanut oil.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because this is an important subject, and I congratulate him on raising it.
    Although there are difficulties involved, we could have a labelling system that includes foods such as the nuts that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Peanuts are not the only food to which people are allergic, although peanut allergy is one of the fastest growing food allergies. Apparently, until 1992 there were no deaths from peanut allergy in this country, but we have had five or six in the past year. Does he agree that labelling is an answer to some degree, and perhaps the Government should consider that?
    Mr. Garnier: No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will return to that issue, but there are problems with labelling, and I shall seek to develop them in the few minutes left to me.
    Notwithstanding the proven success of the food intolerance databank in assisting professional dieticians to provide positive advice to those who suffer from food intolerance, the option of improved labelling of the ingredients of foods has also been explored as a means of assisting those who are allergic to peanuts. That is not likely to be particularly helpful, because, while an indication of the presence of peanuts, or their possible presence, may alert sufferers to avoid such products, labelling cannot provide assurance about products that are not so labelled. Furthermore, until the causative agent has been identified, such labelling would have to embrace not just peanuts but all their derivatives, including minor components, which would be an impractically complex task.
    Moreover, it is the nature of the oil refining industry's processes that oils can be unintentionally but unavoidably mixed within a product. It is therefore possible that not just a generic vegetable oil but a specific single oil may contain a minor admixture of peanut oil which, other than to the individual who might react adversely to its presence, would have no other consequence for the user or consumer.
    Peanut oil is particularly stable and thus, in its refined and de-odourised form, is frequently chosen as a carrier for colours, flavourings and vitamins, as well as the essential lubrication of food processing equipment. The search for, and validation of, alternatives will inevitably take a considerable time, to ensure that there are no untoward effects on product quality.
    1046
    While the industry is prepared to extend the labelling of products where the presence of peanuts is not currently required by labelling legislation, it is hesitant to do so because, on current evidence, it would be of limited value to those who suffer from peanut allergy. Extending such labelling to include all peanut derivatives would, given manufacturers' reluctance to guarantee the suitability of products to sufferers against current medical uncertainties, mean that many products could be identified as "possibly" containing peanut derivatives. That would almost certainly embrace products that sufferers had previously consumed without adverse effect and, thus, serve only to confuse and diminish the value of labelling the presence of peanuts.
    What should we look for? To address the medical background, I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will shortly initiate work with Professor John Warner of Southampton, a noted clinical allergist and paediatrician. In addition, the oil processors' association is considering funding complementary work designed to clarify the allergenicity of variously refined and processed peanut oils.
    In the meantime, educating the public and those involved in preparing and providing food should be a priority. The Food and Drink Federation is assisting the Ministry to increase awareness both among the public and within the industry. I welcome the liaison between the various interest groups, including the Ministry and the anaphylaxis group, and trust that they will continue to search for ways of assisting those who suffer from food intolerance, including peanut intolerance.
    May I place on the record my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary for his close interest in this subject?
    10.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on making such a steady, sensible and well thought-out speech about this extremely difficult and emotive matter. I am grateful to him, as the House of Commons will be, for raising the issue of peanut allergy for debate. I have been interested to hear his account of the problems experienced by his constituents, particularly Mrs. Hammond and her daughter Jessica. Mrs. Hammond sounds like a remarkably sensible and level-headed woman. The letter that she has written to my hon. Friend about her daughter is similar to many received by me and other hon. Members.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the letters received by my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), who is in his place tonight, and for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman), who is also here. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) mentioned two such tragedies in her constituency. Those letters from people who are allergic to peanuts or with dependants who are so allergic have often portrayed harrowing stories. The many letters that I have received have confirmed the picture that I have built up over the past few months, which was entirely unexpected by me.
    First, may I express, on behalf of the Her Majesty's Government, myself and all my colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my profoundest sympathy to all those who have lost loved ones as a result of a severe reaction to peanuts or other nuts, or as a result

    1047
    of other food allergies. The people who have to cope with the problem daily have my deepest admiration for the way in which they endure what is inevitably a nightmare scenario.
    Secondly, I pay tribute to the efforts of various people around the country who have formed action groups. Mrs. Hammond's group is particularly concerned with the peanut allergy. Last week, the anaphylaxis group came to see me with my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow), who has taken a keen and close interest in the matter, through his constituent, Mr. David Reading, a remarkable man who has so tragically lost his daughter Sarah, as my hon. Friend said tonight.
    I was most impressed by the balanced, sensible and pragmatic approach that those groups have adopted in increasing our knowledge and the depth of knowledge of all those involved in this matter throughout the United Kingdom by their sensible, balanced and thoroughly responsible campaigning methods. We are grateful to them and my Department looks forward to working closely with all those groups in future.
    It is extremely difficult to be precise about the prevalence of peanut allergy in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend dealt with the matter extremely well and I shall not go over it again; suffice it only to say that the foods most likely to be associated with intolerance reactions are more extensive than my hon. Friend mentioned. In addition to the nuts, there are cows' milk, hens' eggs, wheat, soya, chocolate, fish and citrus fruits.
    Only a small proportion of the 2 per cent. who are affected will be allergic to peanuts and an even smaller proportion will have life-threatening reactions. We believe that the number at risk could be around 5,000, though there are arguments about that figure because of the difficulty of finding a satisfactory model.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the research to be carried out at Southampton university by Professor Warner to establish how widespread the peanut allergy may be and to identify what parts of the peanut are allergenic, but the results will not be available for at least a year or probably longer.
    The House may recall that, on 13 January, we announced an initiative by the Government to raise awareness of the problem in the food industry. On the instructions of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I wrote to the leaders of the main trade associations concerned. Subsequently, their representatives have met officials of the Ministry and the Department of Health to learn more about these issues and to consider what best could be done to help.
    Officials from both Departments have also met representatives of consumer bodies and the enforcement authorities, and several of the parents most directly involved in dealing with this affliction.
    I am pleased to say that the response has been positive, and all those we have contacted have expressed willingness to spread the word within their organisation, through trade journals, training courses arid seminars. We have provided material to help them do so.
    Some food companies have started to take action with voluntary labelling. I have been particularly impressed with the example that one major retailer has shown me, though there is much work being done by many others. Also, some in the food industry have been investigating alternatives to the use of peanuts and peanut oil. I am pleased that enforcement authorities' representatives have
    1048
    offered to distribute our information notes to the small and medium-sized businesses that their officers visit. It will mean that awareness of the problem will become widespread.
    We are keeping in close touch with all those contacts so that we can, in the near future, assess the results of the initiative.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Although the efforts by the food industry are commendable, as are the efforts to publicise problems with peanut and other allergies, has the Minister had discussions with the British Medical Association which says categorically there should be mandatory food labelling in this area?
    Mr. Soames: I personally have not had discussions with the BMA, but the Department of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are in constant touch with all the relevant bodies that we consult as a matter of course. I am sure that they have talked to the BMA, but I shall let the hon. Lady know the nature of any substantial discussions we may have had.
    As I have said, we shall keep in close touch with all whom we have consulted to ensure that we follow up our initiative. We are also acting on many other matters. We are funding research, which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has already mentioned—particularly that led by Professor Warner. We are producing information for consumers, including an excellent booklet—to be published in April—which will advise people on how to deal with food allergies: it refers to nut allergy in some detail. We are collaborating with allergy experts to produce better information for sufferers, particularly on how they can use food labels to avoid problem products.
    We are also issuing updated guidance to general practitioners. That is one of the most important things that have emerged from consultation with families—and one of the most important things impressed on me by David Reading, of the anaphylaxis group, was the vital necessity of ensuring that when doctors see a patient suffering from such a reaction, they can identify it. Thank God, in the case of Jessica Hammond there was a doctor to hand, who knew what he was dealing with.
    It is not the doctors' fault that they are expected to know everything about everything. I think that we owe it to them, and to all sufferers, to ensure that the symptoms of anaphylaxis are immediately available to doctors as part of their training and on-going knowledge. I assure the hon. Member for Selly Oak that the Department of Health has taken steps to ensure that doctors have that information at their fingertips, through its excellent system for disseminating such information.
    We are issuing guidance to other health professionals as well, to raise their awareness of these allergies and of the appropriate treatment for people who may be at risk from anaphylactic shock. We are consulting the Food Advisory Committee, which advises the Government independently on such matters and which will consider the issue next month. I know that many of the groups that have made representations to the Government have also made submissions to the Food Advisory Committee, and I very much hope that that includes the anaphylaxis group. I saw the group last week, and I know that it was going to make a submission; I hope that it did so earlier this week.
    The complicated issue of labelling is at the heart of the debate. The labelling of pre-packed foodstuffs is already

    1049
    extremely comprehensive: as a general rule, if peanuts are an ingredient they should appear on the label. However, there are one or two exceptions—stemming from the EC directive on food labelling—which might mean that the peanut component is not properly identified. We should like those exemptions to be removed or considerably reduced; last year, we vigorously argued the case for such action at two meetings with our European Union partners.
    I regret to say that we have not made much progress so far, but there are signs that an agreement to list specified food allergens whenever they are added to food—even when they might have qualified for exemption—may be possible. We shall support such a change, but achieving it may take a considerable time. I have warned those who have been to see me; it is important for hon. Members on both sides of the House not to delude themselves about the time that it may take us to reach a conclusion.
    I must consider very carefully how far we should get ahead of the rest of the Community. If we took unilateral action, we would come under pressure not to apply our new rules to imports from other member states. As the origin of pre-packed products is not always stated on labels, there would be a risk of misleading consumers into thinking that all products on the retail shelves were subject to the same rules, whether they were or not—with potentially disastrous consequences for people in the difficult position that we are discussing. That would be very dangerous and unsatisfactory for some people, which is why better
    1050
    co-ordinated action by the Community is so much more worth while. Indeed, such action is essential, and we shall press for it.
    So far, I have dealt with pre-packed foods. Let me now deal briefly with foods that are sold loose: for example, cakes and baked products sold in bakers' shops, and foods sold in catering outlets. The hand of labelling legislation falls lightly in those sectors and for good reason. First, intending purchasers can ask for information from shop assistants and waiters. Secondly, imposing full labelling rules on what are often small businesses would place an unproportionately heavy burden on them. Thirdly, there is the simple and practical problem that notices can become separated from the foods to which they apply. We have spoken to experts in the catering sector and their advice has been that, although there is scope for greater awareness and information availability in catering outlets, detailed labelling is simply not practical.
    As I have said, the Food Advisory Committee will look at these issues further in April and we shall not hesitate to consider with care, as we always do, the advice that it gives.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has done a signal service in a measured and dignified way. This is a highly emotive and difficult issue which causes untold anxiety and great worry to rather more people than any of us had any idea about. My hon. Friend has done an important service and I want to assure him that the Government are thoroughly committed to trying to find a sensible, pragmatic and workable way in which we can make life easier for these people.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many cases received legal aid in the North West region last year; what was the average length of time taken to bring a case to court; and what was the average cost of each case;

  (2) how many legal aid certificates have been issued in the last two years for preliminary work only in the North West region; how many of these led to completed court cases; and how many were incomplete and did not come to court.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The North-West region is served by four legal aid area offices which are situated in Chester, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The offices at Chester and Newcastle also serve other areas outside of the region. It is not possible to distinguish assisted persons residing in the North-West region from those residing in the other areas covered. In the geographical areas covered by all four offices 112,029 civil legal aid certificates were issued in the financial year 1992–93. According to statistical returns submitted by the courts 70,215 criminal legal aid orders were granted in the North-West region in the calendar year 1992. A further 2,563 criminal legal aid orders were granted by legal aid committees following appeals against magistrates' refusal of legal aid. The average cost of all legal aid bills paid in 1992–93 in England and Wales was as follows:

  Civil legal aid £906

  Criminal Magistrates' £449

  Criminal Higher £840

  Information is not available on the length of time taken to bring legally aided cases to court, but the average length of time taken from the granting of a civil legal aid certificate to the conclusion of the case is approximately three years.

  Legal aid certificates are not issued in respect of preliminary work only. A certificate may however be limited to specific steps in the proceedings, pending counsel's opinion on the legal merits of the case. The Legal Aid Board's management information does not distinguish limited certificates from full certificates.

  During the financial years 1991–92 and 1992–93 a total of 214,655 civil legal aid certificates were issued in the geographical areas covered by the area offices situated at Chester, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. The average duration of a legally aided case is three years and therefore the majority of cases commenced in the last two years will not have reached a conclusion. Out of a total number of 164,038 cases concluded in 1991–92 and 1992–93 in the geographical areas covered 106,962 were settled out of court or otherwise disposed of.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is 742
  taking to ensure that solicitors receive adequate recompense for work carried out under the legal aid system where the value of the claim being pursued is for less than £3,000.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is the Lord Chancellor's aim to ensure that all legal aid remuneration rates give adequate recompense to solicitors who carry out work under the scheme.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will ensure that where solicitors are pursuing claims of less than £3,000 with legal aid that the work is not delegated to an unqualified fee earner.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is the responsibility of each solicitor doing legal aid work to ensure that work is conducted by the appropriate level of fee earner. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to change this.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the amount spent on the new franchising arrangement for legal aid; how many new posts were created; and what are the costs of the new staffing arrangements of the franchising units.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the year 1993–94 including recruitment, training and systems development, the new franchising arrangements costs were £3·4 million. Approximately 80 full-time equivalent posts have been created at an annual total employment cost of £2 million.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades, 1 to 7 and overall, in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and(c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number and percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall who are(a) women is set out in table 1. Information on the ethnic origin of officers and on numbers of disabled officers is obtained by the use of voluntary staff surveys. The number and percentage of respondents in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall who are (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively, are set out in tables 2 and 3.

  Table 1

  Number and percentage of officers in grades 1–7 and overall who are women as at 25 March 1994

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  0

  0·0

  2

  0

  0·0

  3

  1

  9·1

  4

  0

  0·0

  5

  6

  17·6

  6

  19

  21·1

  7

  79

  37·2

  Overall

  7,922

  63·2

  Notes to table: The grades shown are for grade levels i.e. they include equivalent grades
  743

  Table 2

  Number and respondents of officers in grades 1–7 and overall who are ethnic minorities as at 25 March 1994

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  0

  0·

  2

  0

  0·0

  3

  0

  0·0

  4

  0

  0·0

  5

  0

  0·0

  6

  *

  2·4

  7

  *

  2·2

  Overall

  916

  8·1

  Notes to table:

  (1) The grades shown are for grade levels i.e. they include equivalent grades.

  (2) Information on ethic origin is collected by the use of a voluntary survey of all staff. To date 23 per cent. of staff have chosen not to respond to the survey. The figures quoted in the above table are therefore based on the number of respondents.

  (3) The asterisks denote numbers that were so small as to enable identification of individuals, and are used to protect the privacy of those concerned.

  Table 3

  Number and Respondents of Officers in Grades 1–7 and Overall who have a Disability as at 25 March 1994

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  0

  0·0

  2

  0

  0·0

  3

  0

  0·0

  4

  0

  0·0

  5

  0

  0·0

  6

  *

  2·5

  7

  *

  2·8

  Overall

  446

  4·6

  Notes to table:

  (1) The grades shown are for grade levels i.e. they include equivalent grades.

  (2) Information on disability is collected by the use of a voluntary survey of all staff. To date 10 per cent. of staff have chosen not to respond to the survey. The figures quoted in the table are therefore based on the number of respondents.

  (3) The asterisks denote numbers that were so small as to enable identification of individuals, and are used to protect the privacy of those concerned.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The figures for public appointments made by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Northern Ireland Court Service in 1993 are for(a) Asians 1·5 per cent. and for (b) black people 1 per cent. This answer does not include judicial appointments. It is not our practice to give names: when asking appointees for information on their ethnic origin it is our practice to make it clear that it will be used only for statistical purposes.

  Building Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what major building projects valued at over £1 million are being or have been wholly or partly financed since 1989 in(a) Doncaster, (b)
  744
  Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by his Department; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  (a) In Doncaster, the Lord Chancellor's Department comissioned a new Crown court building which became ready for use in the third quarter of 1989. The final total cost of the scheme was £5 million—inclusive of site purchase costs, construction and design costs. An extension to the magistrates court is now currently being designed. It is estimated to cost £2·6 million and construction is likely to begin during 1995–96.

  (a) There are no plans at present for a new court building scheme in Barnsley.

  (c)In Rotherham the construction of a new ten courtroom magistrates court building commenced in February 1992 and is now in the final stage, and is due to become operational in early May. The full cost is likely to be £5·4 million.

  (d)In Wakefield there are proposals to build a new magistrates court to contain six courts. If approved, construction could commence in 1997–98 and the estimated cost would be approximately £7·8 million.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Race Awareness Training
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures the Lord Chancellor has taken to ensure that(a) High Court judges and (b) circuit judges receive training in race awareness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Training for members of the judiciary is a matter for the Judicial Studies Board. I can tell the hon. Member that the board includes race awareness as a standard topic in all its refresher and induction seminars attended by High Court judges and circuit judges. In addition, the board is developing a programme of seminars on these issues for all circuit judges, recorders and assistant recorders in England and Wales to be carried forward over the next two years.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total cost of official entertainment in the Lord Chancellor's Department in each year since 1990–91; if he will list the receptions held in each year at his Department's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Three principal receptions are funded each year by the Department: the Lord Chancellor's breakfast at the commencement of the legal year, a summer reception given by the Lord Chancellor for members of the media and—since 1992–93—a reception in the Inner Temple given by the Lord Chief Justice. The costs of these events, and the total costs of official entertaining each year since 1990–91, are given in the table.
  745
  While other individual receptions may have been held, the cost of identifying them and their related expenditure would be disproportionate.

  Lord Chancellor's Department official entertaining

  Lord Chancellor's breakfast £

  Lord Chief Justice's reception £

  Media reception £

  Total £

  1990–91

  7,105·59

  —

  —

  19,022·93

  1991–92

  8,661·32

  —

  605·94

  20,894·90

  1992–93

  9,816·84

  1,433·89

  734·55

  20,697·44

  1993–94 (to the end of February

  8,008·63

  1,594·10

  653·15

  17,463·63

  Magistrates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, columns 271–72, if he will make it his policy to collect centrally information on the expressed political affiliations of magistrates and applicants for the magistrates bench.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information is collected centrally for each bench on the expressed political affiliations of magistrates. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to collect centrally similar information on applicants.

EMPLOYMENT

  Annual Performance Agreement
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the Employment Service annual performance agreement for 1994–95 will be published.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today placed copies of the Employment Service annual performance agreement for 1994–95 in the Library. The new targets represent a considerable challenge to the Employment Service. I have set a demanding target of placing 1.7 million unemployed people in jobs next year. And I have asked the chief executive to give a high priority to helping unemployed people who face particular difficulties in getting back to work.

  We have agreed an exceptionally demanding target that 29·5 per cent. of total unemployed placings should be long-term claimants. This will mean finding jobs for at least 500,000 people who have been unemployed for six months or more. There will also be two new targets aimed at offering extra help to people who have been unemployed for 12 months and 24 months. I have also agreed the highest ever target for finding jobs for people with disabilities.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide a table showing for each training and enterprise council in England the number of people covered by the youth training guarantee who have been waiting for over eight weeks for a YT place; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 10 March the number of young people covered by the youth training guarantee who had been waiting for eight or more weeks for a YT place was 746
  138. This was a fall of 97 per cent. from March 1993 when the total was 5,424. This is excellent progress and a tribute to the efforts of training and enterprise councils, careers services and all others involved in placing young people into training. The following table gives information for each TEC:

  YT guarantee monitoring YT seekers: waiting >8 weeks

  March 1993

  March 1994

  Avon

  88

  8

  AZTEC

  156

  0

  B arnsley/Doncaster

  36

  0

  Bedfordshire

  115

  0

  Birmingham

  110

  0

  Bolton/Bury

  41

  0

  Bradford

  15

  0

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  18

  0

  CAMBSTEC

  69

  0

  Central London

  136

  5

  Central England

  14

  4

  CEWTEC

  18

  2

  CILNTEC

  143

  1

  County Durham

  62

  3

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  79

  0

  Cumbria

  33

  1

  Devon and Cornwall

  66

  2

  Dorset

  23

  2

  Dudley

  2

  0

  ELTEC

  19

  0

  Essex

  373

  0

  Gloucester

  28

  0

  Greater Peterborough

  23

  0

  Greater Nottingham

  32

  0

  Hampshire

  207

  3

  HAWTEC

  19

  0

  Heart of England

  15

  1

  Hertfordshire

  107

  9

  Humberside

  47

  0

  Isle of Wight

  37

  5

  Kent

  338

  0

  LAWTEC

  40

  4

  Leeds

  37

  0

  Leicestershire

  27

  0

  LETEC

  439

  2

  Lincolnshire

  19

  1

  Manchester

  106

  1

  Merseyside

  42

  1

  METROTEC

  21

  0

  Milton Keynes

  32

  5

  Norfolk/Waveney

  4

  7

  NORMIDTEC

  13

  2

  North Yorkshire

  79

  3

  North West London

  111

  0

  North Nottingham

  91

  2

  North Derbyshire

  42

  1

  North London

  66

  4

  Northamptonshire

  62

  2

  Northumberland

  47

  7

  Oldham

  36

  0

  QUALITEC

  20

  0

  Rochdale

  18

  0

  747

  March 1993

  March 1994

  Rotherham

  4

  0

  Sandwell

  10

  0

  SECTEC

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  156

  0

  Shropshire

  19

  0

  SOLOTEC

  206

  1

  Somerset

  97

  0

  South Thames

  476

  0

  South Derbyshire

  25

  1

  Staffordshire

  4

  0

  Stockport

  16

  0

  Suffolk

  13

  1

  Surrey

  94

  4

  Sussex

  66

  24

  Teesside

  45

  3

  Thames Valley

  185

  3

  Tyneside

  60

  2

  Wakefield

  18

  2

  Walsall

  3

  2

  Wearside

  0

  2

  West London

  36

  0

  Wiltshire

  68

  5

  Wolverhampton

  2

  0

DEFENCE

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report by the Review Board for Government Contracts on its 1994 annual review of the profit formula for non-competitive Government contracts.

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government have accepted the overall target rate of return on capital employed as recommended by the review board in its report. The new rate will be 18·2 per cent. compared with the current rate of 19 per cent., both on the basis of historic costs. It will be effective from 1 April this year. There are other points arising from this report and from the board's report on the seventh general review last year which officials will be discussing with the Confederation of British Industry as part of our continuing drive to secure maximum value for money from our defence contracts and ensuring a fair return for our contractors. Copies of the report are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key performance targets have been set for 1994–95 for the chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  Mr. Aitken
  The chief executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down is responsible for research to ensure that the United Kingdom armed forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical and biological weapons may be used against them. He has been set the following challenging key performance targets for 1994–95:

  1. To deliver to time 90 per cent. of the programme milestones agreed with the customers and have the work rated by the customer as meeting or exceeding the agreed objectives.

  2. To respond to 85 per cent. of requests accepted for unplanned urgent advice within the timescale negotiated at the outset.

  748

  3. To deliver the agreed work programme within the aggregate of the programme costs agreed with each customer—including individual package customers within the applied research programme.

  4. To increase the overall efficiency of CBDE by reducing net expenditure, as shown in the net expenditure account, by 1 per cent.

  5. To develop, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, an appropriate system of trading to provide greater empowerment of the customer by April 1995.

  6. To continue the agreed market testing programme with the objective of placing the service level agreement/contract by 31 March 1995.

  7. To survey customers to identify appropriate measures of the quality of service provided by CBDE to the Ministry of Defence, and conduct a full customer satisfaction survey on the basis of these measures by March 1995.

  8.To develop a strategy for a formal quality plan for the conduct of all research carried out at CBDE. This will include: standards of planning, management, execution and reporting of the work to the customer; measures of customer satisfaction; and peer review of scientific rigour, novelty and innovation.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the procurement of support helicopters for the Royal Air Force.

  Mr. Aitken
  I am pleased to say that we have made considerable progress since my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, announced our intentions in December.

  Invitations to tender are now being issued for my Department's requirements for additional support helicopters. In consequence, my Department will enter into parallel negotiations with Boeing (Chinook) and Westland (EH101 Utility) on the basis of its normal NAPNOC—no acceptable price, no contract—procedures, to determine the specifications, performance details, terms and conditions and prices, against which further support helicopters might be supplied.

  Accordingly, separate single invitations to tender are being issued to Boeing Defense and Space Group and to Westland Helicopters Ltd. for return on 30 June 1994, on the clear understanding that respective performance and value for money considerations will be taken into account as part of the Department's normal process of evaluation and will influence the Department's eventual decision on what support helicopters to buy.

  Sir Peter Harding
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has investigated the security aspects of the events leading to the resignation of Sir Peter Harding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  These matters have been investigated. The principal conclusion is that no evidence has been found of any compromise of classified or sensitive information. Nor has any evidence been found, in the events which led to Sir Peter's resignation as Chief of Defence Staff, of any intelligence operation or criminal conspiracy against him.

  Career and Manpower Review
  Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet in a position to announce the appointment of a chairman for the independent review of
  749
  service career and manpower structure and terms and conditions of service; and if he will publish terms of reference for the review.

  Mr. Hanley
  Further to the answer I gave the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 9 February,Official Report, columns 362–63, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has now invited Mr. Michael Bett to lead the independent team which will be conducting this major independent review of service career and manpower structure and terms and conditions of service. Further appointments to the team will be announced in due course. Terms of reference for the review are as follows:
  The review is to examine service career and manpower structures, and terms and conditions of service, and recommend changes required to render them appropriate to the needs of the 21st century.
  The review is to take account of changes in military commitments and deployment patterns, including any which may flow from the defence costs studies. It should draw on work already conducted in each service, and may need to subsume the current in-house review of the armed forces pension scheme. It should examine practices within the armed forces of other nations, and within other major organisations in the United Kingdom.
  The review should propose future structures which are robust, flexible, efficient and cost-effective, paying particular attention to:

  a) Current practice in such areas as length of service, career patterns, deployment patterns, rank structure and trade structures;

  b) The relationship between responsibility, rank, trade and pay, and the concept of performance pay; current sources of dissatisfaction; and the scope for a rationalised pay and allowance structure.

  The review should seek to contribute to the reduction over the longer term of the overall resource cost of manpower, and should identify clearly the resource implications of its proposals. It should at the same time take full account of the requirement to maintain disciplined, highly trained and well-motivated armed forces, and of the particular requirements of service life.
  The Review should consult widely within MOD, the Office of Manpower Economics and the services; and should ensure that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Board are consulted on matters within their remit.

  The review team will be led by Mr. Bett and will be supported by a small MOD project team. It is to submit its final report to the Secretary of State for Defence within 12 months of its starting work.

TRANSPORT

  Lands End-Isles of Scilly Monitoring Area
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make the sea between Lands End and the Isles of Scilly a mandatory reporting and monitoring area for ships under the international convention for the safety of life at sea.

  Mr. Norris
  There is already international agreement that laden vessels should report their intention to enter the traffic separation scheme in place between Lands End and Isles of Scilly. The United Kingdom is taking a leading role in international negotiations which should lead to changes in the safety of life at sea—SOLAS—convention and to the establishment of a legal framework for the mandatory reporting of ship movements.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what resources will be made available to local authorities affected by increased levels of rail traffic resulting from the channel tunnel for noise mitigation.

  Mr. Freeman
  Supplementary credit approvals of £1 million and £0·25 million respectively were previously allocated to Kent and Surrey county councils for jointly-funded schemes agreed with British Rail for the provision of acoustic barriers alonside existing tracks at locations in the areas expected to be most affected at night by noise from international freight trains. Kent county council has decided also to offer double glazing for certain isolated properties which could not be protected by noise barriers.

  More recently, I have agreed to provide further credit approvals of £0·375 million to Kent, to cover the balance of its costs, and £0·336 million to the London borough of Bromley, which has also agreed a joint noise mitigation scheme with BR.

  As stated in my answer of 18 February, Official Report, column 1007, I and my colleagues will be prepared to consider TPP applications for resources in 1995–96 from other authorities in London which agree schemes with BR. Such applications will be considered on their merits and in the light of the resources available.

  Victoria Station
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when rail customers are able to obtain service information at Victoria.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information point at Victoria is open Monday to Saturday 07.00am to 10.15pm, Sunday 08.00am to 10.00pm. Service information can also be obtained from telephone inquiry bureaux between 07·15am and 9.00pm daily, by ringing 071-928-5100 or 0273-206-755.

  Research Laboratory
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reached a conclusion on the future of the transport research laboratory.

  Mr. Macgregor
  Following a review I commissioned from consultants, KPMG Peat Marwick, I have decided that the transport research laboratory should transfer to the private sector.

  I have considered the consultants' report very carefully. I have also had discussions with the TRL trade unions. The consultants concluded that retention of TRL in the public sector would risk the laboratory being unable to respond adequately to changes in its market and so lead to a cycle of cumulative decline. The likelihood is therefore that TRL would be unable to continue to offer its current breadth of research. The consultants' analysis confirmed that privatisation was both feasible and desirable in allowing the laboratory to compete more effectively across a wider market than is currently available to it.

  I am satisfied that privatisation will provide the best opportunity for TRL's future progress. In setting objectives for the sale I shall have regard to a number of requirements, including to the need to secure the

  751
  Government's continuing requirement for high quality, independent transport research at good value for money, and the needs of staff working in the laboratory.

  I shall announce details of the form of sale in due course. My current aim is to provide for a competitive sale, attracting bids for the whole of the TRL business from a wide range of possible purchasers. I hope privatisation can be achieved during 1995–96.

  On-street Parking
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering to the management and provision of services for the new local authority on-street parking enforcement system under the Road Traffic Act 1991.

  Mr. Norris
  In November 1993 the Department of the Environment consulted local authorities nationally on a draft order to extend compulsory competitive tendering to the provision and management of services for the new local authority on-street parking enforcement system under part II of the Road Traffic Act 1991. This system is being applied initially only in London but is being extended to the rest of England and Wales.

  In general the authorities supported the principle of extending CCT to these services but some were concerned about the timing of its introduction. In particular the Parking Committee for London, which includes a representative from each London local authority, felt that the suggested commencement date of April 1995 should be deferred for six months. I have accepted this view and decided that CCT will apply from 1 October 1995 in the metropolitan areas and London, and following the local government review in other areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be laying an order before the House shortly.

  Hazardous Cargoes
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it mandatory for ships with hazardous cargoes to give notice of their intention to sail through the Pentland firth, in accordance with changes in the safety of life at sea convention.

  Mr. Norris
  There is already international agreement that laden vessels should report their intention to transit the Pentland firth. The United Kingdom is taking a leading role in international negotiations which should lead to changes in the safety of life at sea—SOLAS—convention and to the establishment of a legal framework for the mandatory reporting of ship movements.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 251, what penalties exist for ships carrying hazardous cargoes that do not use the safe deep water route around the Hebrides.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department is applying increasing pressure on the owners of ships carrying hazardous cargoes to use the deep water route west of the Hebrides. There is evidence to suggest that this is having a positive effect.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reporting is mandatory for ships carrying hazardous cargoes near environmentally sensitive areas.
  752
  Mr. Norris
  Whilst there are no requirements for reports to be made at the moment, the Department is applying increasing pressure on shipowners to comply with internationally agreed recommendations, and the United Kingdom is taking a leading role in international negotiations to set in place a legal framework for the mandatory reporting of ship movements.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ships carrying hazardous cargoes from the United Kingdom via the Hebrides have(a) made use of the safe deep water route via the outer Hebrides and (b) passed through the Minches in the last year.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held in the form requested. I can say, however, that in the last 12 months 113 ships carrying hazardous cargoes have reported their intention to use the Minch to HM Coastguard at Stornoway.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 251, what legal force backs the measures in place to keep ships carrying hazardous cargoes away from environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Norris
  Routeing measures around the United Kingdom are in accordance with agreements reached at the International Maritime Organisation. For the most part they are voluntary and are enforced by complaint to the flag state of a transgressing vessel. The United Kingdom is actively engaged in negotiating in the IMO on mandatory routes which can be put in place to protect environmentally sensitive areas.

  River Buses
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost to public funds of maintenance and mooring of river buses on the Thames; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  No central Government funding is involved.

  Oil Discharges
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the annual volume of oil entering(a) the North sea, (b) the straits of Dover and (c) the English channel from shipping for each of the last four years; and, for each year, what proportion of that was intentionally discharged.

  Mr. Norris
  The information is as set out. There are no records of volumes of oil spilt in the Dover straits. The Bonn agreement estimates that between 1,000 and 2,000 tonnes of oil per annum are intentionally discharged in to the North sea—all sectors—each year but no such estimates exist for the Dover straits or the English channel.

  Tonnes

  1990

  North sea (United Kingdom sector)

  336

  English channel

  15

  1991

  North sea (United Kingdom sector)

  45

  English channel

  41

  753

  Tonnes

  1992

  North sea (United Kingdom sector)

  134

  English channel

  33

  1993

  North sea (United Kingdom sector)

  2170

  English channel

  3311

  1 Excluding the Rosebay spill of 1,100 tonnes.

  2 Excluding the Braer spill of 86,000 tonnes.

  3 Excluding the Apache spill of 256 tonnes.

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations and individuals outside his Department who are sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Norris
  Lists of any such organisations and individuals are not held centrally and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  In general, my right hon. Friend consults the chairmen of the relevant committee or board and such consultation may, in some cases, be a statutory requirement. He will also consult professional and other organisations if necessary in order to find persons with suitable qualifications for an appointment. He has regard to the guidance on consultations with the Prime Minister and other Departments set out in Section 6 of the "Cabinet Office Guide on Public Appointments Procedures", copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercies the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. Norris
  Information on most of the appointments made by my right hon. Friend are shown in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993". Further information on these and on some other appointments is to be found in "A Handbook for Women's Organisations" published by the Women's National Commission. Copies of both documents are available in the Libraries of the House. Up-to-date lists of persons currently appointed to posts are not held centrally, but information on membership of many public bodies was provided recently in response to questions tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on 27 January 1994. Further detailed information in response to the points raised by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The exercise of responsibility on behalf of my right hon. Friend is a matter for him and any delegation will vary according to the nature of the body and the appointments being made.

  Railway Stations, Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those British Rail stations within Humberside and the three counties of Yorkshire that are not yet classed as open stations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Only four stations within Humberside and Yorkshire have ticket barriers. These are Bradford interchange, Huddersfield, Hull and Leeds.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail stations within Humberside and the three counties of Yorkshire regional passenger committee area are totally unstaffed; and if he will list them.

  Mr. Freeman
  A total of 138 stations within the Humberside and Yorkshire transport users' consultative committee for the north-east England area are totally unstaffed. I have placed the list in the Library and written to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Business Aviation
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the direction of trend in business aviation use at United Kingdom airfields.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not produce separate forecasts for demand for business aviation. However, the Government believe that such demand is likely to be correlated with economic growth and therefore in the longer term the trend is likely to be upward.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what spare capacity for business aviation exists at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports.

  Mr. Norris
  At Heathrow and Gatwick airports the runways are essentially full in the peak periods; general aviation services can obtain permission to use these airports no more than ten days in advance. At Stansted airport there is an administrative annual limit of 78,000 passenger air transport movements. Flights with less than 10 passengers and certain others are not included in this limit. Any increase to the annual limit would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Some 48,000 air transport movements operated last year.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the Government's policy on ensuring that a suitable airport or airports close to central London will continue to be available for business aviation use;

  (2) what are the plans to retain and develop suitable London airports for business aviation use.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government have acknowledged for some time that access to Heathrow and Gatwick airports will become increasingly difficult for general aviation and that alternative facilities will need to be used. The Government believe that there remains unused airport capacity within reach of central London—including at Stansted and Luton airports.

  As far as airport facilities not generally serving commercial passengers are concerned, there are facilities at a number of sites. The Department has been in discussion

  755
  with the Ministry of Defence about the scope for establishing a privately operated civil enclave for business aviation users at RAF Northolt.

  The recent planning policy guidance on transport—PPG13—published by the Secretary of State for the Environment says that local authorities should take into account the contribution of general aviation when formulating plans. This would be relevant if permission was being sought for any change of use.

  The Department will seek to ensure through the planning system that the benefits of business aviation are fully reflected in local plans. Within this framework it is for airport operators to make decisions on the development of facilities, in the light of their commercial judgment.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's estimates of the increase in demand over the next 20 years for business aviation capacity in the London area.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department does not produce estimates of demand separately for business aviation.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which airports within 30 miles of central London, which are currently being used for business aviation, are due to close during the next 10 years.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that Hatfield and Leavesden aerodromes are to close this year.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Transport which airfields, other than Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, near London, are planned for continuing business aviation use.

  Mr. Norris
  Aerodromes near London available for continuing business aviation use are Biggin Hill, Blackbushe, Elstree, Fairoaks, Farnborough, London Luton, London City, Northolt and Southend. Some of these cannot take all types of aircraft.

  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department and the Civil Aviation Authority have made of the effect of access difficulties to London airports on the scale of business aviation; and what evidence he has of business aviation being transferred to France.

  Mr. Norris
  I have encouraged the business aviation community to provide me with information on the industry; my Department is currently undertaking a study with the Department of Trade and Industry into the demand

  Department of Transport—Staff in post 1 April 1993

  Grade

  Total number

  Women

  Ethnic minority

  Disabled

  Number

  percentage

  Number

  percentage

  Number

  percentage

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  25

  2

  8·0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  16

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  110

  8

  7·3

  1

  0·9

  0

  0

  6

  146

  7

  4·8

  6

  4·1

  0

  0

  7

  763

  73

  9·6

  24

  3·1

  0

  0

  All

  15,246

  6,946

  45·6

  736

  4·8

  198

  1·3

  756
  and economic case for business aviation. I have no evidence that business aviation is transferring from the United Kingdom to France.

  "Britain's Railways: A New Era"
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many copies were(a) printed and (b) distributed of his Department's document, "Britain's Railways: A New Era", and if he will list the recipients.

  Mr. Freeman
  A total of 8,000 copies of the document "Britain's Railways: A New Era" were printed. Distribution has been as follows:

  1,056 to BR and 2,000 to Railtrack; in turn I understand that BR and Railtrack are distributing the document to senior managers at national and regional level

  1,000 to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising for distribution in response to enquiries

  827 copies to Peers and Members of Parliament

  50 copies to the media

  45 copies to attendees at a City seminar about rail privatisation 110 copies sent on request to the Railway Industry Association

  28 copies have also been sent on request to individuals with an interest in the rail industry.

  The residue will be distributed on request.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of(a) printing, (b) distributing and (c) writing the document "Britain's Railways: A New Era."

  Mr. Freeman
  (a) Printing costs were £16,000 within an overall total for production costs of £30,000;

  (b)The Department's distribution costs were £2,000.

  (c)The document was written by the Department, its advisers and others as part of their normal duties.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades, 1 to 7 and overall, in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Norris
  The following table shows numbers and percentages of staff in post in the Department of Transport and its agencies at 1 April 1993. The figures relating to ethnic origin are based on responses to voluntary and confidential surveys of staff and are derived from the Department's computerised personnel records.

  Coastline Protection
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make further protective measures immediately to protect the United Kingdom coastline, human and wild life communities and the lives of seafarers in the light of information about the collision of two ships in the Bosphorus on 14 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 23 March 1994 at column 251.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what emergency training for air traffic controllers has been implemented at Birmingham and Manchester airports by National Air Traffic Services.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: As the training of air traffic controllers is a matter for the Civil Airports Authority I am asking the chairman of the CAA to write in reply to the hon. Member's question.

  Shipping
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the Baltic Exchange's proposal for a British open register; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: Since the Baltic Exchange put its proposals for a British open register for shipping to Ministers on 3 December 1993 there have been a number of representations from various sources, some have been in favour, some against.

  As I explained to the hon. Member on 11 January, Official Report column 124, and again more recently to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Perry), Official Report, 16 March column 692, the proposal requires careful study before a conclusion can be reached. An announcement will be made shortly.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 23 March 1994]: In each of the five years from 1989 to 1993 the number and value of contracts let by the Department to consultants for non-highways work was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  Value (£000s)

  1989

  74

  8,745

  1990

  126

  15,225

  1991

  186

  16,414

  1992

  254

  13,621

  1993

  378

  14,924

  For highways work, new consultant contracts awarded in respect of schemes in the trunk road programme, operation of the trunk road network and associated investigations were as follows:

  Number

  1989

  72

  1990

  115

  1991

  113

  758

  Number

  1992

  46

  1993

  44

  Since many of these commissions are continuing, it is impossible to provide final costs. However, on a financial year basis, total expenditure in the last four years on all such contracts—not just those identified—has been:

  £ million

  1990–91

  159

  1991–92

  181

  1992–93

  208

  1993–94

  1173

  1 To date.

  The figure for 1989–90 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of pulblic appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Norris
  Statistics are not kept on the total number of public appointments—including reappointments—made by my right hon. Friend each year. A check was made on the number of appointments held by members of ethnic minorities at 1 September 1993 as part of the Government-wide monitoring exercise for the purposes of the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993". This revealed that a holder of one of the DOT appointments listed in it is a member of an ethnic minority. However, as information on ethnic origin is given in confidene, the policy is not to give details that would identify ethnic origins of individuals.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost of official entertaining in his Department in each year since 1990–91; if he will list the receptions held in each year at his Department's expense;and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport—excluding its agencies—has spent the following amounts on official entertainment since 1990–91:

  £

  1990–91

  203,684

  1991–92

  169,050

  1992–93

  231,547

  1993–94

  1218,615

  1 To 28 March 1994 only.

  Information regarding individual receptions and the related costs is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.
  759
  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has not purchased any Proton cars in the last 10 years.

  Cycling (Code of Conduct)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce a cyclists' code of conduct; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Advice to pedal cyclists on safe cycling practices is contained in the highway code. Rules 36 to 154 apply to cyclists as they do to all vehicle users and rules 187 to 211 give further specific advice to cyclists. We have also issued a leaflet "Tips for Safer Cycling" as part of our Cycle Safe campaign.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice is given by his Department to local authorities on the design of traffic calming measures.

  Mr. Key
  The Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1993 build on the earlier Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1990 and provide local highway authorities with a wider choice of features to improve road safety and the local environment. The regulations provide for features such as chicanes, narrowings and gateways, as well as road humps, which can be used separately or in combination.

  It is for individual authorities to design local schemes but my Department provides technical advice on the regulations and individual design features in circulars and traffic advisory leaflets.

  Traffic Congestion (Cost)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the annual cost of traffic congestion.

  Mr. Key
  The cost of traffic congestion can be measured only against specific alternatives such as road schemes, junction improvements or initiatives to reduce or redirect traffic. It is not possible to provide a national aggregate measure.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Local Government Legislation
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since 1992;

  (2) if he will list the Acts of Parliament and Consolidation Acts that affect local government that have been introduced by his Department since 1990.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  None.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,Official Report, columns 899–900, if he knows of any other people known to be Labour party supporters appointed to public bodies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have nothing to add to my earlier answer.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 4 March,760
  Official Report, columns 899–900, (1) if he will construct a list of known Liberal Democrat party supporters appointed to public bodies;

  (2) if he will construct a list of known Conservative party supporters appointed to public bodies.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those former honourable and right honourable Members defeated in the general election of 1992 who, at any subsequent date, have been appointed to public bodies by the Government; and if he will list those appointments.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Information about individual public appointees is not held centrally.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals the Government have to strengthen and extend the role of the parliamentary ombudsman.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As proposed in the White Paper "Open Government" (Cm 2290), there will be a major extension to the responsibilities of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration as from April 1994, when complaints may be referred to him in connection with the code of practice on access to Government information.

  The Government are also giving support to the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Malone), which had its Second Reading in the House on 11 March, to extend the jurisdiction of the PCA to the administrative actions by the administrative staff in certain tribunals not already within his remit.

  Finally, the Government are considering the proposals in the first report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Session 1993–94, on the powers, work and jurisdiction of the ombudsman, and will respond in due course.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Roger Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancster, what progress he has made in appointing members of the three new research councils.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences research council, Engineering and Physical Sciences research council, and Particle Physics and Astronomy research council, will come into being on 1 April 1994. I have appointed the following members to serve on the councils:

  BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL(BBSRC)

  Chairman: Sir Alistair Grant (Argyll Group)

  Chief Executive: Professor Tom Blundell FRS

  Members:

  Professor Jack Baldwin FRS (Oxford University)

  Dr. Peter Bunyan (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)

  Dr. Ed Dart (Zeneca)

  Professor Peter Dunnill FEng (University College London)

  Dr. Elliot Finer (Department of Trade and Industry)

  Sir Brian Follett FRS (University of Warwick)

  Mr. Ben Gill (National Farmers' Union)

  Dr. Keith Humphreys (Rhone-Poulenc)

  761

  Professor Susan Iversen (Oxford University)

  Professor Rachel Leech (University of York)

  Dr. Tom Little(Unilever)

  Mr. Kenneth Mackenzie (Scottish Office)

  Professor Lady Noreen Murray (University of Edinburgh)

  Dr. Brian Richards CBE (British Biotechnology Group)

  ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES RESEARCH COUNCIL (EPSRC)

  Chairman: Dr. Alan Rudge, OBE FEng FRS (BT)

  Chief Executive: Professor Richard Brook, OBE

  Members:

  Professor John Ball, FRS (Heriot Watt University)

  Professor Alec Broers, (FRS (Cambridge University)

  Professor Sir David Davies, CBE FEng FRS (Ministry of Defence)

  Dr. David Evans, (Department of Trade and Industry)

  Dr. David Giachardi, (Courtaulds)

  Professor Julia Higgins, (Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine)

  Professor B. F. G. Johnson, FRS (University of Edinburgh)

  Dr. Tony Ledwith, (Pilkington)

  Mr. S. C. Miller, CBE FEng (Rolls-Royce)

  Dr. D. J. H. Smith, (Whatman)

  Professor Jean Thomas, CBE FRS (Cambridge University)

  Professor David Wallace, FRS (Loughborough University of Technology)

  PARTICLE PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY RESEARCH COUNCIL (PPARC)

  Chairman: Dr. Peter Williams, CBE (Oxford Instruments)

  Chief Executive: Professor Ken Pounds, CBE FRS

  Members:

  Sir David Cooksey, (Advent)

  Professor Stan Cowley, (Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine)

  Mr. John de Fonblanque, (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

  Professor John Dowell, FRS (University of Birmingham)

  Professor John Enderby, FRS (University of Bristol)

  Dr. David Evans, (Department of Trade and Industry)

  Professor Ian Halliday, (University College Swansea)

  Dr. Carole Jordan, FRS (Oxford University)

  Sir Martin Rees, FRS (Cambridge University)

  Dr. Geoff Robinson, (IBM)

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what external routes of complaint have been established for each part of the Government service covered by the charter.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  For the purpose of this question I am taking "external routes of complaint" to mean the provision by public services covered by the charter of a route to deal with complaints which is separate from the management hierarchy of the service. Those which are known to my Department are:

  Benefits Agency War Pensions Unit: War Pensions Committees;

  British Gas: Gas Consumers' Council and OFGAS;

  British Rail: Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee (co-ordinated through the Central Transport Consultative Committee);

  British Telecom: OFTEL with recourse to a service provided by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators;

  British Waterways Board: British Waterways Ombudsman; 14 Electricity Companies: Electricity Consumers Committees and OFFER;

  Home Office Immigration and Nationality Department: Complaints Audit Committee;

  Housing Corporation: Housing Association Tenants Ombudsman Service;

  Inland Revenue: Revenue Adjudicator;

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce: Agency Complaints Adjudicator;

  London Buses and London Underground: London Regional Passengers Committee;

  762

  Department of National Savings: Adjudicator for National Savings;

  Police Service: Police Complaints Authority (England and Wales);

  Procurator Fiscal Service (Scotland);

  Post Office: Post Office Users' National Council with recourse to a service provided by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators;

  Probation Service: Area Probation Committees;

  32 Water companies: Regional Customer Services Committees and OFWAT.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department and the Department of Energy in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Eggar
  No Proton cars have been purchased by my Department or the Department of Energy in the last 10 years.

  Overseas Trade
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) of 22 March,Official Report, column 210, if he will set out the reasons for the separate information on EC trade data not being available.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Separate information on volumes, unit values and terms of trade for United Kingdom trade with the EC is not available because of the unreliability of the price indices, or deflators, used in their calculation. These deflators are thought to be reliable overall but less so for trade with individual countries.

  The quality of those concerning United Kingdom trade with the EC is also adversely affected by problems associated with the introduction of Intrastat, the system for collecting information on EC trade following the completion of the single market.

  Construction Industry Deregulation Task Force
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the report of the construction industry deregulation task force will be published; and if the task force took evidence from(a) the Home Office and (b) fire service.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The booklet "Deregulation Task Forces: Proposals for Reform" was published on 19 January 1994 and copies placed in the Library of the House. The working papers of all the task forces will be placed in the Library of the House today.

  The construction industry task force held discussions with officials and Ministers in several Government Departments including the Home Office. The fire review announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 17 January 1994, Official Report, column 381, is exploring the fire safety issues identified by the task force in consultation with all interested parties including fire service bodies and is assisted by expert advisors including a chief fire officer.

  Coal Industry (Geological Data)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he will take to ensure that as part of the denationalisation of the coal industry British Coal or its successor, the Coal Authority, will release all borehole information to the British Geological Survey; and if he will ensure that British Coal or the Coal Authority will remove the present embargo on academic study and research of geological data to develop geological knowledge for non-commercial purposes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Coal Industry Bill currently before Parliament places a specific duty on the Coal Authority normally to provide public access to a wide range of information in its possession, including geological data.

  Export Assistance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the assistance his Department gives to help British companies market and sell their products abroad in the past five years; and what is the planned expenditure in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The table records gross and net expenditure on export promotion assistance programmes. This does not include the running costs associated with delivering these programmes at home and abroad.

  In £ million—1993–94 and 1994–95 are forecasts

  Gross

  Net

  1988–89

  46·8

  30·4

  1989–90

  47·1

  32·9

  1990–91

  52·5

  36·9

  1991–92

  46·0

  27·8

  1992–93

  46·3

  29·8

  Enforcement agency

  Available to business

  Published

  ADAS Milk and Dairies Inspectorate

  15 April 19941

  Estimate late May 1994

  Agriculture Health and Safety Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Agriculture Wages Inspectorate

  1 January 1994

  6 April 1994

  Agriculture Wages Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Animal Health Act Inspectors and Veterinary Inspectors

  1 January 1994

  25 March 1994

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  British Waterways Board

  —

  Expected April 1994

  Central Statistical Office

  1 January 1994

  31 December 1993

  Civil Aviation Authority

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Companies House

  1 January 1994

  19 January 1994

  Companies Registry (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Contributions Agency

  21 January 1994

  17 January 1994

  Customs and Excise

  2—

  2—

  Department of Health: control activities in connection with places approved under the Abortion Act

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Drinking Water Inspectorate

  30 December 1993

  30 December 1993

  Driving and Vehicle Testing Agency (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Driving Standards Agency (register of approved driving instructors)

  10 March 1994

  10 March 1994

  Drugs Inspectorate (NI)

  3—

  3—

  Egg Marketing Inspectorate

  1 January 1994

  7 March 1994

  Egg Marketing Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Employment Agency Licensing

  4—

  4—

  Engineering Inspectorate

  14 December 1993

  14 December 1993

  Export Licensing Unit

  20 January 1994

  9 March 1994

  Fatstock Inspectorate

  1 January 1994

  25 March 1994

  Fertilisers and Feed Stuffs Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Fish Diseases Inspectorate

  115 April 1994

  Estimate late May 1994

  Fisheries Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Fisheries and Terrestrial Radiological Inspectorate

  1 January 1994

  18 February 1994

  Football Licensing Authority

  31 December 1993

  31 December 1993

  Gas Examiners, Gas Meter Examiners

  27 January 1994

  27 January 1994

  Health and Safety Executive

  6—

  12 January 1994

  Health and Safety Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  764

  Gross

  Net

  1993–94

  51·3

  36·6

  1994–95

  55·3

  39·4

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

  Mr. Heseltine
  During the month of February, I and my ministerial colleagues received 1,751 letters from hon. Members and responded to 1,376. Some letters are transferred to other Government Departments for reply.

  Government Enforcement Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each Government enforcement agency covered by his Department's code the dates on which their codes of practice were published and made available to the public.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 March 1994]: The table sets out the dates on which each of the enforcement agencies listed in "Working with Business" published their code of practice. The table also shows the date from which each code was available since many agencies had their codes available to business while preparations for publication were underway.

  Following my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's seminar on deregulation on 19 January, it was agreed that all remaining enforcement agencies would finalise their codes by April 1994.
  765

  Enforcement agency

  Available to business

  Published

  Health and Social Services Board Inspectorate of Registered Nursing Homes (NI)

  6—

  6—

  Scottish Home and Health Department. Approval under Section 1(3) of the Abortion Act 1967 and Registration of Pregnancy Advice Bureaux (SO)

  14 January 1994

  14 January 1994

  HM Industrial Pollution Inspectorate (SO)

  29 April 1994

  29 April 1994

  HM Inspectorate of Pollution

  22 March 1994

  22 March 1994

  Home Office Drugs Branch

  1 April 1994

  1 April 1994

  Horticultural Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Horticultural Marketing Inspectorate

  1 January 1994

  18 February 1994

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)

  5 April 1994

  5 April 1994

  Inland Revenue

  2—

  2—

  Licensing and Inspection under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986

  5 January 1994

  5 January 1994

  Meat and Livestock (SO)

  22 April 1994

  22 April 1994

  Medical Devices Directorate

  28 December 1993

  4 January 1994

  Medicines Control Agency

  31 December 1993

  1 January 1994

  Medicines Inspectorate

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Milk and Milk Products Quality Assurance Division (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  National Rivers Authority

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  23 December 1993

  23 December 1993

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Occupational Pensions Board

  —

  by April 1994

  Office of Fair Trading

  19 January 1994

  19 January 1994

  Pharmaceutical Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate

  1 January 1994

  18 January 1994

  Plant Health Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Poisons Inspectorate (NI)

  3—

  3—

  Potato Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Radiocommunications Agency (Radio Investigation Services)

  End December 1993

  End December 1993

  River Purification Boards (SO)

  7—

  7—

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency (SO)

  10 January 1994

  12 January 1994

  Sea Fisheries Inspectorate

  1 January 1994

  6 April 1994

  Seeds Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Surveyor Generals Organisation (now—Marine Support Agency)

  8—

  March 1994

  The Good Laboratory Practice Monitoring Authority (GLP MA)

  11 January 1994

  11 January 1994

  Trading Standards Inspectorate (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Traffic Area Offices

  April 1994

  April 1994

  Transport Licensing and Enforcement (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  April 1994

  April 1994

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  April 1994

  April 1994

  Veterinary Services (NI)

  1 January 1994

  1 January 1994

  Wine Standards Board

  1 January 1994

  11 February 1994

  1—Delay due to changes in governing legislation.

  2—Intend existing Citizen's Charter documents to form basis of Code.

  3—Covered in a United Kingdom wide code.

  4—Committed to complying in full once position has been finalised under the Deregulation and Contracting out Bill.

  5—Existing publications were updated to bring them into line with Code.

  6—Withdrawn by Department of Health.

  7—Two codes published 10 February 1994 and 6 December 1993. Five others in preparation.

  8—Publication timed to coincide with launch of Agency on 1 April 1994.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades, 1 to 7 and overall, in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Sproat
  The information is for staff within the Department of National Heritage, excluding its two executive agencies, the Historic Royal Palaces and Royal Parks;

  The total percentage of women in each grades 1 to 7 and overall within the Department of National Heritage are listed:
  766

  DNH staff as at 28 February 1994

  Grade

  Total number in grade

  Per cent, of which are female

  1A

  1

  0

  G3

  4

  25

  G4

  1

  0

  G5

  16

  25

  G6

  5

  80

  G7

  44

  25

  SEO and below

  265

  49

  Note:

  Information on ethnic minorities is not yet held centrally;

  The percentage of registered disabled staff employed within the Department of National Heritage is 0·6 per cent.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many grace and favour apartments there are in the historic royal palaces.
  767
  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: At historic royal palaces 18 apartments are occupied on a grace-and-favour basis by pensioners, employees and holders of official positions in the royal household.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many rules and regulations her Department has passed in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 16 March 1994]: This Department made the following numbers of statutory instruments over the last three calendar years:

  Year

  Number

  1991

  93

  1992

  117

  1993

  143

  Not all instruments impose requirements or regulations on business and some amend, replace or revoke existing instruments.

  Feline Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will give a breakdown of feline spongiform encephalopathy cases for each month since the first case was reported and the areas in which they occurred.

  Mr. Soames
  This disease is not notifiable to the Ministry and report to the Ministry is usually by private veterinary surgeons. The information requested is therefore listed by date of onset of clinical signs of the disease and is as follows:

  Date of onset

  County

  1989

  November

  Avon

  1990

  January

  Leicestershire

  February

  Gloucestershire

  March

  Somerset

  March

  Clwyd

  April

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  May

  West Glamorgan

  June

  Hampshire

  June

  Leicestershire

  July

  Avon

  September

  Cornwall

  September

  Strathclyde

  October

  Cornwall

  October

  Suffolk

  October

  North Yorkshire

  October

  West Yorkshire

  December

  Clwyd

  1991

  March

  Lancashire

  May

  Devon

  June

  Shetland

  August

  Dorset

  August

  Berkshire

  August

  Fife

  September

  Guernsey

  November

  Bedfordshire

  768

  Date of onset

  County

  December

  Clwyd

  1992

  February

  Derbyshire

  March

  Somerset

  April

  Dorset

  April

  Clwyd

  April

  Gloucestershire

  August

  Hertfordshire

  August

  Shropshire

  August

  Wiltshire

  August

  Surrey

  September

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  October

  Norfolk

  October

  Bedfordshire

  October

  Gloucestershire

  December

  Surrey

  1993

  May

  Cambridgeshire

  May

  Cumbria

  August

  Nottinghamshire

  August

  Durham

  September

  Strathclyde

  October

  Devon

  November

  Surrey

  Food Stockpile
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 606, if she will list the recipients of the foodstuffs in the national food stockpile.

  Mr. Soames
  There have been numerous recipients of foodstuffs from the national food stockpile following the decision to run it down. Some foods have been donated for food aid. Other foods have been either sold by competitive tender or returned under contract to the supplier. Stocks no longer suitable for human consumption have been sold for animal feed or destroyed.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Proton cars were purchased by her Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Jack
  The policy is for the Ministry to buy cars for official use where they can provide the most cost-effective means of arranging travel on the Ministry's business. Only those models showing the basic features necessary for the business in question are purchased and all purchases are made through central call-off contracts set up for that purpose.

  There are no records of any purchase of Proton cars during the period in question.

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes she envisages in regulations concerning "quota hoppers" in respect of the joint declaration on ownership of fishing vessels (final act) of annex 1 Union common position of the Norway EV fisheries agreement; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: The text of the joint declaration corresponds to wording included in

  769
  the judgment of the European Court of Justice in cases 216/87 and 221/89. As such, the declaration does not appear to necessitate any change in United Kingdom legislation.

  Freshwater Fish Stocks
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to her answer of 24 March,Official Report, column 374, if she will place in the Library copies of the studies commissioned by the National Rivers Authority on the reasons for declines in fish catches.

  Mr. Jack
  Studies carried out by the National Rivers Authority in response to anglers' concerns about the perceived decline in catches of fish often involve an assessment of the status of stocks at the location in question. Normally further work would be carried out only if this revealed a particular problem. The results of such studies are made available to local fishery interests but are seldom disseminated more widely in the form of formal published reports. I am, however, arranging for reports on two of the more extensive studies carried out recently—those relating to the Warwickshire Avon and to the Test and Itchen—to be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Legal Action (Dairy Producers)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid by her Department during 1993–94 as a result of legal action taken by dairy producers.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Costs of £75,972 have arisen as a result of legal actions taken by dairy producers. This amount will be brought to account in the 1993–94 appropriation account.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what performance targets she has set for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in 1994–95; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate has submitted his proposals to me and I have agreed that the VMD should be set the following performance targets for 1994–95:

  full cost recovery for the three business activities of licensing, policy work and residues monitoring;

  75 per cent. of new licence applications to be issued within 120 clock days; 95 per cent. within 200 days;

  an overall efficiency gain of 2 per cent.

  These are challenging targets which will build on the improvements already made in the efficiency and quality of service provided by the directorate since its establishment as a next steps agency, and for which I commend the chief executive and his staff. In addition, I have agreed the VMD's corporate plan for 1994–95—1996–97, and copies are being placed in the Library of the House and the Public Information Office.

  Milk Development Council
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the National Farmers Union's proposal for a milk development council.
  770
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In deciding whether to establish a development. council, Ministers have to follow the procedures in the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. In particular, they need to be satisfied that its establishment is desired by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry.

  In mid-April the Ministry and the Welsh Office therefore intend to invite all milk producers in England and Wales to vote on a proposal for the establishment and operation of a milk development council covering Great Britain and its funding by means of a statutory levy.

  A development council would continue certain activities of the milk marketing boards in Great Britain—such as the funding of research and development and the provision of market information—which would not be assumed by commercially-oriented successor co-operatives but are of benefit to the industry generally.

  We intend to ask for completed questionnaires to be returned by 12 May. The Scottish Office intends to conduct a similar poll in Scotland.

  Coast Protection
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the progress made with the survey of coast protection works in England.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My Department commissioned a coast protection survey of England in 1993. The survey was to examine the extent, adequacy and state of repair of coast protection defences, which are designed to protect the land from erosion and encroachment by the sea. A lead consultant was appointed to co-ordinate the collection of data by associate consultants. The lead consultants' report has been published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  The condition of each defence element—for example, embankment groyne—around the coast of England was assessed by visual inspection and the results can be summarised as follows:

  Per cent.

  Class 1 (condition as built)

  12

  Class 2 (some signs of wear)

  47

  Class 3 (moderate works needed)

  33

  Class 4 (significant works needed)

  8

  It should be emphasised that where a defence element is in need of significant works this does not mean that the integrity of the defences for the relevant stretch of coastline is in immediate jeopardy.

  The survey also identified some 135 km of unprotected coast which is at present significantly eroding and where the provision of works may need to be considered within the next ten years.

  The survey results have been sent to the local coast protection authorities in England so that they can consider the condition of existing defences in their respective areas and the potential need for defences for unprotected lengths of coastline that are eroding significantly. Councils will also be drawing the survey results to the attention of other owners of defences in their areas. The Ministry will be discussing the survey results with the coast protection authorities in order to prioritise the necessary remedial works.
  771

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will be able to announce the composition of the medical panel to investigate health effects claimed to arise from organophosphorus sheep dip exposure; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  I am pleased to announce that the following members have been appointed to the medical and scientific panel, which is being established to look into reports of long term health effects claimed to arise from organophosphorus sheep dip exposure.

  Dr. D. N. Bateman, BSc, MB BS, MRCS, MD, FRCP(Chairman)

  Professor P. G. Blain, Phd, BMedSci, MB BS, FIBiol, MFOM, FRCP (London), FRCP (Edinburgh)

  Dr. R. W. Brimblecombe, PhD, DSc, FRCPath, FIBiol

  Professor S. J. W. Evans, BS Hons, MSc

  Dr. G. A. Jamal, MBChB(Hons), MD, PhD, FRCP (Glasgow)

  Dr. M. K. Johnson PhD, BSc, ARCS, ARIC

  Professor M. Lader, DSc, PhD, MD, FRCPsych

  Dr. T. C. Mans, MB BS, MSc, MD, MIBiol, DipRCPath (Tox), FRCPath, FIBiol

  Dr. R. G. Rawbone, MB BS, LRCP, MRCS

  Professor P. K. Thomas, CBE, DSc, MD, FRCP, FRCPath

  The panel, which will act as a sub-committee to the Veterinary Products Committee, will hold its first meeting on 31 March. I look forward to receiving its advice on the issues it will be addressing.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 28 and 29 March; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This meeting of the Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, held a further lengthy discussion of the Commission's proposals for farm prices and related measures, including milk quotas, for 1994–95. The attitude that I took on these issues was the one that I explained to the House in the recent debate.

  The Council reached no conclusions and will return to the subject at its next meeting. Because prices were not fixed, it was necessary formally to extend the 1993–94 marketing years for beef and milk: the Council so decided by unanimity.

  I took the opportunity to refer to recent scare stories in the German press alleging a link between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and human health. I stressed that there was no scientific foundation for this claim, that the measures that had long been in place in the United Kingdom and in the Community were more than adequate protection, and that unilateral action to restrict trade in British beef and cattle would be illegal. I received strong support from the Commission and a number of other member states for my point of view.

  The Council adopted several relatively minor measures, namely: a regulation permitting member states to buy up milk quota for redistribution, using funds previously set aside to compensate producers for reductions in quotas; a regulation concerning the use of sums previously agreed for assisting farmers in Portugal affected by drought; a regulation strengthening the controls on subsidised exports of certain processed products; a regulation providing for the levy-free import of certain quantities of wheat, beef, poultrymeat, pork and milling residues, previously agreed as part of the settlement of an earlier dispute with third
  772
  countries concerning oilseeds; and a regulation providing for the import of a supplementary quantity of high quality beef in 1994. Belgium and Ireland voted against the last two measures and Italy against the one on export controls. The others were adopted unanimously.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has made at the Agriculture Council of 28 and 29 March about British beef exports.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  At the Agriculture Council on 28 March I raised our concerns about the threats from Germany of unilateral action against British beef and confirmed that my colleagues in the Council are standing firm in support of the Commission's position, with which we agree, that trade measures must be based on scientific knowledge of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. This knowledge is already fully reflected in the current trade rules.

  I presented Commissioner Steichen with a dossier showing the damage which has already been done to United Kingdom exports by the German position. I made it clear that we cannot tolerate this when there is no justification whatsoever for the safety of our beef exports to be called into question. I pointed out that if member states behaved in this way it created a dangerous precedent and undermined the very foundation of free trade; there was no knowing which product from which country might next be similarly affected. Whilst Governments had to respond to public concerns they should do so in a responsible and measured way which reflected the known facts of the situation.

  As the House is aware the Government believe that BSE was caused by the use of contaminated feed, on which action was taken by the ruminant feed ban in 1988. The feed hypothesis, made six years ago on the basis of a thorough epidemiological study, has recently been supported by preliminary findings from collaborative research begun in 1991, and due to run until 1996, which we are conducting with the EC Commission and the European Renderers Association. These early results show that the BSE agent can survive some rendering processes. When a report on this research is available it will be deposited in the Library of the House and I shall consult the Spongiform Encephalopathy advisory committee as the work progresses.

  My representations in the Council were fully supported by the Commission and 10 other member states, who shared our view that the position taken by Germany was not sustainable.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Public Accounts Commission
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, column 797–98, what is the proposed time scale for the relocation of staff and work from Sheffield to London; which private sector firms are being invited to tender; what is the nature of the tendering process; and under what legislation the process is taking place.
  773
  Sir Peter Hordern
  Decisions on the administration and organisation of the National Audit Office are a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General to take within his budget, which is considered and approved by the Public Accounts Commission on behalf of the House. I have asked the Comptroller and Auditor General to write to the hon. Member.

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibitions
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Crown Prosecution Service to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 18 April to Friday 22 April.

  Lady Chalker's overseas travel August 1993—end December 1993

  When

  Where

  Reason

  August

  6–12

  Barbados, Dominica, Anguilla, USA (New York)

  Bilaterals, project visits, visit British Development Division

  September

  4–8

  Cyprus

  Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference, Limassol

  18–24

  Ethiopia/Eritrea

  East Africa Heads of Mission Conference, bilaterals;

  October

  30/9–1/10

  Washington DC/Japan

  US Conference on Middle East, Tokyo Conference on Africa, bilaterals

  25–26

  Germany

  Bilaterals

  November

  5–10

  Italy/Albania

  Albania: bilaterals and project visits Rome: FAO Conference; talks with Vatican, WFP

  13–15

  Egypt

  Bilaterals, project visits

  17–19

  USA (NY/Washington)

  Bilaterals

  December

  1–2

  Brussels

  EC Development Council

  4–11

  South Africa, Mozambique, Botswana Zimbabwe

  Bilaterals Project visits

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what losses he estimates he might be liable for, if the overall contract price for the Pergau dam project were shown to be greater than if it had been awarded by open tender.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, Fast (Mr. Vaz), of 24 February,Official Report, column 389, if he will now set out the cost of accompanying officials on the 21 official visits made; and what was the nature of (a) the bilateral discussions, (b) the international conferences and (c) the EC meeting to which he refers.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The cost of officials accompanying my noble Friend, Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, on her visits overseas during 1993 was approximately £116,000. In some instances the officials concerned have also been undertaking official duties in addition to providing support for the specific purposes of my noble Friend's visits; it is not possible to disaggregate the costings to reflect these occasions.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 14 July 1993, columns 499–504 for details of my noble Friend's visits from January to July 1993. Details of my noble Friend's visits between August and the end of December 1993 are as follows:

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  None. Her Majesty's Government are not party to the contract between Tenaga Nasional Berhad—TNB—and the United Kingdom consortium, Kerjaya Balfour Beatty Cementation.

  Thailand
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 586, which

  775
  company or companies are seeking support under the aid and trade provision for the project to improve the quality of drinking water supplies in Thailand.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I regret that this information is commercial and confidential.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 586, when he expects to reach a decision on whether the project to improve the quality of drinking water supplies in Thailand should receive support under the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  A decision will be taken when ODA's appraisal of the project has been completed and we have complied with OECD consultation requirements.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 586, what is the total cost of the project to improve the quality of drinking water supplies in Thailand; and what is the likely cost to the aid and trade provision of supporting this project.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The costs of the project cannot be finalised until the appraisal process is complete.

  Sudan
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what agreement has been reached, following the Intergovernmental Administration on Drought and Development—IGADD—meeting on Sudan in Nairobi on 17 March, to allow full access to humanitarian agencies to give relief assistance to people in war affected areas; and which new areas are now to be accessible to international aid agencies.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  An agreement was reached on 23 March between the Government of Sudan and both factions of the Sudan People's Liberation Army on a number of principles designed to facilitate the delivery of relief assistance to all needy populations regardless of their locations. A copy of the agreement has been placed in both Libraries of the House. If the agreement holds, all war-affected areas should become accessible.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent humanitarian aid is now flowing in Liberia through the Ivory Coast access route and through Kakata.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  Humanitarian aid convoys are presently moving freely along these routes.

  Desertification
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on problems encountered, and progress made, in the current negotiations for a global convention to combat desertification.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The main problem encountered has been the completion of both a convention text and a776
  regional instrument for Africa in the timescale set by the United Nations General Assembly. In the current round of negotiations some progress has been made on agreement of a convention text.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claiming income support in the Doncaster area offices of the Benefit Agency in 1992 and 1993 were refused benefit by an adjudication officer; how many appealed; how many of those who appealed subsequently had their claim for income support allowed; and how many of those concerned had children.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the appeals in the Benefits Agency's Doncaster District.
  The full range of information you request is not readily available and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost. This is because statistics relating to the refusal of Income Support and those which would identify families with children are not routinely collected. To obtain all the relevant information would require a physical examination of all income support cases within the Doncaster District.
  I am, however, able to provide records which show the number for income support appeals which are for January to December each year and are shown below.

  1992

  1993

  Appeals received

  321

  339

  Appeals withdrawn

  43

  48

  Appeals superseded

  79

  96

  Appeals allowed

  19

  20

  Appeals partially allowed

  4

  2

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount of income support payment is deemed to be designated for personal clothing needs.

  Mr. Burt
  Income support rates are intended to cover all normal day-to-day living expenses and no particular amounts are designated for specific purposes. Claimants are free to manage their benefit according to their own needs and preferences.

  Income Support (Deductions)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the Doncaster area are having weekly deductions made from their income support for(a) electricity and (b) gas of (i) under £2 per week and (ii) in each £1 band above £2 per week up to £40 per week.

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.
  777
  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 29 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many households in the Doncaster area are having weekly deductions made from their income support for (a) electricity and (b) gas of (i) £2 per week and (ii) in each £1 band above £2 per week up to £40 per week.
  The full range of information requested is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. This is because figures are not routinely collected on a local basis and to obtain the full range of information requested would require a physical examination of all cases with deductions for electricity and gas in the Doncaster area.
  However, the information which is available for the Doncaster area, is as follows:

  Number

  Cases with deductions for electricity

  374

  Cases with deductions for gas

  876

  This information has been collected by the Doncaster District Office whose area boundary coincides with that of the Doncaster area. No further breakdown is available.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are made for repaying moneys to absent parents who have been wrongly assessed by the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. John Spellar, dated 28 March 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency's arrangements for repaying money to absent parents where the maintenance assessment has been revised.
  The Agency acts as an intermediary between two parties in the arrangement of child maintenance, and has no powers to recover monies which have been overpaid to the parent with care. However, provisions have been made in the Arrears, Interest and Adjustment of Maintenance Assessment Regulations (regulation 10) to adjust future payments of maintenance in order to correct an under or overpayment, where this can be done.
  The parent with care is protected from a period of total loss of income by restricting the amount by which future payments of maintenance may be adjusted in order to correct overpayment. These provisions are normally applied by the Child Support Officer at the maximum rate of 1½ times the difference between the old and new assessment. However, where an absent parent makes representations about the level of adjustment a lesser rate can be considered.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar can expect an answer from the Child Support Agency in reply to her letter to the Minister dated 14 December concerning the case of Mrs. W. A. Rex-Cain.

  Mr. Burt
  I understand that Ros Hepplewhite, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, replied to the hon. Member on 25 March 1994.
  778
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will launch an independent investigation into the handling by the Child Support Agency of Mrs. Terri West's application for child maintenance support.

  Mr. Burt
  There are no such plans. My hon. Friend will understand that although I am unable to comment on an individual case, I should stress that either party to a child maintenance assessment has the right to seek a review, and following the review to seek leave to appeal to an independent child support appeal tribunal.

  State Pension Age
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer of 19 July 1993,Official Report, column 74, in respect of the information contained in the figure from "Options for Equality in State Pension Age".

  Mr. Hague
  The Government Actuary's Department has revised the information contained in figure 7, page 77, of the "Options for Equality in State Pension Age" document for current pension age, age 60 and age 65. The information is contained in the table. These estimates do not include any national health service allocation. There are obvious difficulties in predicting developments so far into the future, including the need to make hypothetical policy assumptions, for example, concerning the conditions for contracting out. For these reasons figures for age 63 have not been updated and the results given should not be interpreted as precise estimates but as broad indicators of the financial effects.

  Current state pension age

  Age 60

  Age 65

  Year

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1994–95

  18·25

  —

  —

  2025

  20·0

  22·0

  18·5

  2035

  19·8

  21·5

  18·7

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the organisations and individuals outside his Department who are sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment;

  (2) if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Hague
  A number of organisations or individuals may be consulted about, or asked to submit names of, potential candidates for public appointments. Since June 1992 these have included:

  The Association of British Insurers

  The British Epilepsy Association

  The Confederation of British Industry

  Miss C. H. Dawes (Deputy Chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board)

  Expert members of the Disability Living Allowance Board

  The Forum of Private Businesses

  The Government Actuary

  779

  The Department of Health

  The Department of Health and Social Services Northern Ireland

  The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  The Lord Chancellor's Department

  The Public Appointments Unit within the Cabinet Office

  Sir Jeremy Rowe CBE, (former Chairman of the Occupational Pensions Board)

  The Secretary of State for Scotland

  The Social Security Advisory Committee

  The Department of Trade and Industry

  The Trade Union Congress

  HM Treasury

  The Secretary of State for Wales

  National Continence Week
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what projects his Department instigated in respect of National Continence Week.

  Mr. Scott
  As the Department of Health has the lead on this matter, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, on 25 March, at column 463. This Department ran no such specific projects.

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows. All appointments are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Except where shown, appointments are for a three-year term and non-salaried.

  Occupational Pensions Board

  Chairman (£26,000):

  Mr. P. Carr CBE

  Deputy Chairman (£12,000), 3.5 year appointment:

  Miss C. H. Dawes

  Members:

  Mr. R. Amy

  Mrs. R. Brown

  Mr. R. Ellison

  Mr. H. Harris Hughes

  Mr. A. Herbert

  Mr. D. Lyburn

  Mr. A. Pickering

  Mr. W. Ramsey

  Mr. M. Slack

  Mr. K. Thomas

  Miss P. Triggs

  Central Advisory Committee for War Pensions

  Members:

  Mr. M. B. Day, MBE

  Councillor T. S. Deeming, MBE

  Mr. P. H. Dixon, OBE MA

  Mr. I. Duncan-Smith, MP

  Mr. W. Dunn, MBE JP

  Mr. C. G. Fox, FRSH FCIArb

  Mr. I. Grainger

  Mr. D. B. Hilton

  Mr. R. R. Holland, MBE

  Mr. R. W. E. House, MBE

  Mr. J. Hughes, CBE

  Mr. E. R. Jobson, OBE

  Councillor T. J. Jones, JP BEM KSG

  Mr. O. C. S. Light, MBE

  Lord Mackie of Benshie, CBE DSO DFC

  780

  Mr. A. Meale, MP

  Mr. G. R. Miller

  Mrs. H. Murphy

  Mr. W. S. Mutimer, MBE JP

  Mrs. M. F. K.Neale, MBE

  Mrs. P. L. Newnes, OBE

  Mr. F. E. Onyon, MBE

  Sir Roger Palin, KBE

  Mr. H. L. Payne, OBE

  Mr. C. G. S. Pigott, MBE

  Mr. J. J. Ray, MBE

  Mr. H. B. Salmon, MBE

  Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  Chairman (two year appointment):

  Professor R. Grahame, MB BS MD FRCP

  Deputy Chairman (two year appointment):

  Miss S. Knibbs, CQSW

  Members:

  Mrs. J. Allen-King, MBE

  Mrs. J. Ashcroft, MBE

  Mrs. P. Case, CBE BA

  Dr. A. Clarke, BSc MB BS FRCP

  Miss E. Fanshawe, OBE DipCOT

  Mrs. J. Franklin, CQSW

  Mr. S. Gallop, OBE MA

  Mrs. C. Henry, RGN

  Dr. J. Hunter, BSc MB ChB FRCP

  Sir Peter Large, CBE BSc

  Mr. C. Laurenzi, BSc CQSW

  Dr. R. Lucas, BSc MB BS MPhil FRCPsych

  Dr. I. McKinlay, BSc MB ChB FRCP DCH

  Mrs. S. Philbrook, BA MCSP

  Dr. T. Phillips, MB BS FRFPS MRCP MFOM

  Dr. M. Piper, MB BS FRCP

  Dr. M. Richards, BSc MB BChir FRCPGP

  Dr. S. Shorvon, MB BChir MD FRCP

  Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  Chairman:

  Professor J. M. Harrington

  Members:

  Dr. J. Asherson

  Miss J. C. Brown

  Mrs. J. Carter

  Professor M. J. Cinnamond

  Dr. D. N. M. Coggon

  Professor A. D. Dayan

  Dr. C. P. Juniper

  Mr. T. Mawer

  Professor A. J. Newman Taylor

  Mr. R. Pickering

  Dr. L. Rushton

  Dr. C. Taylor

  Mr. O. D. Tudor

  Ms M. Tworney

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  Chairman: Mr. M. Bett CBE

  Members:

  Mrs. J. Anelay OBE

  Mr. A. Dilnot

  The Reverend G. H. Good OBE

  Mr. D. Guereca

  Mr. N. Hardwick

  Mr. M. Hastings

  Professor A. Ogus

  The Hon. Mrs.R. H. Price CBE

  Esme Scott CBE

  Professor O. Stevenson

  Dr. A. V. Stokes OBE

  Mr. O. Tudor

  Mr. R. G. Wendt DL

  Far East (Prisoners of War and Internees) Fund

  Trustees: (5 year appointments)

  Lord Gridley

  Reverend R. Rossiter

  Dr. Peter Watson

  781
  Queen Mary's Roehampton Trust

  Trustees:

  Mr. C. J. Flind

  Mr. M. Forrester MBE

  Dr. J. Watkinson

  Independent Living Fund

  Chairman (indefinite term): Mr. S. Shore

  Trustees (indefinite term):

  Mrs. A. Davis

  Mr. G. Mackey

  Mr. W. Morrison

  Mr. J. Shepherd

  Dr. A. Stokes

  Mr. R. Wendt

  Motabiliry Tenth Anniversary Trust

  Trustees (indefinite term)

  Mr. D. Chislett

  Sir Peter Large CBE

  Pensions Ombudsman (indefinite term), £53,500, Mr. M. Platt

  Social Fund Commissioner (salary range £46,100 to £55,800),

  Mrs. R. Mackworth

  Agency Chief Executives

  Benefits Agency five year appointment, (salary range £75,000 to £82,000), Mr. M. Bichard

  Child Support Agency (salary range £46,100 to £55,800), Mrs. R. Hepplewhite

  Contributory Agency (salary range £51,300 to £59,600), Miss A. Chant

  Information and Technology Services Agency (salary range £51,300 to £59,600), Mr. I. Magee

  Resettlement Agency (salary range £37,600 to £55,800), Mr. A. Ward

  War Pensions Unit to achieve Agency status in April 1994,
  (salary range £36,000 to £53,700), Mr. P. Mathison

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what information his Department holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in(a) extreme left-wing organisations, (b) extreme right-wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons;

  (2) what procedures his Department has to prevent the possible appointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Hague
  Where an appointment gives access to classified information the need for security vetting will be considered.

  Income-related Benefits
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many people receive part or all of their income by way of one or more of the income-related benefits.

  Grade (including equivalent professional and other grades)

  (a) Women (as at 28 February 1994)

  (b) Ethnic minorities1 (as at 28 February 1994)

  (c) Registered disabled2 (as at 1 July 1993)

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Grade 1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 3

  3

  18

  *

  8·3

  0

  0

  Grade 4

  3

  33

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grade 5

  29

  24

  *

  2·3

  0

  0

  Grade 6

  73

  23

  21

  12·2

  0

  0

  Grade 7

  152

  22

  7

  1·4

  4

  0·6

  All Grades

  64,119

  67

  3,394

  5·1

  1,396

  1·6

  782
  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The number of people claiming each benefit is in the table.

  Benefit

  Recipients—May 1993

  Income Support1

  5,643,000

  Housing Benefit2

  4,530,000

  Council Tax Benefit2

  5,231,000

  Family Credit3

  515,000

  Disability Working Allowance

  3,184

  1Does not include partners or dependants.

  2Benefit Units.

  3Figures are for September 1993.

  Note: As individuals can be entitled to more than one income related benefit all figures are subject to overlap.

  Medical Boards and Tribunals (Appeals)
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current waiting targets, and current waiting times, for appeals to special medical boards and medical appeal tribunals.

  Mr. Scott
  The information requested on special medical boards is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Medical appeal tribunals are the responsibility of the president of the independent tribunal service. I am informed that the information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the target and current outturn for the time taken from lodgement of an appeal to the issue of the tribunal's decision.

  Target

  Outturn

  15 per cent. in 4 months

  18·6

  40 per cent. in 6 months

  46·5

  90 per cent. in 12 months

  79·9

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades, 1 to 7 and overall, in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Hague
  The information for permanent staff employed by the Department, including its agencies, is in the table.
  783
  Notes:

  1 Ethnic origin representation is calculated by taking ethnic minority respondents as a proportion of all respondents to the Department's ethnic survey. The response rate as at 28 February 1994 was 63.2 per cent. Asterisks have replaced very small numbers to avoid identifying individuals.

  2 Figures for disabled staff are for full time equivalents and cover only those registered as disabled: there are other staff with disabilities who have chosen not to register.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of applications for the disability working allowance, and the number accepted, for each month since the allowance was introduced; and what percentage of people with disabilities of working age this represents.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table. The survey of disability conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, based on fieldwork conducted in 1985–1988 and published in 1989, suggested that there were around 2 million disabled people between the ages of 16 and 65. However many of these would be unlikely to qualify for disability working allowance because they were only slightly disabled or because their disability would prevent them from undertaking any work.

  Disability working allowance

  Period

  Claims

  Awards

  1992

  April

  7,056

  476

  May

  2,666

  317

  June

  2,697

  295

  July

  2,841

  296

  August

  2,085

  284

  September

  1,746

  446

  October

  1,573

  533

  November

  1,298

  414

  December

  1,001

  298

  1993

  January

  1,190

  405

  February

  1,350

  400

  March

  1,565

  570

  April

  1,205

  595

  May

  1,070

  610

  June

  1,235

  570

  July

  1,002

  518

  August

  1,103

  480

  September

  1,306

  681

  October

  1,228

  680

  November

  1,121

  646

  December

  838

  392

  1994

  January

  1,100

  683

  February

  1,200

  647

  Total

  39,476

  11,236

  Occupational Deafness
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will approve the addition of occupational deafness to the list of prescribed injuries for which disablement benefit is payable.

  Mr. Scott
  Occupational deafness has been prescribed as a disease, in relation to certain occupational activities, since October 1974.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what replies the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Viscount Astor, has received from members of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions to his letter of 15 March about tobacco and alcohol-related claims for war pensions and war widows' pensions; how many members of the committee had previously indicated, when they were consulted, their approval of his Department's proposals to amend the Service Pension Order; and what further action he will be taking.

  Mr. Hague
  One member of the central advisory committee has written in response to the letter of 15 March.

  Eight members expressed approval of the proposals set out in the consultation letter of 4 January, three with reservations on points of detail.

  In accordance with normal procedures for amendments to the Service Pension Order, the changes were made by Order in Council. That order was laid before the House on 25 March and came into force on 28 March.

  Staff Sickness
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average loss of days worked per employee in sickness in(a) 1991, (b) 1992 and (c) 1993 for (i) staff in DSS benefit offices and (ii) staff employed by the Child Support Agency.

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

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has chosen to purchase any official gift since becoming Prime Minister.

  The Prime Minister
  That is a private matter.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 319, if he will list those charities which have benefited from the proceeds of the sale of small gifts given to him and his predecessor.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: That is a private matter.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister how much has been spent by his Office on the provision of official gifts in each of the last three years.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Provision of official gifts £

  1991

  17,470

  1992

  21,241

  1993

  18,385

  785
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if details of gifts received by Ministers in their official capacity and reported to the departmental permanent secretary are made available to the public; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: Gifts received by Ministers in their official capacity are dealt with in accordance with the procedures set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". The details are not made public.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 March,Official Report, column 319, if he will state the amounts accruing to official funds from the sale of gifts from the official inventory in each year since 1985.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: The only sales have been those to the Prime Minister of the day. These have all been carried out in accordance with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". It is not the practice to publish details.

  Government Car Service
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers; and how many vehicles are involved.

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 8 December 1993, c. 222]: The charge to my office for ministerial use of the Government car service during 1992–93 was £130,198. Two vehicles are involved.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to his office in 1990–91 of use of the Government car service other than the vehicles for his ministerial use; and which persons other than Ministers had a car specifically allocated to them.

  The Prime Minister
  The charge to my office for official use of the Government car service in 1990–91 was £192,998. No cars were specifically allocated to individuals.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the annual cost to the Department of the car service for Ministers in 1990–91; and how many vehicles were involved.

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 December 1993, c. 561]: The charge to my office for ministerial use of the Government car service during 1990–91 was £75,954. Two vehicles were involved.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will quantify the cost of the factors which led to a fall in the cost of cars for Prime Minister's use since 1990–91; what change has taken place in the cost of cars for No. 10, other than for the Prime Minister's use, since 1990–91; and what changes have taken place in the rules governing their use.

  The Prime Minister
  Since my answers of 8 and 14 December 1993, a detailed examination has been carried out of the invoices from the Government car service over the period from 1990–91 to 1992–93, in particular to check on the allocation between ministerial and official use. This has produced some changes from the figures originally given to the hon. Member.
  786
  Since 1990–91, GCS costs have increased, and in addition GCS charges have been restructured to reflect the fact that it had been under-recovering its costs in 1990–91. These factors have affected the costs of the cars for ministerial use and of those for official use. In addition, for the Prime Minister's cars, the basis of funding the necessary security work has changed, and now falls on the No. 10 running costs budget; this has increased the costs of the Prime Minister's cars by some 60 per cent., on top of the 12 per cent. increase in GCS charges for long-term hire. For the cars for official use, there has been an increase in costs arising from a change away from the GCS providing 24-hour cover for the cars on long-term hire towards greater use of pool cars. There has been no change in the rules governing the use of official cars by staff in 10 Downing street.

  The revised figures (net of recovered VAT) are as follows:

  Ministerial use £

  Official use £

  1990–91

  75,954

  192,998

  1992–93

  130,198

  339,549

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will provide substantive answers to the questions from the right hon. Member for Swansea, West tabled for answer on 16 December and on 13 January relating to the costs of cars used by his Office.

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions took place between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence prior to the Secretary of State's March 1988 visit to Malaysia about the range of subjects to be covered in the protocol; to what extent the question of civil aid was considered; what documentation is held at No. 10 Downing street and the Cabinet Office reporting on the progress of the negotiations in Kuala Lumpur; and how the Prime Minister's office was kept informed of the progress of the negotiations.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 March 1994]: In January 1988 my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to ministerial colleagues to secure agreement to the signing of a protocol covering the purchase of defence equipment by the Malaysian Government. This exchange made no mention of civil aid. No. 10 files confirm that the Prime Minister's office was informed about the negotiations in Kuala Lumpur, and the inclusion of the paragraph on civil aid, only after the protocol had been signed.

EDUCATION

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each cf the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Forth
  None.
  787

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 678, if he will list in order the 20 independent schools in England which received most money during the 1993–94 academic year from his

  Assisted Places Scheme 1992–93 academic year

  School name

  Number of assisted pupils

  Total roll

  Per cent, of assisted pupils

  Average fee £1

  Dulwich College

  273

  1,380

  20

  5,720

  Wisbecb Grammar school

  326

  628

  52

  4,050

  St. Edward's College

  396

  937

  42

  3,085

  Emanuel school

  290

  763

  38

  4,130

  Latymer Upper school

  312

  1,049

  30

  4,235

  Alleyns school Dulwich

  203

  1,038

  20

  5,240

  Haberdasher's Aske's Boys

  250

  1,327

  19

  4,795

  Royal Grammar school

  282

  916

  31

  3,930

  Newcastle-under-Lyme school

  390

  1,329

  29

  3,010

  Hereford Cathedral school

  233

  587

  40

  3,960

  Bristol Grammar school

  267

  1,232

  22

  3,430

  Wolverhampton Grammar school

  256

  646

  40

  3,910

  Bolton school (Boys)

  267

  1,003

  27

  3,855

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar

  260

  1,220

  21

  3,370

  James Aliens Girls school

  168

  1,039

  16

  5,005

  St. Mary's College Crosby

  254

  789

  32

  3,195

  Manchester Grammar school

  274

  1,436

  19

  3,495

  King Edward VI school

  241

  958

  25

  3,900

  Kings school

  182

  931

  20

  4,570

  Wellington school

  226

  838

  27

  3,805

  1 Tuition fees including incidental expenses.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, columns 587–88, if he will place in the Library the results of the pre and post-campaign market research on each campaign listed.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The market research listed in the answer of 14 February was commissioned for internal purposes only—for campaign evaluation and planning. It is analogous to the advice given by officials to Ministers. I am unable, therefore, to place the results in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, columns 587–88, how many coupon and telephone responses were received and leaflets issued in respect of each campaign.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The 1993 testing publicity campaign resulted in 24,000 telephone and coupon responses. A total of 2,100,000 copies of the leaflet "How is your child doing at school?" were issued.

  The GM advertising campaign resulted in over 3,000 telephone and coupon responses. A total of over 125,000 booklets were issued.

  The 1994 testing campaign is still running. By 25 March some 21,000 telephone and coupon responses had been received and 3,300,000 copies of the leaflet "National School Tests in 1994" had been issued.

  For the 1993 publicity campaign for the charters for further and higher education, by the end of February 1994 a total of 52,000 telephone and coupon responses had been received and 1,700,000 charters had been issued. Charters are continuing to be requested.
  788
  Department under the assisted places scheme with (a) the number of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme, (b) the number on that institution's school roll, (c) (a) as a percentage of (b) and (d) the fee charged for each pupil.

  Mr. Forth
  Information for the 1992–93 academic year, the latest for which complete data are available, is given in the table:

  There was no coupon or telephone service associated with the DFC Roadshow. Around 30,000 leaflets were issued.

  Education and Training Grants
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was(a) the total money spent, (b) the percentage of that money allocated according to decisions made by Ministers on competitive bids and (c) the percentage of that money allocated according to some statistical measure of need in the last available operational year of the grants for education and training scheme.

  Mr. Forth
  The grants for education support and training programme for 1994–95 will support local education authority expenditure of £270.6 million, mainly at a grant rate of 60 per cent. Of this, £47·8 million—18 per cent.—was allocated on the basis of competitive bids from LEAs. All bids were carefully examined on their merits and each LEA's needs. The remaining £222·8 million was allocated by formula, but dependent on satisfactory bids from LEAs. All GEST grants are allocated subject to LEAs indicating their ability to take them up.

  Books and Equipment
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much was spent by each local education authority on books and equipment, in constant prices, for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Forth
  Information on total expenditure by each local education authority on books and equipment for the years 1988–89 to 1992–93, in 1992–93 prices, is given in the following table.
  789

  Expenditure on books and equipment in real terms

  £000

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  ILEA

  44,076

  33,543

  —

  —

  —

  Corporation of London

  —

  —

  20

  22

  25

  Camden

  —

  —

  2,107

  2,320

  2,770

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  2,882

  1,178

  15,052

  Hackney

  —

  —

  1,255

  1,740

  15,120

  Hammersmith

  —

  —

  1,743

  2,432

  2,209

  Islington

  —

  —

  1,671

  2,014

  14,571

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  1,509

  1,851

  1,192

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  1,399

  1,216

  15,027

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  1,917

  1,090

  9,529

  Southwark

  —

  —

  3,795

  4,578

  4,112

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  4,464

  3,931

  15,837

  Wandsworth

  —

  —

  5,292

  4,502

  3,514

  Westminster

  —

  —

  2,750

  2,716

  4,910

  Barking

  3,049

  2,988

  3,005

  2,317

  3,465

  Barnet

  5,977

  3,449

  3,199

  4,101

  5,069

  Bexley

  3,165

  2,794

  2,572

  2,999

  2,274

  Brent

  3,077

  4,032

  2,849

  3,980

  4,239

  Bromley

  3,172

  3,331

  2,604

  2,661

  2,322

  Croydon

  5,628

  4,520

  4,584

  4,574

  5,403

  Ealing

  3,539

  2,396

  2,839

  3,123

  2,686

  Enfield

  2,291

  2,152

  3,170

  2,706

  1,337

  Haringey

  n/a

  4,175

  1,019

  869

  13,374

  Harrow

  2,967

  4,039

  3,523

  3,388

  13,750

  Havering

  3,363

  3,816

  3,491

  4,340

  4,392

  Hillingdon

  2,448

  2,415

  2,220

  1,864

  3,014

  Hounslow

  n/a

  2,391

  3,289

  3,951

  13,065

  Kingston upon Thames

  5,866

  2,694

  1,785

  2,039

  12,270

  Merton

  4,754

  2,895

  2,474

  1,791

  13,144

  Newham

  3,093

  3,564

  3,342

  4,365

  13,955

  Redbridge

  2,659

  3,338

  3,673

  3,657

  3,831

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,998

  2,433

  2,139

  2,002

  2,130

  Sutton

  1,908

  1,927

  1,726

  1,694

  1,801

  Waltham Forest

  2,236

  2,835

  2,044

  2,271

  3,015

  Birmingham

  13,328

  16,220

  21,543

  13,478

  17,895

  Coventry

  7,322

  5,787

  6,601

  5,273

  15,116

  Dudley

  3,825

  3,108

  3,325

  2,780

  3,027

  Sandwell

  3,756

  5,028

  785

  1,200

  2,738

  Solihull

  3,901

  2,865

  3,136

  3,547

  3,505

  Walsall

  3,072

  1,513

  4,168

  4,224

  4,730

  Wolverhampton

  6,097

  3,402

  1,896

  3,922

  2,975

  Knowsley

  1,886

  2,228

  2,606

  3,202

  2,832

  Liverpool

  8,671

  4,174

  3,838

  4,662

  4,921

  St. Helens

  2,232

  3,269

  2,292

  2,955

  13,094

  Sefton

  2,972

  2,765

  2,137

  4,432

  4,316

  Wirral

  7,524

  7,789

  5,438

  4,701

  5,122

  Bolton

  3,953

  3,286

  2,731

  3,586

  13,666

  Bury

  2,547

  2,426

  2,381

  2,532

  12,593

  Manchester

  n/a

  9,212

  6,829

  8,007

  7,904

  Oldham

  2,876

  2,868

  3,371

  3,167

  3,891

  Rochdale

  2,728

  3,225

  2,667

  2,451

  2,221

  Salford

  4,371

  3,513

  3,163

  2,851

  1,316

  Stockport

  4,271

  4,013

  4,559

  5,227

  5,586

  Tameside

  2,292

  3,015

  2,588

  2,434

  3,120

  Trafford

  2,740

  2,739

  2,422

  3,212

  12,884

  Wigan

  3,490

  6,167

  5,136

  5,404

  5,723

  Barnsley

  2,019

  2,330

  2,077

  3,242

  4,645

  Doncaster

  3,292

  2,427

  1,810

  1,071

  1,110

  Rotherham

  2,675

  3,574

  2,173

  2,703

  3,999

  Sheffield

  5,707

  4,143

  5,223

  6,581

  7,397

  Bradford

  7,490

  6,801

  6,422

  8,306

  8,422

  Calderdale

  2,712

  3,040

  2,637

  2,857

  2,886

  Kirklees

  6,719

  4,254

  4,217

  3,123

  9,193

  Leeds

  7,303

  3,070

  7,293

  8,602

  9,499

  Wakefield

  n/a

  4,609

  3,585

  4,675

  14,428

  Gateshead

  2,552

  1,874

  2,383

  2,694

  2,797

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6,050

  4,504

  3,524

  3,922

  3,588

  North Tyneside

  n/a

  1,959

  2,022

  2,185

  12,590

  South Tyneside

  2,381

  2,248

  1,740

  1,641

  2,656

  Sunderland

  5,278

  3,941

  4,189

  5,994

  5,422

  Isles of Scilly

  28

  35

  38

  17

  5

  Avon

  13,578

  10,606

  12,778

  14,318

  17,988

  Bedfordshire

  8,502

  7,342

  8,691

  11,083

  12,347

  Berkshire

  10,089

  8,554

  13,282

  15,329

  17,118

  Buckinghamshire

  8,324

  8,164

  7,964

  8,413

  11,552

  Cambridgeshire

  11,804

  9,414

  8,744

  9,945

  11,153

  790 791

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cheshire

  10,996

  10,853

  12,197

  14,109

  12,276

  Cleveland

  4,979

  6,739

  3,890

  9,130

  110,691

  Cornwall

  6,658

  5,120

  5,979

  5,866

  8,311

  Cumbria

  7,335

  5,919

  4,949

  5,416

  6,574

  Derbyshire

  11,232

  16,703

  12,769

  13,255

  12,914

  Devon

  14,954

  15,173

  13,443

  14,690

  18,741

  Dorset

  11,041

  9,939

  8,917

  10,017

  9,024

  Durham

  7,604

  9,441

  8,674

  9,786

  8,660

  East Sussex

  10,422

  9,357

  7,755

  9,549

  10,087

  Essex

  22,212

  21,865

  17,603

  22,514

  20,296

  Gloucestershire

  6,840

  8,380

  8,113

  7,331

  7,952

  Hampshire

  27,350

  23,310

  17,970

  27,202

  26,957

  Hereford and Worcester

  8,586

  8,533

  14,560

  11,000

  10,782

  Hertfordshire

  20,493

  17,047

  18,430

  7,651

  7,030

  Humberside

  15,756

  15,190

  17,139

  21,534

  21,141

  Isle of Wight

  1,817

  1,678

  1,727

  2,151

  2,117

  Kent

  19,064

  14,771

  22,570

  21,975

  n/a

  Lancashire

  21,309

  20,899

  15,913

  19,465

  125,623

  Leicestershire

  16,800

  15,615

  16,625

  19,696

  25,876

  Lincolnshire

  3,960

  4,503

  6,574

  9,725

  9,693

  Norfolk

  8,429

  8,387

  7,444

  8,811

  8,153

  North Yorkshire

  9,806

  10,549

  11,139

  12,100

  15,476

  Northamptonshire

  10,579

  11,272

  11,258

  12,101

  11,000

  Northumberland

  4,307

  4,639

  3,870

  4,255

  4,113

  Nottinghamshire

  15,696

  12,762

  12,192

  15,535

  15,973

  Oxfordshire

  9,489

  9,047

  8,125

  9,769

  11,602

  Shropshire

  4,971

  6,665

  6,991

  7,526

  6,680

  Somerset

  7,777

  8,649

  7,311

  6,715

  8,400

  Staffordshire

  20,377

  17,040

  17,012

  18,708

  17,330

  Suffolk

  8,863

  13,894

  10,101

  18,631

  20,396

  Surrey

  11,812

  7,274

  8,656

  13,557

  9,884

  Warwickshire

  8,599

  9,189

  8,299

  8,477

  14,351

  West Sussex

  7,779

  10,796

  8,173

  9,090

  12,693

  Wiltshire

  8,518

  10,361

  9,788

  10,205

  11,709

  Notes to table

  1The figures for 1992–93 include estimates of expenditure for the LEAs. The 1992–93 figures are subject to final checking by the Department of Environment and the Department for Education.

  1. figures are derived from local education authorities' returns of their spending to the Department of the Environment.

  2. "N/A" indicates that a return has not been received from the local education authority or that the return is subject to further enquiries.

  3. Real terms figures are at 1992–93 prices, repriced using the latest GDP (Market Prices) Deflator index.

  Parental Choice
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will give figures, in total and for each local education authority, on the number of parents who secured the

  Admission Appeals 1988–891 Maintained Primary and Secondary Schools2

  Not heard by appeals committee:

  Heard by appeals committee:

  Appeals withdrawn before committee stage

  Appeals settled to mutual satisfaction of authority and parents before committee stage

  Appeals rejected by committee

  Appeals decided in parent's favour by committee

  Local education authority

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  2

  11

  14

  78

  2

  11

  Barnet

  26

  9

  38

  13

  172

  59

  57

  19

  Bexley

  48

  52

  2

  2

  22

  24

  21

  23

  Brent

  13

  22

  14

  23

  23

  38

  9

  15

  Bromley

  9

  2

  36

  10

  233

  62

  99

  26

  Croydon

  40

  10

  71

  19

  210

  55

  61

  16

  Ealing

  15

  13

  14

  12

  52

  44

  37

  31

  Enfield

  10

  3

  24

  7

  226

  67

  76

  23

  Haringey

  9

  13

  4

  6

  26

  37

  31

  44

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  109

  64

  61

  36

  Havering

  17

  9

  0

  0

  134

  68

  45

  23

  Hillingdon

  11

  9

  42

  34

  38

  31

  32

  26

  Hounslow

  5

  9

  0

  0

  1

  2

  52

  90

  Kingston Upon Thames

  7

  19

  0

  0

  26

  70

  4

  11

  Merton

  12

  18

  21

  32

  10

  15

  22

  34

  Newham3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  270

  77

  82

  23

  Richmond Upon Thames

  5

  4

  5

  4

  60

  51

  48

  41

  792
  secondary school of their first choice for their child; and if he will give these figures for both the earliest and latest years for which they are available since 1964.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested for the academic years 1988–89 and 1991–92, the earliest and latest dates for which information is available, is given in the tables.
  793

  Not heard by appeals committee:

  Heard by appeals committee:

  Appeals withdrawn before committee stage

  Appeals settled to mutual satisfaction of authority and parents before committee stage

  Appeals rejected by committee

  Appeals decided in parent's favour by committee

  Local education authority

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Sutton

  15

  4

  204

  60

  64

  19

  54

  16

  Waltham Forest

  0

  0

  6

  7

  44

  53

  33

  40

  Birmingham

  171

  15

  12

  1

  558

  50

  372

  33

  Coventry

  9

  7

  15

  11

  52

  39

  57

  43

  Dudley

  1

  4

  6

  26

  12

  52

  4

  17

  Sandwell

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  100

  Solihull

  4

  3

  25

  21

  36

  31

  53

  45

  Walsall

  10

  11

  1

  1

  38

  40

  45

  47

  Wolverhampton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  61

  72

  24

  28

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  23

  10

  114

  49

  94

  41

  St. Helens

  5

  4

  21

  17

  46

  38

  50

  41

  Sefton

  6

  23

  2

  8

  11

  42

  7

  27

  Wirral

  120

  44

  0

  0

  93

  34

  60

  22

  Bolton

  0

  0

  8

  9

  24

  26

  61

  65

  Bury

  24

  5

  94

  21

  89

  20

  238

  53

  Manchester

  6

  1

  187

  36

  192

  37

  134

  26

  Oldham

  0

  0

  109

  37

  127

  43

  59

  20

  Rochdale

  88

  38

  0

  0

  69

  30

  75

  32

  Salford

  1

  3

  6

  20

  6

  20

  17

  57

  Stockport

  32

  25

  5

  4

  46

  35

  41

  32

  Tameside

  1

  1

  5

  4

  12

  9

  115

  86

  Trafford

  1

  1

  4

  2

  85

  52

  69

  43

  Wigan

  11

  19

  16

  27

  18

  31

  14

  24

  Barnsley

  3

  10

  2

  7

  7

  23

  18

  60

  Doncaster

  6

  7

  16

  18

  27

  30

  39

  44

  Rotherham

  3

  7

  5

  12

  21

  49

  14

  33

  Sheffield

  36

  13

  198

  74

  1

  0

  34

  13

  Bradford

  5

  1

  252

  31

  293

  36

  257

  32

  Calderdale

  57

  29

  1

  1

  90

  46

  48

  24

  Kirklees

  4

  3

  15

  12

  19

  16

  81

  66

  Leeds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25

  10

  238

  90

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  1

  1

  34

  41

  48

  58

  Gateshead

  2

  4

  8

  15

  18

  35

  23

  44

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  0

  0

  8

  21

  0

  0

  31

  79

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  21

  48

  21

  48

  2

  5

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  4

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  6

  4

  5

  4

  76

  54

  55

  39

  Inner London Education Authority

  471

  19

  0

  0

  1,326

  54

  650

  27

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  60

  11

  66

  12

  176

  33

  220

  41

  Bedfordshire

  8

  3

  15

  7

  114

  50

  88

  38

  Berkshire

  54

  7

  149

  19

  346

  45

  220

  29

  Buckinghamshire

  15

  4

  6

  1

  269

  65

  122

  30

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  6

  18

  20

  49

  56

  16

  18

  Cheshire

  1

  2

  15

  31

  12

  24

  21

  43

  Cleveland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20

  69

  9

  31

  Cornwall

  1

  50

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  50

  Cumbria

  2

  15

  2

  15

  7

  54

  2

  15

  Derbyshire

  16

  7

  20

  8

  90

  38

  111

  47

  Devon

  21

  9

  23

  10

  110

  47

  78

  34

  Dorset

  3

  3

  2

  2

  55

  55

  40

  40

  Durham

  24

  13

  38

  20

  62

  32

  68

  35

  East Sussex

  4

  6

  23

  33

  27

  39

  15

  22

  Essex

  5

  2

  26

  13

  141

  68

  35

  17

  Gloucestershire

  11

  5

  55

  27

  72

  35

  62

  31

  Hampshire

  13

  21

  20

  32

  6

  10

  23

  37

  Hereford and Worcester

  23

  19

  19

  16

  56

  46

  23

  19

  Hertfordshire

  52

  14

  0

  0

  197

  55

  112

  31

  Humberside

  5

  2

  28

  13

  65

  29

  123

  55

  Isle of Wight

  7

  10

  36

  52

  17

  25

  9

  13

  Kent

  576

  47

  276

  23

  274

  23

  89

  7

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  373

  24

  370

  24

  820

  52

  Leicestershire

  0

  0

  102

  63

  36

  22

  25

  15

  Lincolnshire

  9

  8

  0

  0

  57

  49

  51

  44

  Norfolk

  64

  44

  12

  8

  48

  33

  23

  16

  North Yorkshire

  4

  5

  10

  13

  24

  30

  41

  52

  Northamptonshire

  3

  4

  23

  33

  31

  44

  13

  19

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  16

  29

  39

  71

  Nottinghamshire

  42

  34

  0

  0

  43

  34

  40

  32

  Oxfordshire

  10

  16

  1

  2

  29

  45

  23

  36

  Shropshire

  6

  3

  11

  6

  8

  5

  147

  85

  794 795

  Not heard by appeals committee:

  Heard by appeals committee:

  Appeals withdrawn before committee stage

  Appeals settled to mutual satisfaction of authority and parents before committee stage

  Appeals rejected by committee

  Appeals decided in parent's favour by committee

  Local education authority

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  number

  percentage

  Somerset

  23

  12

  63

  32

  39

  20

  74

  37

  Staffordshire

  1

  2

  3

  5

  30

  54

  22

  39

  Suffolk

  10

  8

  55

  42

  37

  28

  28

  22

  Surrey

  0

  0

  120

  34

  113

  32

  121

  34

  Warwickshire

  4

  4

  1

  1

  39

  40

  53

  55

  West Sussex

  0

  0

  0

  0

  31

  54

  26

  46

  Wiltshire

  41

  59

  8

  12

  13

  19

  7

  10

  England

  2,448

  12

  3,177

  15

  8,510

  40

  6,996

  33

  1 Does not include appeals still to be decided by committee.

  2 Includes County, Voluntary Controlled, Voluntary Aided, and Special Agreement Schools.

  3 No LEA return for the 1988–89 academic year.

  Admission appeals 1991–921 Maintained (including self-governing (GM) primary and secondary schools2

  Not heard by appeals committee

  Heard by appeals committee

  Appeals withdrawn before committee stage

  Appeals settled to mutual satisfaction of authority and parents before committee stage

  Appeals rejected by committee

  Appeals decided in parents' favour by committee

  Local education authority

  number

  per cent.

  number

  per cent.

  number

  per cent.

  number

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  4

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  85

  22

  14

  4

  221

  57

  65

  17

  17

  Greenwich

  34

  8

  116

  27

  149

  34

  129

  30

  30

  Hackney

  16

  5

  81

  26

  152

  50

  57

  19

  19

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9

  4

  21

  9

  152

  65

  51

  22

  22

  Islington

  40

  15

  0

  0

  158

  58

  72

  26

  26

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10

  23

  1

  2

  29

  67

  3

  7

  7

  Lambeth

  127

  25

  74

  15

  202

  40

  95

  19

  19

  Lewisham

  0

  0

  131

  21

  413

  65

  95

  15

  15

  Southwark

  42

  7

  78

  14

  239

  42

  208

  36

  36

  Tower Hamlets

  12

  2

  97

  18

  367

  67

  52

  10

  10

  Wandsworth

  101

  59

  10

  6

  47

  27

  14

  8

  8

  Westminster

  18

  10

  12

  7

  140

  76

  14

  8

  8

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  0

  72

  32

  70

  31

  81

  36

  36

  Barnet

  175

  22

  176

  22

  311

  39

  141

  18

  18

  Bexley

  20

  5

  80

  19

  77

  19

  239

  57

  57

  Brent

  13

  10

  63

  47

  40

  30

  16

  12

  12

  Bromley

  59

  12

  100

  21

  251

  52

  71

  15

  15

  Croydon3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  11

  5

  14

  6

  117

  49

  99

  41

  41

  Enfield

  200

  22

  9

  1

  488

  53

  228

  25

  25

  Haringey

  28

  13

  36

  16

  98

  45

  57

  26

  26

  Harrow

  101

  20

  118

  24

  196

  40

  78

  16

  16

  Havering

  20

  4

  33

  7

  326

  70

  86

  18

  18

  Hillingdon

  8

  5

  12

  8

  98

  66

  27

  18

  18

  Hounslow

  17

  7

  18

  7

  166

  64

  58

  22

  22

  Kingston upon Thames

  6

  5

  19

  17

  68

  59

  22

  19

  19

  Merton

  63

  40

  27

  17

  37

  24

  29

  19

  19

  Newham

  18

  5

  33

  9

  119

  33

  189

  53

  53

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  0

  0

  301

  79

  78

  21

  21

  Richmond upon Thames

  5

  2

  0

  0

  144

  70

  58

  28

  28

  Sutton

  5

  1

  112

  32

  168

  48

  63

  18

  18

  Waltham Forest

  6

  3

  7

  3

  116

  54

  84

  39

  39

  Birmingham

  311

  16

  9

  0

  1,079

  55

  552

  28

  28

  Coventry

  13

  3

  65

  14

  227

  49

  154

  34

  34

  Dudley

  51

  16

  38

  12

  181

  55

  59

  18

  18

  Sandwell

  106

  8

  1,112

  86

  10

  1

  61

  5

  5

  Solihull

  37

  13

  92

  33

  116

  41

  36

  13

  13

  Walsall

  11

  8

  23

  17

  54

  40

  46

  34

  34

  Wolverhampton

  6

  8

  0

  0

  49

  65

  20

  27

  27

  Knowsley4

  3

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  57

  8

  0

  0

  384

  51

  314

  42

  42

  St. Helens

  12

  13

  15

  16

  32

  34

  35

  37

  37

  Sefton

  5

  5

  36

  35

  40

  38

  23

  22

  22

  Wirral

  0

  0

  101

  18

  330

  60

  121

  22

  22

  Bolton

  10

  7

  12

  9

  52

  37

  67

  48

  48

  Bury

  85

  13

  197

  31

  112

  18

  237

  37

  37

  796 797

  Not heard by appeals committee

  Heard by appeals committee

  Appeals withdrawn before committee stage

  Appeals settled to mutual satisfaction of authority and parents before committee stage

  Appeals rejected by committee

  Appeals decided in parents' favour by committee

  Local education authority

  number

  per cent.

  number

  per cent.

  number

  per cent.

  number

  per cent.

  per cent.

  Manchester

  87

  6

  142

  10

  772

  54

  421

  30

  30

  Oldham

  2

  0

  226

  56

  138

  34

  40

  10

  10

  Rochdale

  11

  4

  81

  31

  95

  37

  72

  28

  28

  Salford

  2

  3

  14

  23

  17

  28

  27

  45

  45

  Stockport

  8

  4

  0

  0

  94

  52

  79

  44

  44

  Tameside

  16

  17

  0

  0

  23

  24

  57

  59

  59

  Trafford

  9

  5

  42

  24

  65

  38

  51

  29

  29

  Wigan

  38

  15

  51

  20

  92

  37

  70

  28

  28

  Bamsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  29

  20

  71

  71

  Doncaster

  6

  15

  5

  13

  24

  60

  5

  13

  13

  Rotherham

  14

  11

  10

  8

  56

  46

  43

  35

  35

  Sheffield

  54

  17

  228

  71

  15

  5

  25

  8

  8

  Bradford

  132

  14

  343

  36

  302

  31

  189

  20

  20

  Calderdale

  70

  48

  17

  12

  35

  24

  24

  16

  16

  Kirklees

  22

  14

  69

  44

  48

  30

  19

  12

  12

  Leeds

  41

  2

  1,475

  68

  301

  14

  337

  16

  16

  Wakefield

  6

  6

  4

  4

  48

  48

  41

  41

  41

  Gateshead

  10

  13

  51

  65

  7

  9

  10

  13

  13

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  8

  7

  27

  25

  21

  19

  54

  49

  49

  North Tyneside

  0

  0

  5

  36

  7

  50

  2

  14

  14

  South Tyneside

  0

  0

  3

  60

  2

  40

  0

  0

  0

  Sunderland

  7

  5

  18

  14

  56

  44

  47

  37

  37

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Avon

  100

  11

  86

  10

  293

  33

  404

  46

  46

  Bedfordshire

  3

  2

  2

  1

  88

  55

  30

  19

  19

  Berkshire

  61

  8

  80

  11

  361

  48

  242

  32

  32

  Buckinghamshire

  13

  3

  9

  2

  234

  59

  144

  36

  36

  Cambridgeshire3

  0

  0

  1

  100

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cheshire4

  7

  10

  1

  1

  43

  59

  22

  30

  30

  Cleveland

  5

  6

  0

  0

  44

  52

  35

  42

  42

  Cornwall

  0

  0

  4

  15

  10

  38

  12

  46

  46

  Cumbria

  6

  6

  61

  57

  20

  19

  20

  19

  19

  Derbyshire

  28

  6

  71

  14

  199

  40

  204

  41

  41

  Devon

  22

  6

  100

  26

  154

  41

  103

  27

  27

  Dorset

  0

  0

  26

  10

  113

  45

  114

  45

  45

  Durham

  31

  15

  43

  20

  61

  29

  76

  36

  36

  East Sussex

  24

  9

  67

  26

  113

  43

  58

  22

  22

  Essex

  23

  8

  6

  2

  169

  62

  75

  27

  27

  Gloucestershire

  54

  14

  57

  15

  173

  45

  97

  25

  25

  Hampshire

  7

  15

  7

  15

  28

  61

  4

  9

  9

  Hereford and Worcester

  9

  6

  28

  19

  72

  48

  41

  27

  27

  Hertfordshire

  82

  10

  125

  15

  392

  46

  259

  30

  30

  Humberside

  27

  7

  42

  10

  135

  33

  204

  50

  50

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  52

  13

  48

  48

  Kent

  222

  14

  925

  57

  276

  17

  199

  12

  12

  Lancashire

  297

  14

  53

  3

  650

  32

  1,058

  51

  51

  Leicestershire

  9

  3

  37

  12

  197

  63

  71

  23

  23

  Lincolnshire

  15

  7

  36

  18

  80

  39

  74

  36

  36

  Norfolk

  38

  16

  144

  61

  39

  17

  14

  6

  6

  North Yorkshire

  9

  4

  38

  16

  77

  31

  121

  49

  49

  Northamptonshire

  4

  4

  47

  43

  24

  22

  35

  32

  32

  Northumberland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  21

  11

  79

  79

  Nottinghamshire

  75

  27

  28

  10

  80

  29

  92

  33

  33

  Oxfordshire

  3

  2

  1

  1

  64

  36

  108

  61

  61

  Shropshire

  13

  7

  9

  5

  35

  19

  130

  70

  70

  Somerset

  22

  9

  53

  22

  98

  41

  67

  28

  28

  Staffordshire

  12

  7

  13

  7

  96

  55

  55

  31

  31

  Suffolk

  7

  8

  28

  31

  25

  28

  29

  33

  33

  Surrey

  20

  5

  128

  33

  139

  36

  96

  25

  25

  Warwickshire

  8

  9

  35

  41

  25

  29

  18

  21

  21

  West Sussex

  1

  1

  19

  25

  37

  49

  18

  24

  24

  Wiltshire

  4

  7

  4

  7

  34

  57

  18

  30

  30

  England

  3,760

  10

  8,493

  23

  15,047

  40

  10,286

  27

  27

  1 Does not include appeals still to be decided by committee.

  2 Includes County, Voluntary controlled, Voluntary Aided, Special Agreement and Self-governing (GM) Schools.

  3 No LEA return for 1991–92 year. The figures relate to the self-governing (grant-maintained) sector only.

  4 Figures based on incomplete data.

  798 799

  Asthma
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children in the age range five to 11 years attend schools in England; and what percentage of these children is classified as suffering from asthma.

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested regarding numbers of children who have asthma is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if he will make a statement on his policy on the carriage of asthma ventilators on their person, at all times, on school premises by children in the age group five to 11 years;

  (2) to what extent the carrying at all times of asthma ventilators by asthma suffering children of the age range five to 11 years, while at school is a matter to be decided by (a) the child's parents, (b) the school's head teacher or (c) other education authority groupings.

  Mr. Forth
  It is considered good health care practice for children with asthma, where possible, to manage their own condition as early as is consistent with their development. Teachers should, in consultation with parents and with the benefit of appropriate medical advice, do all that is reasonable to enable children to participate as fully as possible in school life.
  800

  Building Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what major building projects since 1989, valued at over £1 million are being, or have been wholly or partly financed in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by his Department; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  There have been no major building projects at voluntary aided and special agreement schools since 1989, valued at over £1 million financed by this Department in any of the local education authorities cited above. The Department does not control the funding of projects at individual county and voluntary controlled schools. It is for authorities to decide their own capital expenditure priorities and to make the best use of the resources available to them.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to promote further the opting out of schools.

  Mr. Patten
  I intend to ensure that parents, governors and teachers have access to the factual information that they need about grant-maintained status in order to make an informed decision about whether it would be right for their school. I expect that in most cases the benefits will be very apparent.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of participating states and organisations in the middle east peace negotiations to discuss progress.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of participating states and organisations in the middle east peace negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Israel, the occupied territories, Lebanon and Jordon from 2 to 6 January and met the key figures involved in the peace process. He and I met Mr. Arafat's envoy, Nabil Shaath, on 3 March.

  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom cosponsored United Nations Security Council resolution 904 was adopted on 18 March. This calls for the implementation without delay of the Israeli-PLO declaration of principles. We hope for early agreement on Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho. We welcome the announcement that bilateral talks between Israel and Syria, Lebanon and Jordan will resume in Washington in April.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's support for the Washington accord in resolving the Palestine-Israeli conflict.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom cosponsored UN Security Council resolution 904. This calls for the implementation without delay of the Israeli-PLO declaration of principles. Our aid to the occupied territories will amount to £20 million this financial year and £70 million for the next three financial years. We have also provided £85,000 to help fund surgeons and specialist medical equipment and supplies to treat the victims of the Hebron massacre.

  Today we have provided £500,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross for its operation in the occupied territories.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's role in bringing about a recommencement of the middle east peace negotiations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom cosponsored United Nations Security Council resolution 904. We have urged on all parties to the negotiations the importance of concluding a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement as soon as possible.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the chance of further progress on the middle east peace accord, until there is better protection of the Palestinians; and what representations he has made to the Israelis about this subject.
  802
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The details of an international presence and of security measures for the protection of Palestinians in the occupied territories are under discussion between Israel and the PLO. We hope negotiations on Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho will resume soon. I wrote to the Israeli ambassador drawing his attention to the statement on 7 March by European Union Foreign Ministers which called for protection of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent he is involved in international discussions to supply an international security force for the occupied territories in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We co-sponsored United Nations Security Council resolution 904 which called for an international or foreign presence. We are in close touch with interested parties on the follow-up to that resolution.

  India
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions about human rights he had with the Indian Prime Minister on his recent visit to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what human rights issues he raised with the Indian Prime Minister during his recent visit to London.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights with Mr. Narasimha Rao during his visit to Britain last week.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had discussions with the Indian Government about human rights in the Punjab; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed human rights in India with the Indian Prime Minister during his visit to Britain earlier this month. The main focus of the discussion on human rights was, however, Kashmir.

  East Timor
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We believe the Indonesian Government have made progress in observing their human rights obligations. We are encouraging them to continue this positive trend and, in particular, to co-operate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government over the illegal occupation of East Timor.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are encouraging Indonesia and Portugal to continue to co-operate with the United Nations Secretary General to find a solution to East Timor.
  803
  We hope the return to consensus language at this year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights will help provide an atmosphere conducive to progress at the next round of talks on the territory's future between Portugal and Indonesia under the Secretary-General's auspices in May.

  European Union
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his counterparts in the European Union to discuss greater political union.

  Mr. Hurd
  There are no plans for a meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers to discuss greater political union.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current position concerning discussions with Argentina about prospecting for oil in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We are considering the next steps for the development of the Falklands continental shelf. We shall be discussing the matter shortly with the Falkland Islands Government. In due course we would expect also to have discussions with the Government of Argentina.

  Malaysia
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to restore trading relations with Malaysia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have been in close and frequent touch with the Malaysian Government, the business community and others both here and in Malaysia. We want to restore the flourishing state of our relations as soon as possible.

  The Malaysian Government's concern has been about certain articles in the British press. I believe that they have reflected fully how much the Malaysians helped us in finding the missing British service men in Sabah. That assistance highlights the real relationship between our two countries.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 23 March,Official Report, column 294, if he will state the dates on which representations were made by the Government of Malaysia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: No. The details of our relations with other Governments are confidential.

  Turkey
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he hopes to discuss the question of human rights with the Turkish Government.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no immediate plans to do so. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised 804
  human rights with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Turkey when he visited Ankara on 19 and 20 January. I stressed our concerns to the Turkish Minister for Human Rights in London recently.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is making.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In 1993–94, with a grant-in-aid of £2 million, the foundation embarked on 205 projects in 37 countries.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Indian and Pakistani Governments to discuss the situation in Kashmir.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation in Kashmir when he met the Indian Prime Minister earlier this month during his visit to Britain.

  I last discussed the subject with the Pakistan Foreign Secretary in February.

  Israel
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Israel relating to the disarming of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories following the massacre at Hebron.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I wrote to the Israeli ambassador drawing his attention to the statement on 7 March by European Union Foreign Ministers which called for protection of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

  UNESCO
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the up-to-date position of the United Kingdom Government on the possibility of re-joining the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We continue to keep this issue under close review, but have not yet reached any decision.

  Pacific Rim
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EEC counterparts about relations with Pacific rim countries.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Relations with third countries are discussed on an ad hoc basis at Foreign Affairs Councils. We and our partners understand the growing political and economic importance of this part of the world—in 1992, 7.8 per cent. of United Kingdom exports went to the Asia Pacific region and, for the first time, the European Union traded more with east Asia than with north America. The EC has co-operation agreements with the Association of South-East Asian Nations and with China and one is currently being negotiated with Vietnam.
  805
  During the United Kingdom presidency we made a priority of developing the Community's relations with Japan, based on the arrangements for consultation as laid out in the EC-Japan joint declaration of 1991 and we continue to press for this to be consolidated. The Germans have stated that the strengthening of relations between the European Union and Asia will be a focal point of their presidency—including intensification of the European-Japanese dialogue, and examination of the options for concluding a co-operation agreement with the Republic of Korea, as well as the normal ministerial EC/ASEAN meeting scheduled for September. We have welcomed this.

  European Union
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the enlargement of the European Union.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member (1) to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 14 March,Official Report, columns 474–77 and to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) on 21 March, Official Report, columns 11–12, (2) to my reply to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on 25 March, Official Report, columns 478–79, (3) to the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 22 March, Official Report, columns 120–22 and to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the House on 29 March, Official Report, columns 797–98.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Turkish and Turkish Cypriot authorities regarding the occupation of properties in northern Cyprus by Turkish settlers.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Turkish Government and the Turkish Cypriots are aware of our position on this issue. The communique issued at last October's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting expressed concern at the influx of Turkish settlers to Cyprus and emphasised that nothing should be done to change the demographic structure of the Island.

  Asia and Pacific Rim
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being made to reinforce the commercial sections of British embassies in Asia and the Pacific rim countries.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Since 1990, total export promotion effort at FCO posts in Asia and Pacific rim countries, measured in man years, has risen by 23 per cent.

  This year alone we are creating 23 new frontline commercial jobs at our Asian and Pacific rim missions in Hong Kong, Tokyo, Osaka, Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore and at the British trade and cultural office in Taipei.

  In addition, discussions are well advanced for opening new commercial offices in Pusan in Korea and Nagoya in Japan, to be run by locally employed staff.
  806

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the ambassador of the People's Republic of China to discuss the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last met ambassador Ma Yuzhen to discuss Hong Kong issues on 23 November. We wish to co-operate with China in the interests of a smooth transition for Hong Kong and full implementation of the Sino-British joint declaration.

  Russia
  Mr. Bates
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to assist the progress of democratic and economic reform in Russia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have given our full support to the process of democratic and economic reform in Russia, and shall continue to do so, providing assistance through both bilateral and multilateral aid programmes.

  Nigeria
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Nigeria regarding the protection of human rights and the introduction of democracy in that country.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave on Monday 21 February at column 30 to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry).

  Somalia
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Somalia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans to visit Somalia. He last visited in September 1992, as part of an EC Foreign Ministers Troika who went to see personally the situation in Somalia. My noble friend, Baroness Chalker of Wallasey has no current plans to visit the country.

  We welcome the latest Security Council resolution adopted on 4 February which underlines the international community's continuing commitment to assist the people of Somalia. The Somali people should now build on the momentum created by the agreement signed in Nairobi on 24 March by Ali Mandi and General Aideed. We hope a process has started which will lead to the creation of a national reconciliation conference.

  IAEA
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors' meeting on 21 March; how Britain was represented; and what was the United Kingdom's stance at the meeting.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A resolution was passed by the IAEA board of governors on 21 March which expressed
  807
  grave concern at North Korea's continued failure to comply with its safeguards agreement, and requested the agency's director-general to transmit the report on the most recent round of inspections to the UN General Assembly. We fully supported this resolution. Her Majesty's permanent representative at the United Kingdom's mission to the IAEA attended.

  Mrs. Timmreck
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 March, when Mrs. Timmreck left St. Helena; how long she had been resident on the island; and whether any civil or criminal cases involving Mrs. Timmreck had been brought before her departure.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  When Mrs. Timmreck left St. Helena in August 1993, she had been on the island for 32 months from October 1990, except for two brief visits to Cape Town. Prior to that, following her first arrival on St. Helena in December 1985, she made four visits totalling 7½ months. No civil or criminal cases involving her had been brought before her departure.

  Korea
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the present military position between North and South Korea.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There is a high concentration of military forces on the border. There has been a steady shift of North Korean forces over the last decade which has led to the present deployment of 750,000–1 million troops near the border. This is a cause for anxiety, and increases the need for North and South Korea to pursue the dialogue between them.

  Proton Cars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  Iran
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) in which way the United Kingdom delegation voted in the United Nations on the question of the violation of human rights and on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in March this year; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) if he will make a statement on Iran's refusal to comply with international instruments on human rights, including the international covenant on civil and political rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our European partners condemn Iran's refusal to fulfil its obligations under international instruments of human rights. We were involved in the drafting and co-sponsored and voted in favour of the resolution on Iran introduced by the European Union at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March. It reflected our concerns at Iran's human 808
  rights record and called on the Iranians to co-operate with the United Nations special representative on human rights in Iran.

  Trade and Aid
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he has had with representatives of the Indonesian Government to discuss trade and aid agreements with that country.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We regularly discuss a wide range of issues with the Indonesians, including trade, education, human rights, regional political and security matters, aid and economic issues.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Indonesia in April last year. I will be visiting Indonesia myself after Easter.

EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Property
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what property, leased or owned for the purposes of his Department, is not in current use.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Employment Group has an estate of 1,779 properties and holdings of which:

  702 are occupied and are part of the Government Estate managed by Property Holdings;

  902 are occupied and managed by the Department.

  Some 175 properties managed by the Department are not in current use and are being marketed actively for sale or disposal.

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information his Department holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in(a) extreme left-wing organisations, (b) extreme right-Wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons.

  Mr Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes into account the background and experience of candidates before making an appointment.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The appointment to public bodies for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible are listed in "Public Bodies 1993" a copy of which is available in the Library, with the additions of the Commissioner for Protection against Unlawful Industrial Action, and Investors in People (UK), which are new appointments.

  Any remuneration attached to a post is also listed in "Public Bodies".
  809
  The information about terms of appointment and current appointees could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what procedures his Department has to prevent the possible apppointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes such inquiries as may be necessary before making an appointment.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment;

  (2) if he will list the organisations and individuals outside his Department who are sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consults such organisations as are appropriate to the appointment in question.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The total number of ethnic minority appointments made by the Department to public bodies was given in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Information on ethnic minorities is collected in confidence, and it is not the Department's practice to release the details of the ethnic origin of individual members of public bodies.

  Workplace Deaths
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average length of time of each investigation by Health and Safety Executive inspectors in each region into each workplace death.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action was taken as a result of each workplace death investigation completed in the last 12 months in each region.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The following table shows the number of fatal injuries, provisional, reported to each region in the Health and Safety Executive's field operations division between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993 and how many of them have led to inspectors taking prosecution action to date.
  810

  HSE region

  Number of fatal injuries reported

  Of which resulted in prosecution action

  Wales and South West

  52

  6

  Home Counties

  46

  7

  London and South East

  48

  5

  Midlands

  55

  9

  Yorkshire and North East

  54

  10

  North West

  46

  8

  Scotland

  45

  10

  Information on any other action taken as result of each workplace death investigation is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Health and Safety Executive investigations into workplace deaths were started in each year since 1983 in each region; and how many of these were completed within(a) one week, (b) two weeks, (c) one month, (d) two months and (e) longer than two months.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The Health and Safety Executive gives a high priority to the investigation of fatal injuries in the workplace. The following table shows the number of fatal injuries reported to HSE's factory, agricultural and quarries inspectorates from 1983 to 1992–93, provisional:

  Year

  Number of fatal injuries reported

  19831

  472

  19841

  485

  19851

  5182

  1986–871

  399

  1987–881

  455

  1988–891

  472

  1989–901

  5863

  1990–911

  468

  1991–922

  368

  1992–93

  3464

  1 Excludes reports made to the Quarries Inspectorate.

  2 Includes 56 members of the public killed in the Bradford City FC fire disaster.

  3 Includes 95 reportable fatalities arising from the Hillsborough Stadium disaster.

  4 Provisional.

  Information is not available on the length of time taken to complete investigations.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many Health and Safety Executive staff in each region are involved in the investigation of each workplace death.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of Health and Safety Executive staff involved in the investigation of each workplace death varies according to the technical, medical and scientific expertise required during the investigation.
  811

  Productivity Rewards
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 433, concerning rewards for productivity, what steps he has taken to ensure that the decisions referred to in his first paragraph are taken on a level playing field.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Government policy remains that decisions on pay and related matters are for the employers and workers concerned to make in the light of their particular local circumstances, without Government intervention.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 11 March,Official Report, column 433, concerning rewards for productivity, whether he will publish a table showing the annual increase in output per person employed for the whole economy less manufacturing together with the figures for the whole economy and manufacturing.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The annual increases in ouput per person for the whole economy and manufacturing, since 1979, are given in the table. Figures for the whole economy less manufacturing are not calculated.

  Manufacturing

  Whole economy

  1979

  0·3

  1·4

  1980

  -3·8

  -1·3

  1981

  3·3

  2·4

  Improvement notices 1 April 1993 to 28 February 1994

  Number

  Date

  Name of company

  Installation/vessel

  1.

  2 April 1993

  ETPM Services UK Ltd.

  ETPM Laybarge LB200

  2.

  10 June 1993

  Amoco (UK) Exploration

  49/27C

  3.

  12 August 1993

  Shell UK Exploration

  Shell/Esso 49/24K

  4.

  18 August 1993

  Sedco Forex Drilling

  Sedco Installations

  5.

  26 August 1993

  Amoco (UK) Exploration

  Amoco 23/21A

  6.

  8 September 1993

  Dolphin Drilling

  Borgny Dolphin

  7.

  24 September 1993

  Shell UK Ltd.

  Brent Delta

  8.

  20 October 1993

  Conoco (UK) Ltd.

  All installations

  9.

  20 October 1993

  Conoco (UK) Ltd.

  All installations

  10.

  20 October 1993

  Conoco (UK) Ltd.

  All installations

  11.

  20 October 1993

  Conoco (UK) Ltd.

  All installations

  12.

  20 October 1993

  Conoco (UK) Ltd.

  All installations

  13.

  28 October 1993

  Phillips Petroleum

  Maureen Alpha

  14.

  28 November 1993

  Phillips Petroleum

  Maureen Alpha 16/29a

  15.

  8 November 1993

  Amerada Hess Ltd.

  Foating Pro Facility AH001

  16.

  8 November 1993

  Amerada Hess Ltd.

  Floating Pro Facility

  17.

  25 November 1993

  Mobil North Sea Ltd.

  Beryl Alpha

  18.

  6 December 1993

  Texaco North Sea

  Tartan Alpha

  19.

  16 December 1993

  Shell UK Ltd.

  Auk A 30/16

  20.

  15 December 1993

  Santa Fe Drilling

  Auk A 30/16

  21.

  28 January 1993

  Marathon Oil

  Brae B

  22.

  3 February 1994

  Agip UK Ltd.

  Tiffany 16/17

  improvement notices 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  Number

  Date

  Name of company

  Installation/vessel

  1.

  29 April 1992

  Elf Enterprise Caledonia

  Claymore A

  2.

  20 May 1992

  EE Caledonia Ltd.

  MSV Tharos

  3.

  8 June 1992

  Texaco North Sea UK Co.

  Tartan A

  4.

  8 June 1992

  Shell UK Ltd.

  Fulmar A

  5.

  16 June 1992

  Dolphin Drilling Ltd.

  Borgny Dolphin

  6.

  15 October 1992

  Sonat Offshore

  Sonat Arcade

  7.

  3 November 1992

  Global Marine Drilling

  Global Labrador I

  8.

  3 November 1992

  Global Marine Drilling

  Global Labrador I

  9.

  5 November 1992

  BP Exploration

  Thistle A

  10.

  5 November 1992

  BP Exploration

  Thistle A

  11.

  6 November 1992

  Emerald Field Contracting

  Emerald Producer

  812

  Manufacturing

  Whole economy

  1982

  6·3

  3·9

  1983

  7·6

  4·6

  1984

  5·3

  0·3

  1985

  3·3

  2·9

  1986

  3·6

  3·8

  1987

  5·6

  2·8

  1988

  5·6

  1·6

  1989

  4·4

  -0·2

  1990

  1·9

  -0·1

  1991

  1·4

  0·5

  1992

  4·8

  2·2

  1993

  5·5

  3·5

  Offshore Safety
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many improvement notices the offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive has instigated since taking over this responsibility; and if he will list each company and installation to which such notices have been issued.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Some 41 improvement notices have been issued by the offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive since taking over responsibility for offshore safety. The companies and installations are listed in the following tables:
  813

  Number

  Date

  Name of company

  Installation/vessel

  12.

  6 November 1992

  Emerald Field Contracting

  Emerald Producer

  13.

  11 November 1992

  Shell UK Ltd.

  Kittiwake

  14.

  9 December 1992

  Hamilton Oil Co. Ltd.

  Deep Sea Pioneer

  15.

  21 December 1992

  Sedco Forex

  Drillstar

  16.

  21 December 1992

  Sedco Forex

  Sedneth 701

  17.

  20 January 1994

  Elf Enterprise Caledonia Ltd.

  Salitre

  18.

  3 March 1993

  Elf Enterprise Caledonia Ltd.

  MSV Tharos

  19.

  3 March 1993

  Elf Enterprise Caledonia Ltd.

  MSV Tharos

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  Nil improvement notices

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many recommendations for prosecution under the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 the offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive has instigated; and if he will list the companies and installations to which such recommendations have applied.

  Table 1

  Year

  Company

  Installation

  Date of offence

  Date convicted

  1991–92

  Allseas Marine Contractors

  Lorelay

  7 August 1990

  15 May 1991

  1991–92

  Smedvig Ltd.

  NW Hutton

  9 September 1990

  9 March 1992

  1991–92

  Amoco (UK) Exploration

  NW Hutton

  9 September 1990

  9 March 1992

  Table 2

  Year

  Company

  Installation

  Date of offence

  Date convicted

  1992–93

  Atlantic Drilling

  Benreoch

  10 December 1990

  21 April 1992

  1992–93

  Stena Offshore Ltd.

  DSV Seaspread

  10 June 1990

  9 May 1992

  1992–93

  Employee DSV Seaspread

  DSV Seaspread

  10 June 1990

  8 May 1992

  1992–93

  Sedco Forex Drilling Services

  Sedco 703

  31 January 1992

  22 July 1992

  1992–93

  ETMP Services (UK)

  LB200

  18 April 1992

  26 November 1992

  1992–93

  BP Exploration

  Miller

  20 June 1992

  17 December 1992

  1992–93

  Amoco UK

  DSV British

  unsuccessful

  1992–93

  Stena Offshore

  Enterprise V

  Table 3

  Year

  Company

  Installation

  Date of offence

  Date convicted

  1993–94

  Shell UK Exploration and Production

  Brent Delta

  5 March 1993

  Awaiting court hearing

  1993–94

  Smedvig Ltd.

  West Sigma

  7 January 1993

  Awaiting English court hearing

  1993–94

  BP Exploration and Production

  Forties Bravo

  16 March 1993

  4 November 1993

  1993–94

  Sedco Forex Drilling Ltd.

  Sedco 704

  24 July 1992

  17 May 1993

  1993–94

  Cape Scaffolding Ltd.

  Bruce

  28 December 1992

  16 May 1993

  1993–94

  Heeremac

  DB102

  12 March 1993

  Abandoned

  1993–94

  Rookwater

  DSV Regalia

  8 June 1993

  24 September 1993

  1993–94

  Dolphin Drilling

  Borgny Dolphin

  24 August 1993

  24 February 1994

  1993–94

  Arco British Ltd.

  Ocean Odyssey

  22 September 1988

  24 September 1993

  1993–94

  Odeco Drilling (UK) Ltd.

  Ocean Odyssey

  22 September 1988

  10 August 1993

  1993–94

  Hamilton Oil Co.

  Deepsea Pioneer

  28 October 1992

  8 October 1993

  1993–94

  Santa Fe

  Santa Fe Magellan

  20 July 1993

  11 February 1994

  1993–94

  Odeco UK Ltd.

  Ocean Victory

  7 November 1990

  29 November 1993

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many improvement notices, prohibition notices and pending prosecutions were outstanding when the offshore safety division of the Health and Safety Executive took over responsibility for those matters from the Department of Energy; which(a) companies and (b) installations they applied to; and how many are still outstanding.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No improvement notices or prohibition notices were outstanding when the Health and
  814
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since 1 April 991, prosecutions have been instigated by the procurator fiscal in Scotland in 22 cases, following receipt of a report from the Health and Safety Executive. One of these was subsequently abandoned. One case has been prosecuted in England. Details are set out in the following tables:

  Safety Executive took over responsibility for offshore safety. In England, no pending prosecutions were outstanding at that time. Decisions on prosecutions in Scotland are solely the responsibility of the procurator fiscal and the Crown Office for Scotland.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what further changes he proposes to make to improve health and safety on offshore installations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Health and Safety Executive is reviewing a large number of safety cases and
  815
  discussing with individual owners and operators of installations any improvements which may need to be made.

  In addition, the Health and Safety Commission has put in hand a review of offshore health and safety legislation with the aim of modernising and streamlining provision, and replacing or revoking existing prescriptive requirements. New goal-setting regulations are being developed, in line with Lord Cullen's recommendations, to cover fire and explosion, emergency response, management and administration; and design and construction.

  Consultants
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will provide a table showing the contracts currently being worked on for his Department by Coopers and Lybrand, Ernst and Young, Price Waterhouse, KPMG Peat Marwick, Grant Thornton, Robson Rhodes, BDO Binder Hamlyn, Levy Gee, Hacker Young, Pannell Kerr Forster and Stoy Harward.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Jobplan Workshops
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring arrangements of the standard of jobplan workshop courses is in place; what complaints about such courses have been received; if he will summarise the nature of the complaints; what arrangements there are for complaints to be made and taken into account in the running of the workshops; 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 Mr. A. G. Johnson to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 30 March 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about arrangements to monitor Jobplan Workshops and the nature and handling of complaints about their delivery. I am replying in the Chief Executive's absence.
  It may be helpful if I explain that Jobplan is designed to help people who have been unemployed for some time compete for jobs and opportunities. During the workshop, which lasts for one week, clients are able to take a fresh look at their situation, review their strengths and skills and set themselves clear and achievable job goals. The workshop was developed to accommodate people with varying experiences and backgrounds. During the workshop, people have the opportunity for personal reviews as well as undertaking group work. Since April 1993, over 270,000 people have attended Jobplan.
  Jobplan is delivered by organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors on the Employment Service's (ES) behalf. Contracts are awarded following a competitive tendering exercise.
  A full specification is issued to all prospective contractors. This specification, and a manual which sets out how the programme is to be run, forms the basis against which subsequent monitoring and assessment of the provider is undertaken.
  At the end of each workshop, management information is collected and sent to the ES. This covers the number of people
  816
  who have taken part in the workshop and the action they have decided to take at the end. This information is used by people in the ES to assess the performance of the provider and the value for money that is being achieved. Participants are issued with review sheets at the end of the workshop and invited to comment on the delivery of the workshop. These provide us with further information about the quality of the workshop.
  A schedule of monitoring visits is drawn up for each contract to ensure that workshops are inspected regularly. We will observe workshop sessions and assess whether the provider is delivering the workshop to the appropriate standard and quality. The findings of these visits are discussed with the provider and their leaders and where remedial action is required, the provider will be asked to take the action within a specified time. We will later review to ensure that any problems have been put right.
  As part of the Citizens Charter we have established, in the Jobseekers Charter, a suggestions and complaints procedure which enables people to comment on the quality of the service they have received. Providers are contractually obliged to follow the principles of the Jobseekers Charter, which amongst other things, requires them to have posters and leaflets on display so that people who wish to complain or make suggestions may do so easily. The responsibility for answering these lies initially with the provider who is required to reply to the person within seven days.
  Should someone who has complained feel that their complaint has not been satisfactorily answered, they can approach our local managers for redress. Where complaints are made to the provider or to the local manager the focus is on setting things right locally. We do not collect statistics centrally but, of course, the contract managers pay close attention to the number and nature of complaints when workshops are re-tendered. In some cases complaints are also made through an MP or directly to the Secretary of State for Employment. We have central statistics on these. Since April 1993, seven people have written to complain about the standard of delivery of the workshop and three have written to say that they felt that the workshop was not helpful to them. I am sure you will agree that as a proportion of the 270,000 people who have taken part, this number of complaints is remarkably low.
  I am also encouraged that a number of people who have attended workshops have written to say how useful the workshops have been in their search for work and how positive they found the experience. I am attaching a sample of the comments that have been made about Jobplan.
  I hope this is helpful.

  What people say about Jobplan
  "Very helpful—I was lost and stranded until I attended Jobplan."
  "I was dubious about what Jobplan could offer but found the workshop of immense benefit to me—full marks—it was just what I needed."

  "The personal interview was the most helpful thing I've had. There are courses I didn't know about and I've applied for one of them."
  "I found it to be rewarding and enlightening and would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone seeking work."
  "I wish this had been offered to me a year ago."
  "It's a lot better than I thought. I'm glad we can make choices for ourselves."
  "I was really nervous before I came here, but now I'm glad I was told about it."

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities or (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is set out in the following table:
  817

  Staff in the Employment Department (ED) Group

  Grade

  Women staff at 1 April 1993

  Ethnic minority staff at 1 April 1993

  Registered disabled staff at 1 July 1993

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number G1—G7

  PercentageG1—G7

  Grade 1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  22·0

  0·7

  Grade 2

  1

  20·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 3

  1

  4·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 4

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 5

  22

  20·2

  0

  0·0

  Grade 6

  17

  12·0

  1

  0·7

  Grade 7

  182

  23·7

  7

  0·9

  3·0

  0·4

  All Staff

  42,659

  67·2

  3,669

  16·2

  2,020·50

  3·4

  1Figure represents respondents to the ethnic origin survey.

  2Separate information by grade for registered disabled staff is not available above Grade 7. Registration is voluntary therefore the ED Group employs more disabled people than are counted.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 3 March,Official Report, column 861, what is his assessment of the reasons for the fall in the number of hours worked; and what effect he expects economic recovery to have on this fall.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The fall in total hours worked by manufacturing operatives since 1989 is due to two main factors. First, a short-term, cyclical fall in demand for labour due to the economic recession. Secondly, the longer-term movement of jobs away from manufacturing and into services. The Department does not forecast changes in hours worked.

WALES

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh farmers asked the Agricultural Development Advisory Service for advice in the year(a) before and (b) after fees were introduced.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for the ADAS agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. M. Walsh to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 30 March 1994:
  The Minister of State for Wales has asked me to reply to your Question on how many Welsh farmers asked the Agricultural Development Advisory Service for advice in the years (a) before and (b) after fees were introduced.Part (a) of your question refers to the ADAS financial year 1986–87 (1 April to 31 March). Up to and including this period ADAS did not keep records of how many Welsh farmers asked ADAS for advice.Part (b) of your question refers to the financial year 1987–88 during which ADAS first charged some of the beneficiaries of its services as a result of a policy decision to make ADAS more financially accountable.Management Information Systems were new and undeveloped at this time and information is therefore limited. I am only able to tell you that out of 13,000 full time farm holdings in Wales (source: 1993 Agricultural Census) ADAS issued approximately 7,000 invoices to Welsh customers.I would also estimate that there was no significant fall in customers after charging was introduced as our evidence indicates that charging for our consultancy services "added value" in the perception of some of our customers and certainly attracted a new type of farming customer to complement existing customers.

  M4
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of(a) introducing variable text signs on the M4 in south Wales and (b) employing a road manager for the M4.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The cost of upgrading the motorway signed infrastructure to provide variable text signs, as seen on the M25, would be between £8 million and £10 million. On the issue of road management, I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 14 March,Official Report, column 526.

  Housing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how his proposals for access to local authority and housing association tenancies will ensure that decisions over housing tenancies will remain under the control of local authorities.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Local authorities exercise nomination rights by agreement over elements of the housing association stock. In allocating their own tenancies, councils are expected to take account of relevant legislation and of good practice advice. Similar considerations would apply under the Government's recent proposals for change.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the extent to which rent bonds and guarantees increase in the private housing sector when private sector landlords know that local authorities will be responsible for such payments.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  These schemes are run by local authorities. No such indications have been reported to the Welsh Office.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost of official entertaining in his Department in each year since 1990–91; if he will list the receptions held in each year at his Department's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. Redwood
  The amounts spent by the Welsh Office on official hospitality were:

  £

  1990–91

  45,419

  1991–92

  35,982

  1992–93

  38,382

  11993–94

  26,375

  1 To 25 March 1994.

  819
  The number and cost of individual receptions could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what date he expects all applications for sheep annual premium in the current year to be paid out.

  Mr. Redwood
  Almost 90 per cent. of claimants for the 1993 sheep annual premium in Wales have received the two advances of payments. The balance of the premium should be paid by June. Most of the unpaid claims await the resolution of queries and some require farm visits. Priority is being given to clearing these cases as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by county how many applications for payment of sheep annual premium he has received in the current year; and what proportion in each county remained unpaid on 1 March.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information, which is available only on an administrative area basis, for the week ending 4 March, is as follows:

  Gwynedd/Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Powys/Gwent/Glamorgans

  Application for 1993 premium

  5,701

  5,101

  6,676

  Proportion unpaid on 1 March 1993 (per cent.)

  9

  20

  9

  Oscar Ceremonies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will seek from the respective chairmen of(a) the Welsh Development Agency, (b) the Welsh Tourist Board, (c) S4C and (d) BBC Wales the number of their respective employees who visited the recent Oscar ceremonies in Los Angeles; what was the cost in each case for the staff visits to Los Angeles; and if the cost will be borne by the Exchequer or in the case of (d) be a charge on the television licence.

  Training weeks provided 1991–92 to 1993–94

  1991–92

  TEC

  Youth Training and Credits

  Employment Training

  Employment Action

  Total

  Gwent

  156,778

  82,826

  2,656

  242,260

  Mid Glamorgan

  193,746

  98,734

  6,228

  298,708

  North East Wales

  91,426

  38,157

  145

  129,728

  Targed

  104,581

  45,351

  0

  149,932

  Powys

  35,798

  17,886

  107

  53,791

  South Glamorgan

  93,619

  63,572

  1,302

  158,493

  West Wales

  228,064

  139,704

  3,861

  371,629

  1992–93

  TEC

  Youth Training and Credits

  Employment Training

  Employment Action

  Total

  Gwent

  128,673

  107,639

  12,338

  248,650

  Mid Glamorgan

  151,215

  99,273

  25,702

  276,190

  North East Wales

  82,357

  36,506

  6,185

  125,048

  Targed

  106,611

  53,961

  12,118

  172,690

  Powys

  35,513

  15,077

  3,762

  54,352

  820
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  No. Such operational matters are for the respective organisations concerned.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give a table showing the amount of(a) Welsh Office grant and (b) self-generated income which financed each TEC in each year since their inception in (i) cash prices and (ii) 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  The amounts of income received by the seven TECs in Wales for delivering their training and enterprise activities under contract with the Welsh Office together with other income generated for the three years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 are shown in the published audited annual accounts of TECs, copies of which are in the Library of the House. The figures for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the budget and (b) the outturn for each of the TECs for each year since their inception in (i) cash prices and (ii) 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Redwood
  Much of the information requested has been provided to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), in my letter dated 10 February 1994, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. I will write to the hon. Member in the new financial year when the further information requested is available.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many training weeks were undertaken by each of the TECs in each year since their inception; and how many training weeks are expected to be undertaken in the current year.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is in the table. The statistics for 1993–94 refer to planned training weeks, whereas the figures for earlier years are training weeks delivered. Training for work replaced employment training and employment action in April 1993.
  821

  TEC

  Youth Training and Credits

  Employment Training

  Employment Action

  Total

  South Glamorgan

  89,729

  61,071

  14,910

  165,710

  West Wales

  218,017

  146,367

  19,181

  383,565

  1993–94

  TEC

  Youth Training and Credits

  Training for Work

  Total

  Gwent

  160,000

  95,000

  255,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  170,040

  100,000

  270,040

  North East Wales

  98,240

  36,000

  134,240

  Targed

  122,000

  54,600

  176,600

  Powys

  35,000

  17,000

  52,000

  South Glamorgan

  98,751

  65,650

  164,401

  West Wales

  225,122

  134,000

  359,122

  Source:

  1991–92 and 1992–93 TEC Management Information Statistics.

  1993–94 TEC Plans.

  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many neighbourhood watch schemes there are in operation in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  At 31 December 1993 there were 5,748 neighbourhood watch schemes operational in Wales.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many neighbourhood watch schemes were initiated in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is included in the table.

  Total schemes

  Initiated in-year

  1989

  2,856

  n.a.

  1990

  3,162

  306

  1991

  3,857

  695

  1992

  4,971

  1,114

  1993

  5,748

  777

  European Charter on Minority Languages
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Government will decide whether or not to become a signatory to the European charter on minority languages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government will make a decision on this matter in due course.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the projected expenditure for each(a) health authority, (b) family health services authority and (c) national health service trust for 1994–95;

  (2) on which date spending levels for 1994–95 were communicated to each (a) health authority, (b) family health service authority and (c) national health service trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend announced the provisional cash allocations for 1994–95 for health 822
  authorities and family health services authorities and the provisional external financing limits for NHS trusts on 16 March. Health authorities and family health services authorities will provide information relating to their income and expenditure planning intentions for 1994–95—indicating how these will be contained within the cash allocations notified—in their final health plans which are due for submission to the Department by 16 April. NHS trusts will similarly provide information relating to their expenditure plans in their final 1994–95 operational plans which are due for submission by 30 April.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement concerning the discharges into the Irish sea, Liverpool bay and the Dee estuary from industries and the impact upon beaches and health and safety of local communities of these discharges;

  (2) if he will prepare and publish a report on the discharge by dangerous and impure substances into Liverpool bay and the River Dee estuary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Discharges into inland and coastal waters are controlled by the National Rivers Authority under the Water Resources Act 1991 and by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under this legislation, details of consents and authorisations, and the results of subsequent monitoring, are kept on public registers.

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food monitors contaminants in the aquatic environment and the latest results are published in Aquatic Environment Monitoring Reports Nos. 36 and 38.

  Waters on the United Kingdom coastline that are popular for bathing come within the scope of the EC bathing water directive 76/160/EEC which sets water quality standards intended for the protection of public health. The water industry is currently undertaking a major investment programme to improve its discharges into coastal waters to ensure that bathing waters consistently meet these standards.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the area of the pre-1974 counties of Anglesey, Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire, Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Monmouthshire, Pembrokeshire and the present county of Powys will be included within the boundaries of the counties of the same name proposed in the Local Government (Wales) Bill[Lords].

  Mr. Redwood
  All the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The present county of Powys would be wholly included in the new county of that name.

  National Health Service Staff
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified NHS nurses and midwives, unqualified NHS nursing staff and nursing learners there

  Nursing and midwifery staff in post (whole-time equivalents) as at 30 September1

  Qualified

  Unqualified2

  Learners3

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Number

  Percentage of total

  Number

  Percentage of total

  1989

  17,850

  63·7

  7,069

  25·2

  3,118

  11·1

  1990

  17,986

  64·0

  7,031

  25·0

  3,075

  10·9

  1991

  18,010

  64·4

  7,019

  25·1

  2,934

  10·5

  19924

  18,096

  66·0

  7,355

  26·8

  1,970

  7·2

  19935

  17,912

  68·3

  7,220

  27·5

  1,033

  3·9

  1Includes staff employed by the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  2Staff paid as grade A, B or nursery staff.

  3Since the autumn of 1991 student nurses have been reclassified as students and are no longer included in the NHS staff figures. Staff included here are students finishing courses begun before this date. However at 1 October 1993 there were about 1,900 Project 2000 nursing students in Wales.

  4Excludes staff paid on local payscales whose staff group cannot be identified centrally.

  5In addition there are 72 whole-time equivalent nursing staff for whom no grade details are known centrally. The percentage shown do not, therefore, add to 100 for 1993.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation and with Balfour Beatty Costain Construction consortium in relation to the start date of the barrage construction contract and the complaints by the environment directorate of the European Union, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wide Fund for Nature regarding the Cardiff bay barrage and the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have had no such discussions with Balfour Beatty Costain. The chairman of the development corporation has been kept fully informed of the position regarding the complaint to the European Commission.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial controls he proposes should apply to councils during the suspension of compulsory competitive tendering because of local government reorganisation.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The suspension of compulsory competitive tendering does not affect the duty for councils to achieve a specified rate of return under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, or my right hon. Friend's powers to take action in cases of failure to achieve the rate of return.

  The suspension of CCT means that, for principal councils in Wales, there would be no requirement to achieve a specified financial objective, or any sanctions in case of failure, for work which is currently a "defined activity" for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1988.

  The Government propose to bring forward an amendment to the Local Government (Wales) Bill to provide that, notwithstanding the suspension of CCT, authorities should continue to be under a duty:

  —to keep accounts for this work;

  —to submit returns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; and

  —to achieve a specified financial objective.

  824
  were in 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 in (a) numbers and (b) as a percentage of the total NHS nursing and midwifery staff.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the table.

  The amendment would also give my right hon. Friend the power to act in the event of failure to achieve the specified financial objective. The obligations and powers sought would have retrospective effect, from 1 April 1994, but would not differ from those which currently apply.

  Local authorities will be informed of the detail of the
  Government's proposal.

  Health Authorities (Restructuring)
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will publish his proposals to restructure health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have today written to Welsh Members enclosing a copy of a consultation paper which I have published, setting out a range of proposals, including my preferred option. I have also arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House. Comments on the proposals have been invited from a wide range of interested bodies.

  Ancient Monuments Board
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to publish the next report of the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The 39th annual report of the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales has been published today. The report covers the financial year 1992–93 and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Lang
  This information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  825
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations and individuals outside his Department who are sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Lang
  There is no set list of organisations or individuals that are consulted about appointments to bodies which are sponsored by my Department, although there may be specific legislative requirements regarding consultation in relation to appointments to a particular body.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information his Department holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in(a) extreme left-wing organisations, (b) extreme right-wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons.

  Mr. Lang
  Appointments are made on the basis of aptitude and merit. No central record is kept of the political affiliation of those appointed to public bodies.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of Stare for Scotland what procedures his Department has to prevent the possible appointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Lang
  There are no formal procedures. Given the qualities required of the holders of such posts however it is in practice unlikely that an individual with extreme political views would be appointed where his or her views would be relevant to the responsibilities of the post.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist fcr the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. Lang
  The Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies" lists those public bodies sponsored by my Department at 1 April each year and indicates the number of appointments which I make to each body at 1 September. This publication also shows the level of remuneration, if any. Copies of the latest edition of this publication are available in the Library of the House. Information about the current appointees to these bodies is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take action to prevent national health service trusts reducing the take-home pay of their work forces.
  826
  Mr. Stewart
  Trusts are free to negotiate terms and conditions with their employees. Take-home pay of the staff of an NHS trust is a matter between the staff concerned and the trust as an employer.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has about the specific skills being learnt by people on Government training schemes for young people or the unemployed; and what assessment his Department has made of the extent to which these meet Scotland's training needs.

  Mr. Stewart
  Information about the specific skills being learnt by people on Government training schemes for young people or the unemployed is not available. It is the responsibility of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to deliver, through their respective networks of local enterprise companies, Government training schemes, with the aim of providing young people and unemployed adults with the skills, vocational qualifications and work experience to meet the needs of local labour markets.

  Schools (Opting Out)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many current applications he has before him from schools seeking to opt out of local authority control.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  One, namely the application from St. Mary's episcopal primary school, Dunblane, on which additional information from the St. Mary's school board has been requested in order that its application can be further considered.

  Royal Scottish National Hospital
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he made of the financial viability of the Royal Scottish national hospital management application for trust status before giving it approval;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of a detailed statement of the financial accounts of the Royal Scottish national hospital trust since its inception;

  (3) if he will conduct a thorough investigation into the finances of the Royal Scottish national hospital before deciding on the application for merger with Forth Valley Healthcare;

  (4) if he will arrange for an independent inquiry into the finances of the Royal Scottish national hospital trust.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: A thorough assessment of the finances of the Royal Scottish national NHS trust involving financial consultants was made during the public consultation period on the hospital's trust application. Trust status would not have been granted if the hospital had been considered not to be financially viable. The trust is required to make monthly financial monitoring returns to the management executive and these show that the trust is on course to meet its year end financial targets for the first year of its operation. The trust must also produce an annual report including accounts in respect of its first year of operation by September 1994. This is a public document which will be obtainable from the trust.
  827
  In order to inform my noble and learned Friend's decision on the merger application, a thorough assessment of the finances of the Royal Scottish national hospital and Forth Valley Healthcare will be conducted by independent financial consultants in conjunction with the management executive. There are no reasons for any further investigation or independent inquiry.

  Trade Descriptions
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been in the past 10 years under section 14 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for knowingly or recklessly making a false statement about the provision of business; and what was the penalty in each case of guilt being established.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: The information requested is not separately identifiable within the Scottish Home Office and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences.

  Hospital Staff
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the numbers of nurses, doctors, administrative staff, senior managers and domestic staff employed in each hospital(a) at the nearest available date and (b) three years ago.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not collected as part of the workforce data set submitted centrally by the NHS in Scotland. Limited statistics are available in section 2A of "Scottish Health Service Costs" for the years 1991–92 and 1992–93, copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library. Data for earlier years are not published in SHSC in the exact form required.

  Coastal Quarries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will publish the national planning guidelines on coastal quarries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: My right hon. Friend intends to publish a national planning policy guideline on land for mineral working as soon as possible. This will include guidance on coastal quarries.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to extend patients charter maximum waiting times guarantees to include the waiting time for the first out-patient appointment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: Maximum waiting times guarantees covering the time from GP referral to first out-patient appointment were introduced in Scotland in April 1993.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps the Greater Glasgow health board took to satisfy itself that Executive Healthcare was not dependent on financial support from related companies before allocating contracts to the company;
  828
  (2) if he will investigate the time taken for Greater Glasgow health board's evaluation of tenders for contracts at Glasgow royal infirmary and Glasgow royal maternity hospitals;

  (3) what steps the Greater Glasgow health board has taken to satisfy itself about the past history of Executive Healthcare and its parent company or any associated companies.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: I refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave her on 29 March, Official Report, column 715.

  Executive Health Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will carry out a study of the pay and conditions of the staff employed on contracts currently held by Executive Healthcare at Carstairs in comparison with their previous employment.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: No. Pay and conditions of service are matters entirely between Executive Healthcare and its employees.

  Family Mediation and Conciliation Services
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to give financial support to family mediation and conciliation services in the next financial year; and if he will make a statement on his office's attitude to such services.

  Mr. Stewart
  Family Mediation Scotland will receive a grant of over £56,000 in 1994–95 as part of a three-year award under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. In addition, four local services—Borders, Central, Tayside and Western Isles—will receive grant in 1994–95 as part of three-year awards. The precise amounts are still being worked out with the organisations concerned.

  We have received letters of support for the mediation services from throughout Scotland and the award of grants is an indication of how we value their worthwhile work of mediation.

  Child Care Law
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislation relating to child care law and policy in the present parliamentary session.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to promote legislation this Session beyond that already indicated in the Queen's Speech.

  Adoption
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what future arrangements he plans for adoption agencies and prospective adopters; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what specific proposals he has to ensure that adoption services are part of the full range of child care services which will require to be provided by each of the new local authorities;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements for adoption following local government re-organisation; what co-ordination there will be; who will provide funding; and if he will make a statement;
  829
  (4) what arrangements he intends making to ensure that children have the opportunity of adoption in each of the new local authority areas.

  Mr. Stewart
  Adoption is, and will continue to be, an important part of the range of services available for the care of children. Adoption law has been subject to extensive review and consultation in Scotland over the last few years and we propose to publish a policy statement shortly.

  Reorganisation of local government will clearly involve some restructuring of services and every care will be taken to ensure that services available now will be maintained, including those provided by adoption agencies. The strategic child care plans which are to be developed from the proposals in the White Paper "Scotland's Children" are of direct relevance in this context. Scottish Office officials have had preliminary discussions about reorganisation with the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering which are grant aided by the Government and which have an important national role to play in the development of adoption services.

  Record Office
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the targets he expects the Scottish Record Office to achieve in 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  I have set the Scottish Record Office the following key targets for 1994–95:

  to reduce the unit cost of preserving and making available the records of Scotland by 7 per cent. (omitting the start up costs of the new repository building);

  to increase the number of catalogue entries available for public scrutiny on the electronic system from 116,000 in 1993–94 to 119,000;

  to maintain the standards of reader services;

  material in some building produced for readers in 30 minutes or less in 90 per cent of cases;

  90 per cent. of photocopying for legal customers produced in 24 hours;

  95 per cent. of correspondence dealt with in 10 days;

  while absorbing an expected 2 per cent. increase in demand; and

  to complete and occupy the new repository building within budget by 31 March 1995.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many Forestry Commission woods have been sold off since 1981; and in how many of those sold all prior public access have been preserved.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 25 March 1994]: Between July 1981 and 31 December 1993 the Forestry Commission sold over 2,000 individual areas of forestry land.

  Access along public rights of way is not, of course, affected by a change of ownership and so any rights of way through these woodlands are still freely available. In addition, the commission offers to make access agreements with local authorities before woodlands are sold; these agreements ensure that full public access is maintained.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his latest estimates of the transition cost of local government reform.
  830
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1994]: The transitional cost of reorganisation of local government is estimated at between £120 million and £194 million for a 30-council structure.

  Purchasing Health Boards
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each purchasing health board in Scotland, the figures for revenue funding in 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95, and the estimated figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97; and if he will identify the changes for each health board's revenue budget resulting from the replacement of the resource allocation working party system of determining funding allocation.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1994]:Revenue funding is as follows:

  Health Board

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Argyll and Clyde

  220,019

  231,224

  242,301

  Ayrshire and Arran

  172,159

  183,530

  193,226

  Borders

  54,717

  58,374

  62,855

  Dumfries and Galloway

  78,616

  81,524

  86,965

  Fife

  158,314

  171,020

  178,766

  Forth Valley

  127,242

  138,154

  142,756

  Grampian

  254,470

  271,938

  277,805

  Greater Glasgow

  562,296

  586,662

  577,370

  Highland

  108,666

  112,182

  120,336

  Lanarkshire

  239,761

  258,272

  262,876

  Lothian

  405,413

  405,131

  418,193

  Orkney

  11,209

  12,525

  12,731

  Shetland

  12,898

  14,494

  14,789

  Tayside

  241,455

  242,979

  243,375

  Western Isles

  20,929

  23,012

  25,525

  (Note:

  1. The allocations for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are exclusive of the provision for AIDS, artifical limbs and appliance centres and breast cancer screening services which are now funded as national services.

  2. The 1994–95 allocation excludes funding for doctors in training, which is now funded through the Scottish Council for Post-graduate Medical and Dental Education, and includes funding for ambulance services which were previously funded through the Common Services Agency.

  3. Initial allocations for 1994–95 are shown. Further allocations will be distributed to Health Boards later in the year for a number of specific services.)

  Estimated figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 are not available.

  Details of allocations based on the resource allocation working party system are not available. It is not therefore possible to identify the changes to Health Board Revenue budgets resulting from the replacement of the system of determining funding allocation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Policing Structures
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will issue his consultation document on policing structures.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I am today issuing a paper entitled "Policing in the Community" which examines policing structures in the light of the considerable changes which have occurred in the Province since the present system was established a quarter of a century ago.

  The existing structures have stood under the most difficult circumstances, but it is now time to examine the best means of further improving the effectiveness of the police service, while ensuring that it is properly accountable to the whole community. The paper proposes

  831
  a strengthened framework for policing in Northern Ireland, by clarifying responsibilities and lines of accountability between the Secretary of State, the Police Authority and the Chief Constable. I believe that these changes will secure substantial improvements in the effectiveness and responsiveness of the arrangements for policing in Northern Ireland.

  I have invited comments on the paper by 31 May 1994.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades I to 7 and overall in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Sir John Wheeler
  At 1 January 1993, there were 12,989 female staff in Northern Ireland civil service, which is 43 per cent. of the service. There were 1,282 staff—4·3 per cent. of the service—who self-reported a disability and, of these, 463-1·5 per cent. of the service—were, or had been, registered as disabled. The Northern Ireland civil service does not monitor the ethnic origin of its staff.

  The number and percentage of female staff and staff with disabilities in each grade—1 to 7—was:

  Grade

  Number of Females

  Per cent. Females

  Number who self-reported a disability (SED)

  Per cent. SRD

  Number registered as disabled (RD)

  Per cent. RD

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  2·5

  1

  2·5

  1

  2·5

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  15

  7·5

  8

  4·0

  —

  —

  6

  61

  17·3

  11

  3·1

  3

  0·9

  7

  100

  11·4

  20

  2·3

  3

  0·3

  In addition, 77 civil registered disabled people are currently working in the Northern Ireland civil service under the sheltered placement scheme.

  At 1 March 1994 there were 108 female staff in the Northern Ireland Office, HCS, which represents 52 per cent. of the Department. The number in grades 1 to 7 was as follows:

  Percentage of Women in Grades 1 to 7

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  0

  —

  2

  0

  —

  3

  0

  —

  4

  0

  —

  5

  0

  —

  6

  0

  —

  7

  5

  20

  Some 16 per cent. of the Department are from the ethnic minorities, London only, and none of the staff are registered disabled.

  Institute of Irish Studies
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the hon. Members who have written to him asking for the funding of a chair at the institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.
  832
  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have received only one such letter on this subject, from the hon. Gentleman himself. I hope to be in a position to reply to that letter very shortly.

  Fisheries Policy
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last discussed fisheries policy with(a) the Republic of Ireland and (b) the Scottish Office; and if he will make a statement about co-operation on fisheries policy with both the Republic and Scotland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The last occasion on which fisheries policy was discussed with the Republic of Ireland by Northern Ireland Office Ministers was at the Anglo-Irish conference held in Dublin on 28 January 1994 when inland fisheries was the economic and social item on the agenda. United Kingdom sea fisheries policy is co-ordinated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the last occasion when all EC Fisheries Ministers met was at the 20 to 21 December Fisheries Council when the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food led the United Kingdom delegation on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland. The next meeting of the Council will be on 12 April. Officials of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland are in constant dialogue with their colleagues in the other United Kingdom Fisheries Departments including the Scottish Office and as necessary with the Department of the Marine in Dublin. My noble Friend, Baroness Denton, has as recently as 23 March written to United Kingdom colleagues about aspects of fishery policy as they affect the Northern Ireland industry.

  University Students
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Northern Ireland students are receiving university education in(a) Scotland and (b) the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which information is available, the numbers of Northern Ireland students receiving university education were 2,401 in Scotland and 761 in the Republic of Ireland.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Wolfson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for attracting private sector finance into the water and sewerage capital works programme in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The purpose of the Government's private finance initiative is to encourage the involvement of the private sector in the provision of high quality, good value public services. As such it offers real benefits to the public by promoting efficiency and improving services by harnessing the private sector's expertise. As part of the initiative, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has appointed Price Waterhouse to carry out a study into the scope for attracting private sector finance to the Department's water and sewerage construction and improvement programme. The study, which is expected to take three months to complete, will begin in early April 1994. The consultants have been asked to advise on the most appropriate mechanisms for securing and utilizing
  833
  private finance, to identify schemes where private finance could play a part and to identify the detailed requirements for taking forward any particular projects.

  Mr. Thomas Francis Doheny
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the basis of the prosecution against Mr. Thomas Francis Doheny in March 1993; on what basis his home was raided by police officers acting on a warrant granted to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; what was the source of authorisation for the issue of warrants against him(a) in Ulster and (b) in the United Kingdom; and who gave backing for the warrant for execution in the United Kingdom.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: A warrant was sought and issued for Mr. Doheny's arrest based on a complaint about the theft of a vehicle. This warrant was duly executed in England by virtue of section 38 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the investigation into the case of Mr. Thomas Francis Doheny referred to in the letter of 9 March from the Northern Ireland Office to Mr. M. O'Brien of the Committee on the Administration of Justice to be completed; if the report of the investigation of the case will be made available on publication; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: The investigation of Mr. Doheny's case has been completed and a file is currently with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Reports of such investigations are not published.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his customary practice for Northern Ireland in suspending the issue of warrants for imprisonment upon convicted persons for a number of hours following such convictions; what is the purpose of such delays in issue; what is the frequency of instances where the issue of warrants upon convicted persons is

  Table 1

  Magistrates' courts

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Findings (indictable and summary)

  16,428

  15,613

  16,667

  16,313

  16,931

  16,210

  14,662

  14,315

  13,696

  13,327

  Guilty pleas

  13,598

  12,945

  13,881

  13,886

  14,031

  14,471

  12,340

  11,927

  11,491

  10,872

  Percentage

  83

  83

  83

  85

  83

  83

  84

  83

  84

  82

  Conviction after not guilty plea

  1,302

  1,397

  1,203

  773

  876

  821

  461

  430

  470

  665

  Percentage

  8

  9

  7

  5

  5

  5

  3

  3

  3

  5

  Acquittals

  1,528

  1,271

  1,583

  1,654

  2,024

  1,918

  1,861

  1,958

  1,735

  1,790

  Percentage

  9

  8

  9

  10

  12

  12

  13

  14

  13

  13

  Table 2

  Crown Court: scheduled offences

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Findings (Indictable and Summary)

  638

  507

  698

  596

  713

  515

  456

  470

  423

  413

  Guilty Pleas

  464

  426

  552

  528

  634

  442

  373

  386

  343

  301

  Per cent.

  73

  84

  79

  89

  89

  86

  82

  82

  81

  73

  Conviction after not guilty plea

  113

  38

  73

  39

  46

  45

  41

  54

  45

  53

  Per cent.

  18

  7

  10

  7

  6

  9

  9

  11

  11

  13

  Acquittals

  61

  43

  73

  29

  33

  28

  42

  30

  35

  59

  Per cent.

  10

  8

  10

  5

  5

  5

  9

  6

  8

  14

  834
  delayed; and if he will make a statement on the operation of those principles in the case of Mr. Thomas Francis Doheny, convicted in the petty sessions district of Omagh on 12 March 1993.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]The decision to delay the issue of a warrant in any particular case is a matter within the discretion of the resident magistrate and it would not therefore be appropriate for me to comment. The frequency of instances where such delays are applied is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor to answer. However, I understand that the information is not available in the form requested and to extract it would incur disproportionate cost.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a table showing the number of cases dealt with by(a) magistrates courts (b) trial by jury and (c) judges sitting alone under the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in each year since 1983; and how many and what percentage in each category were recorded as (i) guilty pleas, (ii) convictions after not guilty plea and (iii) acquittal.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 29 March 19941: The following tables provide, for each available year, information on the number of defendants dealt with (a) by magistrates' courts, and (b) by the Crown court. Information is provided on the numbers and percentages of guilty pleas recorded, convictions following not guilty pleas and acquittals. The 1993 figures are not yet available for publication.

  Crown court figures have been divided into scheduled and non-scheduled business according to schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991.

  Subject to the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions, some scheduled offences can be tried at magistrates' courts. These tend to be of a less serious nature and are included within the figures for all offences dealt with at magistrates' courts. They could be identified separately only at disproportionate cost.
  835

  Table 3

  Crown Court: Non-scheduled offences

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Findings (indictable and summary)

  1,231

  1,121

  1,333

  1,263

  1,210

  971

  911

  952

  919

  891

  Guilty pleas

  1,055

  926

  1,090

  1,101

  1,056

  783

  767

  716

  717

  673

  Percentage

  86

  83

  82

  87

  87

  81

  84

  75

  78

  76

  Conviction after not guilty plea

  84

  99

  115

  78

  79

  97

  53

  100

  104

  108

  Percentage

  7

  9

  9

  6

  7

  10

  6

  11

  11

  12

  Acquittals

  92

  96

  128

  84

  75

  91

  91

  126

  98

  110

  Percentage

  7

  9

  10

  7

  6

  9

  10

  14

  11

  12

  Notes:

  1. Some scheduled offences may be heard at the Magistrates' courts and do not appear in Table 2.

  2. Cases tried before jury and tried before judges sitting alone equate to non-scheduled and scheduled cases heard in the Crown court respectively.

  3. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what procedures his Department has to prevent the possible appointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment;

  (2) what information his Department holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in (a) extreme left-wing organisations, (b) extreme right-wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons.

  Mr. Howard
  Where appointments are made to posts for which security clearance is necessary, the normal procedures set out in the then Prime Minister's statement of 24 July 1990 will apply. As the Prime Minister announced on 23 March, these procedures are currently under review.

  Chairmen and deputy chairmen of public boards and other full-time members of boards are expected to show a degree of detachment from political activities. Rules for the guidance of members of public boards are listed in annex 7A of the "Guide on Public Appointments Procedures", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. Howard
  Details of principal appointments for which I have overall responsibility are as follows:

  Chairman of Alcohol Education and Research Council

  (a) Mr. Charles Wardle MP

  (b) Expenses only

  (c) 3 years, extendable to 6 years

  (d) Vacant

  Chairman of panel of advisers on deportations made at my personal direction under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  (a) Mr. Charles Wardle MP

  (b) Expenses only

  (c) 3 years

  836

  (d) Lord Lloyd of Berwick

  Chairman of Criminal Justice Consultative Council

  (a) Mr. David Maclean MP

  (b) No remuneration

  (c) 3 years

  (d) Lord Justice Rose

  Chairman of Horse Race Betting Levy Board

  (a) The Right Hon. Peter Lloyd MP

  (b) £40,000

  (c) 2–3 years renewable

  (d) Sir John Sparrow

  Chairman of Horse Race Totalisator Board

  (a) The right hon. Peter Lloyd MP

  (b) £95,000

  (c) 2 years

  (d) Lord Wyatt of Weeford

  Chairman of Health Advisory Committee to the Prison Service

  (a) The Right Hon. Peter Lloyd MP

  (b) £10,560

  (c) 3 years

  (d) Sir Donald Acheson

  Chairman of Parole Board for England and Wales

  (a) The Right Hon. Peter Lloyd MP

  (b) £45,060

  (c)5 years

  (d) Lord Belstead

  Chairman of Animal Procedures Committee

  (a) Mr. Charles Wardle MP

  (b) £155 per day

  (c) 4 years

  (d) Professor Margaret Brazier

  Civil Emergencies Adviser

  (a) The Right Hon. The Earl Ferrers

  (b) £27,600 (3 days per week)

  (c) 3 years, extendable to 5 years

  (d) Mr. David Bawtree

  Chairman of Police Discipline Appeals Tribunal

  (a) The Right Hon. The Earl Ferrers

  (b) £306 per day plus expenses

  (c) Appointments are made for an indefinite period

  (d) Chairmanship taken on an ad hoc basis

  Chair of Advisory Board on Restricted Patients

  (a) Mr. David Maclean MP

  (b) Expenses only

  (c) 3 years

  (d) Judge Valerie Pearlman

  Chairman of Appeals Panel to Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  (a) Mr. David Maclean MP

  (b) £15,675

  (c) 2 years

  (d) Mr. Michael Lewer QC (as from 1 April)

  Chairman of Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  (a) Mr. David Maclean MP

  (b) £32,420

  837

  (c) 5 years

  (d) The Rt. Hon. Lord Carlisle of Bucklow QC

  Chairman of Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs

  (a) Mr. David Maclean MP

  (b) Expenses only

  (c) 3 years

  (d) Professor David Grahame-Smith CBE MB BS MRCS LRCP PhD FRCP

  Chairman of Misuse of Drugs Professional Panel

  (a) Mr. David Maclean MP

  (b) £179·46 per hearing

  (c) Appointments made for each hearing only

  Chairman of Advisory Committee on Service Candidates

  (a) The Rt. Hon. Peter Lloyd MP

  (b) No remuneration

  (c) Appointments made for an indefinite period

  (d) Vacant

  Chairman of Gaming Board for Great Britain

  (a) The Rt. Hon. Peter Lloyd MP

  (b) £31,450

  (c) 3 years

  (d) Lady Littler

  Person appointed to review the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  (a) The Right Hon. The Earl Ferrers

  (b) Salary, civil service grade 4 daily rate

  (c) 3 years

  (d) Mr. J. J. Rowe, QC

  Chairman of Police Promotions Examinations Board

  (a) The Right Hon. The Earl Ferrers

  (b) Expenses only

  (c) 3 years

  (d) Professor John Andrews, MA, BCL (Oxon)

  Chairman of Firearms Consultative Committee

  (a) The Right Hon. The Earl Ferrers

  (b) Expenses only

  (c) 5 years from 1989

  (d) Lord Kimball

  Chairman of Retail Action Group for Crime Prevention

  (a) Mr. Charles Wardle, MP

  (b) None

  (c) 2 years, renewable

  (d) Mr. Keith Ackroyd

  Chairman of Vehicle Crime Prevention Group

  (a) Mr. Charles Wardle, MP

  (b) No remuneration

  (c) 2 years, renewable

  (d) Mr. Peter Batchelor

  Chairman of Fire Service Research and Training Trust

  (a) Mr. Charles Wardle

  (b) Expenses only

  (c) Appointments made for an indefinite period

  (d) Mr. R. Shuffrey

  Chief Executive of Commission for Racial Equality

  (a) The Right Hon. Peter Lloyd, MP

  (b) £70,000

  (c) 5 years

  (d) Mr. Herman Ouseley

  Chair of the Immigration and Nationality Department Complaints Audit Committee

  (a) Mr. Charles Wardle, MP

  (b) £203·12 per day plus expenses

  (c) 3 years

  (d) Mrs. Diana Rookledge

  Chief Executive of Community Development Foundation

  (a) The Right Hon. Peter Lloyd, MP

  (b) No remuneration

  838

  (c) 3 years

  (d) Mr. Alan Haselhurst, MP

  Chairman of National Lottery Charities Board

  (a) The Right Hon. Peter Lloyd, MP

  (b) Salary, civil service grade 3 pro rata (2–2½ days per week)

  (c) Term of appointment not more than five years

  (d) Vacant

  Information about other appointments, including chairmen of boards of visitors and local review committees, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Howard
  As at 1 September 1993, of 1,875 appointments to Home Office non-departmental public bodies where the ethnic origin of the appointee was known, 4·2 per cent. of appointees were Asian and 3·6 were black. An undertaking was given when the information was collected that individuals would not be identified.

  South Yorkshire Police
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were available in(a) the South Yorkshire police authority area and (b) by each division for beat duties in 1993; what are the projected figures for the current year; and what are the comparable figures for those allocated to desk duties.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  At the end of 1993, 1,694 officers were deployed to beat duties in the South Yorkshire police area as a whole. Information is not held centrally on deployments at divisional level, or on projected deployments. Data held on other police activities do not distinguish the proportion allocated to desk duties.

  Schizophrenia
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that severely disturbed victims of schizophrenia in need of treatment are not kept in police cells in lieu of psychiatric care.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The codes of practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 require police custody officers immediately to call the police surgeon to examine a person in their custody who appears to be suffering from a mental disorder. Persons who are detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for their own protection or for that of others should be assessed as soon as possible by a psychiatrist and an approved social worker to ensure that they receive any necessary care and treatment. Under section 136 the police are empowered to remove persons to a place of safety, which the Government recommend should be a hospital rather than a police station, with a view to providing appropriate facilities for the care of the mentally disordered.

  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the funding for the course on mental illness run for police officers by the National Schizophrenic Fellowship; and what plans he has for improving the training in mental illness available to police officers generally.
  839
  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers is currently in touch with the National Schizophrenic Fellowship and is looking at ways of funding a national training video. The Home Office intends to issue further guidance shortly to those working in the criminal justice system generally about dealing with cases involving mentally disordered persons. In particular, chief officers of police will be asked to examine existing force policy and practice, including current training provision.

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners rioted at Blakenhurst prison, Birmingham, on or around 24 February: why it was necessary to call in the Prison Officers Association to rescue the situation; and how many other riots or disturbances have occurred at privately run 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 Derek Lewis to Mr. Michael Meacher, dated 30 March 1994:

  HM PRISON BLAKENHURST

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the incident at Blakenhurst prison on 24 February.

  A total of 111 prisoners was in the particular houseblock where the incident occurred, but not all were actively involved in the subsequent events.

  No member of the Prison Officers Association was called or required to attend the incident, other than any Blakenhurst staff who may be members of the Association. Sixty-one prisoners were transferred temporarily to other prisons establishments. This is normal practice in such an event and Blakenhurst, as an integral part of the Prison Service, has received prisoners from other establishments when they have experienced difficulties.

  You also requested information on disturbances at the contracted out prisons. Details of incidents, including acts of concerted indiscipline, at Wolds between the opening of the prison and 29 June 1993 have already been provided to Parliament (Official Report: 26 July 1993, column WA 75–79). Since that time there have been three instances of concerted indiscipline, making a total of 28 incidents in all. There have been a total of seven acts of concerted indiscipline at Blakenhurst since its opening.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Prison Service is to withhold any part of the payment to United Kingdom Detention Services Ltd. in respect of the contract to manage Blakenhurst prison; how much money is to be withheld; and for what reason.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 30 March 1994:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Blakenhurst prison.

  It is intended to take an appropriate financial remedy under the terms of the contract in relation to the incident on 24 February. The amount has not yet been finally settled.

  Brian Charrington
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what part will be played by his Department in the investigation by Thames Valley police into the conduct of the Brian Charrington case by Cleveland police force.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None.

  Vehicles (North Yorkshire Police)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles leased to the north Yorkshire police are currently mothballed; why these vehicles are not being used to police the county; from whom the vehicles are leased; how much it has cost to replace the mothballed vehicles with other vehicles; how much it would have cost under the terms of the leasing agreement to keep on using the leased vehicles; and whether he intends to issue advice to chief constables about the terms for leasing vehicles.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The procurement and use of police vehicles is a matter for chief officers of police and their police authorities.

  Guidance notes providing advice on vehicle fleet management, including leasing arrangements, have been issued by the Treasury's central unit on procurement. Copies of the relevant notes—Nos. 24a to 24e and 37—are available in the Library.

  Youths (Reoffending)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what are the reoffending rates for the various different forms of treatment of convicted youths up to the age of 18 years; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the reoffending rates for youths sentenced to periods of detention in (a) prisons and (b) other forms of detention; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is for reconvictions within two and four years of commencement of probation or community service orders and within two and four years of discharge from Prison Service establishments. Reconviction statistics relate to "standard list" offences as defined in appendix 4 of "Criminal Statistics England and Wales, 1992", Cm 2410. Estimates of reconviction rates are shown in the table for samples of males aged 17 or under when they commenced supervision under the probation service in 1987 and for a sample of males discharged from Prison Service establishments in 1987 aged 17 or under on sentence.

  Asylum Seekers (Sudan)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his decision to return unsuccessful asylum seekers to Sudan; and what account he has taken of the human rights situation in that country.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Circumstances in both northern and southern Sudan, including the human rights situation, are kept under continual review, but we see no reason at present to change our practice on returning unsuccessful asylum seekers to Sudan.

  Young Offenders (Employment)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of young offenders finds gainful employment upon release from(a) prison and (b) other custodial sentences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Officers (Assaults)
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults upon police officers are recorded in each of the years 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1993 in total and by constabulary using(a) automatic weapons, (b) knives or (c) other weapons.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Civilian Hours
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours per week are worked by civilians in functions which were previously police jobs(a) in total and (b) per person.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  These figures are not kept centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Transferred Police Functions
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what functions formerly performed by the police service have been transferred to(a) traffic wardens and (b) civilians since 1980.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The powers of traffic wardens to carry out certain police functions in relation to traffic offences are set out in the Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970. This was amended on 1 June 1993 to enable wardens to authorise the clamping or removal of illegally parked vehicles and to empower them to deal with endorsable parking offences.

  No police functions have been formally transferred to civilian staff. It is the responsibility of chief officers to allocate staff to suitable posts.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what jobs are currently performed by civilians which previously were police functions.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The specific information sought is not held centrally. However, a number of areas have been identified in which civilian staff could provide support services to police officers and these are listed. It is, of course, for chief officers to decide how best to organise their staff.

  Aliens Registration

  Buildings Maintenance

  Catering

  Closed Circuit Television/Audiovisual services

  CID Support

  Communications

  Computers

  Coroner

  Court Liaison

  Court Security

  842

  Criminal Records Office

  Dogs

  Drivers

  Equal Opportunities

  Finance

  Fingerprints/Photos

  Firearms and Explosives

  Fixed Penalties

  Gaoler

  HOLMES Unit

  Juvenile Liaison

  Licensing

  Marine

  Mounted Horses

  Personnel

  Plan Drawing

  Property

  Prosecutions (Administrative Support Units)

  Protection Administration

  Research/Planning/Analysis

  Scenes of Crimes Officers

  Special Branch Administration

  Statistics

  Stores and Suppliers

  Traffic Support

  Traffic Warden Administration

  Underwater

  Vehicle Fleet Management

  Warrants

  Welfare

  Other Administration/Clerical

  Slopping-out
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each prison in England where slopping-out is still in practice; and if he will state his plans and estimated date for ending slopping-out for each prison.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 March 1994:

  Slopping-out

    ACCESS TO SANITATION
    The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Prison Service's programme to end slopping-out.
    Only 27 of 131 establishments are without 100 per cent. access to sanitation throughout 24 hours but, as you will note from the following table, in many cases this involves small numbers of cells. The dates in the table are the dates on which we currently plan to take the last of these cells at each establishment out of use for the installation of sanitation, at which point slopping-out will end at those establishments. Population changes and other operational factors may require adjustments to some of those dates, which are kept under regular review.
    The Prison Service continues to give very high priority to completing the sanitation programme as planned. Ninety per cent. of prisoners now have 24 hour access to sanitation and this should increase to over 95 per cent. by December 1994. We aim to achieve 100 per cent. access nationally by February 1996.

    Prison establishments without 100 per cent. 24 hour access to sanitation

    Establishment

    Number of cells

    Planned end date

    Aylesbury A, B and C wings

    210

    3/95

    Birmingham hospital

    18

    7/94

    Brixton G wing

    173

    10/95

    Brockhill C, D and F wings

    72

    10/94

    Bristol B wing

    102

    7/94

    Chelmsford D wing

    33

    6/94

    Dartmoor C and E wings

    167

    2/96

    Durham A, C and B (North) wings

    202

    9/94

    Establishment

    Number of cells

    Planned end date

    Erlestoke Wessex wing

    60

    6/94

    Everthorpe Seg unit

    10

    11/94

    Exeter C wing and hospital

    97

    6/94

    Grendon G and H wings

    28

    6/94

    Hindley A nd B wings

    124

    1/95

    Hollesley Bay Seg unit

    11

    5/94

    Leeds A, C and D wings

    508

    2/96

    Lewes C and G wings

    130

    1/95

    Liverpool A, H and K wings

    347

    2/96

    Long Lartin D wing

    77

    8/94

    Moorland hospital

    7

    5/95

    Norwich hospital

    15

    4/94

    Parkhurst M wing

    40

    2/96

    Pentonville A wing

    153

    3/95

    Preston A, C and D wings

    346

    2/96

    Standford Hill Seg unit

    4

    4/94

    Wandsworth A, B wings and hospital

    288

    2/96

    Winchester B wing

    108

    8/94

    Wormwood Scrubs A and B wings

    333

    9/94

    Competitive Bids
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the total money spent, (b) the percentage of that money allocated according to decisions made by Ministers on competitive bids and (c) the percentage of that money allocated according to some statistical measure of need in the last available operational year of (i) safer cities, (ii) section 11 grants, (iii) ethnic minority business initiative and (iv) ethnic minority grant.

    Mr. Peter Lloyd
    Safer Cities estimated out-turn for 1993–94 is £6 million. I am unable to give precise figures until the tendering process for the second phase of safer cities projects is complete. All safer cities projects have been chosen having regard to statistical data on crime rates.

    Section 11, Ethnic Minority Business Initiative, Ethnic Minority Grant: In the 1992–93 financial year, £129 million was spent under section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, £4 million under ethnic minority grant and £0·4 million under the ethnic minority business initiative. In all instances, grant is allocated to projects approved for funding strictly on the basis of the assessment of particular need identified in an application, and of the objectives and targets set out for addressing that need.

    Hospital Visits
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hospital visits have been allowed to prisoners from(a) Durham, (b) Frankland and (c) Low Newton Prisons, in each year since 1979.

    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 front A. J. Butler to Mr. Jerry Steinberg, dated 30 March 1994:
    I have been asked to reply to your Question seeking information about hospital visits by prisoners from Durham, Frankland and Low Newton since 1979.
    Central statistical information about health care services is available only from 1985. The available information is as follows:
    844

    Durham

    Durham

    Frankland

    Low Newton

    Low Newton

    Year

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    11985

    252

    22

    114

    98

    18

    21985

    40

    5

    12

    5

    5

    11986

    312

    19

    98

    109

    26

    21986

    45

    8

    19

    5

    5

    11987

    365

    29

    54

    95

    28

    21987

    55

    5

    17

    5

    4

    11988

    382

    20

    61

    72

    23

    21988

    42

    1

    15

    3

    5

    11989

    388

    18

    86

    3—

    3—

    21989

    37

    2

    16

    3—

    3—

    11990

    383

    3—

    124

    68

    33

    11990

    51

    3—

    16

    6

    4

    11991

    423

    20

    144

    109

    30

    21991

    57

    3

    23

    8

    7

    11992

    240

    6

    145

    122

    41

    21992

    34

    2

    9

    11

    6

    1 Number of occasions on which prisoners attended outpatient facilities.

    2 Number of occasions on which prisoners were transferred to national health service hospitals.

    3 Information not available.

    Firefighters
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firefighters have been(a) injured and (b) killed in London in the line of duty in each year since 1980.

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

    Number of London fire brigade firefighters seriously injured1 or killed in the line of duty. 1980–92

    Fatalities

    Serious injuries

    1980

    1

    154

    1981

    2

    147

    1982

    —

    141

    1983

    1

    184

    1984

    1

    86

    1985

    —

    164

    1986

    —

    134

    1987

    1

    152

    1988

    —

    151

    1989

    —

    133

    1990

    —

    133

    1991

    2

    139

    1992

    1

    132

    1Serious injuries are defined as those which result in absence of duty for at least one month.

    Proton Cars
    Mr. Redmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Proton cars were purchased by his Department in each of the last 10 years for which information is available; and at what cost.

    Mr. Howard
    From the information available, no Proton cars have been purchased by the Home Office in any of the last 10 years.
    845

    Paedophile Records
    Miss Lestor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the paedophile records that were recently sent to the national criminal intelligence service from the Metropolitan police are now still with the national criminal intelligence service.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    A card index system, containing in excess of 3,000 names, was transferred to the national criminal intelligence service by the Metropolitan police in April 1992. These records are in the process of being entered onto a computer database. So far, 1,466 computer records, some containing many names, have been created and 150 names have been weeded.

    Traffic Videos
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 31, (1) if he will make it his policy to issue guidelines to police forces regarding the sale of road traffic video footage to private companies;

    (2) when the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers is to consider the sale of road traffic videos to private companies;

    (3) if he will discuss with the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers the use and disposal of road traffic video footage;

    (4) what representations he has had from chief police officers regarding the use of this road traffic video footage;

    (5) how the moneys received from the disposal of road traffic video footage can be utilised;

    (6) by what criteria he decided that the release of police traffic videos is an operational matter for chief police officers.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    Guidance is issued to chief officers of police on the disclosure of information in respect of criminal and civil proceedings. However, chief officers retain an absolute discretion, subject to the direction of a court, to disclose or provide other information from police records. The provision of road traffic video footage is similarly a matter for chief officers. I understand that none of the police forces concerned received money for supplying footage. My right hon. and learned Friend does not intend to issue guidelines on the matter nor does he plan to discuss it with the traffic committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers. That committee will be considering the issue at its next meeting on 11 May. I have not received any representations from chief officers about the matter.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom are currently held in detention; what was the figure a year ago; and if he will list those establishments which are used regularly for such detention.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    On 21 March 645 people who had applied for asylum at some stage were held in detention. Information on the number of asylum seekers held in detention a year ago is not available.

    The establishments which regularly hold the greatest numbers of immigration detainees are as follows:
    846
    Immigration Service Accommodation

    Campsfield House

    Harmondsworth

    The Beehive, Gatwick Airport

    Queen's Building, Heathrow

    Manchester

    Stansted

    Prison Service Accommodation

    Birmingham

    Blakenhurst

    Canterbury

    Dover

    Haslar1

    High Down

    Holloway

    Pentonville

    1Haslar Holding Centre is primarily an Immigration Detention Centre, although managed by the Prison Service.

    Mr. Madden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons, held in detention, who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom are currently refusing to eat; what arrangements are made for such people to be seen by a doctor or to have access to standard hospital facilities; how many detainees held at Campsfield house are currently refusing to eat; how many detainees have been dispersed from Campsfield house to other establishments; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Charles Wardle
    On 28 March, 69 detainees were refusing food, 22 of whom were located at Campsfield house.

    Between 18 February and 28 March 87 detainees left Campsfield house. Of these, 27 were released on temporary admission or bail, 22 were sent to other establishments and the remaining 38 were removed from the United Kingdom.

    Detainees in immigration detention centres have access on a daily basis to a resident or visiting doctor. The Prison Service is responsible for providing similar access to a doctor for those Immigration Act detainees accommodated at prison establishments. Depending on the circumstances of the case, a detainee who requires medical attention beyond that which can be provided in an immigration detention centre may be transferred to a prison hospital or outside hospital.

    Illegal Drugs
    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the quantities and estimated value of drugs seized by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the police for the last three years for which figures are available; and what estimate he made for the quantity and value of drugs illegally used for those years.

    Mr. Maclean
    The information requested with regard to the quantity of controlled drugs seized by Her Majesty's Customs and the police respectively is contained in tables S1.2 to 1.7 of the supplementary tables to the Home Office Statistical Bulletins "Statistics of drugs seizures and offenders dealt with, United Kingdom" (1990–92), copies of which are in the Library.

    In addition, Her Majesty's Customs informed us that the following quantities of controlled drugs were seized by them during 1993:

    847

    Amounts in kilogrammes

    Heroin

    561

    Cocaine

    748

    Amphetamines

    1,096

    Cannabis (all forms)

    53,137

    Data for 1993 for police forces will be published later in the year. The combined estimated value of police and Customs drugs seizures is not availble. Since drug misuse is by its nature a clandestine activity, there is no information on the estimated quantity and value of drugs actually used.

    Mr. Tony Lloyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Moss Side, Manchester in respect of the control of illegal drugs; and what new initiatives will emerge as a result of his visit to Moss Side, Manchester.

    Mr. Howard
    I have written to the hon. Member today.

    Prisoners (Costs)
    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of keeping a prisoner in(a) a privately run prison and (b) a state prison; and if he will give a detailed breakdown of these costs.

    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. Andrew Welsh, dated 30 March 1994:
    The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the costs of keeping a prisoner in (a) a private run prison and (b) a state prison.
    In 1992–93 the net operating costs per prisoner place per week were £333 in Wolds remand prison and £466 in the directly managed prison system, which included a range of different types of establishment.

    The costs in directly managed establishments break down as follows:

    £

    Prisoner control

    191

    Prisoner care

    70

    Prisoner occupation

    50

    Escorts of prisoners

    16

    Building services

    44

    Administration costs

    95

    466

    It is not possible to give a detailed breakdown of the costs for Wolds: the contractors are paid an agreed sum for a total service.

    Fuel Subsidies
    Mr. Welsh
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what subsidies privately run prisons receive towards the cost of electricity or gas.

    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.
    848
    Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 30 March 1994:

    CONTRACTED OUT PRISONS: UTILITY COSTS
    The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about any subsidies which privately run prisons receive towards the cost of electricity or gas.
    No such subsidies are paid. The contractor who manages Blakenhurst prison pays these costs under the operating contract. This will also be the case at Doncaster when it opens in June. The position at Wolds prison is temporarily a little different, however, in that there the costs of gas and electricity are currently met directly by the Prison Service. This reflects the fact that Wolds' unique design made it impossible at the outset to set benchmark levels for consumption, and therefore cost, in the contract. They have, however, been included in the published total operating costs of the prison and in the published comparative cost analyses contained in the Prison Service Annual Report. Now that energy consumption levels are known, arrangements are in hand to amend the contract so that these costs become the contractor's responsibility.
    The efficient use by contractors of public utilities is monitored by the Prison Service controllers who are assisted by the Prison Service Energy Management Group.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 223, if he will list the number of contracts and their cost with management consultants in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]:The Home Office let 70 contracts to management consultants during 1993–94. The total cost was £3,489,463.

ENVIRONMENT

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations and individuals who have been asked, since June 1992, to submit names of individuals to be considered for appointments to paid and unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Baldry
  In November 1992, the Department commissioned Succession Planning Associates, a firm of executive search consultants, to identify women and ethnic minority candidates suitable for appointment to DOE-sponsored public bodies and now maintains a list of the names they obtained. The consultants approached a wide range of organisations and individuals in order to draw up their list. In addition, the Departtment usually asks the public appointments unit of the Cabinet Office for information on possible candidates. The Department welcomes inquiries from people interested in serving on the boards of its non-departmental public bodies.

  Individuals from all walks of life may approach the Department and appointments are made on the basis of aptitude and merit. The Department has produced a form for self-nomination which is issued on request.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the organisations and individuals outside his Department who are sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or
  849
  may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department follows the advice on consultation set out in the Cabinet Office's "Guide on Public Appointments Procedures", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library. In addition to consulting in accordance with the guide, the need for any wider consultation is borne in mind depending on the individual circumstances of the particular appointments under consideration.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each appointment for which a Minister has to approve the appointment or shortlist for the appointment, showing for each appointment(a) which Minister exercises the responsibility, (b) the salary, if any, attached to the post, (c) the term of the appointment and (d) the person currently appointed to the post.

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of the appointments to nationalised industries and non-departmental public bodies, and their salaries, is published annually in "Public Bodies", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library. Other appointments by the Secretary of State, and their salaries, were listed in my answer of 1 March to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). No central record is maintained of names of the persons currently appointed, who number over 900, or the terms of their appointments.

  All appointments are the responsibility of the Secretary of State, other than those identified as exceptions in "Public Bodies" and my answer of 1 March to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, Official Report, columns 638–39.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what procedures his Department has to prevent the possible appointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment;

  (2) what information his Department holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in (a) extreme left wing organisations, (b) extreme right wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has no procedures for obtaining or storing information about political views. Nomination forms provided by the Department and the public appointments unit of the Cabinet Office do not contain questions about candidates' political affiliations. The aim of the appointment system is to obtain candidates who, on the basis of merit and experience, are considered the most suitable for the posts in question. Information to assist the Department is obtained from the nomination form, followed by shortlisting and interview, the taking-up of references and advice from other Government Departments.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available in a form useful to local authorities the programme used for calculating standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Baldry
  Standard spending assessments are calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in the local government finance report. Local authorities already receive from my Department all the information they need to calculate their own standard spending assessments. My Department will discuss with the local authority associations whether other ways of presenting this material would be useful.

  European Environment Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he plans to put to the European Environment Council in Brussels on 24 to 25 March.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council on 24 and 25 March. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside also attended on 24 March.

  The Council unanimously agreed, on the basis of a United Kingdom text, a common position to ban the export of hazardous waste to non-OECD countries by 31 December. 1997.

  In a separate discussion of the draft directive on landfill waste the Council concentrated on the scope of the directive and the question of exemptions. I pressed our views on the environmental advantages of controlled disposal of certain difficult and non-hazardous waste together—"co-disposal"—but overall little progress was made and the Council referred the topic back to the Committee of Permanent Representatives—COREPER—for further work to prepare for the June Council.

  In discussion of an amendment to the birds directive I secured assurances that the proposal would not reduce the level of protection for birds and that scientific and conservation criteria would be used in implementing it. The proposal will now be put to the European Parliament.

  An amendment to the directive concerning noise from earth moving machinery was adopted after a vote in which the United Kingdom abstained. A unanimous decision was reached on the four year programme—1994–1997—on official statistics of the environment. The Council also agreed a common position on a minor amendment to the large combustion plants directive—88/609/EEC.

  The Council agreed conclusions on climate change which urged all member states to complete by 1 May 1994 the national programmes aimed at limiting CO2 emissions that they are required to prepare under the climate change convention and the Community's own monitoring mechanism. We published the United Kingdom programme on 25 January. The Council also decided to establish a working group to examine various aspects of Community approaches to the use of carbon and energy taxation to limit CO2 emissions.

  There was a useful orientation debate on the proposed directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. I welcomed the aims of the directive and was supported in this by most other member states. The draft directive will now be considered further in the environment working group.
  851
  The Council also adopted a resolution on integrated coastal zone management, and in a short discussion of the Commission White Paper, "Growth Competitiveness and Employment", the Commissioner outlined ideas for taking things forward in the coming months.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of public appointments made by his Department in 1993 were of(a) Asians and (b) black people; and if he will list their names.

  Mr. Gummer
  The figures requested are(a) 0 per cent. and (b) 28 per cent. I am unable to list the individuals' names as the Department's survey of the ethnic origins of appointees is voluntary and on the understanding that the information collected will be used for statistical purposes only.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what considerations underpinned the omission from paragraphs 3.4.14 to 3.4.18, at page 54 of the United Kingdom report to the Commission on Sustainable Development 1994, in management of radioactive waste of Her Majesty's Government's policy to return to countries of origin reprocessing radioactive waste arising from the reprocessing of imported spent nuclear fuel to Sellafield and Dounreay.

  Mr. Atkins
  It was an editorial decision. As I made clear in the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member on 15 March,Official Report, column 579, the Government intend that British Nuclear Fuels plc should exercise its options for the return of reprocessing waste to the country of origin.

  Pollution (Appeals)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are awaiting determination and what were the dates on which each of those appeals was lodged.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 60 appeals under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are currently before my right hon. Friend for determination. The dates on which the appeals were lodged are as follows:

  Appeals at procedural stage (i.e. written representations being made by parties or appeal subject to a hearing)

  29 April 1991

  4 August 1992

  8 March 1993

  11 March 1993

  May 1993

  19 May 1993

  5 July 1993

  14 July 1993

  10 September 1993

  4 October 1993

  10 November 1993

  12 November 1993

  23 November 1993

  7 December 1993

  17 December 1993

  17 December 1993

  21 December 1993

  21 December 1993

  19 January 1994

  852

  25 January 1994

  3 February 1994

  15 February 1994

  17 February 1994

  22 February 1994

  24 February 1994

  2 March 1994

  Appeals at determination stage (i.e. submission of written representations by parties concluded or hearing held)

  6 February 1989

  7 February 1990

  30 March 1990

  22 August 1991

  28 October 1991

  31 January 1992

  14 February 1992

  31 March 1992

  7 May 1992

  15 July 1992

  30 July 1992

  15 September 1992

  16 September 1992

  9 October 1992

  12 February 1992

  22 March 1993

  28 May 1993

  15 June 1993

  Appeals in abeyance (e.g. negotiations taking place between parties or awaiting resolution of planning issues)

  9 December 1987

  1 August 1988

  26 April 1991

  9 July 1992

  26 August 1992

  23 November 1992

  5 January 1993

  24 February 1993

  9 March 1993

  16 April 1993

  26 April 1993

  26 July 1993

  10 August 1993

  22 September 1993

  20 October 1993

  18 November 1993

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what effect he expects the additional grounds for appeal and the need to establish precedents to have on the incidence of waste licensing appeals following the introduction of the new waste management licensing system on 1 May;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the time taken to deal with appeals under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;

  (3) how many staff are employed in his Department on appeals made under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; and what proportion of their time was spent thereon in the periods (a) 1 March 1993 to 31 August 1993 and (b) 1 September 1993 to 28 February 1994;

  (4) what steps he is taking to expedite determination of (a) current appeals made under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and (b) future appeals made under section 43 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 from 1 May.

  Mr. Atkins
  The administration or determination of appeals forms part of the duties of four members of staff within the Department's waste management division. Members of staff in the Department's planning inspectorate—PINS—are also employed on appeals where they take the form of a hearing. The proportion of staff time spent on the administration or determination of
  853
  appeals, and the administration and conduct of hearings, depends on a number of factors and varies from day to day. The time taken to determine appeals also depends on factors such as the time taken by the parties to provide written representations or their availability to attend a hearing. It is the Department's aim to deal with all appeals expeditiously and wherever possible to improve on the time taken to determine them.

  Responsibility for the administration of appeals which are to be determined on the basis of written representations will be transferred from waste management division to PINS on 1 May 1994 when the new waste management licensing system under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 comes into force. PINS' duties will include responsibility for appeals made under section 43 of the 1990 Act and, where appropriate, appeals under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Section 43 of the 1990 Act will widen the grounds on which an appeal may be made against a waste regulation authority's decision. However, sections 35(8) and 74(5) require authorities to have regard to any guidance issued to them with respect to the discharge of their functions. The guidance which we intend to issue under sections 35(8) and 74(5) should ensure that proportionately fewer appeals need to be made under section 43 of the 1990 Act than has historically been the case under section 10 of the 1974 Act.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 have been determined in the periods(a) 1 March to 31 August 1993 and (b) 1 September 1993 to 28 February 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  Eight appeals under section 10 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 were determined in the period 1 March to 31 August 1993; and two appeals were determined in the period 1 September 1993 to 28 February 1994.

  Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library all submissions and other comments made to him on the most workable formula for the discharge, through joint working, of strategic functions and planning by new or proposed

  Mr. Baldry
  We have received a large number of representations on the general issue of joint working, including those received in response to our 1992 consultation exercise on the policy guidance to the Local Government Commission. These could not be assembled except at disproportionate cost. We have said, however, that when we lay implementation orders for each area where the Local Government Commission recommends change to the structure of local government, we will place

  Women

  1Ethnic minority

  1Disabled

  Total staff

  Men

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Grade 1

  1

  1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 2

  7

  4

  3

  43·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 3

  34

  30

  4

  12·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 4

  7

  7

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Grade 5

  140

  119

  21

  15·0

  1

  0·7

  1

  0·7

  Grade 6

  322

  293

  29

  9·0

  1

  0·3

  0

  0·0

  Grade 7

  788

  654

  134

  17·0

  11

  1·4

  7

  0·9

  854
  in the Library a summary of all representations received by the Secretary of State about the recommendations. Individual representations will be made available if requested unless the writers intended their views to be treated in confidence.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those people and organisations he has consulted as to the most workable formula for the discharge, through joint working, of strategic functions and planning by new or proposed unitary authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is for the Local Government Commission to consider, for each area that it reviews, whether or not joint working between any proposed unitary authorities is necessary for particular functions. A list of those persons and organisations whom the Commission is required to consult on its draft recommendations is included in our procedure guidance to the Commission, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the strategic functions on which he has consulted as to their discharge, through joint working, by new or proposed unitary authorities.

  Mr. Baldry
  Annex B of the Department's policy guidance to the Local Government Commission sets out considerations relevant to structural change for a range of local government functions. That guidance, which was issued after an extensive consultation process, draws attention to options for joint working, particularly in relation to strategic planning. A copy of the guidance is in the Library.

  Council Tax
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against council tax banding and valuation are currently outstanding(a) in total and (b) in each valuation district.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), on 23 March,Official Report, column 276.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall, in his Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Gummer
  The following information covers non-industrial staff in my Department—excluding PSAS—as at 1 March 1994:
  855

  Women

  1Ethnic minority

  1Disabled

  Total staff

  Men

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  OVERALL TOTAL

  6,582

  3,909

  2,673

  41·0

  501

  7·6

  142

  2·2

  1 Figures are based on voluntary responses to staff surveys. The response rate to the ethnic origin survey is 91 per cent. Respondents to the disability survey include registered and non-registered disabled staff.

  House Improvement Grants
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mandatory house improvement grants have been made available in the areas covered by the five district councils on Merseyside during the past financial year; how many applications were received; how many homes remain in the pipeline awaiting renewal; when he expects to make an announcement concerning the targeting of house improvement grants into designated renewal areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Information on the number of mandatory renovation grants made available by the five Merseyside district councils during 1993–94 is provided to my Department through local authority quarterly monitoring returns. The number of returns received to date and the number of grants approved is shown in the table.

  1993–94

  Number of returns

  Grants approved

  Knowsley

  2

  97

  Liverpool

  2

  361

  Sefton

  —

  —

  St. Helens

  3

  158

  Wirral

  3

  143

  My Department does not hold statistics of renovation grant applications made to authorities or of applications still under consideration. The Government will announce their conclusions on the future of private sector housing renewal programmes following last year' consultations in due course.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the single regeneration budget he expects is likely to support bids from local partnerships as mentioned in paragraph 5.9 of the Department's annual report.

  Mr. Baldry
  The first round of bidding for single regeneration budget funding will be for new initiatives starting in 1995–96. On current plans, the total budget will be worth over £1.3 billion in 1995–96 and it is expected that about £100 million will be available to support new bids. Following the recent public consultation exercise, bidding guidance will be published soon.

  Urban and Housing Programmes
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the total money spent, (b) the percentage of that money allocated according to decisions made by Ministers on competitive bids and (c) the percentage of that money allocated according to some statistical measure of need in the last available operational year of (i) city challenge, (ii) urban programme, (iii) inner city task forces, (iv) city action team, (v) English
  856
  Partnerships, (vi) urban development corporations, (vii) the docklands light railway, (viii) esetate action and (ix) housing action trusts.

  Mr. Baldry
  The total amount of funding provided by my department under each of these support regimes for the financial year ending March 1994 is estimated to be:

  1993–94 estimated out-turn (£m)

  (i) City Challenge

  223·2

  (ii) Urban Programme

  173·0

  (iii) Inner Cities Task Forces

  18·0

  (iv) City Action Teams

  3·4

  (v) English Partnerships

  161·9

  (vi) Urban Development Corporations (including Docklands Light Railway)

  380·8

  (vii) Estate Action

  356·0

  (viii) Housing Action Trusts

  78·1

  City challenge and the £20 million urban partnership fund—which forms about 12 per cent. Of the urban programme in 1993–94—targeted resources on projects selected by competition among the local authorities in the 57 urban priority areas. Local housing authorities also compete for estate action resources. The other support regimes operate in the most deprived urban areas, run-down council housing estates, and areas of concentrated or extensive dereliction. Since resources are likely to provide the best value for money.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish his response to the Environment Committee's report on standard spending assessments.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend has today laid before the House the Government's responses to the Environment Committee's first report on standard spending assessments. Copies of the response have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  The Environment Committee's recommendations will be reflected in the development work on SSAs which we will undertake in partnership with the local authority associations in 1994 and in the longer term.

  >Dumplington Scheme
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now refrain from participating in the appeal hearing due to be held in the Appeal Court, against the granting of planning permission for the Dumplington scheme in Greater Mancester.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: No.

  Lewisham
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he or his Ministers last visited Lewisham, East; with whom they met and for what purpose; and if he intends to inform hon. Members when he visits their constituencies.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: All Ministers in the Department of the Environment customarily inform hon. Members when they are visiting their constituencies on official business. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning has not recently visited Lewisham, East on official business.

  Environmental Technology and Management
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department made to the Employment Training '94 exhibition on environmental technology and management held in Birmingham from 22 to 24 March.

  Mr. Atkins
  Both the energy efficiency office and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution took stands at ET '94 in Birmingham to promote the benefits of energy efficiency, and to explain the work of HMIP on pollution control. One of our pollution inspectors also presented a talk.

  Playgrounds, Leicestershire
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many and what percentage of playgrounds in Leicestershire comply with British Standards Institute BS 5696; and if he will publish a list of playgrounds which do not comply.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department has policy responsibility for play-ground safety and issues guidelines advising local authorities and others on relevant playground standards including BS 5696 and the German DIN 7926 standard. Compliance information on individual playgrounds is not held centrally.

  London Senior Regional Director
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the duties of the senior regional director for London; what support staff he will have; where he will be based; what will be the cost of this area of administration; what are the geographical boundaries of his administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  The duties of the regional director will be those set out in my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State's, reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 8 February,Official Report, column 146. The regional director will be supported by some 320 staff and contributing Departments are now finalising administrative budgets for the new office. A decision on the operational base of the regional director will be made in the very near future. The regional director and his office will be responsible for the Greater London area.

  Incineration
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to respond to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's report on incineration.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have welcomed the report by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on the incineration of waste as a clear and comprehensive analysis of the role of incineration as a waste management option. A full response by Government to the report will be published later this year.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he is making to improve the tendering process for local authority waste disposal contracts under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  Competitive tendering for waste disposal under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 generally works well and there are no plans to change the requirements of the 1990 Act. However, my Department is working on updated guidance to local authorities which will re-emphasise the importance of taking environmental factors into account in that process, such as the benefits of the waste-to-energy option in appropriate locations. We hope to consult on draft guidance later this year.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes to his Department's cash limits for 1993–94.

  Mr. Gummer
  I propose to make the following changes:1. The DoE/OES (other environmental services) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £2,676,000 from £45,000,000 to £47,676,000. This increase will be matched by a corresponding reduction in the DoE/NT (new towns) non-voted cash limit. The switch reflects local authority contributions to the Commission for the New towns under road cost sharing agreements. The increase in provision on the DoE/OES cash limit will be used to provide supplementary credit approvals to local authorities to cover their capital contributions to the Commission for the New Towns.
  2. The DoE/LACAP (local authority capital) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £99,577,000 from £2,457,808,000 to £2,557,385,000. The increase will be matched by a corresponding reduction in the DoE/NT cash limit. This results from the provision of additional supplementary credit approval resources to Basildon district council to facilitate the bulk transfer of rented housing stock between the Commission for the New Towns and the council. It also includes provision for Milton Keynes borough council and Wrekin district council to purchase residual rented housing stock from the commission.
  3. The DoE/NT (New Towns) non-voted cash limit will be reduced by £102,253,000 from -£96,325,000 to -£198,578,000. This is the result of reductions of £2,676,000 and £99,577,000 resulting from additional receipts from local authorities financed by the cash limit increases described above.
  4. The cash limit for class VII, vote 8 (revenue support grant, payments of non-domestic rates, Valuation Office services, etc., England) will be reduced by £35,000 from £28,808,113,000 to £28,808,078,000. This reduction is due to a saving on the council tax preparation grant resulting from lower than expected claims. This saving will be used to offset increased expenditure within the new control total on class VII, vote 12 (community charge grants, council tax transitional reduction grant, rate rebate grants, emergency financial assistance to local authorities, non-domestic rates outturn payments, etc., England), to meet claims for

  859
  emergency assistance to local authorities. The increase within vote 12 is being met by virement from voted expenditure not included in the new control total.

  All increases will be offset by reductions in other cash limited expenditure and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Birch Coppice
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 578, when a decision was made not to comment on the merits of a decision or the process by which it was reached.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a longstanding position to preserve the integrity of planning decisions.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 578, what steps he has taken to ensure that parties in respect of the Birch Coppice opencast application have the opportunity to make a submission based on the case and therefore on the mineral planning guidance note on which any decision is to be based;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 15 March, Official Report, column 578, when he proposes to make a final decision on the Birch Coppice opencast application;

  (3) by what date he expects the decision on Birch Coppice to be made;

  (4) what procedures have to be complied with in the specific case of the Birch Coppice opencast application in north Warwickshire before a decision can be made;

  (5) what arrangements he has made to seek representa-tions from relevant parties on any further decision on opencast at Birch Coppice in Warwickshire;

  (6) what sort of evidence will be sought by the public inquiry due to take place before a decision into opencast at Birch Coppice can be made;

  (7) if his Department will write to all the objectors involved in the public inquiry in 1991 into the Birch Coppice opencast application to tell them that the decision may be reached on a basis other than that on which the original inquiry was conducted.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Monday 28 March,Official Report, columns 488–89.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer on 15 March,Official Report, column 578, how many exceptions there have been to his policy of not answering questions on the merits of, or process leading to, decisions in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Baldry
  None of which I am aware.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much his Department has spent on getting legal advice on the opencast decision at Birch Coppice in Warwickshire(a) from external sources and (b) from sources within his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  Approximate figures to date are(a) £2,000 and (b) £1,000.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the available information on the total cost to his Department to date in dealing with all matters relating to the Birch Coppice opencast application.
  860
  Mr. Baldry
  No records have been kept of this information.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek a statement from(a) North Warwickshire borough council and (b) Warwickshire county council on the amounts they spent on the Birch Coppice public inquiry on 30 July to 23 August 1991; and how much the Birch Coppice inquiry cost the applicants and his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  No.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report,, column 578, on which version of mineral planning guidance 3 he expects to base his decision on Birch Coppice.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 15 March,Official Report, column, 578.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether it is his practice to take legal advice before announcing a decision on opencast applications; and whether his Department obtains legal advice from other Departments on opencast decisions as a matter of practice.

  Mr. Baldry
  Consideration is given on a case-by-case basis for the need to seek legal advice. My Department does not obtain legal advice from other Departments on opencast decisions as a matter of practice.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many lawyers are employed in his Department(a) generally and (b) dealing with opencast decisions; and how many lawyers in his Department have given legal advice on opencast decisions in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Baldry
  (a) 43 full time equivalents.

  (b) Currently and at any one time over each of the last three years, two lawyers have been available to give legal advice on opencast decisions.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans and provision he has made to compensate persons prejudiced by his decision of 24 February on the Birch Coppice opencast inquiry.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what compensation his Department has paid out in each of the last 10 years as a result of maladministration of any sort during the planning process.

  Mr. Baldry
  Compensation was paid out in four of the last 10 years. This is broken down as follows: 1986, £8,804, 1987, £2,410·75, 1988, £6,710 and 1993, £1,322.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department takes to ensure citizens are informed of their rights to redress if the Department makes an error during the planning process.

  Mr. Baldry
  All appellants are sent a copy of "Planning Appeals—A Guide" which explains the process for High Court challenges and investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Interested parties who write to the Department are informed of these rights.
  861
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions has he had concerning the costs to councils, British Coal and objectors of his decision of 24 February to set aside his decision of 2 August 1993 on Birch Coppice in Warwickshire.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 578, if he will set out in respect of each of the responsibilities of his Department those matters on which it is his practice not to answer parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Baldry
  The general practice of this and previous administrations is described on page 292 of the current edition of "Erskine May".

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 15 March,Official Report, column 578, regarding the Birch Coppice opencast decision, which mineral planning guidance note was in force on 2 August 1993.

  Mr. Baldry
  Mineral planning guidance note 3 (1988) as amended by the interim planning guidance for opencast coal issued on 25 March 1993.

  Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a list of approved or suitably qualified bodies available to carry out environmental impact assessment studies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department does not maintain a list of approved or qualified persons suitable to prepare environmental statements.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department has issued on environmental impact assessment procedures to local authorities, other statutory bodies, non-governmental bodies funded by central Government practitioners and other bodies or individuals.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Department has issued the following guidance on environmental assessment:

  —Circular 15/88 "Environmental Assessment", dated 12 July 1988

  —Circular 7/94 "Environmental Assessment: Amendment of Regulations", dated 18 March 1994

  —a booklet "Environmental Assessment: A Guide to the Procedures", 1989

  —a free leaflet "Environmental Assessment", 1989.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors should be taken into account in environmental impact assessment studies in cases where proposed developments would have an effect on the local environment.

  Mr. Baldry
  Where a project which is the subject of a planning application requires environmental assessment, the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 provide that the environmental statement submitted by the applicant shall include a description of the likely significant effects on the environment. These include the impact on human beings, flora, fauna, soil, water, air, climate, the landscape,862
  material assets and the cultural heritage. The statement must also describe the measures envisaged to avoid, reduce or remedy any significant adverse effects.

  Basle Convention
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implications for United Kingdom waste management policy of the decisions taken at the recent review meeting of the Basle convention.

  Mr. Gummer
  The major issue considered at the second meeting of the conference of the parties to the Basle convention which took place between 21 and 25 March was a proposal to ban movements of hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD countries. The Government entered the negotiations with two objectives: the first objective, shared with environmentalists, was not to allow the export of wastes for recovery to those non-OECD countries which were unable to manage wastes in an environmentally sound manner. The second objective was to protect legitimate trade in secondary raw materials with non-OECD countries wishing to import hazardous wastes for recovery. During the negotiations the G-77 countries were unanimous in their view that a ban was the best way to protect the environment in non-OECD countries. In view of this unanimous position the Government decided, along with their EC and OECD partners, to agree to a ban. The Government welcome the decision, which was adopted by consensus.

  The decision prohibits immediately all movements of hazardous waste for final disposal from OECD to non-OECD states, and prohibits from 31 December 1997 all movements of hazardous wastes for recycling or recovery from OECD to non-OECD states. Movements for recycling or recovery can continue until 31 December 1997 if a non-OECD country allows such imports and has provided information about the categories, quantities and management of acceptable waste imports to the Basle secretariat. The decision will be implemented in the United Kingdom under the Waste Shipments Regulation and will take effect when the United Kingdom becomes a party to the convention on 8 May.

  The conference also decided to develop guidance to assist states on the question of what constitutes hazardous waste under the convention. The guidance will be presented to the third meeting of the conference of the parties to be held in September and October 1995. The United Kingdom intends to play an active part in this work. The Government consider that non-hazardous wastes are an important source of business both to OECD and to non-OECD states and ought not to be affected by the decision taken.

  "Decision
  Recalling the request of the G-77 countries at the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention in Uruguay, 30 November—4 December 1992, for the total ban on all exports of hazardous wastes from OECD countries to non-OECD countries.
  "Recognising that transboundary movements of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD States have a high risk of not constituting an environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes as required by the Basel Convention.
  "1. Decides to prohibit immediately all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes which are destined for final disposal from OECD to non-OECD States;

  863
  "2. Decides also to phase out by 31 December 1997, and prohibit as of that date, all transboundary movements of hazardous wastes which are destined for recycling or recovery operations from OECD to non-OECD States;
  "3. Decides further that any non-OECD State, not possessing a national hazardous wastes import ban and which allows the import from OECD States of hazardous wastes for recycling or recovery operation until 31 December 1997, should inform the Secretariat of the Basel Convention that it would allow the import from an OECD State of hazardous wastes for recycling or recovery operations by specifying the categories of hazardous wastes which are acceptable for import; the quantities to be imported; the specific recycling/recovery process to be used; and the final destination/disposal of the residues which are derived from recycling/recovery operations;
  "4. Requests the Parties to report regularly to the Secretariat on the implementation of this decision, including details of the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes allowed under paragraph 3 above. Further requests the Secretariat to prepare a summary and to compile these reports for consideration by the Open-ended Ad Hoc Committee. After considering these reports, the Open-ended Ad Hoc Committee will submit a report based on the input provided by the Secretariat to the Conference of the Parties of the Convention;
  "5. Requests further the Parties to cooperate and work actively to ensure the effective implementation of this decision."

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decisions on the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to local authorities' security work, management of on-street parking and vehicle management.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department received 90 responses to the consultation paper issued on 16 November 1993 from local authorities and other interested parties. We are considering carefully the comments made. I expect to lay the necessary draft statutory instruments before the House shortly.

  It is widely accepted that competition is the best guarantee of value for money in public service provision. I am keen to see local authorities press ahead with competitive tendering for these services as soon as possible. Neverthless, I recognise that they must be allowed adequate time to prepare for tendering and to conduct a fair and even-handed competition.

  We would expect the tendering process to take up to 12 months, and authorities will need a little time to prepare for market testing once the statutory instruments have come into force. The date originally proposed for vehicle management in England, 1 April 1995, would not allow authorities adequate time and I have therefore decided to defer the start date for this work until 1 October 1995. This brings vehicle management into line with security work, where I intend the start date to remain 1 October 1995. After this date, the in-house team will not be able to carry out this work unless they have won it in competition. I anticipate that authorities will begin inviting tenders in the autumn of this year. As I told the House on 15 December, Official Report, columns 734–35, CCT for all new services will be introduced in shire areas following the local government review.

  My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has today made a separate announcement about the implementation timetable for CCT for the management of on-street parking services.

  Old Mineral Permissions
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the consultation paper on the reform of old mineral permissions.

  Mr. Curry
  The consultation paper on reform of old mineral permissions granted between 1948 and 1981 is to be published today.

  This consultation paper follows on from the options paper issued by my Department two years ago in March 1992 as part of the review of the operation of the Minerals Act 1981. That paper received a wide ranging and diverse response which has informed today's specific proposals for reform.

  The Government recognise that minerals are vital to our economy and I am very pleased that the minerals industry recognises that it has a duty to the public to operate to high environmental standards and to be considerate neighbours to those communities most affected by mining. We want to develop and extend the good work done by the industry and are determined to secure improved operating and environmental standards for all old mining permissions granted between 1948 and 1981.

  One of the points made most forcibly to us in the response to the 1992 paper was the need to establish a level playing field between minerals operators regardless of the date when their permissions were granted. At the moment holders of modern permissions and reformed IDO permissions granted between 1943 and 1948 are perceived to be at a disadvantage. We are determined to update standards as a whole across the range of these permissions and are concerned that quicker action has not been taken under the existing powers introduced by the Minerals Act 1981. We are therefore proposing a statutory timetable for reviews and for the updating of conditions. There are also particular proposals for dealing with ancillary mining development, compensation, and change to the 2042 expiry date for pre-1982 permissions as well as consideration of other issues including minerals waste tipping.

  Conservation Areas
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conclusions he and his right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, have reached on the response to last July's consultation paper on planning controls in conservation areas.

  Mr. Curry
  We accept that conservation areas merit protection from unharmful change. We aim to achieve this objective without unreasonable restrictions on house-owners or unacceptably increasing the workload of local planning authorities.

  We have concluded that each planning authority should be enabled to identify conservation areas which merit additional protection and to introduce stricter control in those areas. We propose a new power for planning authorities to make a direction withdrawing "permitted development" rights for a prescribed range of development materially affecting some aspects of the external appearance of dwelling houses, such as doors, windows, roofs and frontages. There would be no requirement to obtain the Secretary of State's approval for a direction but authorities would have to publicise their proposals in

  865
  advance and have regard to the views of local people. We shall be consulting about the detailed arrangements but hope to include the new power in amendments to the General Development Order to be laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the drinking water inspectorate has completed its consideration of the report of the review of the process of technical audit of water companies, carried out by the late Professor Stott; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am pleased to announce that the drinking water inspectorate has today published its response to the report of the independent review of the technical audit process. I have placed a copy of the inspectorate's response in the Library.

  Professor Stott confirmed the validity of the system and methods devised and developed by the inspectorate for checking the compliance of water companies and the regulatory requirements. His main recommendation was that water companies should develop quality assurance systems to assist them in meeting their statutory obligations consistently and to enable the inspectorate to determine whether the statutory requirements have been met.

  The inspectorate agrees that quality assurance systems should become more widespread as a means of ensuring consistently high quality drinking water. As such systems are introduced the inspectorate will adapt its techniques of inspection so that it can be satisfied that those systems are fully observed and that they remain appropriate for delivering wholesome drinking water and protecting public health.

  Waste Imports
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his future policy on the importation of wastes for treatment and disposal into the United Kingdom subsequent to the new powers available to him to prohibit waste imports after 6 May.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have nothing to add to my answer of 7 March to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond),Official Report, column 43.

  European Environment Council
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions were made at the March meeting of the European Council of Environmental Ministers on(a) the environmental appraisal of goods to be traded under the general agreement on tariffs and trade and (b) the EC birds directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Council did not discuss the question of environmental appraisal of goods to be traded under GATT. The Council considered an amendment to the birds directive to clarify the arrangements for protecting birds. My right hon. Friend obtained important assurances that this proposal would not reduce the level of protection for birds and that scientific and conservation criteria would be 866
  used in implementing the proposal. The amendment will now be referred to the European Parliament for consideration.

  Coal Industry Bill
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the National Rivers Authority regarding the Coal Industry Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is in regular contact with the National Rivers Authority about the pollution which might result from colliery closures and is aware of its views. The Coal Industry Bill is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what new guidance he proposes to give to local authorities when their waste disposal contracts are tendered;

  (2) what support he proposes for the United Kingdom waste to energy industry;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the environmental benefits of integrated waste management schemes incorporating waste to energy;

  (4) what plans he has to incorporate targets for energy from waste within revised recycling targets for local authorities.

  Mr. Atkins
  In its report on incineration published last year, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concluded that there are significant environmental benefits in integrated waste management schemes incorporating waste to energy. It recommended that such schemes should play an increasingly important role in our future waste management practices. The Government broadly welcome the conclusions of the Royal Commission in this respect and we are preparing a detailed response which I hope will be completed in the summer.

  In the meantime, the Government are taking steps further to encourage the development of incineration with energy recovery in the United Kingdom. In general, waste to energy schemes should be operated on a normal commercial basis. However, the Government recognise the environmental benefits of using waste as a renewable fuel source and so support waste to energy schemes through the non-fossil fuel obligation, under which operators can be paid a premium for the electricity they generate. A third NFFO order was announced last July. In addition, my Department is currently reviewing the guidance given to local authorities on tendering for waste disposal contracts. The updated guidance will re-emphasise the importance of taking environmental factors into account in that process, such as the benefits of the waste to energy option in appropriate locations. We hope to consult on draft guidance later this year.

  We have no plans to revise our target for local authorities to recycle 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000 to include targets for waste from energy.

  River Cleaning
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission a new and independent study into the cost of cleaning up rivers and water supplies to comply with European Union legislation.
  867
  Mr. Atkins
  The costs of meeting current obligations arising from European Community legislation for cleaning up rivers and water supplies fall in the main to water companies. These costs are currently being assessed by the Director General of the Office of Water Services as part of his periodic review of water price limits.

  Official Entertainment
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total cost of official entertaining in his Department in each year since 1990–91; if he will list the receptions held in each year at his Department's expense; and what was the cost of each reception.

  Mr. Gummer
  The total cost of official entertainment in the years from 1 April 1990 was £313,200 and is included in the running cost expenditure for my Department which is published every year in the annual report; figures for 1993–94 are not yet available. The entertainment budget is used for a variety of functions including receptions. Separate figures are not kept for individual functions.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many countries had submitted their sustainable development plans to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development by 21 March; and to whom Her Majesty's Government have made available the United Kingdom sustainable development report in addition to the United Nations Commission.

  Mr. Atkins
  I understand that 22 countries, including the United Kingdom, have submitted their reports to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Copies of the United Kingdom's report have been placed in the Library and are being sent to all member countries of the Commission on Sustainable Development and to other interested parties. Further copies are available from the Department of Environment.

  Oil Pollution, Bournemouth
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 833, on oil pollution at Bournemouth, what evidence he has that the incidence of such pollution is more frequent at and around bank holiday periods; and if he will consider the monitoring of the English channel during such periods.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government have no evidence that incidences of oil pollution are more common at bank holiday periods. Surveillance for oil pollution in the English channel and elsewhere around the United Kingdom coast is already carried out.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the packaging producer responsibility group on the role of converting waste to energy in meeting national environmental targets on greenhouse gas emissions.

  Mr. Atkins
  Incineration of packaging waste to recover energy plays a significant part in the producer 868
  responsibility for industry group's proposals set out in its plan of 7 February, a copy of which is in the Library. The report of the group's technical committee on waste to energy reflects the view of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that increased incineration of waste, with energy recovery, could make a significant contribution to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. We are considering with the group, and other interested parties, how the 7 February plan can best be taken forward.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has received from the Environment Directorate of the European Union in relation to a delay in adjudicating on the complaint by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the World Wide Fund for Nature regarding the Cardiff Bay barrage and the Cardiff Bay site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 1 March,Official Report, column 643.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list(a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of residents of non-self contained accommodation as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution, (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;

  (2) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of housing benefit claimants as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;

  (3) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of residents at non-self contained or non-permanent accommodation as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;

  (4) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of households living in rented purpose built flats as an indicator for the purpose of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;

  (5) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most proportionate to population from the use of elderly living in rented accommodation as an indicator for the purposes of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment of the use of this indicator;

  (6) if he will list (a) the 10 authorities which gained most from the use of children in rented accommodation proportionate to population as an indicator for the purposes of standard spending assessment distribution (b) the amounts gained and (c) the effect on Coventry's standard spending assessment.
  869
  Mr. Baldry
  The information is provided in the tables. However, there are some important technical points relating to the interpretation of the figures provided.

  In a simple arithmetic sense, it is possible to say how much of an authority's standard spending assessment arises from a particular indicator. In most cases, it is simply a matter of multiplying the value of the indicator in that particular authority by the weighting, and scaling factor, attached to it in "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1994–95 [HC 179]". This is the basis for the figures in the tables.

  But there are two important qualifications to the results of those calculations. One is general. The other applies specifically to four indexes reflecting social and economic conditions: the social index, the other social services index, the economic index and the children in need index.

  The general qualification is that the simple arithmetic calculation does not show how much better off or worse off the authority is as a result of that particular indicator being included in the formula. It would do so only if the rest of the formula remained unchanged when that indicator was removed. But it would not remain unchanged, because that would normally lead to a reduction in the national total of SSAs. To maintain the national total, there would have to be other compensating changes in the SSA formula. This would not be a simple scaling up of the factors; it would be usual to draw on statistical analyses to determine the weights on the remaining indicators. The weights would be likely to change differentially, to make good, as far as possible, the effect of the indicator which had been left out. In practice, if one indicator was left out of the analysis, it might well be appropriate to bring in some other similar indicator in its place.

  In other words, to find out how much an authority is advantaged or disadvantaged by a particular indicator would require the production of a hypothetical SSA in which that indicator had been omitted, but in which other compensating changes had been made. There is no basis on which such a hypothetical SSA formula could be defined conclusively. Consequently, there is no basis for saying conclusively how much an authority gained or lost by the adoption of an indicator in the actual SSA formula.

  The specific qualification relates to the indicators which are within the indexes reflecting social and economic conditions. All the general qualifications apply equally to the components of these indexes. But, in addition, the indexes are unlike other indicators in that they are not intended to reflect the total amount in SSAs attributable to social and economic conditions, but are only the amount by which the relevant part of an authority's SSA is increased or decreased from a national average because of those conditions.

  The figures in the tables have been calculated by applying the weighting and scaling factor for each indicator to the data for that indicator for the authority mentioned. The figures exclude any area cost adjustment. In each case, the amount for Coventry is shown for comparison.
  870

  Table 1 The proportion of household residents living in accommodation which is not self-contained

  Ranking and Local authority

  Contribution per head to SSA(£)

  Coventry

  2

  1 Islington

  44

  2 Hackney

  39

  3 Lambeth

  38

  4 Haringey

  38

  5 Camden

  35

  6 Hammersmith and Fulham

  32

  7 Kensington and Chelsea

  28

  8 Brent

  25

  9 Westminster

  23

  10 Lewisham

  21

  Table 2 The proportion of households living in rented purpose-built flats in residential buildings

  Ranking and Local authority

  Contribution per head to SSA (£)

  Coventry

  0

  1 City of London

  236

  2 Tower Hamlets

  38

  3 Southwark

  29

  4 Westminster

  27

  5 Hackney

  26

  6 Islington

  23

  7 Camden

  21

  8 Lambeth

  18

  9 Greenwich

  12

  10 Hammersmith and Fulham

  11

  Table 3 The proportion of household residents living in accommodation which is not self-contained or is non-permanent

  Ranking and heal authority

  Contribution per head to SSA (£)

  Coventry

  -3

  1 Kensington and Chelsea

  29

  2 Westminster

  29

  3 Camden

  25

  4 Hammersmith and Fulham

  20

  5 Islington

  19

  6 Haringey

  19

  7 Brent

  15

  8 Lambeth

  14

  9 Runnymede

  14

  10 Hackney

  13

  Table 4 The average number of Housing Benefit claimants

  Ranking and local authority

  Contribution per head to SSA(£)

  Coventry

  1

  1 City of London

  152

  2 Manchester

  9

  3 Tower Hamlets

  8

  4 Camden

  8

  5 Hackney

  8

  871

  Ranking and local authority

  Contribution per head to SSA(£)

  6 Haringey

  7

  7 Islington

  6

  8 Southwark

  5

  9 Newham

  5

  10 Salford

  5

  Table 5 The proportion of household residents under 16 years of age living in rented accommodation

  Ranking and Local authority

  Contribution per head to SSA(£)

  Coventry

  0

  1 Tower Hamlets

  10

  2 Southwark

  7

  3 Hackney

  6

  4 Islington

  6

  5 Lambeth

  5

  6 Isles of Scilly

  5

  7 Manchester

  4

  8 Camden

  4

  9 Greenwich

  4

  10 Westminster

  4

  Table 6 The proportion of household residents of pensionable age living in rented accommodation

  Ranking and Local authority

  Contribution per head to SSA(£)

  Coventry

  12

  1 Camden

  32

  2 Westminster

  31

  3 Tower Hamlets

  31

  4 Islington

  30

  5 Southwark

  30

  6 Sheffield

  29

  7 Hackney

  29

  8 South Tyneside

  28

  9 Newcastle upon Tyne

  27

  10 Manchester

  27

TREASURY

  VAT on Fuel (Advance Payments)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the revenue lost to the Exchequer by advance payments of VAT by customers of utility companies now subject to VAT from April.

  Sir John Cope
  Some loss through advance payments was anticipated on this, as on other tax adjustments, and was taken into account in the Budget calculations. It is too early to say what the actual effect on revenue will be.

  Taxpayers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number and percentage of(a) basic rate and (b) higher rate tax payers in each English county, metropolitan district and London borough for the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The table provides estimates for each English county for 1991–92, the latest available year for 872
  which information can be provided below the United Kingdom level. I regret that information is not available for metropolitan districts and London boroughs.

  Basic and higher rate taxpayers 1991–92

  Taxpayers liable at only basic rate

  Taxpayers liable at higher rate

  County

  000s

  Per cent.

  000s

  Per cent.

  Cleveland

  171

  96·2

  7

  3·8

  Cumbria

  256

  96·3

  10

  3·7

  Durham

  221

  95·4

  11

  4·6

  Northumberland

  141

  95·4

  7

  4·6

  Tyne and Wear

  429

  96·3

  16

  3·7

  Humberside

  327

  94·8

  18

  5·2

  North Yorkshire

  359

  93·7

  24

  6·3

  South Yorkshire

  505

  97·2

  14

  2·8

  West Yorkshire

  862

  95·9

  37

  41

  Cheshire

  413

  93·5

  29

  6·5

  Greater Manchester

  1,040

  96·1

  42

  3·9

  Lancashire

  601

  95·2

  30

  4·8

  Merseyside

  561

  96·4

  21

  3·6

  Derbyshire

  395

  95·9

  17

  4·1

  Leicestershire

  384

  94·8

  21

  5·2

  Lincolnshire

  257

  95·7

  11

  4·3

  Northamptonshire

  288

  94·4

  17

  5·6

  Nottinghamshire

  431

  96·4

  16

  3·6

  Hereford and Worcester

  317

  95·5

  15

  4·5

  Shropshire

  169

  95·8

  7

  4·2

  Staffordshire

  426

  95·8

  18

  4·2

  Warwickshire

  210

  92·6

  17

  7·4

  West Midlands

  1,040

  96·6

  37

  3·4

  Cambridgeshire

  326

  94·2

  20

  5·8

  Norfolk

  355

  95·3

  17

  4·7

  Suffolk

  294

  95·0

  15

  5·0

  Bedfordshire

  230

  92·9

  18

  7·1

  Berkshire

  313

  87·9

  43

  12·1

  Buckinghamshire

  259

  85·7

  43

  14·3

  East Sussex

  312

  93·8

  20

  6·2

  Essex

  709

  92·1

  61

  7·9

  Greater London

  3,020

  90·1

  331

  9·9

  Hampshire

  707

  91·9

  63

  87·1

  Hertfordshire

  441

  88·6

  57

  11·4

  Kent

  656

  92·6

  52

  7·4

  Oxfordshire

  240

  90·6

  25

  9·4

  Surrey

  477

  85·2

  83

  14·8

  West Sussex

  354

  90·9

  35

  9·1

  Isle of Wight

  54

  97·8

  1

  2·2

  Avon

  423

  94·3

  25

  5·7

  Cornwall

  202

  97·2

  6

  2·8

  Devon

  503

  95·5

  24

  4·5

  Dorset

  304

  95·0

  16

  5·0

  Gloucestershire

  250

  93·2

  18

  6·8

  Somerset

  211

  95·5

  10

  4·5

  Wiltshire

  266

  94·7

  15

  5·3

  Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information the Treasury holds or obtains relating to individuals who have been appointed, or may be considered for appointment, to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment, in particular relating to active involvement in(a) extreme left-wing organisations, (b) extreme right-wing organisations and (c) involvement in any of the political parties represented in the House of Commons.

  Mr. Nelson
  All relevant background and experience is taken into account when considering individuals for appointment to paid or unpaid posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures the Treasury has to prevent the
  873
  possible appointment of individuals with extreme political views to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person or shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury takes all reasonable steps to ensure that all relevant background and experience is taken into account when a Minister has to approve a person or shortlist for an appointment.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations and individuals outside the Treasury who are sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the person appointed or the shortlist for the appointment.

  Mr. Nelson
  The public appointments unit is sent information on, or consulted about, individuals who are, or may be, proposed to the Minister for appointment to posts for which a Minister has to approve the shortlist for appointment or the person appointed.

  Foreign Assets
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the assets(a) in total and (b) per head of population of (i) El Salvador, (ii) Nepal, (iii) Paraguay, (iv) Benin, (v) Togo, (vi) Sierra Leone, (vii) Mauritius, (viii) Burundi, (ix) Rwanda. (x) Haiti, (xi) Chad, (xii) Albania, (xiii) Barbados, (xiv) Malta, (xv) Botswana, (xvi) Ukraine, (xvii) The Gambia and (xviii) Mongolia.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on most countries' GNP and per capita GNP is available from various published sources, including the World bank's annual world development reports and the OECD's annual "Geographical distribution of financial flows to developing countries", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Private Sector Debt
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total United Kingdom personal private sector debt; and what is the total United Kingdom personal private sector debt per household.

  Mr. Nelson
  Total indebtedness of the personal sector—which includes unincorporated businesses and private non-profit making bodies, as well as households—was £499 billion in September 1993. Figures for household debt are not available. The number of households in the United Kingdom was 22·4 million in April 1991. Both figures are the latest available.

  Household Debt
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average level of household debt for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  Debt figures for the personal sector—which includes unincorporated businesses and private non-profit making bodies, as well as households—are available from the Central Statistical Office database. Separate figures for the household sector are not available.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons why the nominal exchange rate against the ecu in January was only 2 per cent. less than in December 1989; what was the corresponding reduction/increase in the real exchange rate against the ecu based on(a) relative producer prices, (b) relative export unit values and (c) the terms of trade for manufacturers: and what has been the effect on output and employment in manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Nelson
  Movements in the nominal exchange rate between currencies reflect many factors in the countries concerned, including relative growth rates, cyclical positions and inflation prospects. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 21 March 1994,Official Report, column 15, which provides references to data which can be used to calculate the information requested. In the same answer I made a statement about the effect of the real exchange rate on output and employment in manufacturing industry, to which I also refer him.

  Personal Investment Authority
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the appointment of Mr. Joe Palmer as chairman of the Personal Investment Authority.

  Mr. Nelson
  A number of representations have been received. However, the appointment of the chairman of the Personal Investment Authority is a matter for the board of the authority.

  Taxation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the effect Government tax policies will have from the beginning of April on the economic well-being of the average family with two children and one spouse on average male earnings.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations concerning the effects of the Government's tax policies on the living standards of families.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the cost to the average family of the cumulative tax increases announced since March 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Treasury Ministers have received a number of representations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax burden of a married couple on typical earnings and with two children.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A single-earner couple with two children on average earnings is likely to pay under 22 per cent. of its gross earnings in income tax and national insurance contributions in 1994–95. Under the last Labour Government it paid 23 per cent. on average.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the change in the tax burden
  875
  for a married couple on typical earnings, and with two children, since 1978–79 is accounted for by increases and extensions in VAT.

  Sir John Cope
  The change in the tax burden since 1978–79 has been determined by a range of factors, including the growth in real earnings as well as changes in the tax system. Reliable estimates of the contribution of changes in the rate and coverage of VAT are not available.

  Shareholders
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Bank of England to ensure that individual shareholders in public companies continue to receive company reports and so on, and share certificates in any new trading system for the stock exchange.

  Mr. Nelson
  I take it that the hon. Member is referring to the proposed paperless share settlement system called CREST. The Bank of England has designed CREST to permit individual shareholders, if they wish, to participate in CREST while remaining on the company register and so receive company reports, etc. direct from the companies in which they hold shares. Moreover, membership of the system will be voluntary, so that any shareholder may instead continue to hold share certificates and remain on the company register. This may be a simpler option for the less active smaller investor.

  Indirect Taxation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people with earnings so low that they do not pay income tax will be affected this month by increases in indirect taxation.

  Sir John Cope
  It is not possible to determine the number of individuals with earnings but not paying tax who will be affected by indirect tax increases.

  VAT
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new businesses have been registered for VAT in each of the last five years in(a) Milton Keynes, (b) Bedford and (c) Luton.

  Sir John Cope
  Customs hold registration information by local office. The local VAT office at Bedford covers Milton Keynes. The number of new businesses registered for VAT in Bedford and Luton in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  New registrations at the Bedford office

  New registrations at the Luton office

  1989

  3,222

  2,574

  1990

  2,909

  2,200

  1991

  2,160

  2,320

  1992

  1,784

  2,166

  1993

  1,912

  2,084

  Stable Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 665, what priority he accords to stable
  876
  prices; and what is the connection between that and (a) each of the priorities indicated in his answer and (b) reducing unemployment.

  Mr. Nelson
  Low inflation on a permanent basis is an essential condition for sustained economic growth and higher living standards. But in itself it is not enough. Combined with the Government's policies to improve the functioning of the labour market, and the operation of markets more generally, it will contribute to a lasting fall in unemployment.

  Low Incomes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to compensate the poorest 10 per cent. of wage earners, following the changes announced in last year's Budget which came into effect this month.

  Mr. Portillo
  Since 1979 those in the lowest decile of adult male full-time earnings have enjoyed a real increase in take home pay of 18·2 per cent.

  Flower Growers
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence there is that mainland European flower growers are selling produce into British markets and evading taxation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I am unaware of any evidence of tax evasion in this area. But the revenue departments are always prepared to investigate such evidence if brought to them.

  Decentralisation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to revise his policy on the devolvement and decentralisation of Government functions and activity to the regions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The policy remains as set out in the relocation guidelines, as updated in January 1993, a copy of which is in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Mortgage Interest Relief at Source
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people received MIRAS in 1988; and what was the total cost to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Dorrell
  About 9.2 million single people or married couples received mortgage interest relief in 1988–89 at a total cost of £5·4 billion.

  Industrial Building Allowance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much revenue is forgone by allowing industrial building allowance to extend to office and retail premises for sporting and recreational facilities;

  (2) if he will publish an estimate for the latest year for which information is available of the value of industrial building allowances against corporation tax due on buildings associated with the provision of sporting and recreational facilities to employees.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I regret that the information requested is not available.
  877
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the industrial building allowance is available for workplace nurseries in workplaces other than factories and warehouses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Industrial building allowances may be available for workplace nurseries within premises which are in use for the purposes of a trade carried on in a factory, or for other purposes defined in sections 18 and 19 of the Capital Allowances Act 1990.

  Workplace Nurseries
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many employers have workplace nurseries; (2) how many employees get the benefit of tax relief for workplace nurseries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available centrally on the number of nurseries. It is estimated about 20,000 employees had a full-time or part-time place for their children in a workplace nursery in 1991.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an estimate for the latest year for which information is available of the revenue raised from income tax charged on the benefit in kind to employees who make use of child care facilities paid for by their employers other than tax-exempt workplace nurseries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is estimated that in 1993–94 the tax charged was about £5 million.

  Vice President Gore (Meeting)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 446, what agreements were reached on environmental matters during dinner with Vice President Gore on 14 March; and what decisions he took consequently to that dinner.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None. The discussion was an internal exchange of views and was not intended to be the occasion for decisions on specific issues.

  Privatisation Costs
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expenditure it is proposed to incur in order to finance privatisation costs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Expenditure will be needed to cover:

  (i) the initial costs of advisers, estimated at £2,000,000, in connection with the forthcoming sale of shares in the two Generating Companies;

  (ii) expenditure, estimated at £600,000, in connection with the Treasury's sale of privatised companies' debt this year.

  Parliamentary approval of these new services will be sought in the 1994–95 main and summer supplementary estimates for Her Majesty's Treasury's sale or sales of residual Government shareholdings and Government holdings of privatised companies' debt vote (class XVII, vote 16). Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £2,600,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  European Union (United Kingdom Payments)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional payments the United Kingdom will be obliged to make to the 878
  European Union in (a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97 as a result of the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 25 March 1994]: The contributions made to the EC Budget under the Community's VAT—or "Third"—resource are made on the basis of a harmonised VAT base, designed to ensure that variations in VAT coverage and rates do not affect contributions. The Community's GNP—or "Fourth"—resource is based on GNP at market prices, and the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel is likely to increase very slightly United Kingdom payments under this heading. The EC budget is only established one year in advance so estimates of future payments are necessarily uncertain and the amounts will depend on the detailed circumstances of the EC budget in each year and the overall growth in EC GNP in general and United Kingdom GNP in particular.

  Fuel Consumption
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what advice Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has given to British Gas and the regional electricity supply companies setting out options for apportioning bills for supplies consumed before and after the day when VAT is introduced;

  (2) if he will publish details of the agreements negotiated by British Gas and the regional electricity supply companies with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise regarding the calculation of fuel consumed after 1 April on the basis of warmer weather; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Apportionment can be based on meter readings taken on 31 March. Customs have also agreed that it would be acceptable to apportion bills by using the ratio of the number of days before and from 1 April or by applying weighting factors of 1·75:1 for electricity and 2·5:1 for gas. The actual method of apportionment chosen is a commercial matter between the individual suppliers and their customers.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice is given to consumers who believe that the apportionment of their electricity or gas bills for fuel consumed before and after 1 April 1994 is not fair or reasonable; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Cope
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Consumers should approach their supplier with evidence that would support a different apportionment.

  European Investment Bank Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the level of allocation of European Investment bank loans for projects in the United Kingdom in 1993 changed from previous years; and what were the reasons for the difference.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 29 March 1994]: The following is the information:

  879

  European Investment Bank lending in the United Kingdom (Loan signatures)

  Year

  £ million

  Million ecu

  1993

  1,502

  1,929

  1992

  1,796

  2,407

  1991

  1,467

  2,091

  1990

  1,365

  1,893

  1989

  1,084

  1,623

  Figures for European Investment bank lending in the United Kingdom, over the past five years, are shown in the table. It should be noted, however, that these do not reflect a pre-planned lending programme, with fixed amounts allocated in advance to lending in the United Kingdom.

  The European Investment bank has a dual character, as both a development institution, and as a bank. It lends to capital investment projects which must both, contribute to the development of the Community, and meet normal banking criteria, especially that of financial viability. As a consequence, it does not attempt to set overall, national, or sectoral targets for lending, but rather responds to market demand, considering every application for a loan on an individual basis, against its objectives.

  The annual outturn figures published by the European Investment bank reflect this process, but they can also be influenced by decisions by the bank and promoters as to exactly when they will choose to sign for a loan, once it has been approved. Delays in signing agreed loans over a year end can have a significant impact on the figures. This occurred in 1993, when, for this reason, an increase in approvals of loans was not matched by a corresponding increase in loan signatures.

HEALTH

  Medicines (Advertising) Regulations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she intends to make the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is currently under consideration.

  Hospital Staff, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the percentage ratio of trained nurses to the number of in-patients in the Doncaster area national health service hospitals for(a) 1982–83, (b) 1984–85, (c) 1990–91, (d) 1991–92 and (e) 1992–93.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  In-patients1

  48,867

  49,856

  50,984

  Qualified nurses2 in Doncaster Health Authority area at 30 September

  1,380

  1,350

  1,350

  Ratio nurses:in-patients

  1:35

  1:37

  1:38

  1 In-patient figures are calculated by adding together ordinary admissions and day cases.

  2 The figure for qualified nurses excludes community nurses and midwives.

  Planning Forums (Representation)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representation there is of disabled people, carers of disabled people, parents of disabled children and disabled children on the planning forums of each local authority in England.

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are obliged by law to consult service users and carers on their community care plans. It is for each authority to determine how best to consult and involve people.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the targets for improvements in mental health services which she has asked the national health service executive to monitor with regard to the care of patients in the special supervision group identified by the Ritchie report.

  Mr. Bowis
  From April 1 1994, providers of mental health services will be required to establish supervision registers of those patients with a severe mental illness, who may pose a significant risk to themselves or others. The national health service executive will monitor the introduction of the registers to ensure that all patients in contact with the specialist psychiatric services have been assessed for inclusion on local registers by October 1994. The executive will also be monitoring provider units to ensure that all patients in contact with the specialist psychiatric services are subject to the care programme approach.

  Child Guidance Clinics
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many child guidance clinics were operating in 1985 and in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Children's In-patient Units
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children's in-patient units were operating in 1985 and in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available is shown in the table.

  Number of units

  Number of beds

  1990–91

  427

  14,458

  1991–92

  1306

  14,436

  1992–93

  295

  14,152

  1 Before 1991–92 information was collected by hospital site. Thereafter, as a result of National Health Service re-organisation, some individual hospital sites were aggregated under larger hospital and community units. The overall number of beds is therefore shown for comparative purposes.

  Figures for 1985 are not comparable as they were then collected by consultant speciality—not by numbers of designated children's beds and units.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the average hours contracted for junior doctors in each EU country.
  881
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the results of her new deal initiative for junior doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We receive regular reports on junior doctors' hours from regional task forces. Between September 1990 and September 1993 the number of junior doctors and dentists contracted for more than an average of 83 hours a week fell from over 13,300 to 91, a reduction of 99 per cent. This is a remarkable achievement. The remaining few posts are being tackled as a priority.

  From August 1992 to September 1993 the number of those working in hard-pressed on-call posts contracted on average for between 73 and 83 hours a week fell from over 10,200 to 7,800, a 24 per cent. reduction. We announced in December last year that eliminating the remaining posts in this category is a priority in 1994.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that hospital trusts abide by her new deal for junior doctors.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Our regional task forces work very closely with trusts and authorities to monitor progress and support local action to reach the new deal targets. Task forces receive regular detailed reports from all units and, in turn, submit returns to the ministerial group on junior doctors' hours.

  I and the chief executive of the national health service have also written respectively to chairmen and chief executives of trusts and authorities to re-affirm the Government's commitment to eliminating hard-pressed on-call posts contracted for more than 72 hours a week. This is a priority for 1994 and we have issued a detailed action plan to all regions, trusts and authorities.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue guidelines on minimum sleep for junior doctors within 24 hour and seven day periods.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The guidance on the new deal for junior doctors issued in June 1991, copies of which are available in the Library, advises that those working on on-call rotas should have a reasonable expectation of eight hours rest during a period of 32 hours on duty, principally within the on-call period. Where possible the greater part of this rest period should be continuous. For junior doctors working on partial shifts there should be a reasonable expectation of four hours rest during a duty period of 16 hours. Those on full shifts should also be allowed reasonable time for natural breaks during their working time. The implementation of this guidance forms part of our overall policy of reducing junior doctors' hours of work as part of the new deal. No further guidance is necessary.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors in each region are working more than 72 hours per week; and what plans she has to ensure that no doctor works more than 72 hours by her target date of 1 January 1995.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on the number of hours worked by junior doctors is not available centrally. The number of junior doctors and dentists contracted for more than an average of 72 hours a week in England, by region, is:882

  Posts contracted for over 72 hours per week at 30 September 1993 (England)

  Region

  Number

  Northern

  780

  Yorkshire

  1,381

  Trent

  550

  East Anglian

  517

  North West Thames

  729

  North East Thames

  1,229

  South East Thames

  762

  South West Thames

  801

  Wessex

  520

  Oxford

  532

  South Western

  327

  West Midlands

  925

  Mersey

  783

  North Western

  1,369

  England

  11,205

  Notes

  (i) Figures derived from the reports of the 14 English Regional Task Forces.

  (ii) SHAs included in the figures for the Thames Regions.

  Our priority is to eliminate all hard-pressed on-call posts contracted for an average of more than 72 hours a week by 31 December 1994. To this end I and the chief executive of the national health service have written respectively to chairmen and chief executives of trusts and authorities to re-affirm the Government's commitment to this target. Detailed guidance—EL(94)17—has also been sent to regions, authorities and trusts which provides a plan for action for the remainder of 1994. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  We are also providing in 1994–95 an extra £11·6 million from central funds to create at least 125 new consultant posts and for local initiatives to help the new deal. This will bring the total number of new posts for senior doctors created to reduce hours since the new deal was launched in 1991 to 750.

  Orthopaedics
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what difficulties are being experienced in hospitals in the Hillingdon area in appointing suitable candidates to fill consultant posts in orthopaedics; what steps she is taking to increase the number of doctors qualifying in this specialty; and if she will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At the last review of trauma and orthopaedics by the joint planning advisory committee—JPAC—in February 1993, the senior registrar national target was increased from 181 to 210 posts, and the career registrar national target from 153 to 202 posts. We are confident that all these posts will be funded within the target timescales. This should increase the number of suitable candidates to fill consultant vacancies.

  My hon. Friend may wish to consult the chairmen of national health service trusts in Hillingdon for local details.

  Fostering Respite Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of authorities offer fostering respite care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information available centrally relates to local authorities who have provided children with a series of short term placements with foster carers under one
  883
  agreement. Such placements generally relate to respite care if parents need relief, either from caring for a disabled child or for other reasons, or because a child is at risk of harm from their own behaviour.

  In the period 14 October 1991 to 31 March 1992, 76 authorities—78 per cent. of those submitting returns—looked after children in this way.

  Redundant Health Facilities
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the amount spent by health authorities in keeping redundant hospital and other redundant health facilities wind and water tight and safe from vandalism and theft.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. Regional health authorities, and national health service trusts, are responsible for property management.

  Asthma
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children aged five to 11 years have died following acute asthma attacks in each health region in England since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of deaths from asthma (ICD1 493) in each health region of England for the grouped ages of 5 to 11, 1990–92

  Regional health authority

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Northern

  1

  1

  —

  Yorkshire

  —

  1

  1

  Trent

  —

  —

  —

  East Anglian

  1

  —

  —

  North West Thames

  —

  3

  —

  North East Thames

  1

  1

  —

  South East Thames

  —

  —

  1

  South West Thames

  —

  1

  —

  Wessex

  1

  —

  1

  Oxford

  2

  —

  —

  South Western

  —

  1

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  2

  —

  Mersey

  3

  —

  1

  North Western

  3

  1

  —

  1 International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many asthma-related deaths of children aged

  Hospital episodes with a main diagnosis of asthma (1CD9 493) In-patients by region of treatment

  Discharges and deaths

  Finished consultant episodes

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11989–90

  11990–91

  Northern

  2,190

  2,550

  2,660

  3,180

  3,090

  4,000

  3,950

  7,686

  5,699

  Yorkshire

  3,230

  3,630

  3,960

  4,220

  4,230

  4,650

  5,610

  7,189

  7,928

  Trent

  3,710

  3,710

  4,970

  5,150

  5,790

  6,300

  7,300

  8,722

  8,490

  East Anglian

  1,240

  1,520

  2,060

  1,770

  1,950

  2,480

  2,700

  3,198

  2,914

  North West Thames

  2,740

  3,320

  3,880

  4,480

  4,840

  5,560

  6,460

  8,922

  7,378

  North East Thames

  3,650

  4,140

  4,950

  5,550

  5,650

  6,920

  7,090

  9,538

  8,341

  South East Thames

  2,690

  3,490

  4,040

  4,150

  5,080

  5,690

  5,910

  7,817

  7,053

  South West Thames

  2,090

  2,400

  3,140

  3,390

  3,560

  4,190

  3,890

  5,548

  5,511

  Wessex

  1,740

  1,350

  3,020

  2,500

  3,600

  3,050

  3,180

  4,143

  4,317

  Oxford

  1,780

  2,280

  2,390

  3,020

  3,240

  3,440

  3,660

  5,161

  3,691

  South Western

  1,960

  2,310

  2,570

  3,000

  2,950

  3,460

  3,820

  5,683

  5,455

  West Midlands

  3,510

  4,090

  5,080

  6,050

  6,900

  7,140

  8,320

  10,130

  10,034

  Mersey

  2,010

  2,610

  2,670

  3,430

  3,360

  3,730

  3,950

  4,968

  5,047

  North Western

  5,090

  4,900

  5,880

  6,700

  7,370

  8,300

  8,900

  10,232

  10,550

  SHA's

  1,020

  1,310

  1,510

  1,710

  1,500

  1,450

  1,390

  1,251

  869

  884
  five to 11 years there have been on school premises in the current academic year in (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for the current academic year are not available. There were four deaths recorded for this age group in 1992 in England and Wales but none occurred on school premises. Information relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her policy on the immediate availability of ventilators for children suffering from asthma aged(a) under 5, (b) 5 to 11 and (c) 11 to 18 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that the hon. Member is referring to the immediate availability of portable inhalers which are prescribed for asthma sufferers to help control their condition. Our advice is that children should have immediate access to the medication they require, and that in consultation with parents and with appropriate medical advice, children should be encouraged to manage their own medical condition as early as is consistent with their development.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of asthma were reported in each health region for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available, which derives from hospital in-patient data and which does not cover all cases of asthma, is shown in the table. The 1979 to 1985 data are based on a survey of discharges and deaths in hospital, and the figures for 1989–90 and 1990–91 are based on finished consultant episodes. The first year of published data from the hospital episode statistics is 1989–90. The reason for the increase over the period 1979 to 1990–91 is not known, but some proportion of the increase can be attributed to a change in diagnostic practice.

  Figures were not collected in 1986. As 1987–88 was the first year of changing to the, then, new Körner system there was considerable under reporting and the resultant data are incomplete in certain important areas.
  885

  Discharges and deaths

  Finished consultant episodes

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  11989–90

  11990–91

  England

  38,650

  43,610

  52,780

  58,310

  63,100

  70,360

  76,130

  100,188

  93,277

  Sources: Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE) 1979 to 1985.

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) 1989–90 onwards.

  1provisional figures.

  Emergency Contraception
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total annual cost to the national health service of prescriptions for emergency contraception.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is only one product under this category of drug. The information requested is therefore commercially confidential to the manufacturer and cannot be disclosed.

  Care Orders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of homeless people aged under 16, 16 to 18 and 18 years or more have had care orders at some time in the past; and what is the national average percentage of children who have care orders.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department does not collect information about the whereabouts of children once they have ceased to be looked after by a local authority. The number of children subject to care orders at 31 March 1992 in England, as a percentage of the estimated total number of children aged under 18 years, was 0·33 per cent.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children were received into care because of homelessness in each of the 10 years preceding the implementation of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally relates to the number of children in England taken into care on a voluntary basis because their families were made homeless. Figures for the 10 years preceding 1977 are in the table.

  Children admitted to care due to homelessness England 1968–77

  England

  1968

  —

  1969

  —

  1970

  —

  1971

  2,829

  1972

  2,811

  1973

  2,619

  1974

  2,204

  1975

  1,503

  1976

  1,194

  1977

  946

  BCG Vaccination
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's target for coverage of BCG vaccination; and if she will list those district health authorities and regional health authorities not reaching those targets.
  886
  Mr. Sackville
  There is no target for coverage of BCG immunisation. The Government recommend that BCG be offered to all school children between the ages of 10 and 14 years and also to new immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of the disease; to their newly born children; and to certain other higher risk groups which are listed in "Immunisation against infectious disease", copies of which are available in the Library. About 75 per cent. of school children are immunised each year whilst a further 5 to 7 per cent. are already tuberculin positive and, therefore, do not require immunisation.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to include the BCG vaccination in the targets for general practitioners.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 5 November 1993 at column 536.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which districts no longer carry out routine school programmes for BCG vaccination; how many children were vaccinated for BCG in each of the last five years; and what percentage of children have had BCG vaccination by the target date in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  We understand that 15 health authorities have discontinued the school's BCG immunisation programme but details are not available centrally.

  The number of children immunised with BCG in the last five years is hown in the table:

  Children given BCG vaccination by age in the years 1988–89 to 1992–93

  Number of vaccinations (thousands)

  Total

  Under 1

  1–9

  10–13

  14–15

  1988–89

  404·0

  31·3

  4·6

  269·1

  99·0

  11989–90

  194·5

  31·4

  4·6

  120·8

  37·7

  1990–91

  472·5

  36·7

  5·5

  300·0

  130·3

  1991–92

  453·6

  34·5

  6·7

  294·5

  117·9

  1992–93

  393·6

  43·9

  4·1

  262·8

  82·8

  1The school BCG programme was suspended in 1989 as there were insufficient supplies of BCG vaccine.

  The percentage of children which have had BCG immunisation in each of the last five years is not available.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy on BCG immunisation of neonates; how many district health authorities and regional health authorities are without policies in BCG immunisation of neonates; and how many offer BCG immunisation of neonates.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government's policy on the BCG—Bacille-Calmette-Guérin—immunisation of neonates is as set out in the memorandum, "Immunisation against infectious disease" copies of which are available in the Library. It is recommended that all babies born to immigrants to the United Kingdom who have come from
  887
  countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis are immunised with BCG. Eighty per cent. of districts, including 14 of the 15 of those who have stopped the schools immunisation programme, offer BCG to neonates. Thirty-one districts do not offer BCG to neonates.

  Commissioning Agencies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a list of commissioning agencies and the health authorities that they cover.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is currently being collected.

  Col 1 Grade

  Col 2 Total staff (Numbers)

  Col 3 Women Number

  Col 4 Per cent.

  Col 5 Ethnic Minorities Number

  Col 6 Per cent.

  Col 7 Disabled people Number

  Col 8 Per cent.

  1

  3

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  2

  8

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  3

  25

  5

  20·0

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  4

  28

  11

  39·2

  0

  0·0

  2

  7·1

  5

  204

  78

  38·2

  11

  5·3

  0

  0·0

  6

  136

  44

  32·3

  7

  6·3

  0

  0·0

  7

  575

  150

  26·0

  21

  3·7

  3

  0·5

  All Grades (including 1–7)

  5,110

  2,653

  51·9

  648

  13·2

  67

  1·4

  Notes

  1. Cols 2–4 exclude staff on loan to other government departments, on maternity leave of more than three months, on unpaid career/study breaks and casual staff.

  2. Cols 5–8 exclude Youth Treatment Service, staff on loan, secondees into the Department and casual staff and the percentages shown relate to the numbers of staff in this definition, rather than the definition in note 1.

  3. Numbers of staff from ethnic minorities relate to those responding to the Department's ethnic origin questionnaire.

  4. The figures for disabled people are for Registered Disabled People only.

  Family Centres
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to develop the network of family-based centres to help families in crisis.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government fund local authorities, through the revenue support grant, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need by providing a range of appropriate services, including family centres.

  They make their own decisions on the allocation of resources available to them. Local authorities have a duty to provide family centres as they consider appropriate, either themselves or through working jointly with other organisations including voluntary bodies.

  The Department has funded the family centre network for a number of years with the aim of promoting the family centre approach. It also funds other voluntary organisations which run family centres with the support of local authorities and, in some cases of health authorities.

  Behavioural Difficulties
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to establish an inter-departmental agency to co-ordinate responses to children with behavioural difficulties.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Vaccination Methods
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has on the extent to which pre-filling syringes to be used in vaccinations reduces anxiety in patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and what percentage of officers in each of grades 1 to 7 and overall in her Department are(a) women, (b) from ethnic minorities and (c) disabled, respectively.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information shows the position on 23 March 1994.

  Young People (support)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to increase funding for aftercare support for young people leaving residential care.

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for local authorities to determine their priorities and the level of funding to be allocated from within their overall budget.

  Passive Smoking
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the findings of the most recent research she has commissioned on the health risks in terms of morbidity and mortality of passive smoking.

  Mr. Sackville
  The available evidence on the health effects of passive smoking is summarised in paragraph 2.13 of "Smoke Free For Health" which was published in February 1994. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  The Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health will be reviewing the available research findings on this issue at the earliest opportunity.

  Adoption
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the length of time a child is fostered prior to adoption.

  Mr. Bowis
  No definitive timescale can be given about the length of time a child might spend in foster care prior
  889
  to adoption. A placement can be made only when all the important factors of the child's circumstances and needs have been carefully considered as well as the availability of prospective adopters to meet those needs.

  Nurses (Smoking)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has of the percentage of nurses who smoke.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The Government are committed to ensuring that the whole of the health service works towards a virtually smoke-free environment for staff, patients and visitors.

  Immunisation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the relative costs of delivering immunisation by prefilled syringe and by the traditional method of vial, syringe and needle.

  Mr. Sackville
  Some vaccines are supplied in pre-filled syringes; the costs are matters of commercial confidence.

  Vaccinations
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest average national targets being achieved by general practitioners for measles, mumps and rubella—MMR—polio, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccinations.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  At 1 October 1992, 88 per cent. of general practitioners had achieved the higher target and 7 per cent. had achieved the lower target.

  Drug Companies
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue further guidelines on the relationship between general practitioners and drug company representatives.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no plans to issue guidelines on the relationship between general practitioners and drug

  Number of children under care orders by age and placement at 31 March 1992—England estimates

  Placement

  Total

  Foster placement total

  With relative orfriends

  Other placement

  Community homes

  Other

  Total

  36,300

  21,100

  3,100

  18,000

  3,400

  11,800

  Under 1

  550

  400

  30

  370

  10

  140

  Age at 31 March 1992

  1

  1,200

  750

  80

  670

  10

  460

  2

  1,400

  810

  100

  710

  10

  550

  3

  1,600

  920

  140

  780

  10

  680

  4

  1,600

  970

  140

  830

  40

  640

  5

  1,700

  1,000

  160

  840

  40

  660

  6

  1,700

  1,100

  150

  900

  60

  600

  7

  1,800

  1,100

  160

  960

  70

  620

  8

  1,800

  1,100

  160

  980

  80

  560

  9

  1,900

  1,200

  170

  1,000

  130

  540

  10

  1,900

  1,300

  170

  1,100

  150

  510

  11

  2,000

  1,400

  200

  1,200

  200

  430

  12

  2,200

  1,500

  200

  1,300

  250

  500

  13

  2,200

  1,500

  200

  1,100

  340

  510

  14

  2,500

  1,500

  220

  1,300

  440

  580

  15

  2,900

  1,600

  260

  1,300

  620

  700

  16

  3,500

  1,700

  270

  1,400

  590

  1,200

  890
  company representatives. Advice on professional conduct is a matter for the General Medical Council Ethical committee.

  Care
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on children aged 16 to 18 years and young adults and after care within families.

  Mr. Bowis
  The Children Act provides a flexible framework of powers which enable local authorities to tailor support to the needs of the individual child leaving care.

  Care Orders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans or guidelines she has for ensuring that children, subject to care orders, return to a family environment as soon as possible.

  Mr. Bowis
  Part III of the Children Act 1989 emphasises the duty on local authorities to provide services to support parents in bringing up children in need in their own home and to work in partnership with parents in looking after children away from home. The Children Act "Guidance and Regulations Volume 3", on family placements, contains guidance on the planned return of a child to his family after a placement with another carer under a care order. This takes into account the views of parents along with the views of the child—where he is of sufficient understanding—so far as this is practicable and in the best interests of the child.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in each year of age up to 18 years with care orders are(a) placed with foster families, (b) in homes and (c) in neither; and how many are placed with foster families who are relatives.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information available centrally is shown in the table.
  891

  Placement

  Total

  Foster placement total

  With relative or friends

  Other placement

  Community homes

  Other

  17

  3,500

  1,400

  230

  1,200

  330

  1,700

  18

  300

  100

  10

  90

  30

  170

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100 for estimates a thousand or more and to the nearest 10 otherwise.

  Hospital Records
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legislation is in place to safeguard(a) hospital medical records and (b) administrative hospital records; what provisions are made to send them to a central depository or local archives; what differences there are for NHS trusts; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Medical and administrative records of national health service authorities, hospitals and trusts in England and Wales are covered by the Public Records Acts 1958 and 1967. The safe keeping and archiving of these records is the responsibility of individual NHS bodies, under the guidance of the Public Record Office. Advice on this was given to the NHS in health circular HC(89)20, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Hospital records selected for permanent preservation are kept in places of deposit appointed by the Keeper of Public Records on behalf of the Lord Chancellor under section 4(1) of the Public Records Act 1958, the great majority of which are local authority record offices.

  Cancer Treatment
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has conducted into which cancers are better treated in a specialist cancer centre and for which cancers where it makes no difference.

  Mr. Sackville
  On the basis of research undertaken by the childhood cancer research group, funded by the Department at the University of Oxford, the survival rates of children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia—the most common form of childhood leukaemia—are found to be higher at centres treating larger numbers of patients.

  For acute myeloid leukaemia, survival rates in children treated at specialist teaching hospitals were found to be higher.

  For several other types of childhood cancer, survival rates were better when children were treated at specialist paediatric oncology centres.

  Whether adult cancer patients are better treated in specialist centres, is one of the principal issues being addressed by the Government's Chief Medical Officer's expert advisory group, which is carrying out an overall examination of cancer services.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholders have informed her that they would go private if the system were ended.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The recent Kings Fund Institute report, "Evaluating the NHS Reforms", states that the abandonment of fundholding"…would probably lead to a substantial exodus from the NHS of fundholders setting up private insurance based HMOs".
  892
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has that non-fundholding general practitioners plan to go private.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the provisional figures for(a) the total general practitioner fundholding budget, (b) the total savings in real terms and (c) the total management cost of general practitioner fundholding in real terms in 1992–93.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provisional figures suggest that in 1992–93 general practitioner fundholders achieved savings of £30 million on budgets totalling about £805 million. The management allowance costs for these fundholders was about £19 million.

  Laxatives
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths are caused by laxatives every year.

  Mr. Sackville
  No deaths were recorded due to laxative poisoning—ICD1 973.1, 973.2 and 973.3—or due to adverse effects in correct usage—ICD E943.1, E943.2 and E943.3—from 1990 to 1992 in England and Wales.

  1 International Classification of Disease (9th revision).

  Diphtheria
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of diphtheria in EC countries in each year since 1991; and how many cases of diphtheria have been recorded in each year since 1988 in England and Wales.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Number of notifications reported to Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of Diphtheria in England and Wales 1988–1992

  Number

  1988

  1

  1989

  2

  1990

  2

  1991

  2

  11992

  8

  1 Data for 1992 are provisional.

  The information relating to European Community countries is not available.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to introduce a booster vaccination for diphtheria.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are currently considering the introduction of a booster dose.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from(a) diphtheria and (b) hepatitis B have occurred in the last five years.
  893
  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  The number of deaths from diphtheria ICD1 032 and hepatitis B ICD 070·2–070·3 for the last five years in England and Wales

  Year

  Diphtheria

  Hepatitis B

  1988

  —

  59

  1989

  —

  58

  1990

  —

  53

  1991

  —

  53

  1992

  —

  78

  1 Ninth revision international classification of disease code.

  Drugs Advertising
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which drugs and medicines cannot be advertised by law; and how many deaths are caused each year by such drugs;

  (2) what rules govern the advertising of laxatives on television.

  Mr. Sackville
  Licensed medicines may be advertised under the control of the Medicines Act 1968 and supporting regulations. Those available without prescription may be advertised to the public including by television.

  Information on the overall number of deaths caused by drugs is not available.

  Water Births
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government are taking, in addition to commissioning the Oxford perinatal epidemiology unit study, to determine the safety for the baby of labour or delivery in water; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department is currently considering proposals for research into outcomes for babies whose mothers have delivered or laboured in water and will make a decision as soon as possible.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect in advertising terms of tobacco-sponsored events on television and the effect of banning such indirect advertising on the consumption of cigarettes.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Department of Health discussion document "Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption" reviewed the available evidence in this area. It made no assessment of either the effect in advertising terms of tobacco sponsored events on television or of the effect of banning indirect advertising on cigarette consumption. Copies of the report, published in October 1992, are available in the Library.

  Sterilisation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the present fees to surgeons performing(a) a vasectomy and (b) a female sterilisation procedure in the NHS.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The family planning fees effective from 1 April 1994 are:894

  Operating fee£

  Anaesthetist's fee£

  Fee per case of male sterilisation performed

  a. As a separate procedure

  74·25

  36·65

  b. During the course of another procedure

  50·25

  24·30

  Fee per case of female sterilisation performed

  a. As a separate procedure

  100·45

  49·05

  b. During the course of another procedure

  67·15

  32·75

  Temazepam
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ban temazepam capsules.

  Mr. Sackville
  The licensing authority has no plans to ban temazepam capsules. The matter currently under review by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is whether temazepam should be rescheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average daily cost to the NHS of using(a) a private psychiatric hospital bed and (b) an NHS psychiatric hospital bed in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The average daily cost to the national health service of using a NHS psychiatric hospital bed in each of the last five years is shown in the table. The annual accounts and financial returns of health authorities do not separately identify expenditure incurred specifically on the purchase of healthcare outside the NHS.

  Average daily cost per patient for psychiatric specialties

  Directly managed units and national health service trusts—England (£)

  1988–89

  40·14

  1989–90

  46·45

  1990–91

  51·89

  1991–92

  103·44

  1992–93

  116·04

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of health authorities and NHS trusts.

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1992–93 are provisional.

  2. Figures for 1988–89 to 1990–91 are not comparable with later years because:

  a. Figures prior to 1991–92 include only direct costs. From 1991–92 they additionally include:

  (i) Overheads

  (ii) Capital charges

  b. Changes in accounting practice.

  Nurse Redundancies
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the number of nurses likely to be made redundant by the reorganisation in London health services; and how much money is earmarked for retraining them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The number of redundancies will depend on action taken within individuals trusts and units.
  895
  An initial sum of £200,000 has been made available for retraining nurses affected by the changes in London. Additionally, the London implementation group is developing retraining programmes for displaced hospital staff who wish to work in primary and community care.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances NHS trusts will be allowed to prevent the sale of national lottery tickets from outlets on their premises.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This will be a matter for individual national health service trusts.

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–95

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Health Education Authority/National AIDS helpline

  10.00

  11.00

  11.225

  11.506

  1—

  Health Authorities

  127.5

  137.3

  181.5

  214.4

  228.0

  Local Authorities

  9.8

  10.2

  15.3

  12.4

  12.98

  Voluntary Organisations (HIV)

  1.80

  1.90

  1.987

  1.927

  1.789

  Voluntary Organisations (Sexual Health)

  .228

  .253

  .294

  .293

  .283

  1 To be settled.

  A list of individual projects is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the work of her Department, the national health service and the Health education authority to improve the sexual health and sex education of homosexual men and lesbians.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government have developed a comprehensive approach to limit the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases as well as providing treatment and care to those affected. The prevention strategy takes account of a range of sexual behaviours and seeks to discourage practices which carry a risk of HIV infection. The Health Education Authority, national AIDS helpline, voluntary organisations and the national health service all contribute in many ways to this approach.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints regarding private or voluntary nursing homes were received in each district health authority for each year since the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private or voluntary nursing home beds, and how many private or voluntary nursing homes, were registered with each district health authority for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent nursing staff were allocated to registration and inspection duties under the Registered Homes Act 1984 within each district health authority for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities are responsible for the registration and inspection of all independent nursing
  896

  Sex Education
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those AIDS, sexual health and sexual education projects funded by the Department of Health together with the size of any grants or loans made by her Department in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Sackville
  Funding in the area of HIV-AIDS and sexual health falls into two categories, allocations to health and local authorities and to the voluntary sector. These all include a proportion of funds for prevention initiatives. Since 1990 the following amounts have been made available:

  homes in their area. The number of nurses employed on registration and inspection is a decision for each health authority.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been deregistered for NHS dentistry treatment in each of the health authority areas within the south West region for the last 52 weeks for which figures are available; and what these totals represent as a proportion of the total population in each case.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information will be placed in the Library. At 30 September 1993 there were 22 more dentists in contract with family health services authorities in South Western region than at 30 September 1992.

  Cancer Diagnosis
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are in place on the training of general practitioners and nurses in cancer diagnosis.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Cancer is recognised as a major cause of morbidity and death. As such the diagnosis and treatment of the various forms of cancer figures prominently in the education and training at all stages of a doctor's career.

  Nurses are not trained in the diagnosis of cancer which is a medical responsibility.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many specialist breast care nurses are employed in the national health service, by region.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no specific occupation code for breast care, therefore any nurses working within this area are not separately identifiable.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she plans to change the national health service trusts external finance limit for 1993–94.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The external finance limit for national health service trusts in England will be increased by £10,993,000 for 1993.94 from £319,013,000 to £330,006,000, reflecting the take up of agreed end year flexibility entitlement. This will be charged to the reserve and therefore will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Consultancies
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the money spent on all types of consultancy by her Department in 1992–93 was spent by(a) the national health service management executive, (b) by regional health authorities and (c) by centrally run patient services.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 28 March 1994]: Expenditure on consultancy funded from the administration vote of the Department for the national health service management executive in 1992–93 was £6,765,821. Consultancy expenditure incurred from centrally held budgets funded from the hospital and community health services vote is not separately identifiable.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Joy Gardner Case
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Crown Prosecution Service will bring forward recommendations on the possible prosecutions of those officers involved in the Joy Gardner case; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is at present considering the evidence which has been obtained as a result of the recent police investigation. I am not yet able to say when a decision will be taken.

  Building Projects
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Attorney-General what major building projects, valued at over £1 million are being or have been wholly or partly financed since 1989 in(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham and (d) Wakefield by his Department; and what was the cost of each project to his Department.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Television: Nine o'clock Watershed
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will initiate discussion with the TV broadcasting authorities with a view to ensuring a voluntary postponement of the nine o'clock watershed.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the nature and the timing of the watershed are among the matters which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage proposes to discuss with the chairman of the regulatory authorities for broadcasting.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. We debated this matter on 12th January and noble Lords on all sides of the House implored the Government to put back the nine o'clock watershed. It is unrealistic to think that little children are in bed and asleep at nine o'clock these days. Some shocking programmes are being broadcast on our terrestrial channels; for example, the programmes about the Kray brothers and the Richardson gang. Those programmes went far beyond the standards of taste and decency which are demanded of all channels by the 1990 Broadcasting Act. What can we do about the situation?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's sense of disgust and he is not alone in that. However, in a free society it is up to broadcasters to show a sense of responsibility.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the nine o'clock watershed has long been established and is well known to parents, who have a responsibility in this matter? Is the noble Minister further aware that two-thirds of homes in this country contain no children, and that grown-ups have rights too as regards viewing television?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I know that this is a matter on which noble Lords hold strong opinions. However, I stress that parents must take primary responsibility for their children's viewing and the watershed helps parents to exercise their responsibilities. I appreciate that there are many other people other than children watching television, but I still think that care must be taken as regards setting standards for broadcasting companies.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that the real issue here is not about the watershed? The majority of complaints received by the BBC do not concern excessive sex and violence in programmes but rather the excessive use of boring and
1070
repetitive programmes. Does not the noble Baroness agree that the big issue here is the growth of videos? I have a three year-old granddaughter who I hasten to add watches videos such as "Beauty and the Beast" rather than videos which contain sex and violence, but older children can obtain videos which most of us would deplore. As has been said, that is a matter for parental control. Is not the real problem that raising the time when the watershed starts results in a disservice to others in the community in the sense that serious news and drama programmes would have to be broadcast much later in the evening? That would constitute a serious disservice both to democracy and to culture.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to my right honourable friend.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the ultimate deterrent is the parental finger on the off button of the television set? Does she also agree that to move the watershed back to 10 p.m. or possibly even to 10.30 p.m. would indicate to the producers of programmes the Government's anxiety about this particular problem?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope I can wrap up this matter. The idea of having a watershed is not to guarantee that children never see unacceptable material or to mirror precisely the times at which children throughout the country go to bed but rather to guarantee a menu of family viewing until nine o'clock and to alert parents and guardians to the need to supervise more closely children's viewing after that time.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, is it not a matter of congratulation that 30 years after the "toddlers' truce" the nine o'clock watershed should be so widely accepted? Would it not be totally counter-productive to change it, because if children are not disciplined to go to bed by nine o'clock or are otherwise prevented from watching television at nine o'clock, there is little chance that that will be any different at ten o'clock?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I repeat that it is a matter for parents.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is not the noble Baroness aware that if the watershed were moved back much later than nine o'clock it would gravely disadvantage those of us who are approaching our second childhood?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know what to say to that except that the noble Lord does not look as if he is in his second childhood and I would hesitate to hazard a guess at his age.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my noble friend's Question merely suggests that discussions should take place? In the light of all that is happening today in relation to young people in this country such discussions would show that the

1071
Government are aware of the problems. What harm can come from emphasising the importance of looking into the matter when good may result from it?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wants to make sure that all is being done that can be done and that the regulators have the means to carry out their roles effectively. That is why he has instigated conversations in the near future.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many productions are not necessarily seen by those in charge? Surely that is a good reason for moving the watershed to a later time rather than leaving companies to regulate themselves.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said before, this is a matter for the broadcasters.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, most noble Lords would sympathise with anything that can be done to reduce gratuitous violence on television. However, does the Minister agree that the main problems lie, as my noble friend Lord Barnett said, in video and computer software? Does she also agree that even in relation to television it is not our terrestrial television services which present a problem—they are strongly regulated, although mistakes are made—but the satellite television channels; Sky television, and Sky movies in particular? Since those are the expanding areas and the four or five terrestrial channels will contract, do the Government have any views on how in the future we can regulate the portrayal of violence in growing areas of unregulated media communications?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the ITC's programme code, which includes provisions on violent programmes and taste and decency, applies equally to satellite television services licensed by the ITC. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, that would be a matter for the ITC in the first instance. The ITC has asked BSkyB—and BSkyB has agreed—to look carefully at its evening scheduling on its film channels.

Easter Act 1928
2.44 p.m.
Lord Airedale Lord Airedale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have now sufficiently complied with the requirement of the Easter Act 1928 that "regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or any Christian body" before seeking to bring the Act into force whereby Easter would always be celebrated during the first half of April.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised when I tell him that the Answer which I shall give him is the same as that which has been given to him and his predecessors on the 28 occasions during the past 33 years when a similar Question has been asked. The
1072
Answer is that it would be undesirable to implement the Easter Act 1928 in the continued absence of agreement among the Churches.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for those interesting statistics. Does he not applaud the far-sightedness of our elders and betters in 1928 who foresaw the coming of the May Day holiday and strove to hold back Easter, realising that Easter Monday can occur as late as 26th April?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not see what that has to do with it. Easter is a prime religious festival and it would be inappropriate to change the date of Easter without the agreement of the Churches.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that as by providence Catholics and Protestants are agreed on the date of Easter, and that date is related to history, scripture, tradition, the passage of the moon and all that, and, as far as I know, there is no widespread demand for a fixed Easter —which would serve no useful purpose unless one could have a fixed weather pattern as well—it would be sensible to swallow up the 1928 Act in one of those repealing measures so that we no longer have this annual Question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that would be a fairly extravagant use of the repeal mechanisms of the statute book. However, I understand the right reverend Prelate's view. The subject of Easter has been debated for years and years. Indeed, way back in AD325 the Council of Nicaea decided as its timely goal—as one of the documents of the Greek Orthodox Church said—on the bringing about of Christian unity through the common celebration of Easter. We are still struggling to achieve that. No doubt with the right reverend Prelate's aid we may be a little nearer to achieving it in a few years' time than we are at the moment.

Beaches: Local Authority Responsibility
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the Reader's Digest/Marine Conservation Society Beachwatch Report which revealed that 11 per cent. of litter collected during a nationwide beach clean was sewage related, they intend to take action against local authorities who fail to maintain the standards of cleanliness required by law on Britain's beaches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 local authorities are required to keep amenity beaches down to high water mark clear of litter and refuse between 1st May and 30th September.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very clear statement. Does he not agree that too many local authorities are failing in their duty to the families and young children who

1073
holiday on Britain's beaches? Does he agree that the situation is wholly unacceptable when volunteers in last year's Beachwatch campaign found that more than 3½ tonnes of the debris on our beaches was made up of used nappies, condoms. tampons and other even more unmentionable sanitary items which are a dangerous threat to the health of our young children and grandchildren and to the general public?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course I agree with my noble friend. It is an extremely serious matter. However, I have to say, as I said in my original Answer, that it is very much the job and responsibility of local authorities to consider how to carry out their duty in the light of priorities and the circumstances which prevail at the time. The Tidy Britain Group has surveyed all the resort beaches in Britain and will be reporting shortly with the publication of a league table. The local authorities would do very well to heed the results carefully.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, bearing in mind that some years ago the responsibility for sewage treatment was taken away from local authorities and placed with the new water companies, would it not be better if they were included in this Question as they are the biggest culprits?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the point is that they are not included in the Question. I believe that the noble Lord's question is for another day.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, would it not be more satisfactory to ensure that the debris did not reach the beach in the first place? Since we refer to 11 per cent. of visible rubbish, where does the remaining 89 per cent. come from? Who deals with that? Has anything been done about the great deal of rubbish which is thrown from ships at sea?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct. A considerable amount of debris is caused by dumping from ships at sea. As the noble Baroness is fully aware, the problem, as always, is the policing of and the detection of those ships. But each of the vessels which passes through the maritime waters of this country well knows the laws abiding in those waters. For instance, vessels are not allowed to dump or to discharge any garbage within a 12-mile limit; and they are certainly not allowed to discharge any garbage in the North Sea.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in his comprehensive answer relating to Section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act, did not the noble Earl leave out the local authority duties? The important phrase is "so far as is practicable". If local authorities find the directive impracticable, that section is the let-out. Is it not therefore relevant to ask, as my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick asked, that we first stop the polluters? Therefore, is it not for the Government to make sure that the water companies—which are the sewerage companies as well—meet proper standards? The water companies will have to do so if they are to meet the requirements of the bathing waters directive by 1995.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, certainly it is very much the responsibility of the general public when visiting and bathing in these waters not to leave litter around. As regards the bathing directive, the noble Lord will know that, of the £30 billion being spent by the end of the century, £2 billion is being invested in clearing up the bathing waters in this country.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, that may be the case. But the fact is that the Government are committed by 1995 to meeting the standards under the bathing water directive. If the bathing waters do not meet those standards, they will be taken to court and there will be yet another mess which the Government will leave behind which we shall have to clear up.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the Government do not leave behind messes for the Opposition to clear up. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that we shall endeavour under the European directive to fulfil the commitment by the year 1995.

Scotrail Franchise
2.53 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to invite bids for the Scottish region of British Rail (Scotrail) and what is the anticipated return on assets which will be the basis of Railtrack charges on this service.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it will be for the franchising director to invite bids for the Scotrail franchise. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has set him a target for the award of the first six franchises, including Scotrail, by the end of 1995.
Access charges for Scotrail will reflect Railtrack's overall financial regime. Railtrack will be set a target real rate of return on its assets of 8 per cent. to be achieved by 1997–98.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords. I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, despite the presentations including ministerial visits, the Edinburgh financial community has shown little or no interest or enthusiasm for investing in Scotrail?
Secondly, if he anticipates an 8 per cent. return by Railtrack on investment, can I assume that the valuation on that investment will be at replacement value? If that is so, what charges will Scotrail have to assume on the replacement value at 8 per cent. on the Forth Bridge, which is now 100 years old? Will the Minister give us some idea of what kind of burden will be placed on investors in Scotrail based on those calculations?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that there has indeed been a substantial amount of interest in the Scotrail franchise.
On the second point, Railtrack will maintain accounting information both on an historic cost basis and on a basis which reflects the effect of changing prices on tangible assets.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would it not be better if the Government were to publish their own detailed calculations on the matter rather than presenting everyone with a fait accompli based on what may conceivably be phoney figures?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord's point. Railtrack's newly appointed auditors, Touche Ross, have been asked to advise on the opening values to be ascribed to Railtrack's opening balance sheet.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate whether there has ever been a time in railway history when it has been possible to earn 8 per cent. on the kind of assets that will be transferred to Railtrack? Does he agree that, if Railtrack's earnings are to be at that level, the charges which it makes to train operators will make running trains very expensive indeed, and travelling in them even more so?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the point is that the level of access charges levied by Railtrack, and hence its return on its assets, will be commensurate with its being set up as a commercial organisation. The franchise agreement with the operator will take account of the level of those access charges.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, would it not be more efficient to allow Scotrail to be vertically integrated and therefore in full control of all its costs?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, both Houses of Parliament have passed the British Railways Act. We feel that the very best future for railways in this country will be through the privatisation process which we have developed.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in a recent Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the workings of British Gas under the Gas Act 1986, the MMC recommended a figure of between 4 per cent. and 4.5 per cent. on existing assets? Why should Scotrail be any different?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord may possibly have misunderstood the issue. The return that we refer to is to be made by Railtrack. That is its return on the value of its assets.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the Minister agree that an 8 per cent. return on Railtrack will mean that other parts of the railway network will be under considerable pressure? For instance, does he realise that the subsidy at present given to the Strathclyde regional passenger transport executive—an area which accounts for two-thirds of the Scottish rail passengers—is guaranteed to increase in the first year to meet the charges? Without that important area, the whole system will be in great difficulty. Can the Minister assure us that the subsidy will be guaranteed by the Government until the viability in which the Government believe actually occurs?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Government have given categoric assurances both to the Regional Council and to the PTE about the level of funding to be provided for rail services in 1994–95 and thereafter.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister expect a big rush for the franchise from Inverness to Wick? Is that in the Minister's brief?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords the Scotrail franchise will be awarded as one unit. Indeed, as I have already stated, there has been considerable interest in that franchise, not least from the Scotrail management team.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question which was put much more succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. If we assume an 8 per cent. return on the assets of Railtrack, and those assets are calculated on replacement values, as in any other business, how can Scotrail possibly carry such charges and run an economic railway which will attract investors on the one hand and give reasonable fares to the public on the other?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the franchising director, of course, has in his power the ability to offer subsidy. That will be taken into account in the negotiating arrangements for the franchising agreement. No doubt the successful party which is awarded the franchise agreement will be happy with those financial arrangements.

Business
2.59 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the road programme review.

British Railways (No. 4) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Sunday Trading Bill
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Sunday Trading Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clause 1, Schedules 1 and 2, Clause 2, Schedule 3, Clauses 3 and 4, Schedule 4, Clauses 5 to 9, Schedule 5.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Commission
3 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis rose to call attention to the work of the Local Government Commission in the light of the recent High Court decision reaffirming that the status

1077
quo is an option, and to the cost of implementing any changes arising from the Commission's recommendations; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since putting down my name to the debate, I have been inundated with paper from all parts of the British Isles. My telephone has hardly stopped ringing with offers of advice and consultation. I feel. in consequence, that I have arrived at the moment of speaking in much the same muddle and confusion as is being caused by the Local Government Commission in the review. I believe that the review was originally instituted to deal with change in three specific places, since when it seems to have spread like an epidemic of measles across the country. Was it ever intended to do that? Has it, like Topsy, just grown?
The government guidelines, before the High Court decision with regard to options, presented little opportunity to consider the status quo since this was seen to be outside the remit. It was in the light of the High Court decision making the status quo an option and what seemed to me to be increasing alarm and despondency about the whole exercise that I was prompted to put down the Motion. I believe that there would be some doubts among your Lordships as to whether the High Court ruling has made any difference at all to the attitude of the Government towards the commission. The belief that the overall objective is to bring about change for change's sake remains firmly fixed in most people's minds.
County councils were brought into existence over a hundred years ago in response to a changing society. They developed and evolved to meet the needs of local communities, providing vital services, including schools, care for the elderly and transportation planning. The system of county government is continuously evolving to meet the changing needs of its residents. One has to ask why we are contemplating the wholesale destruction of such a flexible structure that has served so well over the last century.
The previous reorganisation of local government was, and still is, seen by many as a disaster. In some cases the final re-allocation of buildings and disposal of others has only been completed in the last few years. The larger district councils created have become far more remote from those they are expected to serve, and the burden of work on individual councillors has considerably increased. Yet it would appear that the basic intention of the present review is to create larger authorities with fewer councillors, which would seem to indicate an even further removal of contact from the electors.
In my own district the embryo suggestions would mean that my local authority, in a well populated rural area, would stretch for nearly 45 miles from end to end instead of the current 20 miles, and with fewer councillors. How does that put me in closer touch with my council? Overall democratic accountability will be weakened. For example, in my own shire county it is proposed that the existing number of elected members will be reduced from 805 to 375. This is at the same time
1078
as we are witnessing an increasing number of appointed bodies. What does this change in the balance between elected and appointed bodies portend?
So who is this expensive exercise designed to benefit? It surely is not going to benefit the local taxpayer who will have to foot the bill—a bill conservatively estimated at £1.1 billion, a figure which I have not heard disputed. Many estimates of the cost believe that this figure may well in the end be doubled. Savings are supposed to accrue but I seriously doubt whether there will be any. In my own county, the transitional cost of seven new unitary authorities is estimated at £75 million, with an annual saving of £700,000. It will take 100 years to produce the recoupment and I would hazard that there will be another scheme to reorganise local government long before that. My experience tells me that costs always escalate and that savings never materialise, so that is money down the drain.
The changeover computer cost in Kent is estimated at £40 million. We now have an established system with county-wide information. No doubt that is replicated in all other shire counties across the country. Is all that to be fragmented and will the new system work as effectively? The London Ambulance Service's experience with new computers is hardly encouraging.
There may well be particular difficulty in splitting the child protection and adoption registers, with potentially fatal consequences. This must be a major concern to the NSPCC and others, and must be of deep concern to us all. Co-ordination of social services and community care will still be needed and essential, So voluntary co-ordination between the new authorities will need to be established. But, on the whole., voluntary co-operation does not work, as London boroughs have found out. So why replace a statutory working arrangement with something less reliable and effective?
Nor can it be claimed that this review is wanted by people or organisations throughout the country. Public opinion canvassed in the review areas overwhelmingly is for no change. That view is supported by many of the vital voluntary organisations which carry out such good work.
What about the problems of specialist education for the disabled? What about archives, the repository of family and local history extending over far wider boundaries than district councils? I personally have archives in Kent, Essex and Suffolk. Are those to be fragmented too? And who will look after them? There has been a huge increase in the users of archives over the past decade, due to the popularity of genealogy and the development of local studies in universities. Archives require specialist accommodation and specialist knowledge and advice. Many records were lost at the time of the 1974 reorganisation and cannot now be replaced. They require major investment in micro-filming for protection and computerisation for comprehensive information. To replicate what is currently held by the counties and their partners would be enormously expensive arid dangerously vulnerable to future financial pressures.
In referring to Kent, I have not touched on the European dimension, which is of considerable

1079
significance. But I am sure that other speakers will refer to that aspect of Kent County Council's activities and their regional development across the Channel.
Of course, there is room for improvement in the present two-tier system. There is always room for improvement and development. But there is no way in which I can be convinced that there is a case for wholesale destruction. It is my understanding that the Local Government Commission is independent. Yet the Government seem determined to deny that independence by refusing to support its recommendations. Why are the Government so determined to force through change—change which, if Sir John Banham's recent letter to The Times is anything to go by, the chairman of the commission is by no means convinced is necessary? Refusal by the Government to accept the commission's recommendations for Derbyshire, Durham and Gloucestershire can only lead one to believe that they will only accept recommendations that coincide with their own pre-conceived wishes.
But why? Are they determined that they shall have only one tier of local government with which to deal? Do they believe that new councils will be more amenable or less powerful than the present structure? Have they a hidden agenda, hoping that the change will bring about ineffective local government which they can sweep away at some future date in favour of appointed regional councils staffed and/or run by Whitehall? What is the objective? It cannot be economy. It cannot be democracy because representation is reduced. It is change for the sake of change—additional change to that to which county councils continually respond.
Many noble Lords whose names are down to speak have far wider experience of local government than I. I hope therefore that we shall have a wide-ranging, interesting and informative debate. Before I sit down I must ask one question which has a bearing on this subject even if it is not strictly relevant to it. Have this Government and Europe become legislation mad? We may no longer be men and women, we have to be persons. We may no longer encourage people to buy British or, so far as I can see, to be British. This whole exercise seems to cause a crisis of identity. Have the Government seriously considered the implications of this legislation for the wider well-being of the country? People have long-standing historical allegiance, pride and loyalties to their county and its organisations. Are those too to be destroyed in favour of becoming a rootless, faceless, footless European "person"? I am prepared to bet that there are no European persons in France. My loyalties are to my immediate neighbourhood and my county, not to the district council. I am a Man of Kent, not a man of Tunbridge Wells—although at the moment I may well qualify to be that much quoted person "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells". Are we to be told that the county society must be "persons of Kent" and "Kentish persons"? Will "fair maids of Kent" be a matter of sex discrimination? Are we to lose all colour to our lives and the basic, fundamental structure of the country that makes the nation tick?
Yes, there may be a need for change in some places. But is that need for change so immense anywhere that
1080
it requires wholesale destruction of the existing systems? My plea is to let those areas where change is genuinely needed apply to the commission and consult with it as to how best change can be introduced. But otherwise, let us please drop the whole unnecessary, expensive upheaval. We have the foundations of good local government. Let us build upon them and develop from them. I repeat: let us build on the foundations that we have and develop from them. People want to keep their local pride and loyalties. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I must take a moment of my five minutes to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, for instigating this important debate. There must be many noble Lords who wish, as I do, that we were not "starting from here" in the embarrassing game of ping-pong that the local government review has become. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the original statutory criteria were that it should reflect the identities and interests of local communities and secure effective and convenient local government. At the time of the passage of the Local Government Act many of us had in our minds models of what local government might be. Perhaps those models were too idealistic and too unrealistic. I believe that it is defensible for us to learn from the experience of the review. If we do not learn from that experience, what is consultation all about?
By definition, if the recommendations of the commission are challenged by court proceedings they have not fulfilled the statutory criteria. Yet out of 10 of the areas that were reviewed, three await judicial review, and all the others on which the Government have decided, save one, have been referred back to the commission.
The public are not making a clear call for change. The outcome of the MORI polls is that the public want to see unitary authorities but in practice they cannot agree on the boundaries. They do not want the cost of change. They want the money to be spent on services. For instance, the £1 billion plus that was estimated by Sir John Banham compares quite neatly with the £1 billion that we learn may be needed to give us universal nursery education in this country.
We cannot have truly local government unless we also have an appropriate strategic tier. If that fails, the result must at best be an uneasy compromise. One outcome of the review is the increasing recognition of the value of regional government. I hope that the Government will respond to that as a positive move. Regional government will come to us whether we like it or not because of Europe. Europe is a Europe of the regions. If we resist that, we shall lose out. The Government may say that they recognise that fact in the setting up of new integrated regional offices. I welcome those offices. But to integrate a number (not all) of Whitehall departments is a very poor substitute for democratic government. Indeed, the new bureaucracy could be very dangerous in blurring what is a gaping hole.
One of the dangers in the review—one to which the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, referred—is that of the

1081
democratic deficit. Relying on joint working, as must be anticipated, will not solve that problem. Voluntary partnerships are to be welcomed, but not shotgun marriages, nor reluctant partnerships with partners who want to spend as little time as possible in each other's company.
I do not believe that strategic matters can easily be dealt with by joint arrangements. I am most familiar with strategic planning. I know that it cannot be separated from other matters such as transport, economic development or minerals working. I know that joint working depends on the good will of the individuals concerned. Personality is important in every realm of life. It oils the wheels. But it is too fragile to support a democratic structure.
The joint committees will contribute to the democratic deficit. If one objective of unitary local government is to improve accountability, it will be undermined if major responsibilities are carried out by only indirectly elected representatives. They will be as strong as their weakest link and may well sink to the lowest common denominator.
Some people may say that if the Government wanted to continue a programme of centralisation in Westminster and Whitehall they could hardly have found a better way. I hope that that is not the motive of the review. It could certainly be a possible outcome, whereby services are not easily accountable and are transferred to yet another quango.
My time in the debate is already beginning to run out, but I must point to the short-termism that inevitably affects those who are the subject of review. Just when long-term perspectives are needed, those who should be thinking long term for our services—for instance, community care, linking local government, health and the voluntary sectors—now have councillors and staff who are demoralised and who think, "Why should we bother if we have seen the future and we know that it will not work?"
My final and major point, which I make in all sincerity to the Government, is that this review has not been entirely negative. The Government could hold back now without feeling that all had been in vain. Many areas are calling for what might be a contradiction in terms; namely, a modified status quo. The review has forced councils at every tier to talk to one another, to see how they can iron out overlaps, devolve functions and so on. If the review were to stop tomorrow, the review and the Government would have achieved perhaps truly voluntary joint working, better communications and better services. If the Minister halts the review, the councils themselves might well show that they can sort out the confusion voluntarily without wholesale reorganisation and without creating new structures which many noble Lords fear will not stand the test of time.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, the 1972 legislation was based upon a minority report of the Royal Commission. Unfortunately, that legislation included the merger of substantial county boroughs with the shire counties. It merged Portsmouth and Southampton with the shire
1082
county of Hampshire. The needs of Portsmouth and Southampton are quite different from the needs of the rural county of Hampshire. Furthermore, it was obvious from the beginning that there would be some overlapping and in the end a great deal of dissatisfaction.
A recent MORI poll in Portsmouth showed that 74 per cent. of the population thought that the city should manage its own affairs. In particular, the people were of the opinion that as the city raised the council tax, it should be responsible to the electorate for spending that tax. It should not have to remit most of it to Winchester.
The poll also found that many matters were not understood by the population. For example, the city is responsible for the collection of waste. But if a site is required in the city for the disposal of waste, that is not the responsibility of the city but of the county and the decision is not made in Portsmouth but in Winchester. That is not acceptable.
It is true that the cost of conversion is considerable. But that is the price that we are paying for the mistakes that were made in 1972. The sooner that we put right those mistakes the better. It should also be remembered that, although the cost will be considerable, there will also be substantial savings. I believe that those are real savings. Certainly that is true in the case of Portsmouth and Southampton. In the case of Portsmouth, in the document that we are submitting to the commission, we give the figures for what the cost and the savings are likely to be. The cost will be absorbed in approximately three-and-a-half years. I believe that that is a reliable estimate.
The city of Portsmouth is unique in that professional management manages the city's affairs. We have a city manager who is responsible to the council for the conduct of the city's affairs. We have the lowest council tax in the county.
We do not ask for any extension of our boundaries. We ask only that within our boundaries we should he allowed to manage our own affairs and be responsible to our electorate for what we do. So long as the present position continues, we shall agitate for that freedom. We shall ask the commission to give us that freedom on our 800th birthday. This year is the 800th anniversary of our city. We want a birthday gift from the commission in the form of freedom.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I shall say something that is rather eccentric for a member of the modern Conservative Party. It will be almost heretical. I am in favour of the status quo. I agreed with almost every word that the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, said in opening the debate. Two-tier government seems to me to have worked reasonably well. No doubt it has its defects and the system is not perfect. But what system is or ever could be perfect?
The question is not whether two-tier government has its imperfections. It is rather whether the defects are so bad and so grave that the entire system needs to be revamped. For let us make no mistake about it, reconstruction is bound to be expensive, time-consuming and disruptive. We are told that the

1083
transitional costs of setting up a new system will be cancelled out by the savings made when the new system comes into being. All that I say is, tell that to that allegedly credulous body, the marines. I believe that change is justified only if the present system has glaring, scandalous defects which cry out for reform.
A marginal preference for unitary government expressed in a MORI poll is not a sufficient reason for embarking on drastic change. For that reason I welcome the decision by Mr. Justice Jowitt, who decided in the case of the Derbyshire and Lancashire County Councils to rule as ultra vires the Government's attempt to add a third statutory criterion to the requirements of the committee, stating the expectation that a recommendation in favour of the status quo ought to be exceptional.
I also welcomed Sir John Banham's letter to The Times on 22nd March (which has already been referred to), in which he declared that the status quo of two-tier government was a valid option. I believe that what he said bears verbatim repetition:
"In my experience, administrative change in the public service invariably takes longer, costs more and delivers less than enthusiastic proponents of the change ever anticipate … It will be most unwise to press ahead with changes to create unitary authorities unless there is clear local support for change and there are local champions for particular local situations. There are advantages to the existing two-tier structure [particularly in rural areas]. If it is to be replaced, it must be with something better".
Those are not mere idle words. Among the 10 county areas so far reviewed, the Commission has recommended the status quo for two of them—namely, Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire —and partial two-tier government for two others, Derbyshire and Durham. Of course, the Government may not accept that recommendation, but that remains to be seen.
Lord Melbourne, who was not a Conservative, was wont to say, when some bright young radical spark in the Cabinet suggested reforming this or that institution, "Why not leave it alone?" Well, why not leave local government alone, or as much of it as one po Lord Melbourne, who was not a Conservative, was wont to say, when some bright young radical spark in the Cabinet suggested reforming this or that institution, "Why not leave it alone?" Well, why not leave local government alone, or as much of it as one possibly can?
3.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsdown: Ten years in a central bank, my Lords, may not seem to provide much in the way of credentials for speaking on local government and its reorganisation, and I feel that I may have to ask for more than your Lordships' normal measure of patience and tolerance for this maiden speech on that account. But I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cornwallis for initiating this debate. Like him, I am a Man of Kent and it would be dissembling if I did not declare that I share his anxiety about the future administration of our ancient and, in some important ways, unique county.
I was closely involved in the reorganisation of 1972 to 1974, since I was then chairman of our county council. At least then we were concerned with reorganising a pattern of local government which had grown up over a period of 90 years and which was in many ways out of date due to population growths and economic change; now we are undertaking exactly the same exercise after an interval of only 20 years. I find it fascinating to observe that the questions and issues are
1084
just the same now as then, and a single ideal pattern of local government is just as elusive, particularly if there are aspirations for uniform councils.
The nub of the matter, in my view, is that the range of services nowadays committed to local government is so broad that it will only be in special circumstances than one council can be large enough to fulfil all the functions, and especially the broader strategic functions, without seeming too large and remote in its administration of the more personal services. It is interesting, indeed significant, that our predecessors over the past century—no doubt driven by pragmatism—have not found it easy to install with conviction a pattern of unitary authorities except where a large city or conurbation is clearly at the centre of a region into which its influence and resources naturally reach and operate. Such an authority has obvious attractions: natural recognition as the heart of the regional area, ease of identity as the source of all functions, and simplicity.
But that simplicity is at the mercy of local geography and local loyalties. Many councils of more than medium size could manage most functions, but it is in the upper range—by that I mean strategic planning, transport infrastructure and economic development—that most is required in terms of resources and expertise. If local government is to be worthy of the name and not rolled over by central government, it must at some level have the scale to perform that strategic role effectively; and scale involves geographic size, population numbers and resources of finance and expert personnel.
I know that resort has been had to joint bodies to deal with such strategic matters reaching beyond normal council boundaries. But I do not believe that the experience of such bodies has always been satisfactory. Moreover, resorting to them cuts into the principle of direct responsibility and it hardly supports the unitary principle.
In conclusion, perhaps I may return to my native county. Kent has had a good record of resisting invaders from across the Channel, at least since Roman times. However, it has not been so successful in guarding its North-West Frontier against the intrusions of Greater London at the hands of local government reorganisation. That may have been inevitable. But I hope that now, for Kent and indeed for the whole country, this local government review will be seen to have been sympathetic rather than intrusive—sympathetic to local history and local loyalties, prudent in its financial implications and soundly enough based to endure undisturbed and unreorganised for many years.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, it is a particularly personal pleasure for me to have the duty of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, on his maiden speech. It was an excellent maiden speech on a subject of which he has unsurpassed knowledge since he had distinguished service on the Kent County Council for 16 years and was the chairman for many years. It is not the only field in which he is a distinguished expert and we look forward to future speeches on wider national, financial and economic matters.

1085
For my part I wish to concentrate on one specific aspect of the case for preserving the status quo in Kent. Improbably enough, like the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, I too am a Man of Kent in these days and have been for a number of years. I want to concentrate on the strategic case—I believe it to be an extremely strong one—for retaining Kent County Council in its present role.
Kent has a special geography; it is a peninsula pointing directly to the narrowest route across to mainland Europe. Therefore the preservation of a single strategic authority is of vital interest not only for the people of Kent but also for the rest of the country. Kent has 5,000 miles of road, with traffic flows that are twice the national average carrying goods through Kent from the Channel ports to the rest of Britain. That traffic will increase markedly with the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Without the Kent County Council there would be no democratic means of conducting a coherent campaign for the high speed railway with adequate environmental protection, and piecemeal planning of what are transport issues of national importance would be disastrous.
Kent County Council has played a leading part in making the most of British membership of the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, whom we thank for initiating this debate, said that others may mention that aspect, and it is on that that I shall concentrate my remarks.
Round about £36 million has been secured by the Kent County Council from European sources over the past seven years for important Kent projects. That includes help for young people, the long-term unemployed and people with disabilities. Together with Nord pas de Calais, Kent forms the Transmanche region. My noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned the importance of regions in the European Union. There is also a wider grouping known as the "Euro-region" which, in addition, brings in the three regions of Belgium. Those links have proved invaluable financially and also in terms of greater mutual understanding.
Kent's French and Belgian partners suggested that they would not be interested in links with smaller unitary authorities, and the European Commission also expressed its preference for dealing with larger local authorities. Kent County Council keeps an office in Brussels to influence European Community policy and to guide bids for funds through the right channels. Those are important considerations in the special circumstances of Kent. They are distinctive reasons for maintaining a county-wide council in this part of South-East England.
But one final more general thought perhaps echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Blake, said. For this Government the slogan "Status quo is not an option" seems to have become their theme song. It has a certain lilt about it and one can imagine Mr. John Selwyn Gummer singing it heartily. But a wiser slogan for any government, Conservative or otherwise, would be, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", if an existing structure, like the Kent County Council, with its partnership with the district councils, has been tried and tested over the years. No doubt it can be improved, and my noble friend
1086
Lady Hamwee was right to say that one of the results of the review has been to make the various local authorities discuss these matters together, with an increase in mutual understanding about how matters may be improved. However, I think it would be folly to engage in change simply for change's sake arid to destroy, in this case, a shire council that has served its region of South-East England well.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Thomson. We worked together on Commonwealth matters for many years and now we are dealing with local government.
When, towards the end of the year, the Local Government Commission recommended local government reorganisation for Cleveland I warmly supported the proposition. The commission recommended a four-district solution, which means that Middlesbrough will return to something like its old status as a county borough. Nothing that has been written or said in the: many intervening months has changed my opinion. In fact the capacity of Middlesbrough and its neighbours to deliver the full range of local services and the support of local people for their own borough councils have become clearer as time has passed.
Middlesbrough, which I have known through a long association, particularly as a Member of Parliament for the district, makes a contribution to the industry and the economy of this country. In the recent past it has undergone many changes. Huge improvements in the fabric and environment of the town have been made, but it has suffered grievously from unemployment. In many respects the town is at a crossroads. I believe that its future prosperity and the welfare of all its citizens will rely heavily on their having a local authority which speaks clearly and vocally for them and which operates at the community level.
The reorganisation has provided the opportunity to establish such a council. For the sake of all the people of Middlesbrough it should not be missed. The case for unitary or all-purpose borough councils has been clearly made out. They can provide the framework of local democracy for the foreseeable future.

Road Programme Review
3.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"I announced in August 1993 that we intended to review the road programme. Today I want to set out our proposals for a revised and prioritised programme that will ensure a more efficient, better managed and speedier delivery of the improvements we need, and which is compatible with the principles of sustainable development. My target was to

1087
complete the review in time for it to provide the basis for the new Highways Agency, which is being launched today. The review is now complete and copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library.
"This Government have an excellent record of investment in delivering increased motorway and trunk road capacity, which is so vital to the economic well-being of the country; and in providing bypasses which remove heavy traffic from the centres of towns and villages, with immense benefits to the residents and for their environment. We plan to spend about £2 billion a year on trunk roads over the next three years, which is almost double, in real terms, the level in 1979. Fifty-seven major contracts are currently under construction, and last month I announced our intention to start work on a further 22 major contracts during 1994–95, worth over £1 billion in total.
"It is, however, worth reminding the House that altogether my department is currently spending 50 per cent. of its budget on roads, which accounts for 90 per cent. of all inland journeys in the UK, and 40 per cent. on public transport which accounts for 10 per cent. of journeys; this demonstrates the importance we attach to rail and urban transport systems.
"The review does not affect the three-year national roads expenditure plan announced at the time of the Autumn Statement; nor does it cover local authorities' road programmes. It has its origins in the package of measures I announced to deliver road schemes faster.
"In the past it has taken an average of 13½ years to get from the entry of a scheme into the programme to its opening. I aim to cut this time by up to a third. We are already making good progress. I have recently announced consultation on much-needed changes to road scheme public inquiry rules. The new Highways Agency, aimed at a more business-like approach to the delivery of the roads programme, is also now launched. The most important measure in the package, however, was a review of the national trunk road construction programme with the aim of speeding up the delivery of projects with the highest priority.
"The review has been the most wide-ranging and in-depth for many years. There was a clear managerial need for establishing priorities. Until now all the schemes in the road programme have been taken forward with the same degree of effort and many of them at the same speed. This does not make the best use of resources; it wastes money and time and creates uncertainty.
"But the opportunity has also been taken to go much wider. It is no part of this Government's policies to tell people when and how to travel. On the other hand, we must be aware of the consequences, if people continue to exercise their choices as they do at present. There is no realistic possibility of simply halting traffic growth. What we can seek is to bring home its full cost. We must enable people to enjoy
1088
access to goods, services and other people while reducing the amount of movement needed to achieve that aim.
"Increases in fuel duty, and motorway tolling, will help people to make more informed choices about the cost of using their cars. Planning guidance just published will also help reduce the requirement to travel to reach goods and services. But even a reduced rate of traffic growth will not remove the urgent need we face already for new bypasses, wider motorways and safer junctions.
"The review therefore provided the opportunity to check that each scheme was still essential, was on the proper scale and accorded with the high standards now expected of our road improvements in a way that reconciled the needs of industry and the economy with the needs of the environment. Each scheme in the existing programme has been examined carefully to confirm, among other things, that it produces a high rate of economic benefit in comparison with its cost; that it has the minimum effect on the natural environment; and that its priority accords with the importance of the relevant route to the national strategic road network.
"The review concluded that most resources should go on the two priorities of improving key routes, primarily motorways, likely to experience stop-start driving conditions in the foreseeable future; and on bypasses. The number of new trunk routes proposed in the publicly-funded programme, particularly those through open countryside, will be reduced still further to a total of six. Major urban road improvements should be very limited in number in the light of the continuing substantial government investment in urban transport initiatives and the priority attached thereto. Schemes for which there was no acceptable environmental treatment, and those whose priority meant they were not likely to be built in the foreseeable future—49 in all—are being withdrawn to reduce blight and uncertainty. Work on them will cease immediately.
"The new prioritised programme represents a substantial agenda to take us into the next century. It has been drawn up as a rolling programme, which allows schemes to be added to the higher priorities as and when needs become pressing and funding is available. The highest priority schemes will receive the most urgent attention; the longer-term schemes will be taken to the next suitable stage in their preparation, and work on them will then only be resumed as the programme rolls forward.
"The new Highways Agency is being given specific responsibilities for environmental treatment of road schemes and for reporting its performance in this field. We now employ, in-house and through consultants, a large number of landscape architects and environmental specialists to assess and advise on the best design and environmental treatment of national road schemes. I have therefore concluded that the Landscape Advisory Committee, which has done such valuable work in the past, has been superseded by the skills now available to us. I wish

1089
to express my thanks to the chairman and members of the Landscape Advisory Committee for all the work they have done.
"I turn now to some specific proposals that will be of particular interest to the House. The proposed east-west route from the M.40 to the haven ports has received a special scrutiny. As already announced, work on the A.418 Wing bypass and the A.418 west of Aylesbury bypass schemes has been suspended pending the outcome of a new strategic study from the A.5 to the M.40 in the Oxford area. The central section of the route (A.5 to Stansted) has now been withdrawn from the construction programme because it was unlikely that an environmentally acceptable route would be found. The eastern section of the route from the haven ports to the M.11 and Stansted will still be taken forward, and should remain part of the trans-European road network. The rest of the east-west route will be withdrawn from the trans-European road network in the current revision of the network. The TERN route from the haven ports via Stansted to Holyhead and beyond will in future follow the existing M.11, A.604, A.14, M.6 and M.54 TERN routes. Around Oxford, the two schemes on the A.40—Headington bypass and the north of Oxford scheme—will also be withdrawn from the programme, as will the proposed M.12 new route from the M.25 to Chelmsford.
"We have also re-examined our proposals for improving the M.25. I have concluded that plans to widen 80 per cent. of the M.25 in the next four to five years to dual four lanes and provide capacity beyond that in the south-west sector are still the only appropriate response to growing congestion. We will therefore publish draft highway orders and an environmental statement for the proposed link roads between Junction 12 and Junction 15 on 7th April. The public will be invited to comment on the proposals. All views will be put before an independent inspector and considered at a public inquiry, probably later this year.
"Work will also now progress towards publication of draft orders and an environmental statement for link roads between Junction 15 and Junction 16. A public inquiry will follow, probably in 1996. I consider that there will also be a need for capacity beyond dual four lanes between Junctions 10 and 12 in the next decade, but work on this project is still at an early stage and no decisions have been taken on the design. However, as a result of this review, work on increasing capacity beyond dual four lanes between Junctions 16 and 21A will be deferred.
"I have also decided that two proposed strategic studies in the South East, the Kent-Hampshire study and the M.3 to M.40 study, will not now go ahead. This decision underlines my commitment to minimising the number of new routes.
"This review gives the new Highways Agency an up-to-date agenda to deliver the road improvements we need most with maximum speed and efficiency. Our motorway and trunk road network needs to be maintained and improved to secure our economic well-being; to secure environmental benefits, in
1090
particular by keeping through traffic away from local roads; and to go on improving our already good safety record. The review has had to balance the motoring aspirations of the 1990s' family with the consequences; the needs of industry and the economy with the needs of the environment. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I first thank. the Minister, in what I know has been a very busy day for him, for repeating the Statement made in another place. Obviously we shall need a considerable amount of time (as I believe he will) to digest the details of so complex an announcement. I hope that he will convey to the Government's business managers the anxiety of the Opposition that inadequate time was given in handing over the Statement to us, particularly a Statement of this nature. I received it less than 30 minutes ago, which was something like 20 minutes before the Statement was made, which really is not good enough.
The Minister has referred to the Highways Agency. Would he indicate how that agency is to be accountable to Parliament?
I wish to turn primarily to the broad issues which have been raised in the Statement. Despite the rhetoric, particularly that about the environment, is it not clear that this policy constitutes a further example of just how purblind transport Ministers are? They seem to be unable to see the need to think of transport policy in its widest sense. They seem to think of it being equated to a roads programme, refusing to recognise the logic of their own statistics that road traffic is likely virtually to double over the next 30 years and in consequence quite intolerable environmental burdens will ensue, and that without a far more radical approach to the provision of effective, accessible public transport, accompanied by other schemes of mitigation, the Government's alleged commitment to sustainable development is just another effort to hoodwink the British public.
In his Statement the Minister said:
"The review provided the opportunity to check that each scheme was still essential, was on the proper scale and accorded with the high standards now expected of our road improvements in a way that reconciled the needs of industry and the economy with the needs of the environment".
Each scheme is said to have been examined carefully to confirm that it produces a high rate of economic benefit in comparison with cost and has the minimum effect on the environment and that its priority accords with the national strategic road network. Who carried out that examination? What are the criteria that the Government have applied in order to establish those alleged objectives? Surely what is really needed is not simply an assertion of that kind by the Government but a re-ordering of priorities much more heavily loaded than the Government suggest in favour of public transport.
The Government have said that their budget provides spending for 50 per cent. on roads and 40 per cent. on public transport. We are not satisfied that that is other than a bit of "Waldegravia". In any event, it is not right that public transport expenditure in this country bears little comparison with that in Germany, France,

1091
Holland, Denmark, Switzerland and many other places on the Continent of Europe. Is it not clear that, despite what the Government have said, the overwhelming majority of the Government's already swollen roads programme remains intact? What percentage of the schemes have been totally abandoned? What is the cost of those abandoned schemes as far as public finance is concerned? As a result of this announcement, how will any more freight be transferred to rail; and what relief will urban residents enjoy from rising pollution, danger and increased congestion?
Are the Government not capable of recognising that the logic of their thinking as regards road congestion is simply—as it was put in a newspaper the other day—
"To speed large volumes of traffic as quickly as possible from jam to jam"?
Is not that the view which is taken by a large number of Conservative Members of Parliament when it comes to their own constituency problems, including, surprisingly enough, the Minister for roads himself, who has dissociated himself from some of these considerations for that reason?
Why then are the Government persisting in these extraordinary schemes? I refer, for example, to the relief roads for the M.25 around London. What is the cost of that? There is also the M.62 around the north and west of Manchester which I understand is going to cost £270 million for 11 miles of road. Instead, by electrifying the trans-Pennine rail link at a cost of £170 million, a good deal of passenger and freight traffic could be diverted from the M.62.
What is to be the new annual spending level on roads as compared with the previous predictions? Was it not said to be £2 billion before and is it not said to be £2 billion now? Wherein lies the change? What change, if any, is there to be in the application of environmental criteria as far as road schemes are concerned? Is it not clear that, however the situation may be dressed up by the Government at present, the current cost-benefit analysis for the provision of roads fails to take environmental considerations fully or properly into account, and that that situation will continue to prevail? In the submission of the Opposition, a considerable opportunity to produce much-needed radical change has been missed yet again.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the Statement. I sympathise with him because it was a long Statement, taking rather over 10 minutes to deliver, but it says very little. I am afraid that I do not share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that it is complex. It seems to me to be alarmingly simple. It makes three announcements: one relating to cross-country roads, one relating to the M.25 and the third relating to new reviews. However, it says nothing substantial about the role of the road programme within transport policy as a whole.
One paragraph stated:
"The review concluded that most resources should go on the two priorities of improving key routes … and on bypasses".
1092
Those have been the priorities of successive governments over 25 years. Surely it did not need a review on this occasion to state what must be obvious to the House.
The Statement arises from political expediency (because some of the Government's previous proposals were unpopular) and, we must assume—but I should like to hear more about this from the Minister—from financial necessity. It is an advantage to be able to demonstrate to the Treasury that some schemes are being dropped—if they are being dropped and not merely postponed—and in the present political climate, there is also an advantage in suggesting that, as a result of the review, certain schemes are not to go ahead.
The key statement—and, to me, the most interesting—came about a third of the way through the Minister's speech. The Statement noted:
"In the past it has taken an average of 13.5 years to get from the entry of a scheme into the programme to its opening. I aim to cut this time by up to a third".
That is a worthy and desirable aim, which successive Secretaries of State for Transport have shared, but there is nothing whatever in the Statement to explain precisely how that will be done. There will be better management and more priorities, hut, as the Minister must know, given the consultation process—unless that is to be abandoned in some way—and the hazards of road construction, if we are to see the time reduced "by… a third", we must know precisely how that will be achieved. I should be most grateful if the Minister could tell the House much more precisely than in the Statement the proposals by which the time will be reduced "by … a third".
I should like to ask the Minister the following further questions. It is not plain from the Statement the extent to which there will be a reduction in spending on roads, but I have assumed that that will be the case. Indeed, I thought that the Minister was somewhat disingenuous and trying to have it both ways by arguing that some roads will not now be built as a result of the review while at the same time maintaining a very substantial road programme. What is the result of the review? What percentage fall in the cost of the road programme may we see on the basis of the new priorities over the next five and 10 years? My question relates to current expenditure, not to any reduction in the programme.
My other question relates indirectly, as I suggested, to the point about reducing the time that it takes to commission and build a road. Is the Minister satisfied that the present consultation processes enable road building to take place with the maximum public consent—and only with public consent? If he is not wholly satisfied, and if he wishes to propitiate opinion in this respect, what are his proposals to improve the consultation process consistent with a reduction in the time that it takes to build roads?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for at least appreciating that this is a complex and detailed subject and for not asking me detailed questions about various trunk roads. If they had done so, I think that I should have had to refer them to the text of the book rather than try to answer them at the Dispatch Box.

1093
In answering some of the points made by the two noble Lords, I advise the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Highways Agency will be accountable to the Secretary of State and, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament. That is the line of accountability for that agency, as for other agencies. I suspect that the noble Lord was telling your Lordships' House that the policy of the Labour Party might be to cut the road programme considerably. He questioned me about the priorities that we give to the road budget, as opposed to other forms of transport. I repeat what I said in my Statement: 50 per cent.—half of the budget of the department—goes on roads, but 90 per cent. of all journeys undertaken by people and goods in the United Kingdom are by those roads. Clearly, therefore, we are not spending an amount on roads that is proportionate to people's use of them. In fact, we are concentrating 40 per cent. of the budget on the 10 per cent. of inland journeys that are currently undertaken by public transport. We are thereby endeavouring to increase the number of people and goods carried on public transport.
The noble Lord asked me about who carried out the examination. It was carried out by officials of the Department of Transport, led by my right honourable friend Mr. MacGregor and my honourable friend Mr. Key, the Minister for Roads and Traffic. I repeat what I said in the Statement: they have spent some time examining every project against the criteria that I mentioned in the Statement.
I was asked about what reduction there has been in the programme. Some 49 schemes have been dropped entirely. That represents one-tenth in number and one-seventh by value. The total value of all the schemes that are left in the programme after that reduction is £18 billion now as opposed to £21 billion previously. That is the reduction.
Both noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—asked me about the next three years. I repeat that the next three years will see expenditure of about £2 billion every year, as has already been announced.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked me about the attitude that we have taken on environmental matters to some of the projects that we have cut. One of the points that I made in the Statement was that we have taken out a number of the projects that would have run through open countryside. We have reduced the new trunk road routes through open countryside to only six.
In order to reduce substantially the 13½ years that it takes to complete a new road, we intend to prioritise the schemes. I think I mentioned in my Statement that all schemes go ahead with the same urgency. The review creates Priority I groups and Priority 2 groups. The 80 schemes in the Priority I group will be given the highest priority and first call on both the financial resources that are needed to build the schemes and on the other resources that are needed to develop them. That is the way in which we hope—and expect—to cut the programme.
At the end of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said that we had missed an opportunity to take radical steps with the road programme. Although I should not like to put words into the noble Lord's
1094
mouth, I think that he meant, "To cut the road building programme fairly drastically". I do not think that that is possible. People who use our trunk roads expect us to try to take out of the system the particularly difficult bottlenecks on the motorway and trunk road systems. People who live in towns which are currently crossed by major routes expect the benefits of bypasses—and they are considerable benefits.
One has to balance the needs of the environment carefully against the need of our people and economy to use the roads. In the book available in the PPO, your Lordships will find in greater detail what I have outlined in the Statement. I believe that you will then agree that we have the balance right between the needs of our economy and of people for a decent road system and the need to protect the environment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he give an answer to a question that I have put? What is the cost of the schemes which have now been abandoned and which clearly went ahead without sufficiently careful preparation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I imagine that I am being asked what are the technical preparation costs of the 49 schemes that have been abandoned? No work on the ground has been started. The schemes about which I am talking are those which are being abandoned in the planning and detailed drawing process, not the construction process.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, was consideration given to the shortage of petrol refuelling stations and service stations on a good many of the major motorways which causes great difficulty to motorists? Is consideration being given to increasing the availability of those stations? Secondly, from my noble friend's general observations I believe that he will have the figure, but will he say what will be the result of the changes in roads expenditure over the next two or three years? Is it up or down? If so, by how much? Thirdly, in view of the great importance of this matter which affects every part of the country, as the Government Chief Whip is here, perhaps I may ask that we be given an early opportunity for a full day's debate—not time limited, please—on this subject.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Chief Whip has heard what my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has just said about a full day's debate. I might prefer to have a full day's debate rather than to try to get all this into a Statement.
As to the two specific points my noble friend mentioned, on expenditure I can assure him, as I have already said, that expenditure each year over the next three years will remain at about the £2 billion already announced. Motorway service stations are another issue which my right honourable and honourable friends did not address in the roads review. I am aware that steps have been taken to try to improve the network of motorway service stations to overcome the problems that my noble friend mentioned.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Statement made it clear that the Government intend to prioritise—a word which is a new horror to me—the proposal to have 14 lanes of concrete or asphalt between Junctions 12 and 15 on the M.25. Does that mean that they have rejected the alternative proposals put to the Secretary of State by some distinguished members of his own party? We are assured that when the inquiry is held the inspector will he independent. If he is persuaded by the evidence, will it be open to him to recommend that the whole scheme, devastating as it is to the environment by way of noise, pollution, encroachment on the green belt and so forth, should be abandoned?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in all inquiries the inspector makes the recommendations to which he is drawn by the evidence. No pressure is put on an inspector by the department to come to one conclusion or another. That would negate the whole object of having public inquiries. On the M.25, I have, as I have said, announced today that there will be a public inquiry for the link roads between Junctions 12 and 15. That inquiry will go ahead later in the year. I understand those people who think that we should not extend or do any more work on the M.25, but the simple fact is that people need that important link. If it is not there to carry the traffic, the traffic will go increasingly onto local roads. On 12th April the Department of Transport in Marsham Street hopes to mount a little exhibition showing what is planned for the link roads and the other improvements to the M.25. I hope that those of your Lordships who are interested will come along and have a look.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, while I understand my noble friend's request that he should not be probed at this stage about individual items, perhaps I may ask him in which priority the West Midlands figures, because the M.6 is rapidly reaching the point at which everything will come to a standstill. Large sections of it which are elevated 100 feet or more above road level are not easy to widen, but it is necessary to keep open that route to the industrial part of Britain. In which priority is that likely to come?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is difficult to find the right page in a fairly complex document covering many roads. I invite my noble friend to read the book rather than listen to the actor, if he does not mind me saying that. The M.6 widening from Birmingham to Stoke, Manchester is a Priority I scheme. As he knows, the M.40 is now complete. The Birmingham northern relief road is intended to be privately financed. That of course will relieve overcrowding on the M.6, and that is going to a public inquiry in June.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I wonder whether the Minister has sent his investigators over to the nice new roads in France, where not just full-blown service stations but many convenience stops are placed up and down the new roads, which are convenient both for the old and the very young.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the department has previously announced proposals for improving the situation with regard to motorway service stations, but I shall draw the noble Lord's concerns to the attention of my honourable friend the roads Minister.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I listened with especial interest to my noble friend as I live in the middle of an area that is in the cat's cradle of the new roads which he has said are about to be built and those which he said are not to be built. With regret, I did not hear in his Statement any emphasis on the need to complete a unit of new road. The whole length of a road should be completed and made better for transport. As an example, and purely as an example, he said that the M.40 is now complete. The M.40 is far from complete. The motorway was built at High Wycombe in the late 1960s. It is in four or five stages, and the latest is to be completed this summer at Uxbridge. It will reach as far as Hanger Lane, but there are two more stages to go. We have been travelling up and down those roads. One gets through one blockage, but when that stage is complete the blockage merely moves down the road a mile or so. I ask for some emphasis to be placed on completing a whole unit so that the whole length of a road may be completed.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand the point that my noble friend makes, but unfortunately one can do these projects only one step at a time. It would be expensive and disruptive if one were to attempt to reconstruct in one go the whole length of a major road. But I greatly appreciate the point that he is making. It is one of the matters to which the new Highways Agency will have to attend to ensure that it is not disturbing the same traffic over and over again. I shall look at the point that my noble friend makes, and if I have anything helpful to say then I shall write to him.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister referred to the fact that there would be a transfer of money from roads to other forms of public transport. He will be aware of the Question asked today about British Rail (Scotrail). Knowing his background, I am sure that he must have asked whether there will be a Statement on the roads programme in Scotland reasonably soon. I know that my question is slightly wide of the mark, and I would not have asked any other Minister, but the Minister's ordinary curiosity must have made him ask that question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I resisted my ordinary curiosity. Dealing with the road network system in England was more than enough for me and I did not ask questions about the road network in Scotland. I cannot answer the noble Lord's question. I shall draw it to the attention of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie who will take steps to provide the noble Lord with the answer.
As regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I reiterate what I said. I did not say that we were diverting money from the roads' programme to the railways; I said that 50 per cent. of the programme is

1097
spent on the roads and 90 per cent. of the journeys are made on the roads. Therefore, the accusation that we favour the roads programme above all else is not justified by the figures.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can the Minister be certain that a mistake such as that made in respect of the A.34 to Bicester will not be made? It is made only of concrete and has no overcover and, as a result, there is considerable noise to villagers round about.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's worry about noisy road surfaces. Indeed, work has been done to ensure that road surfaces are quiet in addition to everything else that one expects of them. I can assure her that, in addition to the impact on the countryside, one of the environmental aspects of the review has been the noise impact on people. I am certain that as we move to new and improved materials, the noise aspect of environmental pollution will be reduced. I shall draw the attention of my honourable friend Mr. Key to my noble friend's concern.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Statement announced that steps were taken earlier to change some of the arrangements for public inquiries? He said that he hopes they will not take 13½ years from start to finish. Does my noble friend accept that a growing number of people in this country are getting sick and tired of the length of consultation? Following what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will he look at how things are done in France, where roads are built more quickly than we can ever hope to do under our present system?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are clealing with a consultation document which was issued on 22nd February relating to highway inquiry procedures. Consultation ends on 25th May. The rules must be made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and it is hoped that they will be implemented in the summer.
There is in respect of any public inquiry a difficult balance between the need for speed, which for financial reasons is important both to the applicants and the objectors, and the need for people to consider that they have been given a fair hearing. I hope that the current consultation will find ways to improve the situation.
I am unable to comment about France. I shall certainly draw to the attention of those in my department the fact that France appears to be getting a great deal of credit for the speed with which it builds its roads.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I and many other people are anxious about the new Highways Agency because it might be considered that it will promote road transport and road building? However, what is needed is a transportation authority which will ensure that the needs of the country use all forms of transport in a balanced way. Would not that be a better proposition?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is just that balance of approach that the Government seek to achieve. The Highways Agency's task will be to deal
1098
with highways. The department and the Government will continue to decide on the balance of the programmes and the balance between the different forms of transport in this country, together with the priority given to them and the money spent on them.

Local Government Commission
4.25 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, for the terms of today's Motion and for his excellent speech. I am also grateful for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown. I share their predilection for the status quo. I have experience as a county councillor and a district councillor. My husband served as a parish councillor. I am no longer a councillor and therefore I have no axe to grind. However, I believe deeply in the importance of all three levels, which in my view form a bastion of democracy in our country.
In some parts of the country where there are large centres of population there may very well be good reason for change. In the debate in February 1991 my noble friend Lady Blatch said that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. More recently my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said:
"There is no national blueprint".
I wholeheartedly share those sentiments. In 1991 I spoke in favour of three-tier local government in shire counties, and I shall not repeat myself.
The initial voice of local democracy on the basis of subsidiarity must be the parish councils, where lines of communication are easy for individual citizens. Higher councils must then pay proper regard to their viewpoint. There is undoubtedly more room for more co-operation among all levels of local government; but that: can be done within the present structure. I believe in improvement and not in wholesale and expensive reorganisation where the status quo is working reasonably well: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
In my experience, local people are not clarnouring for reorganisation in my county of Essex and in many shire counties. The appearance of the commission's local inquiry will create conflict where what we need more than anything throughout local government is cooperation to provide services for people that are most sensitive to their needs and to do so most efficiently and economically. I am glad that the process is to be speeded up so that the period of dissension is minimised; but the retention of the status quo must receive proper consideration.
Economy and efficiency in providing local services has been the driving force of our Government and of sensible local government for the past 15 years. Notable developments in the concept of enabling authorities have gathered momentum. If there is to be reorganisation, it must be seen to be more efficient, more economical and more democratic than the existing structure.
A careful survey was carried out in Essex. It showed that dividing it into four unitary authorities or fewer

1099
might save money in the long term, but it would be at the clear expense of democracy. It would halve the number of councillors to serve local people on the commission's basis of 1:4,000 representation. Above that number of unitary authorities, expense mounts up and there is no possibility of payback. If money is available, let us spend it on better services and not on reorganisation, as everyone would agree.
Essex has existed as a county for more than 1,000 years. People relate to their county and in rural areas to their village or local town. Putting a number of market towns together does not create unitary authorities. All the local communications work against that theory, creating just the unitary myth that the commission wishes to avoid. Local people will see no point in it and it will cost them money in higher rates and taxes, which they can ill afford. That goes diametrically against the present Government's policy.
Local government needs to carry out strategic functions as well as local ones. Essex is large enough to do that through the structure plan, the road system, the organisation of education, the fire brigade, the library and the archives. All those functions are efficient, well organised and widely respected. It would be a tragedy to break them up, and certainly it would not lead to greater efficiency or economy. If run by joint committees, there is no accountability, and weak compromises are arrived at. They are known not to work well and they would certainly not improve the present system.
With the principles of subsidiarity in operation in Europe, the German länder and French départements are playing a greater role and balancing more adequately the power of Brussels. Counties like Essex, Kent, Hampshire and others can provide a British point of view at the same level. Regions could not command the same local loyalty. Let us not destroy our own strengths—literally shooting ourselves in the foot—at a critical time in Europe.
I hope that the commission, in considering shire counties, will adhere to its stated policy of avoiding excessive costs and widespread joint arrangements in reorganisation and—most important—that the existing two-tier structure should be replaced only by something better.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience to know that the debate is now due to end at 8.41, and therefore the Minister should be able to rise to reply at 8.16 p.m.
4.31 p.m.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I have worked within local government for around 40 years and I am now chairman of SERPLAN, which includes all the London boroughs and representatives of the district councils and all the shire counties in the South East, covering a population of 17.5 million people. Interestingly enough, that is the same area as the Paris Basin region. However, today I am speaking about Hampshire.
The first question for the commission is whether any change should be made, and the first option to consider
1100
is, therefore, the maintenance and improvement of the present arrangements. The Government's preference, however, is for unitary authorities; that has been stated by Ministers on many occasions. However, it must be remembered that, apart from planning, county councils are unitary authorities. I have a feeling that this preference for smallish unitary authorities has gone too far, and the Government's enthusiasm is leading to the overriding of public opinion and to the creation of some major difficulties. We should be very careful about making changes where the public do not support change. As has already been said, restructuring is always expensive and the cost of change has to be paid for out of money which would otherwise go to the services.
A small unitary authority will find some areas of activity too difficult to deal with because they cannot be settled within its own boundaries; for example, minerals and waste disposal policies where all the easy options have been taken up. Minerals can only be obtained from where they lie and have to be exported to the places of need. Waste is a problem of major significance and is transported from Bristol to Bedfordshire, or from Newham to Mucking in Essex. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that Portsmouth could look after its own waste. As regards the conservation of the New Forest, the management of over 10,000 acres of country parks, the river valleys and the coast and the sensitive management of the Solent waters, small unitary authorities would simply not have the resources to achieve anything except basic coast protection where engineering solutions are the norm and insufficient regard is paid to conservation issues. I am also very concerned, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as to how regional guidelines for planning and transportation would operate within a fragmented local government. Local government needs to make best use of European funding and to do that, it needs to play its part in the European initiatives.
I hope that the Commission and the Government will not lose sight of partnership with the voluntary sector referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis. There are myriad organisations which operate on a county scale and proudly call themselves by the name of the county. I am president of the Hampshire Association for the Care of the Blind, which cares for over 4,000 partially sighted people. It looks to the county council for substantial financial support each year.
The voluntary sector as a whole in Hampshire receives £10 million each year from the county council and those funds help to unlock the skills and time of volunteers. The county council has encouraged the formation of councils of community service and has created independent trusts such as the Hampshire Buildings Preservation Trust, the Hampshire Gardens Trust and the Hampshire Museums Trust and the Hillier arboretum. These initiatives have been replicated elsewhere in the country, but it is difficult to see that these developments could have taken place without the spur of the county council.
There are some specialist functions which have been a particular feature of county councils which would be too easy to overlook and yet whose absence would be a

1101
very sad loss. Specialist support is an aspect of experience in services provided by the counties, and I would instance the specialist teams in historic buildings, architecture, information technology, library service, archives, research and so on. Hampshire leads the country in archaeological and archive services, and there must be a serious risk that these services would disappear or be sadly diminished should the county council be abolished.
My conclusions in all that are that the Government should not show impatience about the review because there is no need for haste. More attention should be given to the eventual costs of the exercise as it looks to many observers that the Government are indifferent to the likely cost.
I maintain that the strengths of the existing two-tier system should be recognised, coupled with a resolve to make improvements in this where they are necessary, so that we are not faced with an approach of change for change's sake, which I fear is an all too likely outcome.
4.36 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I speak on behalf of that most endangered species, the County of Humberside. As Bishop of Sheffield, part of my diocese is in Humberside.
The attack on Humberside has gone on for five years and more now. It began with the boundary commission, whose first review told us that the county was working well as a unit and supported its survival, although it admitted that it had failed to attract loyalty. That response was rejected by Nicholas Ridley who, under some pressure, came up with the recommendation that Humberside should be split between Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.
That was overturned by the events of the 1991 review. There, of course, Humberside falls victim to the contradictions between the two aims of that review. It is difficult both to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and also to secure effective and convenient local government.
In June 1993 the review's first recommendation was that there should be no Humberside. Goole and Selby should go to a revived East Riding, and police and fire services should continue as at present on a Humberside basis. That was reversed largely in December 1993—all change. Police and fire services are to be divided between Yorkshire and Lincolnshire; the town and port of Goole was to go to the new West Riding—an extraordinary authority stretching away across the Pennines to Settle.
That bothers me because I believe that the wrong questions have been asked and, therefore, the wrong answer has been arrived at. People have been asked, "Do you think of yourself as a Yorkshireman, a Lincolnshire man or a Humbershire man?" The only answers are, "I belong to Yorkshire", or, "I am a Lincolnshire yellow belly". But that is not the right question. When a politician sees that question, it becomes dangerous because, as part of our understandable response to disliking living in a global village, we live in a period of passionately revived local loyalties. The politicians are tempted to build on that revival of
1102
local loyalties with the dire results that we have seen in Yugoslavia, Russia and now, I suspect, Italy. I beg us not to start playing that game.
It should be recognised that we are riot talking about Yorkshire and Lincolnshire but about the administration of a wide range of services over an area which has geographical and economic unity around the Humber estuary and Humber basin. We then begin to see that the answer to the question, "Do you want to be a Yorkshireman or a Lincolnshire man?", is irrelevant:
"For forms of government let fools contest;
Whate'er is best administered is best".
I go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we should stay where we are and preserve the status quo, with modest amendments. A modest amendment is the revival, as an ornamental or ceremonial unit, of the ancient county of East Riding. Let us knock the heads together of the Post Office and the like which will not allow us to write "East Riding", "Lincolnshire" or "West Riding" on our envelopes and force us to put "Humberside". It is that which has made the unit unpopular, not its performance.
If we had time, I could regale the House with the extraordinary achievements of Humberside over the past 20 years, not least—I say this with a certain bitterness—the achievement, as it is called, of turning Humberside from a North Country deprived county into a southern county, where growth and amenities are up to the level of the South. There is much else; for example, there is no criticism of what Humberside has achieved. The criticism is directed at the fact that it is not in Yorkshire or in Lincolnshire.
There is a sense of urgency in all this. For five years we have been under attack. Dr. Johnson tells us that the knowledge that one will be hanged in a fortnight concentrates the mind. The sight of the block and the executioner standing by is not good for an efficient, strategic planning authority. It is difficult for a crew when they feel that a torpedo has already struck a ship and it is doomed. What we need, above all, is a hasty decision and a decision that preserves the status quo so that the splendid work that Humberside has built up over the past 20 years is not destroyed.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, on the eloquence with which he introduced it. I can understand that there may be a logic in making unitary authorities of a dozen or so of our larger cities in England. However, I concern myself this afternoon with the shire counties and especially my own county of Cumbria where for some years I served as a county councillor and where I still keep in touch and am involved in local government affairs. I ask only one thing today and that is that there be no change, either structural, boundary or electoral, to the existing two-tier framework of local government in Cumbria. I was pleased to read that I am strongly supported in this view by my noble friend and fellow Cumbrian Lord Whitelaw.

1103
At the start of the review the chairman of the Local Government Commission, Sir John Banham, remarked, as has already been quoted,
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
That seems to me a common sense view. But nevertheless my plea to leave the status quo well alone deserves an explanation. I do not defend the status quo on the basis that local government is perfect, still less that it could not and should not be made better. Plainly much can and should be done. Nor do I feel that the review has been a wasted exercise. Here I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who I see is just resuming her seat. The review has certainly changed my mind. I claim that the improvements that are needed can be achieved more easily, more cheaply and more successfully by other means.
The only consensus for change in Cumbria has been between South Lakeland District Council and Barrow Borough Council which have arrived at an admittedly well argued proposal to join forces as a unitary authority in the south of the county. While I have some sympathy with their views, they themselves acknowledge that their solution fails to meet one of the Government's key criteria in respect of "community identity". That leaves the rest of the county with no plans as viewed by those in the south of the county.
Cumbria County Council's submission argues for the status quo. It stresses, among many other things, the dangers of fragmentation, especially as it applies to strategic planning and—this is important—the region's ability to be effectively represented at a European level. That matter was discussed ably by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and others. I have placed both submissions from these councils in the Library of the House.
Of the many options looked at in Cumbria, only two showed any significant financial savings. It comes down to either creating a single county unitary authority or dividing the county into two: north and south. Neither option would command public support. Neither would meet the criteria of community identity and both would lead to reduced accountability.
There was indeed a period when some local authorities spent and otherwise acted irresponsibly, and to their credit the Government acted both to protect people from these excesses and to avoid damaging the national economy. But all of us, and all local government, had to pay for the delinquency of a minority. Now, in the four years since I left Cumbria County Council, I have seen tremendous improvements in the performance of local government at all levels. Much duplication and overlap have been and continue to be addressed. It is becoming all the time much less partisan; and every year sees an enhancement of its enabling role, especially in the matter of employment. That point was ably covered by my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle. I believe that this trend is replicated elsewhere through the shire counties.
I wish to say a few brief words on a neglected area of local government activity; namely, its capital programmes. Central Government acknowledge the importance of investment in industry and yet mysteriously seem oblivious sometimes to the needs of infrastructure in the
1104
regions. If the Treasury sees advantages—as it seemed to do—in not being able to distinguish between revenue and capital, and therefore to have no understanding of the nature of capital, then the least it could do is unshackle local government, which does understand it—and has done so for nearly a century—and serves its communities extremely well.
It is time to end the war of attrition between central and local government. This review is centralising in its effect —it is time to decentralise. It is time to give local government some encouragement and it is time to give the men and women who serve in local government some encouragement. They are people of all parties and of none. I believe it is time to abandon this review.
4.46 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, for giving us an opportunity to debate this matter. I will make only general comments as far as possible. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right when she implied that we were perhaps all labouring under a misapprehension as regards how the review was going forward. It seems to me that there are two fundamental principles here. One is the provision of services at retail level direct to the public and the other is what might be called the wholesale or strategic provision of services.
Having read the guidance to the Local Government Commission, I wonder whether that particular principle has been recognised. I am certainly not convinced that this distinction is understood by the general populace and that seems to be evident from the results of the various MORI polls which I have seen. I am concerned that the essential guidance to the Local Government Commission was couched in terms which perhaps favoured a particular end result. That is a matter of some regret, although I must add that it is always easy to have 20–20 vision with the benefit of hindsight. However, I believe that the guidance made an artificial distinction in its analysis between direct and indirect services.
I am afraid I could not understand that distinction because all these matters are costs which ultimately fall on the council tax payer. I do not believe there is any dispute about that. A financial model was established which was impossible to unravel, and certainly I have not been able to unravel it to my own satisfaction. Certain costs were excluded. They were referred to as transfer costs because they were assumed to be self-cancelling. However, they would only be self-cancelling if they were dealt with on a national scale. They would certainly not be self-cancelling at local level. I question whether the analysis in the guidance was correct in that that particular model was not transposable to the local level.
The creation of a unitary authority in a rural area—I live in a rural area—immediately destabilises the county model as a whole and it cannot be otherwise. We would do well to be aware of the warp and weft that holds together the two tiers which are similar in many respects to the multi-tier approach on the Continent. However, there is an essential difference between the aspirations of the metropolitan areas on the one hand and a rural district on the other. Their needs are

1105
different. It may be highly appropriate for Portsmouth, for example, to have unitary status, but it would be difficult for other rural areas competently to discharge those sort of functions. There is a difference, and I do not believe that one single model can be imposed as a solution.
I admit that there is an advantage in bringing local government nearer to the people. However, that relies on the commitment of the local populace—the man in the street. It relies on a continued strategic interrelationship and fluid interaction between authorities. I believe that there is further to go on that interaction between authorities, if for no other reason than, taking one district with another, their local plans do not agree with each other. They often have different emphasis and different priorities. We need to take that aspect as far as we can before we start a wholesale reorganisation of the present arrangements.
I was born in Somerset. I am very proud of that fact. I still have strong family and business ties in that location. The commission proposes to create three authorities in that county which will have no social or geographical meaning to me or to any of my circle of acquaintances in the area. I now live in Sussex, where my family roots go back at least 300 years. I am proud of that too. I am proud to live within the county of Sussex. I reside within the district of Horsham. Under the unitary schemes which have been proposed for other areas, the very necessary modernisation of Horsham town centre, which resulted from the assiduous pursuit by the council of commercial objectives, would not have been achieved.
I do not wish to be asked to distinguish between a county to which I relate at one level as against a district which I support at another. That is simply not a proper line of inquiry. I want both to be efficient, if necessary to compete as appropriate with one another, and to be responsive to local needs. I recognise that their different areas of concern are not always reconcilable, but I certainly do not want to pay for change unless it is absolutely necessary.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to take up the point made just now by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, in his very impressive contribution, namely the distinction between the local and the strategic responsibilities of councils.
There is not the slightest doubt that on the one hand it is highly desirable that councils should be near the people in the discharge of local responsibilities. On the other hand, the smaller the council the more difficult it becomes to discharge what have been described by many noble Lords as the strategic responsibilities. The cost of making a large number of unitary bodies which would then have to combine together in voluntary arrangements to discharge their strategic functions would be substantial.
I was very interested that the noble Earl mentioned the town of Horsham, near which I also live. I find myself in the same situation as the noble Earl. I have acquired a close interest in the development of that town and in the operations of the district council. At the same
1106
time I have been able to reconcile with that the strategic activities of the West Sussex County Council. While no doubt there could be improvements in the relationship between the county and the district, having studied the possible alternatives being considered it seems to me to be far better to improve what exists than to replace it with something totally untried.
For example, there is talk of creating in West Sussex three unitary authorities. That would mean blending the town of Horsham with Crawley and mid-Sussex. Horsham would totally lose its identity. At the same time that new entity could not effectively discharge a suitable proportion of the strategic functions now being conducted in Chichester, where the county council is located.
In that particular case, as in the other cases which have been mentioned—in relation to Kent, Essex, Hampshire, Cumbria and Somerset—the approach which my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned at the beginning of the debate, and which has been repeated by many noble Lords during the debate, of a modified status quo seems to be the right one.
It was widely reported that in July of last year the Secretary of State for the Environment recommended that the whole process of local government reorganisation should be based on the principle of opt in. "Opt in" and "opt out" have become fashionable phrases. Underlying the principle of opt in was the notion that where there was sufficient local consensus for change, change should take place, but where there was not such a consensus, the present system should continue. That seems to me to be an eminently sensible proposition. It is regrettable that it was apparently not accepted by the Cabinet. Let us hope that in the light of this debate—and I believe that a consensus is building up, although we are only one third of the way through the debate—they will think again.
I am particularly concerned about some of the strategic operations which are now conducted at county level. Among them is the question of trading standards. During the passage of the Bill on local government reorganisation in Wales that issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, myself and others. Trading standards are an essential part of our life. We have to safeguard people's interests in, for example, what they buy and use. That has local implications. It also has wider strategic implications. Trading standards officers deal with large commercial organisations; they also have to cope with sophisticated systems of counterfeiting which are unfortunately becoming prevalent these days. It is difficult to see how such operations could be conducted effectively at purely local level. They need a strategic arm in which to operate. It is suggested that that problem could be overcome by voluntary arrangements on a wider basis, but such voluntary arrangements rarely survive.
Therefore, I feel that we must ask the Government to think again about the thrust of this inquiry into local government reorganisation. It must be done on a more practical basis. What is working effectively but could perhaps be improved with modification should be so improved. Where there is a consensus for major change let that change take place.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself in almost full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. In particular I join with him in saying that if one wants an improvement in local government one should try to improve what exists. The noble Lord and I joined together on another inquiry into another matter, where we came to the conclusion that one cannot improve what one has destroyed. I also agree with him about opting in and opting out.
I am the fourth noble Lord to speak about Kent. All of us in Kent are very proud of the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, who introduced this debate in a masterly fashion. I thank him for doing so, as I thank my noble friend—if I am allowed to call him that—Lord Kingsdown for his maiden speech. I thought it a model of all good maiden speeches; whether it was made by a central banker or a chairman of a county council does not matter.
There has been support for the existing structure, or the status quo, from Kent, Hampshire, Cumbria, Essex and from my noble friend Lord Blake. It should be remembered that the Foreign Secretary was reported in the Financial Times last week as having called for the structure of local government to be left alone in Oxfordshire. He said:
"I have come to the firm conclusion that the right answer is to leave things as they are".
He would find, as on many issues, a number of friends among your Lordships.
I wish to concentrate on Kent. It would be costly madness to make a change from the existing structure. There would be £78 million in transitional costs. Practically no savings are anticipated in seven unitary districts other than the savings that one obtains from reducing the number of councillors in Kent by 630. If that is the form of democratic local government advocated by my noble friends on the Front Bench, I have to say that I am very surprised. Of course costs will be involved in other matters—in standards, and dispersals. Cost has already been shown in conflict, inside all three parties, between parts of the local government machine. We want to get rid of that conflict.
I should very much like to see the review abandoned. It would save a lot of money and much disruption. However, I wish to speak for a moment on the strategic point with regard to Kent raised by other noble Lords, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I find myself once again wholly in agreement with him.
With far-sighted vision, Kent County Council made special links with the Nord-Pas de Calais region and with three Belgian regions to form a Euro-region. As a result, the Kent economy for important Kent projects has already gained by £37 million, with a total sum committed of £46 million. Seven unitary districts or authorities could not have achieved that, any more than they could have achieved the great advances in environmental, structural and economic planning generally throughout Kent. Joint bodies will not face up to hard decisions. They do not have democratic
1108
accountability and authority behind them. Under the seven unitary districts system no councillors would be elected to take such a decision.
The real alternative is not between county councils and joint bodies but between county councils and Whitehall—whether regional Whitehall or central Government Whitehall does not matter. If we believe in local government, as I do —and we in Kent are blessed with a good system of county council and districts—we want to keep the power and the responsibility for strategic decisions among locally elected people of Kent. Therefore I ask my noble friends on the Front Bench to convey the feeling of the House to their colleagues and to the Cabinet. The existing structure is what we want; and the sooner we stop the disruptive activities outlined in the review, the better.
5.7 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Cornwallis for raising this topic today and for making a quite excellent speech in kicking off the debate, as did my noble friend Lord Kingsdown in his very distinguished debut. The debate is particularly timely for it takes place while there is still time to ensure that the Local Government Commission fully understands the concerns throughout the country on the question of change in local government—concerns reflected by the large number of speakers in the debate today.
I have to say that I do not understand this Government's readiness to dismember a system which has stood the test of time. I have not been aware of mobs in the street shouting, "Give us single unitary authorities". Try selling that idea in Greater London, my Lords. Nor in my locality has the main topic of conversation been the importance of local accountability. The truth is—it may be regrettable, but there it is—that people care passionately about the results of local government: what they get from it, value for money, and so on; but very little about how those ends are achieved. To reinforce that point, one needs to look no further than the local election turn-out figures for which 30 per cent. of the electorate voting is regarded as nothing out of the ordinary.
However, local government is important. That makes Government attempts fundamentally to change it for the first time in more than 100 years all the more questionable. Forget for the moment the many reasoned arguments about the immense cost of the changes for a frail economy to shoulder. Put to the back of your minds the undoubted truth that every reform costs far more than originally forecast, and that the period over which those costs will be amortised is always optimistically calculated. Ignore even the fact that some issues will be so large that they will in future only be able to be dealt with by joint arrangements between consenting authorities (if I may so call them), with all the dithering and non-accountability that that would inevitably entail.
Forget, but only for a moment, all those persuasive arguments. Perhaps I may instead concentrate on the situation as it is today, in which counties are confronted with immense demands on their expertise and experience as a direct result of new legislation

1109
introduced by this Government. I refer to care in the community, the new schools' curriculum and new arrangements for police authorities and magistrates' courts, to name but a few. Councils are only just beginning to get a grip on those problems. Is it seriously suggested that now is the right time to put all those initiatives at risk by entrusting them to new and largely inexperienced authorities?
I do not doubt that in some urban areas a case can be made for single unitary authorities. In my own area of Hart, for example, I have received an excellent presentation on the projected benefits such a change would bring to the district. But that has to be set against the overall picture in the county of Hampshire—which incidentally is a rather older unit of government than England, but we shall let that go—and where I should mention that I sit as a magistrate member on the police authority, which is a sub-committee of the county council. Let me give one brief example of how, under a county regime, all relevant services can be brought together.
In Hampshire, the chief constable is a voluntary—I stress the word "voluntary"—member of the county Chief Officer's Management Group, thereby ensuring an important police contribution to initiatives in the areas of education and social services in particular. With fragmented authorities, such an overview and contribution to interlinked planning will almost certainly be lost.
The Local Government Commission has said that it will take into account the views of the people, and that is welcome news. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Blake, has already said, Sir John Banham himself has recently written that, if the present system is replaced, it must be with something better. That is again welcome news. I hope, however, that the commission will do even more than that. I hope that it will use common sense in weighing up the advantages and disadvantages, many of which will have been highlighted in the debate. Above all, I hope that it will not be deflected in its purpose by any Government pressure to come up with the solution which, for whatever obscure political reasons, the Government themselves want.
5.8 p.m
Baroness David: My Lords, the review is about important questions of how our country should be governed and how powers and duties should be distributed across local government. But it has to have proper regard for how major services are organised and paid for within the local community. It has to consider cost. For education it is simply not the case that the service would be better supported by a much larger number of much smaller authorities. The original guidance to the commission said relatively little about about the organisation and delivery of services, and next to nothing about education, the biggest of all local government services.
At that time, the Government thought that GM school numbers would have increased massively by the time the commission finished its work, to the stage where LEAs would be left with a modest clutch of residual responsibilities which could be exercised effectively by small authorities, if necessary on a partnership basis.
1110
Two things have happened. The rate of opting out has slowed markedly—less than 4 per cent. of all the schools—and the Government have rapidly speeded up the review making their preferred solution of a GM system even more improbable by the time that the review's conclusions were to be implemented.
LEAs' responsibilities under current legislation are far from minimalist. Surrey, never a make-work interventionist authority, recently listed 68 statutory duties that the authority was obliged to perform. Many of these things can only be done well, and with reasonable economy, in authorities of considerable size—not necessarily an argument for the status quo, but a strong argument for authorities with substantial expertise in educational matters. Concerns are great for the future of special education in a Balkanised education service. Take the availability of specialised teachers of the deaf in Inner London after the the carve-up of ILEA There are now 13 separate London boroughs: nine employ one peripatetic teacher of the deaf; one employs two; one employs three; one employs four; and one, none. Compare this with the position in one large county which employs a specialist co-ordinator and 14 peripatetic teachers and has a number of centres providing intensive help for children with hearing difficulties. Smaller authorities will have difficulties in maintaining specialist schools for those with particular learning difficulties.
Will smaller authorities be able to provide as good quality curriculum advice, psychological services, music and arts provision, transport and libraries? The library service is very important. Will smaller authorities be able to maintain the residual adult education colleges and be able to keep their specialist teams? Counties play a leading part in European partnerships. Their break-up may put at risk the benefits of this for language teaching and European understanding.
The department now talks of joint or lead authorities. How would that model work? Would each authority be free to leave or join a consortium with a single lead authority at a time of its own choosing? Who would pay the budget? Would participation and paying a large bill be voluntary? How would participatory authorities form a view on whether the budget shares decided by the lead authority were appropriate, or being spent properly? Would each have to maintain its own in-house scrutiny arrangements for both professional and financial aspects?
If a voluntary system of lead authorities is judged impractical, might it be reasonable to suppose that participation might be compulsory? On that model, a single lead authority or a joint authority would have to have powers which bound all participants and have effective right of precept on all. Do the Government really see that as the way forward for education?
Sadly, the debate so far about the costs of reorganisation has been largely in terms of the costs of restructuring the management of local government. It has not made any attempt to address the knock-on costs arising from reduced efficiency and service delivery. Education will cost about £17 billion next year, and more than half of it is spent in county authorities. If

1111
fragmentation creates inefficiencies of even a few per cent. it would not be long before another billion pounds of avoidable expenditure has been logged up on top of the billion or so commonly mentioned as the cost of restructuring. My Lords, there are surely better ways of spending such sums on education.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount De L'Isle: My Lords, I wish, like many other Peers, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, on an eloquent maiden speech and trust that we shall hear from him often in the future. Like him, and many other Peers in their seats today, my family home is in Kent. The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, has given us a timely opportunity to debate the local government review. Many noble Lords are far better placed than I to put the case for the many aspects of local government which must be considered. As time is short, I shall confine my remarks to the effects on the rural areas and their economies.
The recommendations which the Local Government Commission makes for individual areas must have regard to the wishes of local populations and geographic locations. I shall model my examples, as five other Members of this House from Kent have done, on the needs of Kentish Men and Men of Kent, which, of course, includes women in both cases.
Currently in Kent the county council is able to take a strategic overview to solve the problems of rural residents dependent on the rural economy. Rural areas by their nature are disadvantaged relative to the towns through isolation, inadequacy of services and vulnerability of traditional rural enterprises, such as the decline in agricultural and related employment and the phasing out of other primary sector industries such as mining, in our case in the East Kent coalfield.
The county council acts as a redistributive agency between East and West Kent through its concern to meet relative need both at the macro level of differing resource bases of east and west down to the special needs within the community of social services and education. The county council has been particularly successful in lobbying central government and the European Commission in achieving rural development status for the East Kent coalfield and Romney Marsh-South Ashford areas and Objective 5b status for Thanet, so achieving grant aid for particular needs in rural areas.
We have heard from my noble friend Lord Aldington of Kent County Council being in the vanguard in approaching other European regions in the Nord-Pas de Calais and Belgium. That has led to gaining European Union Interreg funding, a practical action, not posturing, which is so often the case.
Planning regulations in the rural parts of Kent are stifling appropriate development needed to assist the move away from the traditional industries. Personal considerations of a vociferous minority are restraining the much needed move away from the primary and related industries into the technology of tomorrow, when information will flow down data highways rather than commuters on grossly over-used roads and railway
1112
tracks, exacerbated by the Channel Tunnel links. If unitary authorities inherit local planning decisions, liaison will be necessary between authorities if we are to avoid economic strangulation.
Many noble Lords will know from military experience that there is a great difference between strategy and tactics and the consequences of trying to deal with both simultaneously in the same headquarters. For the past 100 years, we have had two tiers of local government, which has not been stagnant, but evolved to meet the needs of the communities it serves. Continuing evolution will serve the population better than radical surgery, which cuts out the strategic overview currently managed by county councils. Kent County Council is acknowledged to be doing that exceedingly well.
Right honourable and honourable Members of another place have their constituency boundaries drawn on wards and districts, so it would be no surprise for that place and Ministers to favour the abolition of county councils, taking to themselves the strategic role. However, they are too far removed from the point of delivery to make effective decisions on strategic matters and the philosophy of "Big hand small map" will prevail.
A uniform prescription from the centre either for unitary authorities or status quo will not meet local needs everywhere. There are advantages to the two-tier structure, particularly in the rural areas. If it is to be replaced, it must be with something far better. In the case of Kent, I do not believe that there is an alternative to the existing structure, which should be allowed to continue to evolve.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this timely debate. The number of speakers illustrates the importance of the subject.
When I had the privilege to become a Member of your Lordships' House in 1970, I took as my title, Masham of Ilton in North Riding of our County of York. When local government was reorganised, it became North Yorkshire. That was acceptable. The commission has now proposed a most crazy idea of Masham and Mashamshire being in West Riding, there also being a West Yorkshire. Can your Lordships imagine what a muddle that would cause? West Yorkshire has always been associated with industrial areas and cities famous for commerce, as has the West Riding. Our part of North Yorkshire is rural farming countryside which has totally different needs. Yorkshire is a very big area. We are in the north and we want to remain there.
Rural areas have special needs. The people who live in those areas need to be understood. Splitting North Yorkshire into three will no doubt fragment services. For example, there is now one expert who inspects the kitchens of North Yorkshire schools. With three units, there would no doubt be three such experts. That would treble the cost.
I serve on the North Yorkshire Family Health Service Authority. We are worried that the proposed changes will cause loss of coterminosity with the county council social services department. The care in the community

1113
reorganisation makes it vital that there are good working relationships between health and social services departments.
Coterminosity significantly aids the ability of health and social services authorities jointly to plan the purchase and provision of services. A county structure in North Yorkshire enables the development of strategic planning. Management costs of both health and local authorities would increase if smaller authorities were created since additional effort would be required in joint planning and commissioning with several authorities at the same time. Boundary changes could present difficulties for general practitioners, who could potentially have patients who are resident in different authority areas with different standards and procedures.
The proposals do not seem to bode well for the effective delivery of social services in North Yorkshire. The disruption and instability alone will destroy so much that has been achieved in recent years.
The county council supports the retention of the current two-tier arrangements. They ensure that services which are best administered and planned on a strategic basis remain at county level. What is best done locally can be promoted through the current network of district councils. Those should be clearly defined and can be improved.
It seems to me that we need a period of stability rather than continual uncertainty. The major changes in community care services, and maintaining highly specialised areas of work such as child protection, can be more difficult to deliver in a county such as North Yorkshire. With the added problem of increased rural crime, we need the county to pull together, not to fragment.
There is a growing tide of concern among many national bodies about the recommendations of the commission. I have also had representations from Cleveland county. Cleveland feels that if the area is split into four there will be a deterioration in services, especially for minority groups such as adults with disabilities and children with learning difficulties.
I have heard that the cost of implementing the proposed changes could be in excess of £1 billion nationally. In Cleveland increased administration costs could he as much as $10 million a year. Is it not better to spend people's taxes on much needed services?
5.23 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, if nothing else comes out of this debate, I hope that it will at least be an endorsement of the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, that it is time to end the war of attrition between central and local government. That is a tremendously important message. It underlies so much of what has already been said in this debate.
I am deeply sceptical of all local government reform. It is rarely justified on merit. It seldom improves anything and is usually a disaster. It is always claimed that it will bring local government close to the people; that it will deliver better services; or that it will be more cost-effective; or all of those things. It turns out to be disruptive, expensive and pointless. Everything that we
1114
have learnt today about the present review confirms that this will simply be one in a most unfortunate, unhappy sequence of attempts to reform local government.
There was a warning which I think we all noticed when the review was set up and when the 39 pages of policy guidance were published in July 1992. Perhaps may remind the House —although I believe that noble Lords will be familiar with it—of the statement that the Government do not wish to impose a blueprint for reform but that they expect to see a substantial increase in the number of unitary authorities. That is quite extraordinary. It is a definition of freedom, provided that you produce the right result. I was surprised at the time, and I am surprised now, that Sir John Banham and his team were prepared to accept such extraordinary terms of reference.
There is no ideal or perfect way of organising local government. There has to be a fine balance of advantage either way. As has already been said in the course of this debate, the optimum solution depends entirely upon local circumstances. That optimum solution includes whether there should be one tier or two and which tiers they should be.
As has been acknowledged, there is a case for ad hoc change in specific cases from time to time to take account of demographic changes or the provision of services. But that is quite different from a nationwide root-and-branch review of the kind that we are having now. It is one that is based to an extraordinary extent on the outcome of opinion polls conducted by the MORI organisation.
The shortcomings of this review, which have already been referred to in specific cases, are of particular interest to me in the case of the county of Cleveland. In 1968 the borough of Teesside was created by local consent and agreement out of six existing boroughs and districts. That was a proper way to conduct reform. In six years the borough has established itself. But in 1974 it was threatened with total dismemberment unless Hartlepool joined it in a shotgun marriage. The matter was only settled when it changed its name to Cleveland—which I must say was previously associated in my mind not with the North of England but entirely with Ohio. I am sure that no noble Lords in this House have any doubt, but the public often wonder where the county of Cleveland is. That was in 1974.
Now in 1994 we have a new proposal. The Cleveland of 1974 is also threatened with total dismemberment. In its final report the commission does not explain the reasons in any way that would be recognised as having intellectual substance. There is no instinctive understanding of the nature of the place. As I said, there are no intellectual arguments underpinning the extraordinary conclusion reached in the report. Twelve out of the 17 principal pages of the report are concerned in whole or in part with the outcome of opinion polls. This is entirely a matter of change for the sake of change, or change because the Secretary of State wants it.
I hope that the Secretary of State will think long and hard before accepting what has been offered in respect of Cleveland, just as I know noble Lords want him to think long and hard about what is proposed in respect of

1115
other parts of the kingdom. I would prefer the retention of the present structure and to have no change. Alternatively, I would prefer a single Cleveland county. If neither of those options is satisfactory or acceptable to the Secretary of State, I hope that the compromise that is proposed by the county council will be accepted. Effectively it would mean a return to the 1968 boundaries which were established by consent. That solution would make good sense. It would be acceptable to Teesside and to Hartlepool; it would be cost-effective in the delivery of services; and it would involve a genuine identity that is relevant to the people.
5.29 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I have been heartened by the debate so far. There has been a great deal of consensus. Perhaps I may summarise the position so far. We agree that there is no ideal format for local government. If one tries to attempt to find a solution which will embrace all areas of the country, one will fail. Secondly, we all agree that the public at large is interested above all in value for money and quality of service. Clearly, people are also concerned about local accountability and would like to see local government working in a partnership with central government. They do not want to see a constant war of attrition between central and local government. To the extent that so far the discussion has generated a sterile debate between the tiers of local government, that is seen to be extremely unfortunate. We agree about that also.
But it is not entirely fair to say that the debate has been wholly sterile. It is most important to recognise that on those who suggest that a root and branch change is required lies the onus to demonstrate firmly and clearly where the advantage lies. It will be for the commission to weigh those arguments very carefully and err on the side of caution. Speaker after speaker has quite rightly expressed a degree of caution about whether one can predict accurately the consequences of major reform.
The local government review itself said that a consensus of view must be tested against a local champion. There must be a strong body of support for any new proposal. If there is a consensus then clearly there will be that support. Where there is not a consensus, there must be a local champion who is seen to be viable and effective. The cost is critical. One hears so much about the transitional costs. The long-term costs have to be weighed up and, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, reminded the House, the cost of the diminution of services which has to be costed. Above all, will those changes stand the test of time? If those questions cannot be answered, one should not change it.
The dilemma is that if one is looking for a local champion, the more discrete and smaller the authority, the greater the sense of identification. One only has to move one district council away to get a completely different reaction. In my area of East Hampshire there is a strong wish to have a unitary authority along the boundaries of the existing East Hampshire District Council. As soon as one says, as would clearly be the case to my own mind and indeed to the Association of
1116
District Authorities, "That is not a runner. That does not work. You have to move to Winchester or to the Test Valley", people say, "That is not what we meant by local accountability". I am quite certain that in those situations the champions of unitary authorities will say, "Come back two tiers. We did not mean this".
Noble Lords may look, as I have done, with some care at the proposals which come out of the 13 district councils in Hampshire. They do not all conform, at least in their first preference, with the proposals of the Association of District Councils for Hampshire, which in any case fudges the issue by not being able to agree whether it wants five or eight bodies. So they say, "We will leave it to the local government to decide". For example, the Test Valley proposal is not compatible with eight districts. So there is a very great deal of incompatibility. Quite frankly, I feel that it is irresponsible of umbrella associations to put forward proposals which are incompatible and yet to try to claim that there is widespread support.
Anyone who has listened to this debate from the beginning will recognise without a shadow of doubt that, as one goes into the rural areas, one is bound to conclude that the case for two tiers stacks up more and more heavily. Because of the strategic issues and the need to take in a wider area than can conveniently be put into a unitary authority, where there are the specialist and personal services for which one can call on the council offices, that may well work. I have no hesitation in saying that two tiers is an option which must exist for the local government review in many and probably most cases. For the Secretary of State to try to determine the outcome of the review by suggesting that there should be a presumption for unitary authorities was quite irresponsible.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, members of the Armed Forces, and least of all this airman who is more familiar with the unbounded regions of the air than county council boundary affairs, do not want to be thought to be attempting—or too strongly attempting—to influence the geographic shape or the electoral make-up of local government. As individuals, service men and women share with the rest of the community the right to vote, but as individuals and not as formations or squadrons of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. That said, the services have a major presence in several county areas.
The services rely on good local government around them and have many links with their council neighbours. Those links have played a very important part in the life and traditions of all three services, whether it is in the raising and nurturing of a battalion which proudly carries the name of the shire from which many of its personnel are recruited; or the centuries of close bonds with naval establishments and with Her Majesty's ships which crossed the oceans bearing a name long associated with a locality; or the highly valued council support enjoyed by Royal Air Force stations and squadrons from end to end of England (and of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too.)

1117
I am sorry to have to inform the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, whom I must congratulate on his fine maiden speech—another noble bowman of Kent—that defence cuts seem to have been unable to provide us with an HMS "Kent". We have a very fine Type-23, HMS "Norfolk", the county where I now have my home. I know of no plans for an HMS "Mashamshire".
All those connections, so ably and enthusiastically maintained by local people, mean much to the services. They give our professional (career) Armed Forces a chance to meet and mingle with many who are unfamiliar with service life but who take an active role in local government:. The servicemen's lives are enriched by those contacts, as I know from my own experience. The friendships formed also give local councillors a unique chance to understand the traditions, values and, above all, professional competence of the soldiers, sailors and airmen whom they meet.
In war and crisis there is no shortage of media coverage of the Armed Forces. The public is well informed. But when—as we all hope—we are not at war and the only publicity may be adverse, the value of the civil-military contacts to set such issues in their true context will also help understanding.
The collapse of the Cold War has allowed civil defence to wither away. But there will still be local difficulties, disasters and tragedies which will require the closest co-operation between military and civil authorities. Help to the civil power, or assistance to the local communities in the wake of a natural disaster will continue, as will the need for planning and exercising to deal with them between the military and the civilian authorities.
The military has not been untouched by reorganisation and the trend for military districts has been toward the larger geographic solution. They must be seen to dovetail with local arrangements. Indeed, the Local Government Act of 1992 speaks of the commissioners having regard to the need:
"to reflect the identities and interests of local communities".
The Armed Forces are a part of that local community.
The previous Secretary of State for the Environment was quoted as saying that efficiency, coupled with local sentiment and tradition, are the criteria for reform. Many in the Armed Forces will want to see those long-standing traditional values and loyalties sustained and nurtured. They will want the new local government structures to continue to give strong support to the effectiveness of their operations. I hope that the commissioners will be encouraged to take full account of all that in their work and that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that they do.
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I should like to insert into this debate a plea from my own county of Somerset which joins pleas from other counties that have already been made today in your Lordships' House; doubtless there will be others after I sit down.
A lot of people were greatly encouraged by the recent High Court decision reaffirming that the status quo is an
1118
option. I start my plea with that comment because, following on from that, the Association of County Councils seems equally encouraged by the resolution overwhelmingly adopted at the recent Liberal Democrat conference in Cardiff. At the risk of detaining the House, I shall read the entire Motion. It says:
"Conference notes the successful result of the judicial review of the guidance issued by the Secretary of State to the Local Government Commission and observes that the Government is moving further and further away from the principle that reform should only take place where such reform is in line with the clearly expressed wish of the local community, and that overall it is undermining local democracy, increasing the democratic deficit and causing chaos and confusion in many areas.
"Conference therefore calls on the Government to accept and to proceed with only those reforms that have demonstrable and overwhelming support in the communities concerned".
The Local Government Commission made its recommendation for Somerset on 20th December 1993, that the present Somerset County Council and district councils should be replaced by three unitary councils. The proposal for Somerset is stoutly resisted by Somerset County Council as it singularly fails to meet any of the criteria set out by the review because, first, it is not wanted by the general public; secondly, the new areas do not have any greater community identity—in fact the reverse; thirdly, it does not save money—again the reverse; and, fourthly, it does not improve service effectiveness.
With regard to the first point, the commission recruited MORI polls to conduct a survey to discover the level of public support that existed in Somerset for the commission's own recommendations. The results were conclusive and convincing; only one in five people in Somerset want it; four in five emphatically do not. In relation to the second point, there is no clear community identity in the proposals for the new areas. In fact, it would appear crystal clear that the present Somerset County Council enjoys a far stronger identity than four of the five present district councils. In addition, it is right to point out that the new areas will be made up by combinations of bits and pieces of those districts.
In relation to point three, it will cost up to £65 extra per Somerset household, or a total of between £7 million and £12 million, to set up. The commission's estimate of the running costs range from an estimated saving of £3 million per year to an extra cost of £2 million per year. I wonder how long it would take to recover those set-up costs. Indeed, would they ever be recovered? The people of the county of Somerset doubt it, as do I.
In relation to the fourth point, instead of one county authority, county services will have to be broken into three. There will be three education departments; three social services departments; and three library departments, to name but a few. No wonder the scheme is unwanted and unwelcome; it is totally daft. However, there are many things at present county level that simply cannot be split into three and those will have to be organised on a shared basis. In other words, the county will simply be reinvented to accommodate the police, the fire service and waste disposal—again to name but a few. Those services will be controlled by a committee of representatives from the three unitary authorities with no direct accountability to the electorate. Somerset County Council is quite right to point out that in Europe

1119
county government is looked on as the regional tier, the one below national government. Removing it and making the regional authorities smaller will greatly reduce their influence at European and national level to the detriment of local people.
There are many other areas of Somerset County Council responsibility which will either cease to exist altogether or would, at best, be seriously reduced if the proposals contained in the commission's recommendations are steam-rollered through and over Somerset County Council despite massive local opposition.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it was the assertion of local rights over the central executive that gave rise to Magna Carta—a key stage in the evolution that created our present Parliament. Times change, but in one sense that relationship lies in a different way behind the work of the Local Government Commission. The results of its work will not simply shuffle the pack of administrative functions between different groups of squabbling councillors; nor will they simply redraw the administrative boundaries. Inevitably change will affect the relationship between central and local government with consequences that are likely to be both profound and unpredictable.
The commission is required to have regard to two key and conflicting criteria. First, it must pay attention to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. Secondly, any change should secure effective and convenient local government. It is not required to consider the two main causes of tension between central and local government. They concern what are the proper local functions of local government and, arising from that, how the costs of those functions are to be met. In relation to those points, the work of the commission is a distraction and I am afraid that tension will continue.
What is a community? In that context we do not need to be concerned about being European or being British. We are concerned with locality. For the commission it may be possible to obtain a helpful answer in the major cities. However, in most shires, if one asks, the answer is, "I live in such-and-such a town or village in such-and-such a county". Under the terms of the commission's writ, the town or village is too small to secure effective and convenient local government. The county appears to be too big for the Government—if I can put it that way. A solution to the dilemma that results from the multiplication of the first or the division of the second has scant regard for people's sense of place and little regard for the need to secure effective local government.
We know that in future the police service will be likely to require joint arrangements for its supervision. We have devoted considerable time recently to that subject. We know that joint arrangements will be statutorily required for the fire service so that its existing structure will be maintained. Much was made of the problems faced by services such as the archive service and other specialist services like the central libraries. We know that strategic planning, particularly in the
1120
highways and transportation field, cannot be undertaken except on a wide scale. Will larger numbers of smaller authorities be able to resource the specialist services in education—the greatest of local government services in spending terms—for such things as in-service teacher training or advice to schools following an Ofsted report? Not without joint arrangements. Where is accountability if so many services—my list is not comprehensive—require an intervening structure between the local authority and the service for which it is nominally supposed to be responsible?
Finally, there is no system of local government working anywhere in this country today where all local government functions are the direct and exclusive responsibility of a single local authority. The unitary principle does not exist in practice even in the most metropolitan of areas. Sir John Banham and his commissioners deserve our sympathy. Their own opinion polling, while recognising the appeal of the unitary principle, also reveals that there is no clear majority in favour of specific changes. On the contrary; in most areas, the status quo receives most support. The commission has an impossible task. Significantly, a letter in The Times from Sir John Banham on this subject was followed by one from the leader of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The implication of that letter was clear. The London boroughs have realised, too late, that London as a whole has lost out through not having a strategic authority. Do we really want to inflict that on the rest of the country? I fear that we will be visiting this subject again and again in the future.
5.50 p.m.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Cornwallis for introducing this Motion and, secondly, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kingsdown on his maiden speech. I confess also that, like him, I am a Man of Kent.
I have only two points to make, which I am sure will be a relief to your Lordships. The first concerns youth organisations, for which I have worked voluntarily for 30 years and which without the county youth service would not really work. The second concerns archaeology. For the past 50 years I have been working in Kent. Again, although we have two units in Kent, a county council archaeological unit and a rescue service, both of which are doing very well, there is no doubt that eventually, in all counties, archaeology should rest with the county.
I said that I would be brief. I have taken up not even a minute. But am I the only one who wonders what the hell we are doing here when we all think exactly alike and we want only one word from the Government—stet?
5.51 p.m.
Lord Digby: My Lords, I am afraid that I shall repeat my message of three years ago when your Lordships last debated this issue. My message was to reorganise the finances, which has been done through the council tax, but to leave the structure alone. Judging from this debate I am no longer alone in this view. Can we not learn the

1121
lesson of 1974, when the cost of local government shot up—not only the transitional costs but also the basic long-term costs?
Governments have always underestimated the cost of change. They are doing so again. That cost is already beginning to show in the loss of trust and confidence between councils. People in Whitehall and those who read the press may think that councils are always in disagreement, but that is not the case. The co-operation and trust between, say, counties and districts has been very real and constructive. However, that is endangered now as each is having to fight its own corner, and constructive co-operation is a thing of the past. I have been assured of this deterioration from many sides.
Why then are the Government hell bent on reorganisation? I suggest that it is because of pressure from the old county boroughs which lost many of their powers in 1974. I certainly sympathise with them and think it was a mistake. But hard cases make bad laws. Counties and boroughs have learnt to live together and, until the present uncertainty arrived, co-operation was producing a good service.
Having made it quite clear that I believe the status quo should be maintained, I should like to turn to the position of the counties. Should county councils be abolished in favour of smaller unitary authorities? One of the complaints of the old county boroughs was that they had no control of their approaches. Counties can and do provide the strategic highway planning. In the sphere of social services and education the county provides several specialist services and staff. For instance, my county council has a child protection team which does a vital and difficult job. Not only would three unitary authorities be unable to fund a team each, but such a team works in close liaison with the police specialist child protection teams, which are undoubtedly organised on a county-wide basis. The same applies to liaison with health authorities, the probation service and the voluntary sectors. Practically all organise on a county basis.
It is also important that the geographical counties should be maintained, even if they have no county councils. Most voluntary organisations, the police, magistrates' courts and many other bodies are organised on a county basis. It is vital that that should be maintained even though their funding would be obtained from several unitary authorities. The confusion that would result from tinkering with county boundaries would be catastrophic. Perhaps I may give an example. We have taken five years to organise Dorset magistrates' courts on a county-wide basis. The system is now running smoothly. Should Bournemouth become a unitary authority and be returned to geographical Hampshire, my committee would be quite unviable and five years' work would be wasted. Counties are not just entities that can be discarded without cost.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I cannot claim to be a Man of Kent although I lived there for a few years. I have lived most of my life in Reading. Noble Lords will know that Reading is in Berkshire. We have a very interesting situation in Berkshire. There has
1122
been a joint submission to the Local Government Commission by Berkshire County Council and six of the seven principal councils for the abolition of Berkshire County Council and the establishment instead of unitary authorities based on major towns and centres of population. Here we have a county council that is prepared, because it believes in unitary authorities, to abolish itself.
What are its reasons? First, unitary authorities are the best way to deliver services in Berkshire; secondly, the two-tier system has caused confusion since 1974; thirdly, there is support from the community; and, fourthly, unitary authorities will be closer and more accountable to the communities they serve. I support this initiative because it accords with my own view and indeed with my own experience, which is based on having served as a member of the Reading County Borough Council for 18 years and as leader of the council for some years. I know the benefits of administering an all-purpose authority; the benefit of administering all local services; of administering housing as well as children's matters—the two are tied together. People knew where to go. They knew who to go to see. What is more, when things went wrong, they knew who to blame. He was their neighbour. They would see him in the street. They would go up to him and say, "What's this all about? Let's have some action on this matter". Councillors are known to the people in the area.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lady David is not present because she might be interested to know that in Reading we ran a first-class education system for 125,000 people. We pioneered the teaching of the deaf. People moved to Reading in order that their deaf children could be taught. That did not happen in the county. The idea that one needs 500,000 people to administer an education service is quite wrong and indeed it led to the disaster of the 1974 reorganisation.
We have noticed a big change from county borough status to the two-tier system. It has become extremely difficult, first, to get things done and, what is more important, to get to the people who make the decisions even, if like me and Members of Parliament in Berkshire, one knows one's way around. That is altogether unfortunate.
I was also the Member of Parliament for Swindon which was not a county borough. At first it was an excepted district but after 1974, it was an unexcepted district. We had the situation of this large area known as Thamesdown providing 30 per cent. of the population and 40 per cent. of the finance, but having to follow policies which it believed to be inimical to the best interests of the people it served within the district. It was also subject to delays and frustration in service and planning. I hope that the Local Government Commission will, as it surely must, give Thamesdown unitary authority the status which it deserves and which it should have had years ago.
Finally, the successful future of local government depends on going back to the old partnership which used to exist between the local authorities and government before so many services were centralised under what I call "undemocratic centralism". There is a need to

1123
return powers to the local authorities. Above all, there is a need to give to authorities, whatever they may be, the opportunity to finance themselves properly. That means giving them new sources of finance, including the return of the business rates and allowing them to spend their own capital receipts without let or hindrance from central government.
6.1 p.m.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, for introducing the debate in such an excellent manner. I make no apologies whatsoever for concentrating my remarks on North Yorkshire. It is very difficult to read the commission's recommendations on the reviews and in any way to read the letter of Sir John Banham to The Times—which was largely quoted by my noble friend Lord Blake—and think that it could be the same person speaking. In his letter to The Times he completely contradicts all the recommendations which he makes as far as North Yorkshire is concerned.
North Yorkshire County Council is efficient and popular. Perhaps I should declare an interest because I was on it for a number of years, but that has nothing to do with either its efficiency or its popularity. Sadly, it is now a hung council three ways, so the leadership from the members has not been forthcoming in quite the way one would have hoped they would have reacted to the recommendations.
As far as North Yorkshire is concerned, the recommendations are highly artificial and contrived. There is some travesty in trying to reintroduce the Ridings for tiny parts of North Yorkshire—calling them the Ridings, I suppose, to try to gain popular support for what are otherwise pretty unworkable suggestions.
One good thing which comes out of the report is that for the first time in 20 years in your Lordships' House I have been able to agree wholeheartedly with my noble kinswoman Lady Masham. I do not believe that that has ever happened before. I support what she said about Masham, which is a small place. Before the reorganisation in 1974 it was in fact the smallest and one of the cheapest rural district councils in the country. For its entire history it has been either in North Riding or North Yorkshire. We look on the West Riding rather as Lancastrians look on Yorkshiremen or Yorkshiremen look on Lancastrians. The idea of putting Masham in the West Riding defies belief.
The most worrying thing which comes out of the recommendations is Recommendation 14 which states:
"There should he joint authorities established for each of the police and fire services, covering (1) the new unitary authorities of East Riding, West Riding (Dales and Vale), North Riding and the Cities and Counties of York and Kingston upon Hull".
What an amazing police force! To take the great port and city of Kingston upon Hull and put it in with vast rural areas which are some 150 miles away is quite extraordinary. But this recommendation was made without the commission consulting the chief constables of North Yorkshire or Humberside, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary or the two police authorities. Surely any changes to a complex
1124
organisation such as policing should be made on the basis of operational requirements, and that the commission simply has not done. The police authorities have enough uncertainty under the current Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill which has had a somewhat chequered career here. Surely there is no need for more uncertainty caused by this report.
The fire services also come under this. For instance, the training of firefighters in North Yorkshire is currently under review. It must be unwise at least to contemplate major capital expenditure if such restructuring is in prospect.
I hope and suspect that the Secretary of State will reject the recommendations of the boundary commission as far as North Yorkshire is concerned. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Arran is not in his place. But I am sure that the noble Viscount will make notes. I do not expect him to give an answer today because this matter is not in his department, although he speaks for the Government. I sincerely hope that he will discuss with his noble friends and right honourable colleagues this very strange proposal. If it could be dismissed as soon as possible in order to remove the uncertainty hanging over the police and fire services in our part of Yorkshire, that would be extremely helpful.
6.6 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I have never been a parish, district or county councillor and I have always sat on the Cross Benches, so, as they say, I have no axe to grind. All the same I am very concerned for the future of local government in the beautiful county of North Yorkshire where I have lived for many years.
The work of the Local Government Commission which we are discussing today is a difficult and emotive subject. No matter what the commission recommends or suggests should be done, it will be wrong in the eyes of some. At the same time, the commission seems to have been quite curiously blinkered.
At public meetings held in North Yorkshire the commission made it clear that the views of the district council and county council members and officials carried little weight and were seen as tainted by self-interest. Members of parish councils also felt themselves lumped together with the rest and their views regarded as of lesser importance than those of the general public. It would seem to be particularly unfair to parish councillors, who receive neither pay nor allowances, with the exception of the parish clerk, who receives a small honorarium.
I realise that the parish councils are not being altered, but all the same they are an important link between local communities and local authorities. In our village parish councillors attend meetings assiduously and give an account of their proceedings every month in the village news. They are democratically elected. Their interest in the structure of local government is only so far as it is likely to affect the quality of services in their area. They know what the people are thinking, they differ from the general public only in having a much better insight into the processes of local government. Far from being lightly dismissed, their views seem to me to be particularly important.

1125
The Yorkshire local councils associations report that, with the exception of two parishes, they have heard no one say anything other than that they wish to see the present system retained. Everything that is being said at present to the associations indicates that the proposals are out of touch with public opinion, for the concern of ordinary people, including councillors, is with services and costs and whatever works best.
At no time did the commission show that a unitary system would be better, more cost-effective or provide better services. This was also the view of the county treasurers. A similar view is held by the Audit Commission, which stated:
"The actual transitional costs may well exceed the predictions of the Local Government Commission's model".
I attach great weight to the Audit Commission's opinions as well as to those of the county treasurers.
The Ridings issue seems to me to be a smokescreen, just using the names for the proposed authorities. They are not truly similar to the old Ridings geographically. The idea that they should be separate for ceremonial purposes no doubt appeals to traditionalists but cannot have any reality in modern-day local government.
As for the beautiful and historic City of York, I fully understand that a city that probably had its first charter in the reign of Henry I in the 12th century would wish to regain the same identity that it enjoyed before the 1972 Act.
I can find little comfort in the commission's publications on specific and voluntary services. Education for people with special needs, family support facilities and community care in general are services which need a large population base to justify them financially. The county council has a wide range of facilities, but several new authorities would necessitate splitting them up. None, it is thought, could have a full set of services, nor enough clients in their area for those they had. Consequently, they would have to agree to make each other's services available to each other's clients. Joint agreements, assessment and transfer would be cumbersome, bureaucracy would inflate costs and could even put some services at risk because there would be no overall plan.
The North Yorkshire Education Service has a very good reputation. It spends a good deal above its standing spending assessment in order to support the large number of small schools in what is the largest rural county in England. I note that the reason for keeping the status quo in Lincolnshire was that, like North Yorkshire, it has a pattern of small market towns and villages and is very rural. Some people are puzzled why, if Lincolnshire is to have a two-tier system on such grounds, the commission should find that the same is not suitable for North Yorkshire. The county council has an excellent relationship with its voluntary sector and the health authority in its planning for community care which should not be upset.
In 66AD Petronius wrote:
"We need to meet any new situation by re-organising, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation".
In view of the fact that the final recommendations on the future of local government in North Yorkshire, Hurnberside and Lincolnshire were published in January
1126
of this year and the new policy guidelines in February of this year, would the Minister ask his right honourable. friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to refer the recommendations back to the commission for reconsideration?
6.11 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, the commission already seems to be limping rather badly. Its timescale was drastically reduced last year, while this year one of its central guidelines was knocked away by the recent High Court decision. Listening to noble Lords' speeches, it seems that it is your Lordships' wish that this lame duck should be put out of its misery as quickly as possible.
The central issue is whether the commission's recommendations will lead to improved quality in local government, improved accountability, less bureaucracy and lower costs. The unitary option, which is much touted in the report, is, after all, a bit of a myth. As the commission acknowledges, there would have to be joint arrangements for fire, police, planning, waste and various other services, not to mention for the special services. I am thinking of, for example, county libraries. I do not know how a county library could be chopped up into three, four or more different unitary authorities and which would get which books. That could cause quite a lot of dispute. Any so-called "unitary solution" would have to be two-tier. It could not be otherwise.
The unitary structure would produce less democracy because, as my noble friend Lord Aldington pointed out, there would be fewer councillors serving many more constituents. I wonder how many of the "broadly representative individuals" for whom the commission calls would be available and willing to serve given that they would be required to devote very much more time to serving a greater number of constituents. Given those demands on their time, I think that it is unlikely that enough people would come forward.
I believe that most people identify with their village or neighbourhood and then, as has been pointed out particularly by the Men of Kent, with their county. I yield not to the Men of Kent; I am a man from Warwickshire. I am very proud of coming from Warwickshire. Surely that two-tier feeling should be reflected in the structure of local government.
The commission's report emphasises that there should be change only with general agreement and when local communities are convinced of the need for change. It then notes rather plaintively that so far there seems inadequate support for the unitary solution. Its own poll shows that most people are in favour of retaining the status quo. Indeed, paragraph 119 states:
"There are advantages to the … two-tier structure. If it is to be replaced, it must be with something better".
There is nothing to show that the unitary option will offer anything better, while, as many noble Lords have pointed out, the costs of change will be considerable. In the case of Warwickshire, they are estimated at over £10 million. Why should local people and businesses be saddled with the costs of some sort of reorganisation, the benefits of which are at best questionable, and which the polls show that people do not want?

1127
The way forward must be improvement in the existing system. Local government should address this as a priority and make people aware of who is responsible for doing what. That is always one of the complaints about local government. Local government should also improve access and accountability and sort out the maddening and confusing overlaps in responsibility. That can be done by district and county councils between them. They are matters of organisation and of having the will to carry out that organisation. We do not need a wholesale restructuring process.
I believe that the commission will have played its part if it spurs on the county councils and district councils to concentrate their minds on what they should be providing for their electorates. As many noble Lords have said, the existing local government arrangements are not perfect, but the will to improve is there—certainly in Warwickshire. We should not throw out the baby with the bathwater and change to expensive, uncertain and unwanted alternatives.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I have lived in the county of Cheshire for nearly 50 years and, in my opinion, it would be deplorable if Cheshire County Council were to go out of existence.
In my industrial experience, administrative problems are not generally solved by tampering with organisation. It is usually much better to build on what is already there and to seek to improve it. If being radical means seeking solutions to problems by for ever tearing things up by the roots and starting again, I have long since concluded that I cannot be a radical. In any case, I am not convinced that there is a problem to be solved in Cheshire. Local government is working well there and is capable of further improvement under the existing structure.
There are conflicting estimates of the cost of introducing unitary authorities in the county. For my part, I am satisfied that the transitional costs would be considerable and that even long-term savings are, to say the least, highly doubtful and may be non-existent. What cannot be doubted is that change would bring disruption to services which, in my view, cannot be justified. Indeed, preoccupation with the effects of the possible change must already be impeding the efficient delivery of certain services.
It is widely acknowledged that for many years Cheshire has had one of the best education authorities in the land. The authority has certainly been helpful to me on a number of occasions. As a member of your Lordships' Select Committee which considered unemployment years ago under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Seear, I recall that it was to the director of education for Cheshire that we looked for advice when framing some of our recommendations concerning long-term supply-side remedies. With the best will in the world, I do not think that the unitary authorities which might replace Cheshire County Council would be able to administer the function of education nearly so
1128
effectively, particularly if in doing so they had to rely on confusing and undemocratic arrangements such as joint boards or committees.
Much the same considerations apply, in my view, to the need for strategic planning in a number of areas, particularly with regard to the provision of social services. The Government have given social service authorities substantial additional responsibilities for community care just at the time when those authorities are threatened with reorganisation. Given all the other ways in which the Government have recently brought trouble on themselves, I find it almost incredible that they have not clearly established the role and the function of local government before getting enmeshed in this structural review.
I am one of the great majority of Cheshire people who have said that they are proud to live in the county. I do not believe that a sufficiently strong case has been made out to justify changing the existing structure of local government in Cheshire. I urge the commission, and the Secretary of State when the time for decision comes, to leave well alone.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, as has often been said during the debate, has earned the gratitude of your Lordships. If he wishes to add to that gratitude, he might send special copies of the report of the debate to each member of the commission, and might also go so far as to arrange special readings for them.
It was some time ago that the Government conceived as a suitable target the evolution of a system of local government which was both effective and convenient. I have long thought how nice it would be if we had a central government who set those two adjectives up as targets to aim at for themselves and for their own organisation and left other people alone for a bit. The Government set up a commission. They gave it a fairly powerful nudge in the direction of unitary authorities, which they wanted the commission to take. Later that nudge, which obviously had not been detected sufficiently clearly by members of the commission, acquired something of a greater imperative and they were told firmly that it was the Government's earnest hope that two-tier authorities would be the exception in the future.
Well, as is well known, the courts intervened, called the Government to order and said that they had done wrong. But the fact remains that the Government have spoken, the commission has heard and, to a certain extent, the commission has obeyed. So it is difficult for the slate to be wiped effectively clean. I realise that the Government must be nervous of all the rather silly accusations which governments face when they make sensible changes of mind: that they have done a U-turn; they have been inconsistent. They might also be accused of being ungrateful to the commission for having so far conducted itself in an obedient fashion. Those accusations will be as nothing compared with the other much more dire charge—that they had destroyed things of immense and lasting value.

1129
I have a good deal of respect for Sir John Banham. I supported his view entirely when he suggested that for Cornwall there should be a single unitary authority (the county council) because otherwise a county such as Cornwall would be unable to punch its weight. I agree with that. I also agreed with Sir John Banham, incidentally, when he called, as he did recently, for the abolition of the Treasury. What a noble work that would be But I felt it right to part company with him when he allowed members of his commission to recommend the dismemberment of Somerset, which is very much on all fours with Cornwall.
It seems to have been a bit of a lottery as to who one received from the commission. In the case of Somerset there was a senior and respected civil servant who lives in suburban Surrey and a lady councillor from Lambeth who has the reputation—deserved or not, I do not know —of being an ardent supporter of small unitary authorities. Somerset will now be saddled with three of them. The sad thing is that the three bits of what was Somerset will have no meaning for anyone, save for a few people who look for a career in local government or the Government themselves who might find small authorities easier to handle.
The report claims, quite wrongly, that there is evidence that the people of Somerset have shown a decisive preference for what has been recommended. That is rubbish. The evidence is that at least 80 per cent. of the people in Somerset wish to retain a county tier. There is no time to expand on this, but what on earth will happen to the quality of services offered in respect of education, social services, libraries and so forth? If the Government feel that they are doing a wise thing in allowing that recommendation to go through and sweeping away yet one more symbol that people find understandable and attractive and one to which they can owe their loyalty, they will be making a cardinal error which they will not be allowed to forget for many years.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, like many other speakers, I shall concentrate on two issues. The first is the purpose of the commission; and, the second, its costs. First, the purpose: we are bound to ask why the Government embarked on this rather curious exercise when there was no demand for it and no need for it, and when they had no idea of what the costs and benefits (if any) of an alternative structure would be.
The existing two-tier system in the shire counties was established just two days short of 20 years ago by the then Conservative Government—and not without controversy, as some of us remember. It has proved, on the whole, to be workable and adaptable, give or take two or three ministerial whimsicalities such as the creation of Avon and Humberside, which were redundant, and which could easily be removed. Cleveland, on the other hand has proved to be successful in giving identity and clout to Teesside. I know that from personal experience. Its projected dismemberment would be cruelly retrograde as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and others have implied.
It is pointless to reorganise the structure without allowing for some redistribution of functions. Yet the
1130
commission is not allowed to consider that, except for strategic planning. A sensible course which noble Lords have advocated would have been to retain the two-tier system but to allow county functions to he transferred to those districts that were competent to take them on, and perhaps to allow unitary status (that is, county boroughs) for the largest cities, as some noble Lords have suggested.
The commission has been given ambiguous terms of reference, and no clear or consistent guidance. Professor John Delafons has applied Walter Bagehot's definition of the Lords and Commons to the least worst outcome of the reorganisation. The counties would be the dignified part of local government and the districts the efficient part. One doubts though whether the counties would be satisfied with the former and whether some districts would be capable of the latter. In practice, Professor Delafons concludes that the result could be an arbitrary patchwork of counties in some areas and unitary authorities in others, dictated by nothing more than ephemeral local alliances between self-interested districts or by self-induced failure to agree on any solution.
I turn to costs on three levels. First, relating to the commission; how much has the operation cost to date? What is likely to be the final cost? How much are its operations costing local authorities? Judging by the amount of glossy material that has reached me, the answer is, "an awful lot". Secondly, what will be the implementation costs to local government? We have all heard figures of upwards of £1 billion. Thirdly, what will be the ongoing cost and all benefits? After all, it is an open secret that at least twice the Government have considered abandoning the review. Why not stop it now?
Failure to act decisively will result in two more years of conflict, controversy and confusion. That is debilitating for local government. Furthermore. healthy and effective government is a necessary part of our democracy and is not to be meddled with capriciously. It is an essential counter balance to a wilful and over powerful central government. I do not necessarily agree, but the late Lord Acton nearly said:
"Power tends to corrupt, and indefinite power corrupts indefinitely".
6.31 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, unitary authorities may well be very appropriate, in particular in urban areas. However, as a former chairman of English Heritage and as former president of the Museums Association, I am concerned with the effect that the breaking up of traditional rural counties will have on heritage conservation, not forgetting libraries, museums, archives and support for the arts. I hope that there will not be too many groans around the House, especially in view of the fact that my noble friend Lord Ashburton will speak next, but I intend to refer to Hampshire. I take my own county as an example because what pertains to Hampshire can be repeated throughout England.
Hampshire is a very large county with extensive prehistoric remains. There are more than 600 scheduled

1131
monuments, numerous defence works on the coast, 10,000 listed buildings and numerous conservation areas from thatched cottages to historic defence complexes. One must not forget the historic cities of Winchester, Southampton and Portsmouth. I agree that the latter two have a good case for unitary authorities. With its Historic Buildings Bureau, the Hampshire Buildings Preservation Trust and the Hampshire Gardens Trust, Hampshire County Council shows such high standards of excellence in conservation and archaeology that it is probably fair to say that it is pre-eminent in this respect among existing county councils. It enjoys the commitment of a highly qualified and experienced professional staff, matched with appropriate funding and policies. They all work closely with English Heritage in all respects.
With the Countryside Commission and English Nature, it promotes an integrated strategy for countryside conservation and management. It maintains the Country Sites and Monuments Record and, unusually, a Marine Sites and Monuments Record. Recently, a splendid new archive centre was opened in Winchester, perhaps in the nick of time. In no way would a unitary authority have conceived or built that building.
The county has a number of significant heritage properties from Danebury Hill Forts and Basing House to the Solent Forts. It gives great support to tourism and to the arts and theatres on a county basis. As regards the future, it is essential that the size and structure of any new authority is adequate to provide for all those services to continue.
Fundamentally, I feel that each local authority must have formalised and effective access to advice on conservation planning, tourism and the arts from suitably qualified and experienced staff who should, where possible, be brigaded in multi-disciplinary teams which can cover a range of specialist topics.
As the review is progressing, there are some areas of special concern; in particular, the danger that the abolition of county authorities will lead to the loss or disintegration of a range of vital heritage services caused by the consequent loss of the critical mass required to sustain expert teams. Expertise is vital but expensive, even if available, and will sometimes be beyond the means of smaller authorities. Joint arrangements for the latter could be shared or bought in, but they would be vulnerable to cuts and the ability of smaller authorities to sustain major historic property portfolios must be in doubt. As regards tourism, I well know as president of the Southern Tourist Board how difficult it is to get agreement and co-operation from the existing number of local authorities we have to deal with. If that number is doubled, how much more difficult it will be.
In the break-up of county councils, it is difficult to believe that the Government's aim of improving the co-ordination and quality of services can properly be met. I am certainly not encouraged either by some of the final reports, which have already been produced, or by some of the submissions that I have seen from various local authorities. As regards heritage, these reports and
1132
submissions proved disappointing with minimal or no reference to either conservation generally and its role in the planning process or for the arts and tourism. Most references have been passing ones; for instance in relation to archives and other heritage services they have stressed the need to maintain county-wide services, if possible without reliance on joint arrangements. That is almost an encouragement to people not to have joint arrangements.
The advice of English Heritage appears to have been ignored. Therefore, I anticipate the outcome of future reviews with trepidation. If unitary authorities are set up, it is vital that appropriate safeguards for the heritage, arts and tourism are put in place at the outset. That might, for example, include a new statutory requirement on all authorities to provide certain basic services in those areas; for example, a sites and monuments record supplemented by the use of a current provision to empower the Secretary of State to require district level councils to submit to him their arrangements, either in-house or bought in, for obtaining specialist advice on their statutory control and enforcement work in connection with listed buildings and conservation areas but extended to cover archaeological advice. Those could be monitored by English Heritage. Similar undertakings should be made on behalf of archives, museums, libraries, support of the arts and tourism. In my mind, there is no doubt that giving more authorities responsibility in these areas will not only cost more but will be less effective.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, I wish to begin by tipping my hat—if that is a suitable parliamentary expression—to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, by saying how nice it was to hear his maiden speech today. I have heard him debating for more than 52 years. I am conscious of the fact that in seeking to speak to your Lordships' House today, I am in a sense a lay person; perhaps a "lay Lord". I have never been involved in local government either in an elected or official capacity. My experiences, both good and bad, have therefore been as a member of the public.
When one finds oneself in broad agreement with the consensus that has developed, there is a temptation not to speak but to let the message be carried by others. However, it is important that we should all lay our brick in the wall that is being built and therefore I have decided to continue but to shorten my remarks. I hope that your Lordships will forgive the rhetorical imperfection that will flow from the reconstruction of my remarks.
Reorganisation is an extremely disturbing process and an extremely expensive one in terms not only of physical change but also of time and disruption to the participants. Fundamental reorganisation should only be inflicted on people who work for any local or national institution, or indeed any business, as rarely as possible —and then only when the benefits to be gained are incontrovertible and outweigh the inevitable costs and disruptions.
Though the questions of cost and effectiveness are of vital importance, the perceived democratic legitimacy

1133
of whatever layer or layers of local government there may be in any given area of the country is a sine qua non of its suitability. Without a local sense of belonging, of influencing, of some measure of control, of the ability to exercise one's vote on who should represent one on matters of local interest, that layer of government will suffer from a reduced legitimacy.
Of course, the question of adequacy of scale of a local authority is a necessary component of its ability to operate effectively. Without scale, which I suppose implies both size of electorate and geographical area, there is no way in which that authority can deliver the services it provides in a cost-effective way. There is every chance that the legitimate local interest of its electors will not be effectively upheld against the demands of more powerful measures. Nor is it likely to be able to take a sufficiently broad view of issues to carry weight nationally.
Those three factors need to be kept in mind in deciding upon the desirability or otherwise of change in the structure of local government in any given area: perceived legitimacy, scale and cost-effectiveness. I should not wish to spend much time disputing their order of importance, although I should put the legitimacy point first.
Since the present review of local government appeared over the horizon and I realised the implications that it might have for me, I have been fascinated by some of the papers that I have been sent and have had the opportunity to read. Perhaps the first and most striking thing which emerged is that it is clearly possible for any two people to proceed from an objectively identical set of facts to completely opposite conclusions. The facts of geographical size, population, housing, industrial growth, schools, transport and roads and a host of other factors cannot really be disputed; but the conclusions drawn are remarkably diverse.
Now there has to be a quantity of assertion and emotion involved to explain those divergent conclusions. It is not altogether a surprise to realise how difficult it is to be objective. I may well not appear to be as objective as I should be.
The second point that is clear, which is much to be welcomed, is that most people, including Sir John Banham, accept that a diversity of solutions is right for a diversity of different areas. That is surely sensible: horses for courses.
I live and have lived for over 60 years in rural Hampshire. At the moment, the men of Hampshire seem to be catching up with the Men of Kent. I am not here to argue that local government in general or in Hampshire is perfect, because it certainly is not. It cannot he. If one wanted to put the matter cynically, one could say that what we should be interested in is the achievement of what is the least imperfect.
I believe that Hampshire is a county which the electors happily identify as their first allegiance. That was shown in the public opinion survey undertaken in the preparatory stages of the local government review. Its geographical size and population is undoubtedly large enough for its county council to exert the influence and authority which seems to me important. It is sufficiently diversified for it to take a larger view of
1134
strategic issues than a smaller and perhaps more undiversified authority would be able to. And I have no fundamental quarrel with the cost of the services delivered.
Other noble Lords have already quoted an appropriate and pithy way of expressing my feelings:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I do not believe that Hampshire is in need of fixing. I hope that the Local Government Commission and Her Majesty's Government will recommend the retention of the county council as the top tier of local government and will not try to cobble together a unitary system which would not in my view be a reliably better alternative.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Crathorne: My Lords, I am going to talk about the commission's recommendations for Cleveland. Cleveland has not had nearly such a good run as Kent or Hampshire, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who spoke about it was 16 speakers ago. Therefore, perhaps I may be forgiven for repeating some of what he said.
I live on the Cleveland-North Yorkshire border and perhaps I should declare an interest as I am a deputy-lieutenant for the County of Cleveland. So far the recommendations of the Local Government Commission have been accepted only for the Isle of Wight and Cleveland. Cleveland County Council has obtained a judicial review of the commission's recommendations and the Secretary of State's decision. That review is to take place at the end of May which provides a breathing space for a reconsideration of the decision as regards Cleveland.
This debate has given us a welcome opportunity to discuss the work of the Local Government Commission; to highlight the threats that the recommendations pose for many vital services; and the costs which will be involved.
The commission puts great emphasis on the concept of "community" and where people identify with; but certainly in the case of Cleveland, it has ignored evidence about how people behave in their everyday lives: their patterns of movement to work and leisure; their shopping and business preferences and so on.
There have been numerous shortcomings in the commission's report on Cleveland. There have been extremely uncertain costings with very wide bands. The options that people were given in the consultation exercise excluded the retention of the status quo and excluded having a single unitary authority. There has definitely been inadequate consideration of how key services—for example, education and child care—will be protected. I do not believe that any individual unitary authority could afford to retain staff of the required calibre and it is improbable that any workable form of co-operation will emerge from the districts to create a regional team to provide today's level of service.
The view that the commission's proposals for Cleveland have commanded widespread support is mistaken. We have heard that also about other areas. The MORI poll for the commission showed that the most popular choice, even though it was not one of the

1135
commission's options, was the status quo. Indeed I believe that almost every speaker today has demonstrated that he would prefer the status quo above all else.
When one looks at responses sent directly to the commission, over half of Teesside respondents favoured a single unitary authority for Teesside. That fact was not included in the commission's final report. Certainly, a single unitary authority for Teesside would be infinitely more acceptable than the present proposals.
There has been opposition to the commission's recommendations from many sectors of Cleveland opinion, such as employers and industrialists of the area, the chamber of commerce, the regional CBI, the Teesside Small Business Club and the major local evening paper. None of those sectors is a natural political ally of the county council's administration, but all sectors fear the fragmentation which will follow the implementation of the commission's proposals for four districts in this small conurbation. All the health authorities, many health professionals and voluntary organisations in the area have also expressed serious anxieties about the commission's preferred option.
At this point, I should mention that my noble friend Lord Gisborough is particularly sorry that he cannot be here today because he has similar views about the commission. However, as Lord Lieutenant of the County of Cleveland, he is escorting the Prince of Wales, who is visiting Cleveland today.
My noble friend was good enough to show me letters that he had received— and I have a whole batch of them here—from some of the bodies that I mentioned, and many others too. They all express anxieties about the commission's findings and they all wish to retain Cleveland or, if the name is changed, Teesside as the focus for the area.
The Secretary of State indicated that he wishes to see the Cleveland proposal implemented in April 1995. The task of the commission is to create a structure of local government for the next several decades. Even if we accept the commission's changes, why is there such haste? April 1995 is only one year away and is an impractical if not impossible deadline. If imposed, it will cause chaos with the major services which must be dismantled and reassembled.
Fresh elections will be impossible so that district councils elected on platforms relating to a narrow band of services will be determining service structures that are, in expenditure terms, five or six times the size of their present responsibilities. Members and officers with little or no experience in crucial areas such as education and social services will inherit those services. I do not believe that that is right. Whatever the outcome of the judicial review of the Cleveland case, more time must be allowed to permit elections and a rational process of reorganisation.
My final point is to urge the Secretary of State to reflect again on the whole process. Few would argue that local government cannot be improved. But it has had to assimilate massive and almost continuous change throughout the past decades. In my part of the country, "Teesside" was created in 1968 from parts of North Yorkshire and County Durham. In 1974, the somewhat
1136
larger Cleveland came into being. A period of stability is required, not more change. Only a year or so before the current review was first mooted, the Secretary of State at the time stated firmly that a restructuring was needed:
"like a hole in the head".
My Lords, he was absolutely right.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, not all of us in your Lordships' House are in favour of the status quo. I believe the reason for that derives, partly, from where we are based. I come from what was a county borough area prior to the local government reorganisation in 1974. I come from the City of Leeds which had a unitary authority which was extremely competent and managed its own affairs and services. It also had high quality staff. It is because of that experience and because of the way in which that authority was able to provide services for its electorate that I believe the best structure for local government is that of unitary authorities and devolved regional government. While I appreciate that there have been many changes in the functions of local government since that time, I have not changed my view that unitary authorities are essential to provide strong, vibrant, self-confident local government which can respond quickly and efficiently to the requests and demands of the local community.
The separation of local services and the overlapping of services between the different tiers is still not understood and continues to cause confusion to the recipients. As my noble friend Lord Jacques said earlier, this confusion is a result of the 1974 local government changes which I felt at the time were disastrous. I still believe those changes have caused problems which have never been resolved.
Unitary authorities are in a better position to develop new roles for local authorities, such as improving access and accountability, community leadership, developing partnerships both locally and with government, monitoring public bodies and being advocates for the local area. They are in a better position to offer customer contracts covering the whole range of council functions, to set and publicise quality standards and targets and to co-ordinate environmental initiatives and management.
The Labour Party has had a consistent policy since the early 1970s in favour of unitary authorities. Its 1992 general election manifesto stated:
"To simplify local government in England, we will establish 'most purpose' authorities generally based on district councils. In some areas a county-wide authority or the amalgamation of districts may be appropriate".
Our subsequent document Opportunity, Quality, Accountability recognised that although we were aiming for a unitary structure, we should approach local government reorganisation in a "spirit of flexibility", understanding that councils covering largely rural areas such as Cornwall would inevitably function rather differently from those governing a major city. I believe that that is absolutely the right approach. The document further recognised that it would be appropriate to transfer functions of a strategic or regulatory nature

1137
from counties to a tier of regional government which would draw its main powers and functions from a devolved and decentralised central government.
There is a fair amount of consensus between the Government and the Labour Party on this issue, but we believe there have been a number of flaws in the way in which the Government have approached the review. We believe that the Government have acted on a politically partisan basis. They have failed to define the role and functions of local government and— as is their usual reaction to local government— they have dealt with the review on a piecemeal basis. The timing of the review has been flawed. There should have been a shorter timescale with a proper starting date, so reducing upheaval and stemming the tide of uncertainty, particularly for the staff. There has also been a failure on the part of the commissioners to lay down at the commencement of the process any basic ground rules for parliamentary boundary changes, such as population size and the maintenance of historic connections and traditions.
A point which has not so far been mentioned in this debate but which is of concern is that the earlier presumption in favour of all-out elections for all new authorities has been overturned, with a government Minister able to determine when elections will be held for successor authorities. That is an unusual and unhealthy degree of discretion which could be misinterpreted. All new unitary authorities should be subject to a fresh and full mandate, whether or not they are successor authorities. This should be followed by annual elections as a key ingredient for the democratic renewal in local government ensuring regular accountability, especially in respect of the council budget.
The Local Government Commission has had a difficult job but it s essential that councils are small enough to relate to people's sense of community but large enough to deliver key services directly. In my view this can be achieved only by most-purpose unitary authorities across the country with annual elections so that the views of the electorate can be regularly heard. In that way we will have strong local government which is a precondition for a properly functioning modern democracy.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, for introducing this debate. I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, on his splendid maiden speech. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, in asking my noble friend the Minister why this commission was set up. I do not think any of us really know why it was set up and it would be helpful to know that. I hope that Sir John Banham will not take this amiss but I believe that it would be a good thing if he and his commission were quietly, gently and without fuss put to rest.
I wish to take up the point of the county councils such as Somerset, Cleveland and Humberside and consider why it is thought that they should be done away with and small district unitary authorities set up. I believe that that would be a retrograde step. For instance, under the proposed system instead of having one director of
1138
social services in an area there would need to be four and that would be expensive. The various different authorities, particularly in the realm of social services, have to set up costly projects run by highly skilled people for those vulnerable people who are in need of help. That would mean that no one, small, unitary district authority would be able to afford such provision. All the various authorities would have to co-ordinate with one another to decide which one of them would set up various different projects. I believe that that process would be expensive and would lead to a lot of time being spent in co-ordinating committees as between the four authorities.
I believe that no one has referred to my next point. I am quite sure that it would be turned down hurriedly. If the Banham commission is quietly put to rest, what will happen? I speak now as someone who has been a local government chief officer for 18 years and who has served in both the Ministry of Health and the Home Office. I believe that the time has come for a Royal Commission to be set up to look into not only local government itself but all the local government services such as the fire service, the police, magistrates and the courts. At the moment those services overlap. If one is a chief officer, one must often get in touch with several health authorities, for example, rather than just one and one sometimes has to get in touch with several police forces rather than just one. I believe we need to set up a Royal Commission to consider the whole of local government— not just local government itself but all the other services that are provided on a local basis.
If such a Royal Commission were to be set up, it should also consider the relationship between central and local government. Many of us are saddened by the fact that local government has been greatly diminished in past years. That is not a natural state of affairs. It is natural for local people to want to be involved with their local government. I suggest that such a commission should be set up to look at the total picture of local government with all its ancillary services and also the relationship between central and local government and the way in which financial arrangements are made. I know that that suggestion will not be accepted, but I put it to the House.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, on his maiden speech and on leading the Men of Kent today. I am the first person from Hertfordshire to speak in the debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, will speak shortly.
I live in the village of Knebworth, but if I am asked by a stranger where I come from I would normally answer that I come from Hertfordshire. I believe that that is a fairly common reaction. Except for those who live in large cities, loyalties to counties are strong—and not merely for cricketers. There is no such loyalty or affinity with districts.
As my noble kinsman Lord Lytton pointed out, the problems and needs of towns and rural areas differ and different solutions are appropriate for local government at each level and in each environment. Diversity at that

1139
level seems to be wholly desirable. But the interests of both rural and town communities come together at the strategic level, and the concept of tiered government is therefore both logical and human and not at all necessarily inefficient. The Government subscribe to the doctrine of subsidiarity at the European level and should, I believe, apply it also at the national and local level.
At the strategic level the counties have served us well and have a long and proud tradition. In Hertfordshire we are fortunate in having one of the most efficient and effective county councils in the country. It is most famous for its education department. The Hertfordshire County Council delivers 85 per cent. of all local authority services in the county. Its budget is £ 600 million a year compared with £ 10 million each for the districts and boroughs. Its administrative overheads are about 6 per cent. of its total budget compared with an average of 16 per cent. for the districts and boroughs. That is not, I suggest, a good advertisement for unitary authorities at the district level.
The prospect of splitting up those 85 per cent. of local services provided by the county between groupings of district councils is a nightmare of unnecessary cost, increased bureaucracy and reduced quality of service and reduced democracy.
Some of the less obvious services must not be forgotten. I should like to cite in particular the case of the voluntary bodies, many of which are organised on county lines. Those bodies are very anxious about the level and quality of service and support that they would receive from enlarged district councils. I should also like to cite the heritage services mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and in particular the library services and the county record offices. Those are all examples of services which could not easily be split.
Where there is an efficient service it is a great pity, as many noble Lords have said, to tamper with it. The counties are large enough to take a strategic view. They have long histories and can punch their weight at national and European level. Indeed, Hertfordshire has recently received special assistance from Brussels to support redundant aerospace employees.
At the district level rural areas are often disadvantaged by the changes which were made in the last reorganisation. My own former rural district council in Hertfordshire now includes three largish towns— Hitchin, Letchworth and Royston. To double its size into a new unitary authority would make it even more remote from the people, particularly those living in rural areas. It would also have no cultural identity, no geographical history and nothing to which people could feel attached.
Therefore, I urge the Government to respect the status quo in Hertfordshire. If a unitary authority has to come about, it should be based on the existing county council, with perhaps a strengthening of town and parish councils at the grass roots level.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, this has been a very enjoyable and informative debate. I shall reserve my comments for two small areas and shall then draw some more general points which I believe must not be overlooked in the debate about the future of local government.
I shall begin by making some comments about archives, which have been mentioned by various noble Lords. This House recently considered the proposals for local government reform in Wales. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate acknowledged the deeply-felt anxieties about the proper future provision for the care of archives and undertook to draw the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for Wales. In the event, the Government accepted the principle of an amendment moved in this House and are to introduce a similar amendment in the other place. I very much hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment will think it appropriate to make the same provision in relation to England.
Record offices are specialised institutions, most of which provide a direct public service at county level. Recently new highly technical and purpose-built record offices have been built in Chichester, Northampton, Nottingham and Winchester. There may be others.
It would not be an answer to suggest that record offices could somehow be linked to libraries or museums in order to save costs. The disciplines and the needs of the users are very different, as I can testify from considerable personal experience. I have also heard recently that one of the proposed unitary authorities wishes to grab its own archives for the area and is suggesting that the archives could be fitted into a room just off the library. That would be totally unacceptable.
In the East Sussex Record Office, which I know well, it has been calculated that over one-third in bulk of the archive holdings relates to the entire area of the present county and is physically, as well as morally, indivisible. Major groups of records relate to past systems of local government and to the local agencies of national government. They cannot be split up, any more than the unified records of the central government of this country could be split up in the event that some enlightened decentralising administration of the future were to decide to revert to the kingdoms of the old Anglo-Saxon heptarchy.
That is one example of what would be damaged or inadequately resourced if a series of unitary councils were to replace counties.
My involvement in the second of my case studies was in connection with strategic issues on transportation in Sussex. We pressed the case for improved road and rail links along the south coast in association with the coming of the Channel Tunnel. That was not only in the interests of the counties concerned but also in the regional and national interest because, if a significant proportion of tunnel traffic could be diverted on to east-west corridors to the south of the main links via London, that would relieve some of the capacity problems on those routes and thereby benefit London and regions north of the Thames. I am glad to say that

1141
a number of Government schemes either originated from that campaign or at least were brought forward because of it. The programme published today is a case in point.
That demonstrates the crucial point that one or two counties working together can take the wider strategic view necessary to make a case for testing proposed government action with enough weight to be heard. Equally important is the fact that those views are firmly founded in the local democratic process via elected county councillors rather than the regional offices which the Government are setting up.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England has backed the county scale of local government as the right scale of operation to strike the important balance between strategic thinking and over-parochial concerns. It says:
"Without the strong strategic planning functions carried out by the counties, the Government would be left with a huge gulf between the district councils and the Secretary of State, into which he will be dragged with increasing frequency to resolve controversial planning problems".
Rushing to set up the so-called unitary councils is no panacea, as the very proximity of major issues to the location of decision making is a real inhibitor of strategic thinking. I shall mention a well documented example. Just after the abolition of the Greater Manchester County Council the metropolitan districts—which I suppose we should call unitary districts for the purpose of this debate—were faced with a multiplicity of applications for a large out-of-town shopping development. All 10 districts in Greater Manchester agreed to commission a joint shopping study from a firm of consultants. Their report concluded that there was scope for one large centre in the area. But when it came to deciding where that centre should be, agreement broke down and districts fought each other at a public inquiry. Similar problems over waste disposal ended in deadlock, resolved finally by the Department of Environment which imposed a joint board on the area.
The message from those observations on my two practical examples is clear. We must ensure that local government has the right scale of operation to deal locally and democratically with its own dirty washing and with matters which require a larger scale perspective. It will therefore be no surprise for your Lordships to hear that I believe the High Court to have been absolutely correct in ensuring that the two-tier arrangement of local government must remain a serious contender in the review, possibly with some improvements. It represents the best way forward in most areas.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Alport: My Lords, over the past 20 or 30 years, each time we have set out to reform local government the ensuing legislation has contained two features: the first comprises measures to rectify the mistakes made as a result of the previous efforts at reform; and the second is to make a series of new errors of judgment which will require another spasm of legislation to put it right at a later date.
1142
There is no reason to suppose that the forthcoming results of the present local government review will be any different. The only hope is that the able judgment of Mr. Justice Jowitt will help to prevent too many anomalies arising from the effort at reform which is now being undertaken. There are two passages in that judgment which struck me particularly. He said that the commission was required to answer the question:
"Does the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government make it appear to the Commission desirable to recommend a particular change in order to satisfy those needs or some or any of them".
Later he said:
"A very large area, such as most counties is unlikely to provide a suitable basis for a unitary authority because of the problem of remoteness".
That means that in making its recommendations the Local Government Commission should not be hound by some ideological Treasury prejudice in favour of unitary authorities but have regard to the importance of ensuring that each local authority is designed to meet the needs and character of the community which it administers, and, further, is as local as possible in the proper sense of that word.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, for many years a distinguished chairman of Essex County Council, and my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle, a former vice-chairman, have given their opinions from the point of view of the county council.
It is natural that the views we give to your Lordships today should derive from our local knowledge of the communities in which we live. I am concerned with the Essex district councils, and the borough of Colchester in particular. Essex is a very large county. In 1991 it had a population of 1,500,000. As many noble Lords will know, it stretches from the edge of suburban outer London, into which part of the county was incorporated in 1974, to the estuaries and saltings of the East Anglian coast and north to the pleasant towns and villages on the Cambridge and Suffolk borders. Its different areas have little in common with each other.
There is today a strong majority among the 14 district councils that they wish to become unitary authorities and that those unitary authorities in Essex should number either eight or nine. That would not mean that the historic county of Essex would disappear from the map. The Essex county cricket team would still win the county championship— not with regularity, in some cases— and the lieutenancy would continue to exercise its historic functions. The archives would remain in Chelmsford at the Essex Record Office.
What it would mean is that local government in Essex would become truly local. For the services we receive, and in order to register any complaints we wish to make, we would look to one council and one councillor, not two. The demarcation between the responsibilities of county and district are not easy at present for ordinary people to understand.
The financial consequences of the change to unitary authorities in Essex would partly be met by the disposal of the redundant county assets and party by ongoing

1143
savings over the present system. But, most importantly, in the spirit of Mr. Justice Jowitt's judgment, local government in Essex would become really local.
I have been a non-playing member of the Colchester Corporation for nearly 30 years, serving with mayors and councils of all parties. I have the utmost confidence that if Colchester became a unitary authority with its present boundaries, it would provide for its 150,000 inhabitants an administration not only closer to the people but more responsive and efficient than the present dyarchy.
I am sure that the same would apply to the nine other districts of Essex which have voted to become unitary authorities. Perhaps then on this occasion—as distinct from the past—we would not need another reorganisation of local government in Essex for many years to come.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Brocket: My Lords, I believe that the principle of unitary authorities is based upon a mistaken idea of what most people want, and on the almost naive economic view that one organisation must be cheaper than two because of savings. That is not reality. It is not what happens.
I am from Hertfordshire, as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, said. We probably have the best record of any county in this country as regards the cost of the services that we provide. If the unitary scheme goes ahead, perhaps I may point out a few problems which will arise in Hertfordshire.
First, the estimated cost in Hertfordshire of carrying out the proposal would be £37 million. There would be even higher running costs. That is not the end of the story. The question which has not been answered is this. How will those costs be repaid? They will have to be repaid. The subject seems to have been brushed under the carpet.
A recent Ernst & Young report concluded that if more than two unitary authorities were set up, the cost would be greater than the present two-tier system in Hertfordshire.
As my noble friend Lord Cobbold said, there is no scheme in law to make the unitary authority responsible for supporting the voluntary sector. As each authority will be looking after its own patch, I do not believe that the voluntary sector would receive the proper support.
At present in Hertfordshire there is one councillor per 1,800 population. Under the unitary proposals there would be approximately one councillor per 4,000 population. The councillors would have a greater workload. If one talks to councillors, they have enough on their plates already— and they would have more. Community care would undoubtedly suffer.
At present, only 20 out of 500 schools in Hertfordshire have opted out. That is a vote of confidence for the local education authority in Hertfordshire.
Business Link, of which I am chairman, is the only one-stop shop south of Birmingham to receive DTI support. That would not have occurred under a unitary system.
1144
I believe that the consistency of enforcement of regulatory standards would be much in doubt. The present system has simplified the tendering at all levels. There is normally one contract at county level. However, under the unitary authority bidding companies would have to take contracts out with five or six different authorities. That adds to a difficult situation.
Lastly, people do not want such a system. I was completely amazed when I read some of the earlier MORI polls because the trick was in the question. The question asked, "Which would you prefer? One authority or two?" What a ridiculous question. The answer is, "One". However, if you ask the question, "Would you like one authority or two?—and here are the costs of changing to just one authority", indicating some of the pitfalls, one would receive a totally different answer. The question was unfair.
I am disappointed that the Government's attitude seems to smack slightly of "nanny knows best". I say that for two reasons: first, their brief to the commission I thought frankly was disgraceful— and that is almost not too strong a word. It is like saying: "We would like an unbiased report; but this is what you will say". Thankfully, the courts have addressed that. Secondly, there is the reaction that has taken place to the 10 recommendations which have already been made. The Government looked at half of them and sent them back to the umpire, saying basically: "These are insufficiently unitary". Teacher is saying that she does not like the answer in the exam paper because it does not suit her view of whatever the subject is. So she says, "Try again and then we will see whether the answer is right".
It must also be borne in mind that Hertfordshire is a big county, our population is 1 million. It is worth noting that our future is to be decided by a commission that is headed by a parish councillor from—and I have to get Kent in somewhere here!—Womenswold in Kent, which has the enormous population of 319. Curiously, I notice that he is assisted by Mr. Alan Dick. The commission does not fill our county council with great confidence.
It is clear in my mind that there are good cases for unitary authorities; the Isle of Wight is one, and some other conurbations should undoubtedly be unitary authorities. I fully see the sense of that, and perhaps we should reinstate a strategic authority for London so that we have a sensible strategy and direction on infrastructure and services. It might also get the West London Air Terminal sign removed from the Cromwell Road which has been there for a good few years.
In summary, I believe that people's general reaction should be a warning to Government that if they ignore common sense, reality and the will of the people, if they persist in blindly pursuing this dogma— and if we are honest, it is driven by the excesses of a few authorities — the minor result will be that the Government will pay dearly. However, the major and much more important result will be that local people will suffer in a serious way. I do not think that this is the time to experiment with people's lives.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this seems to be a time when everyone declares their loyalties. First, I live on the borders of Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire and it appears to be the Men of Kent and the men and women of Hertfordshire who are involved. I appreciate that. Secondly, both Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire have made tremendous efforts over the past few years to consult widely. They are both democratic counties which have gone out of their way to ask the opinions of their citizens on a wide range of matters: transport, planning, education and much else. In many ways, they are excellent examples of just how good local government can be.
Before I start on the details of the debate, I have always been impressed since I joined this distinguished House that from time to time, regardless of party and local connections, the House of Lords finds a common voice. On this occasion and in this debate, out of 41 speakers, 36 have found that common voice and said that they do not believe that we want or need the widespread review of local government. Instead, noble Lords in all parts of the House have said that there may be a case in particular instances for change. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, said about the possibility that some conurbations might well be unitary authorities. But, with almost no exceptions, noble Lords have made it plain that they do not believe that there should be an attempt to impose uniform unitary authorities in a widespread way on England and, for that matter, on those who would suffer from the imposition.
One other point before I turn to the detail relates to what the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, said about the issue of consultation, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket. Consultation based upon carefully carpentered questions is not true consultation at all. The noble Lady said that the views of parish councillors—the people closest of all to local opinion—were given little shrift by the review committee. She also pointed out that there was little attempt to try to find out what was the opinion of local people. So one can say with regard to consultation that, first, we see emerging more and more clearly a mood of rejecting the proposals made so far.
The second point I wish to make concerns costs to which many noble Lords have already referred. It seems to me that a cost ranging between £1 billion (Sir John Banham's estimate) and as much as £1.5 billion (the estimate of the Association of County Councils) is an incredible figure for us to consider throwing away on local government reorganisation at a time when the country is crying out for such things as nursery schools, better transport and efforts to provide more training for our young people. It beggars imagination that we should consider it possible to spend such a sum for this essentially frivolous purpose.
The third point I wish to make is that the services that are most affected—and several noble Lords have already referred to this—are not likely in a single instance to be improved by the changes. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to the excellent record of some county councils. I make it plain that I differ
1146
considerably from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who has yet to speak, on the appropriate size for an education authority. However, I very much doubt whether it is as low as 125,000 people, which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, mentioned in the case of Reading. That is borne out by the fact that the Secondary Heads Association as well as the association of chief education officers plainly say that in their view it would be both inefficient and much less likely to produce a high quality of education if local authorities went down to a unitary level of 100,000 or 150,000. If one looks at the need for special education, special provision for gifted children, those with handicaps and learning difficulties, and children with language problems where the mother tongue is not English, it is ludicrous to try to destroy county councils which are endeavouring to raise the standards of education.
I turn briefly to community care and its relationship to the National Health Service. At the very moment when the National Health Service authorities are trying to draw themselves into a relationship of close harmony with the county councils, a change on this scale would put at risk the whole of the Government's own policies of care in the community. We have the evidence of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and others to that effect.
A third area was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I found it not only amazing but appalling that it should be possible to impose local government reorganisation without even consulting the people at the heart of the battle against crime: namely, chief constables and senior police officers. I could not help asking myself whether the great efforts made in this House to try to retain the local responsibility for policing in England were being lost at the back door, having been won through the front door. I wondered whether we were seeing the likelihood of the destruction of police authorities as a result of the work of the Local Government Commission.
Lastly, I turn to the issue raised by a number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, particularly, in a remarkable maiden speech, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and others—about the strategic role of regional and county authorities. I wish to make two points about that. First, we had an illustration in the House earlier today of a total failure to consider the strategic needs of counties. The Minister who kindly repeated the Statement on the roads programme was unable to say that there had been full consultation with those affected: namely, the county councils. I very much doubt whether it is right or proper to go ahead with major transport plans without full consultation with those most likely to be affected.
Secondly, as the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, and others said, the county council level and, in Europe, the regional level are increasingly becoming centres of the most exciting economic regeneration of all. I have just returned from a meeting at the OECD in Paris. That organisation is, of course, not the European Community, but the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. A whole programme, the so-called local initiatives programme, has been mounted in order to help local government directly at

1147
regional level to regenerate local economies, to start all over again, especially with old industrial areas like the Pas de Calais and parts of Italy and Belgium and, for that matter, many parts of the United Kingdom.
It seems to me absolutely tragic that, at the moment when more and more structures of government, investment and financial assistance are moving to the regional level, we in Great Britain should be talking about moving in the opposite direction to a level of local government where the thought of strategic economic development may just as well simply go out of the window.
I had the impression that there was a very wide consensus of support in this House for the idea that we were not against all change but we believed that there was a test to be passed before change should be instituted. That test was the test of strong local opinion in favour of change. It is a basic talisman of democracy. It is what underlies the Motion that was read out by the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and, in an eloquent speech, emphasised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
I believe that the local government review body now faces something of a crisis of credibility. We know that there had been strong indications from the Government that its findings should be of a certain form, or, to put it bluntly, that its conclusions need not have too much relationship to the evidence that it had considered. The chairman of that review, Sir John Banham, is a public servant of high standing, great credibility and very considerable status in our society. I simply want him and members of the review body to consider very carefully whether their independent advice should not be weighed most carefully in the balance; and whether, when issues are referred back to them, as in the case of Gloucestershire, Durham and Derbyshire, when they have reached a conclusion which is then rejected by the Government, they ought not very seriously to consider their own position.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and Kent County Council for the wide-ranging, topical and fascinating debate that we have had today on the structure of local government. We much appreciated the wise and stylish maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown.
Some noble Lords have argued that we should first determine what local government does, and only then decide what structures would best fit it. Functions and tasks come—for example, economic development; arts and tourism; conservation; and care in the community —and others go: for example, health; water; and further education. Functions come and go, but communities endure. That is why the 1972 reorganisation, as the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, accepted, has proved so disastrous. It fractured the connection between local communities and local government by imposing a two-tier structure across shire England which has warped services, diluted local accountability and undermined our sense of place.
1148
In 1972, some services—planning, leisure, arts and recreation, economic development—were made concurrent. They were to be carried out by both tiers. That caused the bureaucracy to double. It doubled the delay and gave rise to additional cost and much confusion. Other services which should be brought together were, however, splintered between districts and counties. Youth services were separated from community services, although they both operated out of the same community centre. Planning was separated from highways. Environmental health was separated from trading standards. And housing was separated from social services.
As a result of those changes, if a pork pie is mouldy and underweight, you take it first to the district environmental health services because it is mouldy; then you take it 25 miles across county to the trading officers at county hall because it is underweight. County trading officers are responsible for animals at the market, but district health officers are responsible for those same cattle as they come to the abattoir. As a highways authority, Wiltshire County Council was responsible for cutting the first three feet or so of the grass verges along its highways on grounds of road safety. Thamesdown District Council then cut the next six feet of grass on grounds of amenity.
Above all, housing was severed from social services. The elderly found that their bungalows were built and staffed by the district council, while their home helps and day care came from the county council. Those who are least able to cope with the problems of care in the community—namely, the elderly, the vulnerable and the handicapped—are precisely the people who are least able to cope with the splintered structures that we set up in 1972 to help them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alport, so rightly wondered how can the ratepayer know who to turn to for help in a two-tier structure? How can ratepayers tell whether they are getting value for money? Whom do they hold to account if things go wrong? What do local government and local democracy mean if you do not know who does what, at what cost, to what standard and under what accountability?
We need unitary authorities. But we also need authorities to be as close to their communities as possible. The second wretched mistake of 1972 was the belief that "big is beautiful". Yet, from Redcliffe-Maud in 1972 to the Audit Commission today, there is no evidence at all, even in education—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, notwithstanding—that bigger is either better or cheaper. Indeed, in counties which are 40 miles by 70 miles in size there are real diseconomies of scale. As a county councillor, I closed schools that I had not visited, put yellow lines on roads that I could not name and adjusted the tariffs for car parks that I did not use. And I called it local government. I might just as well have been sitting in Whitehall.
So much officer time is spent travelling and liaising that most counties wisely accepted that they were too large and county hall was too remote to deliver personal services. What did they do? They set up district local offices for education and social services, thus conceding the need to bring services down to district level—

1149
without, however, giving the districts any democratically elected accountability for them and leaving the public still further confused.
One consequence—as my noble friends Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Lord Jacques and Lord Bottomley said very eloquently—was that within such large county authorities the distinctive needs of the local communities got lost. Everything became homogenised. Historic cities, as I know, found that their services were levelled down. And as the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, rightly said, rural communities did not gain the peripatetic services that they needed. Yet the countryside is not simply "thinned out town"; it is different. Towns are dense. They manage traffic. Rural communities are sparse. They need transport. After all, if communities were all alike, we would not need local government at all.
That is why the Local Government Act of 1992 that was passed by this House so rightly insisted that the new framework of local government should for the most part be unitary, and should be built on local communities. That reform of local government had the support of both Houses and all parties. As my noble friend Lady Gould said, the position of the Labour Party has been consistent and principled over some 15 years, through some five party conferences and several party manifestos. Indeed, the Labour team led by Mr. Blunkett in the other place pressed the Government to include the requirement for unitary authorities in the Bill. The Government must now bitterly regret rejecting that amendment since it would have obviated any High Court reviews.
We supported, and support, the Local Government Commission, although, as my noble friend Lady Gould said, we are critical of some of the ways in which the process has been handled. We have also pressed for the democratic agenda, annual elections, all-out elections to shadow authorities and enough councillors to do the job so that they may remain part-time and integrated into their local communities. We have also argued for no mechanical minimum size for the new authorities, something which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, himself urged on the Government at Committee stage of the relevant Bill.
We also insisted that if this was to be a reorganisation that would survive, have staying power and take us into the next century, there must be no cherry picking and no political gerrymandering of boundaries. But we believed—at this point we departed from the views of the Government, as did the Liberal Benches—that elected regional authorities were essential. They were necessary not as a prerequisite but as being complementary to local government reform. They are essential for the strategic planning for which counties are now too small, as we enter a Europe of regions; to accompany devolution for Scotland and Wales; and, above all, to corral the quangos which now far outspend local government, thus democratising the regional government that we already have in this country. We on these Benches believe that regions, together with unitary districts, ate the way forward.
What then are the fears and arguments about such a structure of local government that have been expressed
1150
this evening? First, there is the damage that it is feared may be done to specialist services, such as museums and conservation bodies, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Montagu. That is not so. After 1996 the county borough towns, where reference libraries, museums and archives are sited, will be lead authorities, as many of them were before. 1972. Their archives, antiquities, artefacts and expertise will not be scattered but will be lovingly cherished. After all, the towns and cities, not the counties, led the way in so much of our conservation.
The second argument that we have heard, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that districts are too small and will require so many joint authorities that accountability will be blurred. There are two points to make here. Norfolk County Council produced a fearsome list—I have it with me—of 107 such functions which would need joint arrangements. I studied that list. It includes items such as bridge design. One every seven years, would you say? What about aerial photography for museums? How many flights, do you think'? There is special education for travellers' children—all 30 of them. I doubt whether, on my calculation, those joint functions would represent 5 per cent. of the budget. The other 95 per cent., as the county council itself said—for schools and generic social services (which are not my words but the words of the county council)—can fully be provided by districts.
The second point about joint arrangements is that most of those 107 services, despite the speeches of noble Lords this evening, would not be run by joint committees. Those days have gone. Items such as music education would be bought from lead authorities. As the Audit Commission reminded us, buying a service from another authority is no different from buying it from a private provider, which is what compulsory competitive tendering requires all local authorities now to do. Let me quote from the Audit Commission itself:
"Accountability in the case of one authority purchasing a service from another need be no different from the authority purchasing the service from a private sector provider".
That is what we are now all under the obligation to do. Compare that with the blurring of accountability between two tiers. It would have been interesting if we had heard more of that. Over the past live years local government has become an enabling and contracting local government, well fitted to take on such responsibilities.
The third worry that has been addressed by noble Lords this evening is that of cost. It was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lords, Lord Bancroft and Lord Ashburton, among many others. Some of the literature that I have seen put out by some authorities when talking about cost moves from the merely fallacious to the downright mendacious. Most reputable estimates suggest that there will be about 14 million per county in one-off costs, offset by capital receipts of some £10 million and respectable revenue savings.
Let me again quote the Audit Commission—not me, nor the ADC, nor the district councils. The Audit Commission was required to comment on the financial

1151
implications of the first tranche options. Speaking about the Cleveland reorganisation it said that cost differences did not provide:
"a sufficiently robust basis for decision … The structure … which best fits community realities and creates the most favourable conditions for effective management is likely to perform best in terms of the three Es".
Quite so, my Lords.
The fourth argument that we have heard tonight is that we should have and respect a proper attachment to historic counties. Like all the other Lords Lieutenants and Deputy Lieutenants who have spoken tonight, I also, as a Deputy Lieutenant, share that view. One of my complaints is that only 12 of our administrative county councils now have boundaries that are coterminous with their historic county areas. I want to restore the historic identity of Yorkshire and, with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the old boundaries of Somerset. But that does not mean that they should be administrative units for local government as we go into the 21st century. Administrative county councils are now too large for personal services and, as the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, recognised, simply too small for strategic planning.
The next argument voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and many noble Lords on the Liberal Benches is that there should be no change unless there is overwhelming local consensus for it. I know that we are all now experts on qualified majority voting, but I have to ask: what does that mean? Does it mean that five out of eight districts could press forward a review? Or, what happens if all the districts agree but the county council does not agree? Nor, given the strength of vested interests, can we cherry pick. Let us take Essex as an example. If we take out the cities and the former county boroughs in Essex pressing for unitary status, we are left with a two-tier county in which some of the districts, such as Tendring, would not even share a common boundary with any other district within the county jurisdiction.
The final argument tonight has been that instead we should go down the path of a modified change to the status quo. That argument was pressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Does that mean that we keep districts and county councils and—which I understand the Liberal Benches rightly support—parishes and community councils below them; and in addition, which we also support, a regional tier above them? Are we offering to the people of this county a four-tier structure of parishes, districts, counties and regions? If so, we shall be the most over-governed country in Europe.
In conclusion, the problems of local government and local government structure will not go away, precisely because they are inherent in the 1972 Act. Derail that commission and one merely elongates the confusion. This country needs a new settlement for local government, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, were absolutely right to say, so that communities may again define and meet their needs in a democratic and pluralist way. But for that to happen structures must matter. They determine our perceptions of what we can do. The policies that flow from that shape our sense of place, our
1152
community and our local commonwealth in which we first learned the meaning of citizenship and which so many of us went into local government to serve in the first place.
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, this has been an extremely long debate, not devoid of considerable frankness and I am, as always, grateful to all those who have spoken and put their views so cogently and succinctly. While it has been a long debate, it is now the turn of the Government to speak equally frankly and equally honestly. I want to state very clearly our policy and the reasons for it and I should like to take up many of the points raised in your Lordships' House over the past five hours.
Much of the criticism made today clearly stems from a belief that there is no good reason for the Government to be reviewing local government at all. So what are we doing and why? A great chorus of questioning on that subject hit the roof of your Lordships' House. But let me quote from an announcement made in another place by Michael Heseltine on 21st March 1991, when he said:
"There is, therefore, now an opportunity to think afresh about the structure of local authorities. But the Government do not see this as an opportunity to impose a new pattern of local authorities according to a national prescription. Nor do we believe that it is necessary to have a uniform pattern of authorities in every part of the country. Local people should have an important role in determining what structure of local government best reflects their community loyalties. That does not mean, therefore, the wholesale abolition of either county councils or district councils, nor even unitary authorities everywhere. It means arriving at the right solution for each community. We intend to adopt a practical approach in response to local views and local conditions, but it seems likely that we shall move to a larger number of unitary authorities".—[Official Report, Commons, 21/3/91; col. 401.]
I can say to my noble friend Lady Faithfull that that is the nub; that is the kernel of that which we are attempting to do. The Government's position has not altered since then. We have not asked the commission to draw up a national blueprint for change—a point well recognised by my noble friend Lady Platt. The Government have consistently stated since that time that local government structure in the shire counties is for the commission to consider and that it is open to the commission to recommend status quo, two-tier or unitary authorities. Surely my noble friends Lord Blake and Lord Selborne agree that the Government's position must be clear by now.
The current structure of local government has existed for 20 years. It is not enshrined in ancient history. What is enshrined in ancient history is the division of England into counties, and we are not proposing to abolish counties. On the contrary, we intend to listen to local people's views on their loyalty to traditional counties and to see whether new structures can be more in tune with those loyalties—a point emphasised so eloquently in his maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown.
Since the reorganisation in 1974 the role and nature of local government has changed. I can say to my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke that key changes have, we believe, strengthened rather than weakened local democracy; for example, the new emphasis on partnership with other local organisations—commented

1153
upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould—both the voluntary sector and the private sector, and the constructive results that can ensue which the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, mentioned.
The move from direct service provision to a role as enablers has freed local government from business management issues best left to practitioners and given them a clearer role in setting standards and monitoring performance. Those changes are profound and it is only common sense to reconsider local government structure in the light of them. If we were starting a local government system from scratch we would be asking searching questions about the appropriate size for strategic planning. transport and European issues. We would also be looking for a system which decentralised personal services. The need to look at those issues does not go away just because we are not starting from scratch. The existence of the current system is a crucial factor because the benefits of change will need to outweigh the costs of disruption. But that equation is precisely the one on which the Government is asking the Local Government Commission to make a judgment.
Despite the clear message that the Government are not looking to impose change everywhere, there is clearly a widespread feeling that in many areas of shire England it is unnecessary even to consider change to local government structure. We disagree. We believe the potential benefits of change are such that it would be wrong not to ask the Local Government Commission to look at them. What are those potential benefits and why do we need to consider them now? In headline terms they are better use of resources, more local involvement, improvement of services, a clearer focus for local interests and clearer accountability.
First, in relation to better use of resources, clearly if one can do a job with one layer of central support services rather than two, one will be able to concentrate more on the front line. Local government money will go further. Secondly, with regard to more local involvement in council activities, if people identify with their council they will be more interested in what it is doing. A key theme of reorganisation is getting the right area for a local authority—an area which "feels right" in terms of history, geography, working and travelling.
Then there is the improvement of services to consider. If all services are under one roof there is considerable scope for co-ordinating them from the consumer standpoint. We could bring together housing and social services issues so that the person who has needs which cross the two functions does not get shunted from one set of officials to another. We could co-ordinate development control and transport issues much better from the citizen's point of view.
Fourthly, with regard to providing a focus for local interests, again, getting the right council area which brings together interests naturally is the key to having credible local leadership. Finally, there is the need for clear accountability. People need to know who is responsible for what.. That makes the ballot box much more effective: when services are delivered well—or indeed if they are delivered badly—then the voters' message will be clearer if there can be no confusion as to which tier of local government was responsible.
1154
There has this evening been much anxiety expressed about costs. We expect local government reorganisation to be worthwhile and cost-effective over time. We are expecting substantial savings in the long term to follow from the commission's reviews, in spite of the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Comwallis. Estimates of costs and savings for the changes agreed so far—Cleveland and the Isle of Wight —look good. Council taxes for 1994–95 in both areas include nothing for transitional costs. But of course there will need to be some investment to secure future savings. For example, in Cleveland the authorities estimate that £2 million on redundancies will secure savings of £1.5 million a year thereafter. No change would indeed mean no transitional costs; but it would also mean no long-term savings. The actual costs in any area will, of course, depend on the nature of reorganisation in the area and the incidence of costs between years.
We anticipate that, in general, savings from reorganisation in any area will meet a significant part of transitional costs. Capital receipts generated by the disposal of surplus assets will meet the remainder. There may, of course, be a mismatch in any year between costs and savings. We intend therefore to issue supplementary credit approvals, up to a limit, to allow authorities to borrow to meet transitional costs until sufficient savings and receipts are available.
I have already stated that the Government do not want a national blueprint. But there has nevertheless been speculation about the size and shape of new authorities. Let me state clearly the Government's position: there is no maximum or minimum size for an efficient enabling local authority. Having said that, we do not intend that there should be a host of small unitary authorities. Of course there might be some, because in some areas local history or population distribution or some other factor is likely to point in that direction. But if local government is to retain credibility in exercising strategic functions, then authorities must be of sufficient size to tackle strategic issues effectively without the need for statutory joint authorities which would undo many of the benefits of unitary authorities, a point I make to my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. Of course local authorities will not work in isolation, and in looking at options the commission will take full account of proposals for voluntary arrangements between authorities—not only to ensure the most effective approach to strategic functions but also to pool expertise and avoid the break up of centres of excellence.
Our message to local authorities has been to talk to other authorities in their area; to discuss individual services and overall local community patterns; to come up with several ideas that are imaginative; and not to fall back on the status quo just because it is the least upsetting. We have told local authorities that if their area has special features which mean that the benefits of retaining two tiers outweigh the benefits of unitary authorities, they should spell them out so that the commission can look at them.
I shall now spend a few minutes on the many points which noble Lords have raised this evening. I lost track of those who mentioned the county of Kent. Among them were my noble friend Lord Aldington, the noble

1155
Viscounts, Lord De L'Isle and Lord Monckton of Brenchley, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. After a time I began to feel rather sorry for those counties that were not mentioned in the debate this evening. As regards Kent, it would be wrong for me, as your Lordships would expect, to comment on a desirable local government structure for Kent while the Local Government Commission is conducting an independent review of the county. The important factors which your Lordships have referred to this evening—the county's vital links with Europe, the county's economic development needs, strategic and local planning, the appropriate number of councillors to serve the community and the historic loyalties of the men and women of Kent to the county—will all be looked at carefully by the commission in framing its recommendations.
Many speakers, including Lord Cornwallis, Lady Hamwee, Lord Kingsdown, Lady Platt, Lord Carnarvon, Lord Lytton, Lord Dixon-Smith, Lady Masham, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Lord Rochester brought up the subject of county-wide functions. Our advice on functions to the Local Government Commission is set out in our policy guidance. We have drawn the attention of the commission to the fact that strategic, regulatory and enforcement functions will often be promoting the welfare of the wider public. We have also said that special consideration should be given to the maintenance of teams of experts, such as child care workers, and specialist assets, such as archives. But we have also reminded the commission that one of the benefits of unitary authorities will be the greater scope for bringing related functions together and clearer accountability. Both of those benefits would be diluted by statutory joint authorities for specific functions other than the law and order services and fire. We are encouraging authorities to develop voluntary arrangements for dealing with functions. Statutory joint authorities would be very much a last resort.
The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, and many other noble Lords brought up the subject of costs. We do not accept the Association of County Councils' estimate of £1.1 billion. The Local Government Commission will assess the costs and benefits of its proposals case by case. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke on the need for regional offices. We do not accept the need for another layer of bureaucracy. We believe that voluntary arrangements do work and do not weaken accountability. Accountability in voluntary arrangements remains clearly with each individual directly elected local authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, spoke on Kent and Europe. I very much appreciate the work done by Kent County Council to secure European funds. I appreciate, too, the key position of Kent in relation to Europe. But there is no reason why the authorities would not co-operate to achieve equally good results. I make the same point to my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Platt on the need for co-operation between authorities and the
1156
need to minimise uncertainty by keeping up the momentum of the review. However, up comes the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, to disagree. He said that there was no need to be hasty and to rush too much. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the costs model. But the model was developed especially for local government spending and has since been adapted by the Local Government Commission itself. It includes provision for specific local items as well as the general model.
My noble friend Lord Aldington commented on the statement of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I have to point out that my right honourable friend was speaking about Oxford as a local Member of Parliament, and not about the review generally.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, he might still have been speaking the truth.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have pointed out to my noble friend precisely what happened there.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to education and special needs. We are still considering with the Department for Education and local authorities implementation details. There will be a mixture of local authority and joint arrangements. We hope and expect authorities to co-operate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, commented on the North Yorkshire proposal. We are very conscious of the noble Baroness's concerns. We received a substantial number of representations on this set of recommendations from the commission. We cannot comment, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is still considering the commission's report.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and my noble friend Lord Crathorne spoke about Cleveland. As they know, my right honourable friend has announced his decision on Cleveland—the abolition of the county and the establishment of four unitary districts. Implementation must await the outcome of the judicial review.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, made an important point about the need to maintain the relationship between the services and local authorities. I can tell him that the commission takes that into account in its consideration. If it will reassure the noble and gallant Lord, I shall reinforce that position by passing on his comments to Sir John Banham.
My noble friend Lord Swinton and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, brought up the subject of future police and fire services. The police authorities must be consulted by the commission. It is statutorily required to do that in its draft proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, referred to a patchwork of unitary authorities. We regard this as a strength rather than a weakness of a process which is intended to produce structures which meet local circumstances and local needs.
I am certain that there are many other points which I have not addressed.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend is making an interesting and quite lengthy speech but he is giving the impression that he has not digested during the whole of the afternoon and evening the message of

1157
profound anxiety which many of us wish to communicate to him and which we would now ask him to communicate to his colleagues.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course I understand precisely what my noble friend is saying about the message which has been conveyed by your Lordships this afternoon from, I believe it is reasonable to say, all sides of your Lordships' House. My noble friend can certainly have the assurance that I will pass on his comments and those of other noble Lords to my right honourable friend as soon as I can. I close by saying that it is important to appreciate and understand that, as the Government, we are firmly committed to structures which meet local needs. Our aim remains to give local people a structure of local government which meets their needs and wishes and one that can use its resources with good sense and sound reason.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may say to him that it is a great pity that he cannot give any more assurance to local people living in North Yorkshire because nothing could be less local than a West Riding, which has now been named "The Banana Republic", which goes down as far as Hull.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness by writing to her on that point. She will realise that every consideration has been taken into account.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Kingsdown—I have great difficulty in getting his name right—on his maiden speech. It was very kind of him to support me on this occasion. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her summing up, with which I agree in almost every word. I believe that she set the scene perfectly and has saved me from attempting to do any such thing. I thank her very much indeed.
I was totally mystified by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I do not see that there is any difference between a two-tier government with regional authority or a two-tier government with county authority. They both seem to me to be two-tier government. If we are going to play a part in Europe —which we seem to be endlessly and constantly reminded is our prime duty these days—I cannot believe that the regions in Europe, or for that matter the European Commission, are going to mess about dealing with the unitary authorities which will be set up under this scheme. It is simply pie in the sky and I believe that pie to be half-baked into the bargain.
If one asks someone to look for change, change will be provided. That is what they have been asked to do, and that is an absolute certainty. I do not believe that any speaker in the debate today has said that no change is necessary. If they have, then I have not heard them. They have all said that there may be circumstances and places where there should be change. So why cannot we let those people who believe that there is cause for change make their representations to the commission
1158
and leave the rest of us who do not want change alone? I do not see why we cannot have an opt-in as opposed to the current situation.
I hope that the Government are not going to carry this matter through on the basis of support from a preview of the Labour manifesto which we have heard of this evening. Until then we had had a debate in which no politics had arisen. I thought that this was a great expression of local people putting forward their views about local problems and trying to convince the Government that their concern was real and that this should be looked at carefully again.
I am afraid that the noble Earl's speech was a good deal of governmentspeak and not too much of what we were perhaps hoping to hear from him. If he and the Government will not listen to the noble Lords who have supported me today, perhaps they might listen to the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, who was a permanent secretary at the Department of the Environment. If nothing else, let us look at what I said at the end of my opening speech. We have a good foundation for local government. Please let us look at building on that. Let us have change where change is necessary, but not change for change's sake.
If there is one thing that we have achieved today which is positive, it is that we have managed to produce unanimity in the House of Swinton. I again thank all those who have taken part in this debate and who have contributed so splendidly. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

State Hospitals (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
8.16 p.m.
The Marquess of Huntly: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I must first apologise to the House that I was not able to move the First Reading of this Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lyell for doing that on my behalf.
The Bill brings all powers for the provision, control and management of state hospitals in Scotland in to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 and will enable the Secretary of State for Scotland to set up a special health board under Section 2 of that Act to provide for the care and treatment of patients within such hospitals.
Granting special health board status will, I assure your Lordships, be welcomed by the general public, the Carstairs staff and the wider National Health Service as the final step in fulfilling the Government's long-standing commitment to do all they can to change lingering perceptions of the State Hospital, Carstairs, as an extension of the prison system and instead complete the conditions in which it can come to be properly regarded as a health facility.
At present the provisions for the control and management of the State Hospital are set out in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, whereas the Secretary of State's power to constitute health boards is set up under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. As there is no statutory link between the two

1159
pieces of legislation, this Bill is intended to bridge that gap and create the conditions in which the Secretary of State for Scotland can apply special health board status to Carstairs hospital.
The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 created powers within the 1978 Act for the Secretary of State for Scotland to create and transfer functions to special health boards. Quite properly, of course, only those functions that are set out within the 1978 Act can be transferred. In order to transfer the full range of provisions attaching to the state hospital service to the special health board that is to be created, it is necessary to transfer the legislative provisions covering the control and management of the State Hospital, Carstairs, from the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 to the 1978 Act.
Your Lordships may be interested in some background to the state hospital service in Scotland. The State Hospital at Carstairs is a secure hospital which is administered for the Secretary of State for Scotland by an appointed management committee. Carstairs is the only state hospital in Scotland. It serves as a special hospital and regional secure unit for Scotland and Northern Ireland. The hospital cares for an average of 220 or so patients who are admitted under requirements of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 and related legislation, including in particular the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, because of their dangerous, violent or criminal propensities.
The hospital treats patients admitted suffering from a range of mental disorders. The staff expertise is held in high regard by all who make use of the hospital's services. They are expert in dealing with potentially dangerous people suffering from mental disorders or indeed patients who have proved themselves very difficult to manage elsewhere in the National Health Service. The facilities at the hospital are designed to allow people to be cared for in secure conditions and to minimise the potential danger to themselves, to staff and, of course, most importantly, to the general public. Like all hospitals in the National Health Service, at Carstairs the patients' needs must come first.
The patients fall into two categories: the Secretary of State patients—that is, those admitted from the courts under a restriction order and who may be discharged only with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland—and the non-Secretary of State patients—that is, those admitted either from the courts but without a restriction order or as ordinary detained hospital patients, usually on transfer from National Health Service hospitals, who may be discharged or transferred with the agreement of the Carstairs management committee. There are also patients in both categories who are transferred from prison for treatment at Carstairs.
I have already mentioned that the granting of special health board status will fulfil a long-standing commitment and your Lordships will be interested to know that over the past three years all other available steps have been taken towards the creation of health board status for Carstairs. For example, the State Hospital management committee has been restructured
1160
along health board lines. Her Majesty's Treasury has agreed to the approach made that from 1st April 1992 the hospital should no longer have its own Vote but should be part of the main Health Service Vote and be subject to the same financial regimes as apply for all other health boards in Scotland. Also, the State Hospital has developed its own strategic objectives and is subject to he same accountability review process as the other health boards in Scotland.
Much progress has therefore been made. For instance, I can give two tangible examples of the significant change and improvements made so far at Carstairs in response to the initiative to transform the state hospital service from its custodial and punitive past into a hospital where the emphasis is properly on care therapy and rehabilitation.
More recently, in fact in February this year, the British Standards Institution awarded the hospital its British Standard BS5750 certificate in recognition of the commitment to quality at Carstairs. The State Hospital, Carstairs, was the first National Health Service hospital in the UK to achieve certification by the British Standards Institution for its entire operation, which is no small achievement and an indication of the progress made by the staff for the benefit of patients and their relatives.
As I have explained, this Bill brings all the Secretary of State's powers for the provision, control and management of state hospitals in Scotland into the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978. This is a technical Bill, running to just three clauses. Clause 1 re-enacts in an extended form Section 102 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 to include the provisions dealing with the control and management of state hospitals in Scotland currently provided in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. Clause 2 deals with consequential amendments and repeals. Clause 3 gives the powers to make an order which will commence the provisions of the Bill. The Bill has no financial effects, no effect on public sector manpower and no compliance cost implications for business. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Marquess of Huntly.)
8.23 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we should be grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Huntly, for introducing the Bill and explaining it so thoroughly. I am grateful also to the Minister of State at the Scottish Office for sending me an explanation of it. We have been waiting for such a Bill for a long time and for the changes that it will introduce.
I know Carstairs reasonably well. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, I was a constituency Member of Parliament in the area for quite a long time and have visited Carstairs once or twice. I agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Huntly; whenever I visited the staff were extremely attentive. I do not think that that was a show; I think that they were really concerned and interested. Therefore, if we can do anything to take away the old stigma from that hospital, we shall have done a very good job.

1161
I should like to make another point to the Minister in the hope that at some point in the future something can be done about it. I know that there must be a certain amount of security in any institution—prison or hospital —of the nature that Carstairs will become. However, as a member of the Penal Affairs Group in the other place and as a chairman of SACRO for some time, I have visited nearly all the prisons in Scotland and I must tell the Minister that what got me about Carstairs was its fencing. I found it offensive. I know that such things can be expensive to change, but if the opportunity arises, I hope that the Minister will seriously consider it. It must be very depressing for relatives to see that double fencing. I imagine that they would rather see a wall.
Having said that, however, I am delighted that this short Bill has been introduced. I hope that we can proceed with its remaining stages quickly so that the Bill will reach the statute book soon.
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I did not put down my name to speak on this Second Reading because I was not sure that I would be present in the House when the Bill was introduced. However, I should like briefly to congratulate my noble friend on introducing the Bill and on the clear way in which he has moved the Second Reading.
Anyone who has been an honorary sheriff in Scotland knows the importance of having the right sort of secure state hospital in our midst. Anyone who follows, as I am sure noble Lords do with interest, the advancing state of medicine and who has an understanding of mental illness will realise how important it is that the status of such hospitals should be seen somewhat differently than has been the case in the past. I believe that the Bill will bring about a change in public perception which will be extremely helpful, above all, to the patients, as well as to the staff and the patients' relatives. That is an important part of my noble friend's purpose. I congratulate him and hope that the House will give the Bill a fair wind.
8.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carrnyllie): My Lords, I join the congratulations that have been extended to my noble friend Lord Huntly on the way in which he has simply but eloquently explained the desirability of the Bill that he has just introduced. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour should have joined in the approval of the Bill.
When introducing the Bill, my noble friend described it as "technical". In some respects he is correct, but he should not underestimate its importance to those who work at Carstairs in what are difficult circumstances from time to time. I have no doubt that it will be a great encouragement to them that my noble friend has introduced this Bill and that every indication has been that your Lordships' House supports it. As my noble friend said, the hospital recently secured the BS5750
1162
certificate. That is very important. I have no doubt that the great improvements that have been made there in recent years will enable that progress to continue.
A further matter of encouragement to the staff and all those who are interested in this matter is that, while my noble friend has introduced the Bill in this House because it is non-controversial and essentially non-political in nature, I understand that the Member of Parliament for Clydesdale, Mr. Jimmy Hood, whose constituency contains Carstairs, is now prepared to take the Bill through the other place if it secures the approval of your Lordships. I have no doubt that that combination will be of further encouragement to the staff.
The only problem raised in this short debate was one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, with regard to the fencing. Difficult security issues have to be dealt with, not least so far as concerns the local community. I have no doubt that he will be interested to know that, while at present the State Hospital, rather curiously, is located on both sides of a public road, the proposal is that in the near future the site on one side of the road should be abandoned and the hospital should be contained on a single site. I have no doubt that that will not just make security better but in many respects what is in place will look less oppressive to those who work within the hospital and to the local community. It is a great encouragement that the Bill so clearly commands the support of your Lordships. I, too, commend the Bill to the House.
The Marquess of Huntly: My Lords, am most grateful for the support that I have received this evening. I am pleased that I have been able to be involved in bringing forward the Bill. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Road Traffic Regulatiion (Special Events) Bill
8.31 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am very pleased to have been asked by my honourable friend the Member for Hexham, Mr. Peter Atkinson, to take this Bill to your Lordships' House. That will mean, I think, that I shall have taken at least one transport-related Bill through the House every Session since 1986. I do not know whether that is some kind of record. The Bill fulfils a need to clarify the law in respect of road closures and traffic regulation for large sporting and social events and entertainments on the highway. The effect of the Bill is to confer new powers on traffic authorities to make orders imposing temporary restrictions or prohibitions on traffic to allow large events to take place on closed roads and also to regulate traffic on surrounding roads to minimise the consequent inconvenience and disruption to road users.
I shall describe the Bill's provisions briefly. Clause 1 will have effect by inserting three sections into the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Section 16A permits traffic authorities by order to make the type of

1163
restrictions which are available elsewhere in the Act when, for example, road repairs are required; that is, road closures, making streets one way, parking suspensions, speed limit restrictions and so on. However, it does not allow any closures which would prevent pedestrian access to premises. Section 16B limits the duration of an order to a maximum of three consecutive days and their frequency to not more than once in any calendar year unless allowed by the Secretary of State. Section 16C makes it an offence to contravene an order. The penalty is level 3 on the standard scale (currently £1,000). That section also empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations covering the procedure for making orders, including the giving of notice and consideration of representations. Clause 2 is the standard expenses clause, necessary because of the different incidence of expenditure under the new powers. Finally, Clause 3 and the schedule make consequential amendments and give the short title and extent of the Bill (England, Wales and Scotland but not Northern Ireland).
In the absence of any provision to the contrary, the Bill will come into effect immediately upon Royal Assent. Notes on clauses are available. They give a fuller description than the one I have given should any noble Lord be interested in looking further into the matter.
The Bill is necessary to safeguard the visit of the Tour de France Cycle Race in the summer, two stages of which are to be held in England on 6th and 7th July in Kent and East Sussex and in Hampshire respectively. However, the Bill also fulfils a long-felt need for adequate powers to be conferred on traffic authorities to regulate traffic in connection with major spectator events held on public roads such as the London Marathon, the Great North Run and the Lewes Bonfire Party. It will of course be of benefit to tourism. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Mountevans will wish to say something on that subject.
Although highways are used primarily to get from place to place, there are long-standing rights to use highways for pleasure, and many sporting and social events have been regularly taking place on the highway and giving considerable pleasure to large sections of the population for many years. However, the powers available to the police and to local authorities to restrict and regulate traffic are now considered to be inadequate for the extensive traffic management measures that need to be taken to minimise the danger and inconvenience that would otherwise result at these well attended events.
The existing powers that have been used to close roads for events on the highway date, for the most part, from the last century when, for better or worse, motor vehicles and the associated volumes of traffic legislation had not yet appeared. Limited powers are to be found in provisions such as Section 21 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and Section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. Those provisions give the police general powers to direct the route to be taken by
"Carts, carriages horses and persons … in times of public processions, public rejoicing or illuminations".
1164
Those powers will continue to be available to deal with the traffic aspects of many public events held on the highway. However, at the time when those powers were created no one could have foreseen the degree of personal mobility that the motor car now provides, enabling huge numbers of spectators to attend some of the more popular events, and creating the need for widespread traffic management measures, not only on the roads on which the event is taking place but also on surrounding roads. The Bill, if passed, will permit traffic authorities to put such traffic management measures in place as are necessary to minimise the disruption and inconvenience that would otherwise be caused.
I believe, and I am sure your Lordships will agree, that it is most important that we ensure that large public events which traditionally take place on the highway are allowed to continue. The Bill will reinforce the right to use the highway for pleasure and will safeguard the future of those popular events requiring road closures which by their very popularity attract such large crowds that special traffic regulation is required on associated roads.
I wish to reassure the House that the Bill does not permit gratuitous closures of roads, nor permit roads to be closed for undesirable purposes. The use of the powers in the Bill to permit motor racing events on public roads is specifically ruled out for the very good reason that that would encourage imitative behaviour by more easily influenced drivers when a road is reopened. Sadly, that was borne out by the experience of last year's Isle of Man TT Race, when over the fortnight 10 motorcyclists were killed out of competition on reopened public roads. The Bill will also not permit roads to be closed for any cycling race or motoring event which has not been duly authorised.
Another brake on the use of these powers is in the frequency of their use, limited as they are to a maximum of three days per calendar year for any particular stretch of road without the consent of the Secretary of State. I also understand that if the Bill is passed the Department of Transport will make regulations requiring traffic authorities to consult widely and with good notice on any proposals to use those powers so that full account may be taken of any representations made by those who will be most affected.
In conclusion, I ask the House to support the Bill, which will allow local authorities, after due consultation and consideration of representations, to take such measures as they consider necessary to ensure that these large-scale events continue to take place safely and with the minimum of inconvenience for all.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
8.38 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the Bill so ably introduced by my noble friend, and—dare I say it?—long-time transport sparring partner, Lord Brabazon of Tara. While I can think of reasons for supporting the Bill which would take me 20 minutes to say, I shall focus on just three. I shall concentrate first on the fact that the Bill is a mainland-wide Bill, and I shall return to that point;

1165
secondly, on the fact that it is an enabling Bill rather than a Bill that forbids and complicates; and, lastly, on the fact that it will have an enormous impact on tourism.
The nationwide element is important because the Bill does away with the need for a number of individual and specific Bills which might crop up in the future.
My noble friend reminded us that road motor racing is specifically excluded. However, some noble Lords will recall that, when the City of Birmingham wished to promote on-highway motor racing, it was put to considerable difficulty when it sought to get an individual and specific enabling Act through Parliament. One has in mind events such as the Monaco Grand Prix or the Le Mans 24-hour race. They are conducted legally and with decency.
Henceforth, such individual Bills for specific events will be unnecessary; this Bill makes them so. Those who wish to promote events of a major scale—for instance, the Tour de France or elements of it—will have the opportunity to fall back on the powers which they will enjoy in the Road Traffic Regulations (Special Events) Act 1994.
I turn to the enabling element of the Bill; the positive element. So much of the legislation that we discuss is needed in order to restrict public or private conduct. On the other hand, this Bill simplifies the regulation of major —perhaps I may say "international"—events. Not only is that good administration, it is also a matter of enabling events to take place which will bring enormous pleasure to many, whether they be present in person or derive their pleasure via the media.
Finally, I welcome the Bill on the grounds of tourism —and here I must declare an interest. The events which the Title describes as special will surely contribute to the growth of domestic and foreign tourism within or to the United Kingdom. Tourism can be looked on as our fastest growing industry or, potentially, as our biggest employer. That is already the case in Scotland. But beyond the employment position is a balance of payments "plus" of great importance. Special events of the kind that we are discussing will encourage our fellow citizens to stay at home. By doing so they will not add to the imports side of the balance of payments ledger.
At the same time, events of this nature—for instance, the visit to Southern England of the Tour de France—will in the short term give rise to considerable foreign visitor traffic. But, in the longer term, such an event will generate exceptional media coverage. It is positive coverage which reaches millions of enthusiasts and many more millions of potential visitors in a way which the tourism industry—be it the government-supported tourist industry such as the British authority or the commercial sector—could never hope to finance. The Bill before us may be short and specific but its potential impact is, in the promotional sense, enormous and general. It deserves our wholehearted support and I am delighted to offer that.
8.43 p. m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, we are grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, explained the Bill in a
1166
more succinct way than it was explained in another place. He should realise that there is a difference between this House and another place. First, the Bill was introduced on a Friday, when Members take their last chance of the week to make a speech involving their constituency. Naturally, they send a copy to the local paper and they had probably had representations from constituents. Also, the second debate on that day was about women in Parliament. There are still many male chauvinists in the other place and I should riot have been surprised if they had tried to delay the Bill
Perhaps I may illustrate the way in which the Bill was treated in the other place. I calculate that the Second Reading took 57 columns in Hansard. A week later the Committee stage amendments, Third Reading and Report stages were conducted in less than one-third of a column. No one spoke and the Bill was passed. That indicates the feeling in the other place, leaving aside the relaxation of Friday debates. It was, nevertheless, a. serious issue.
I was worried about the possibility of local objections, a point raised in the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, made it clear there will be consultation with local authorities and local people. I am delighted that the Tour de France is coming to this country. I saw it once in Paris, when the whole of France stopped. The excitement that it generated was the same as that which used to occur at the Oval and Lords. I do not think that the people there are now so enthusiastic. The race was a wonderful spectacle and I hope that it will be a fitting addition to the celebrations that we shall have for the opening of the Channel Tunnel.
It is interesting to note that certain events rely on legislation that is perhaps 100 years old. Only when a big event such as this comes along is it realised that the law has to be changed. Therefore, the Bill provides two benefits. The first is that it allows the Tour de France to come to this country. The second is that it makes our law more flexible in handling other such events. We are grateful for the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. Wearing his tourism hat, he said that he too believes that the Bill will help to create a spectacle that will attract tourists to this country. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill.
8.47 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara for introducing the Bill in such a clear and succinct manner. 'The Government fully support the Bill.
The powers to close roads and to regulate traffic for sporting and cultural events on the highway are outdated or obscure. I am pleased that this Bill will ensure that the visit of the Tour de France goes ahead in July and will safeguard the future of many more traditional events in this country. As has been mentioned, there is a long-standing right in this country to use the highway for pleasure. That is the case, which is enshrined even in the most recent Highways Act. However, when considering a Bill of this kind, it is most important to ensure that a balance is kept between those who wish to use the highways for events such as those mentioned and those who wish to use them to go about their

1167
ordinary daily business other than for recreation. Therefore, while the sporting and cultural events which attract a large number of spectators should continue to take place, there should be certain controls on the use of the powers in order to ensure that they are not abused or used gratuitously.
If the Bill is passed, regulations will be made to cover the procedures to be followed when making traffic regulation orders under these powers. The regulations will be concerned in particular with public consultation before orders are made. That is a key issue in maintaining the good will of local people in the areas where sporting events are to take place. It is they who may be caused inconvenience. It is important that the people who will be most affected by road closures receive good notice of the intentions of the traffic authorities. For that reason, a period of notice of up to 12 weeks would perhaps be appropriate.
It can be seen from the face of the Bill that at no time can pedestrian access to premises be suspended by a traffic regulation order. The traffic authorities must consider representations, including whether an event even needs to take place on the highway in the first place. When authorities have satisfied themselves that it should, they must consider the safety and convenience of alternative routes. Of course, the Bill does not permit any road to be closed for more than three days in any calendar year without the consent of the Secretary of State. All that is a considerable improvement upon the present situation where such powers that do exist do not require anything like the same level of consultation and consideration before a road is closed.
The Bill is a wholly appropriate measure. It balances the rights of those who wish to participate in or watch great events from time to time and those who must use the highway for more traditional purposes on a day to day basis. If it is passed, it will safeguard events on the highway for the future and it will also help to make them safer both for participants and for spectators.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful for the all-round support that the Bill has received from my noble friend Lord Mountevans, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and indeed the Minister. My noble friend Lord Mountevans concentrated in particular on the impact on tourism which this Bill could have and the coming to this country of the Tour de France in July —or as it will be known in France, the Tour en Angleterre.
That is the largest sporting event in the world in terms of spectators with an estimated media coverage of some 1 billion people—if one can believe that. We expect also that it will attract a considerable number of spectators over its two days in England. That may exceed 1 million people. That is a major opportunity for international publicity for the United Kingdom and will be a boost to tourism which the local authorities strongly support. It will come within a few weeks of the official opening of the Channel Tunnel and the cyclists
1168
will travel through the Channel Tunnel (although not on their bicycles but on the train) in order to take part in the event.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has read, as I have, the Second Reading debate in another place which took place on 4th February. I found it an extremely amusing debate. It is not often that one laughs out loud when reading a debate; but, as the noble Lord said, that may possibly have had something to do with the business that was to follow on that Friday morning. However, I commend that debate to your Lordships. The noble Lord mentioned also the need for local consultation. The Minister covered that point extremely clearly when he described the regulations which the Secretary of State is minded to produce in that regard.
Once again, I am grateful for the reception which the Bill has received, and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Export Promotion
8.53 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their current policies and activities in the field of export promotion, and whether they could be made more effective.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, because of the late hour, I hope that I shall be excused for motoring through my delivery.
Every responsible government must seek to develop sound strategies in the field of export promotion. Exports will lead to economic growth and bring stability and prosperity to the nation. We must continue to identify and explore avenues to improve trade performance both in traditional and new markets. In this House we must play our part in assisting UK business to achieve sustained increases. This Question serves to draw attention to the need for continual discussion on such matters and frequent assessments of the Government's role and performance in this area.
A primary responsibility of government is to create the right macro-economic conditions at home to allow our companies to be competitive abroad. Essential objectives must be to maintain low inflation and low interest rates combined with stable competitive exchange rates. Her Majesty's Government must also establish and sustain friendly relations with countries important to the trade programme, and continue to influence trading partners in areas such as tariffs and standards.
Sound in-depth market knowledge is important. I can inform your Lordships that the Institute of Export has been instrumental in proposing a preliminary study of support services for small and medium enterprises, commonly referred to as SME's. An evaluation of six European countries in phase 1 of its report has been approved. That is encouraging, although I believe that phase 2 would be of equal interest, when countries of the Pacific Rim and Latin America are expected to be included. Much can be learnt from export-driven

1169
success stories such as Japan and Brazil. We need to instil the same sense of urgency into our exporters, with early recognition of opportunities and quick responses.
Advice for domestic and export issues will be channelled through the Business Link operation, of which there are expected to be 200 offices in place over the next three years. It will serve as a sign-posting operation to specialist advisers, either in the Chamber of Commerce movement or elsewhere. One must be allowed to query the efficacy of this: Business Links presently displays little knowledge of the export arena, whereas the DTI is a veritable storehouse of vital information. Indeed, I commend the Minister on the recent addition of 60 officers to the complement of DTI officials in market branches. That ensures that there are enough staff to allow for at least one dedicated desk officer for each of the UK's top 80 export markets.
It may be that the Minister is able to assure us of plans for close liaison and co-ordination between the DTI and Business Links to consolidate expertise. A period of some confusion while that programme is in its transitional stage would be detrimental to credibility and future viability. Is Business Links to succeed DTI regional offices? There then follows the question of guaranteed funding for Business Links after the three year set-up period. I ask the Minister to address this tonight, as many are concerned about this point.
A principal conduit of the Government's policies is the 70. of a proposed complement of 100, so-called export promoters. Their purpose is to liaise between UK and overseas companies, identifying projects and markets, and advising business people on local conditions and requirements. They can assist in determining the viability of schemes, and the reliability of partners. Using local knowledge and experience, coupled with multinational company training, they help exporters and investors to make a success of their endeavours.
Initial reaction to the scheme has been cool in some quarters, possibly as a result of not being well marketed. I believe that it is making a valid contribution. The job description is open-ended, allowing development of the export promoters' own ideas, and they are able to point out weaknesses in the system, bridging gaps between office-bound civil-servants and the world outside.
Perhaps the Minister would tell us something of the number of enterprises visited, and outline some successes that can be attributed to the effectiveness of the export promoters. It would also be useful to be apprised of the future prospects of this scheme. Most are on two-year assignments, some shorter, with others due for renewal shortly.
The Overseas Projects Board has formed groups to match specific major overseas project opportunities with their respective UK commercial sectors. Would the Minister share some of the success stories under this scheme, and tell us something of the strategies designed to increase those successes? Are there sufficient promoters covering such key markets as Latin America and the Pacific Rim?
Exporters must be encouraged to work more closely together, even bidding jointly for large projects, if UK Plc is to take the lead, ahead of France and Japan, in
1170
establishing conditions for companies to bid competitively for, and win, large international contracts. To illustrate: North West Water and Thames Water lost a large contract in Buenos Aires to Générale des Eaux of France after competition between them led to neither arranging export finance in time.
That highlights the Minister of Trade's point, that:
"a single bid will improve the UK's chances of securing major business, on the selection of one company, or one group of companies, putting forward the most effective national bid, when several companies are competing for a particular project."
I had been concerned that there was no single point of contact and co-ordination for all the initiatives. I am therefore delighted to learn that a director general of export promotion has now been appointed. I understand his job will be to co-ordinate all the overseas trade services export initiatives and to ensure that the resources devoted to exporting are utilised to full effect. Will he be working closely with the Whitehall export promotion committee? If so, this should promote the integration of departments in Whitehall and the co-ordination of the export promotion programme. Co-ordination would also be enhanced by granting responsibility at Cabinet level for all export promotion activities in all relevant Ministries to the President of the Board of Trade.
It is essential that the drive is well informed and supported by the Foreign Office. Emphasis must be away from consular services—now possible with future joint operations with our European partners—and towards trade development. With the transition to a single market and the opportunities that present themselves to British companies as a result of the completion of the last GATT round, our missions in worldwide capitals must lend themselves to the drive to increase British exports in world markets.
I hope the House will allow me to comment on a recent fact finding visit I made to the Directorate General for Trade and Investment in Dusseldorf. I was favourably struck by the quality of senior civil servants working there to maximise British exports to Germany. They operate in a highly professional manner with dedication and in-depth knowledge of their market. We should recognise those attributes. I would encourage any exporter to draw upon those resources, and similar offices located in such diverse economic centres as New York and Milan. Budgets should be utilised to increase the coverage by commercial staff, in bare-bones operations, in less-obvious target areas around the world than at present.
Locally employed personnel are an excellent alternative to complement transient British commercial officers; they are cost effective and give continuity and local knowledge. Leipzig is an example of a new-look lean operation, and the prognosis is good. The importance of inward investment must not be forgotten, and our commercial staff in posts around the world must always encourage companies to base their European manufacturing bases in the UK. Some 40 per cent. of the total Japanese investment into the European Union comes to our shores. We should become fully aware of the reasons for this and capitalise upon them.
The old Export Intelligence Service is now distributed by Prelink. It is a service that relies

1171
essentially on the publication of quality and timely export leads. The information is collated from 200 posts worldwide, at the average rate per post of one new inquiry daily. This is indeed a valuable system in theory, but there still continues to be criticism, which is not aimed at Prelink directly, but at the quality of information emanating from the posts.
Information must be sent more expeditiously, and be complete in content. Application of the inquiry, more detailed specifications and information on the potential client would offer valuable additional assistance to our exporters. This service needs improvement and monitoring. There is a lack of resources to obtain intelligence information. Part of a mandatory national registration fee could be used to invest in more detailed coverage of overseas markets. If there were linkage between the coding procedures of Prelink and registered exporters, tremendous potential could be developed and exploited. Is current information, for example, circulated gratis to all exporter promoters?
There are many advantages of a registration scheme. UK businesses need to be well prepared for the opportunities which come about from an active export programme. British exporters are at a disadvantage in being unable to have their international marketing efforts supplemented by a system of dealing with sourcing inquiries which targets potential suppliers accurately and quickly. This is a well known criticism, and we are losing considerable market opportunities. Voluntary schemes have failed and leave UK commerce and industry at a disadvantage. In a modern and competitive economy we must provide a solution to incomplete business information.
At the same time both trade associations and the Chambers of Commerce movement are in need of a major overhaul. Proposals for the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to set performance standards are to be actively encouraged. If it has been assigned an important part to play in the new Business Link strategy, it is imperative that it be positively vetted and standards maintained.
I turn now to the subject of credit guarantee insurance. Ability to qualify, its availability and cost, are causing concern. To what extent are low-risk countries subsidising those that are high risk, thereby ensuring more comprehensive worldwide coverage?
British firms are losing millions of pounds of potential export business because their European competitors are securing more attractive terms. Options to help smaller exporters to protect their business must be examined and developed, either on a loan guarantee basis, or by offering greater access to managed credit insurance, or a mixture of grants and loans. The Government would doubtless wish to discount the theory that they do considerably less than other governments in this area. Is the amount of ECGD support available for the next three years going to be sufficient to meet increased demand as a result of the export drive? Additional amounts must be increased by the Treasury as exports multiply.
Is it the case that the majority of ECGD support is focused on the top 10 per cent. of companies which
1172
produce 60 per cent. of British exports? If so, what support are the medium-sized exporters receiving? I shall illustrate that point. A signed contract for £900,000 to Pakistan was unable to receive ECGD cover because the line was fully utilised owing to a pending large contract that was due shortly.
A Written Answer addressed to me stated:
"a new three year rolling strategy to provide for high exposure markets, enabling industry to plan ahead, has been detailed. £2 billion of extra cover is also to be made available, with an additional £1.4 billion of reinsurance cover for exports on short term credit".
Nevertheless, I fear that there is a gap in the export initiative here, and growth will be restricted unless these problems are anticipated and addressed.
Trade missions are an invaluable method by which companies can travel in like-minded groups and have doors opened which may otherwise be hard to achieve alone. Trade missions and trade fair support should be targeted to those most in need in the small and medium enterprises sector. It is said there are too many visits too close together; moreover, the DTI now announces the programme of trade missions at six monthly intervals, instead of an annual programme. That could cause problems for the larger chambers in forward planning. In the interest of information sharing and target marketing, mandatory debriefing after such trips should be obligatory.
A DTI initiative to focus on the importance of language skills to the exporters would offer additional benefits on those trade missions. The British are not widely recognised as great linguists and so often fail to gain real understanding of other cultures which would offer a business edge. In tandem with expressing the need for greater proficiency in languages, Her Majesty's Government must further, whenever possible, the global spread of the English language.
In a list of the top 20 of the world's largest trade fair sites the UK appears once only, offering a mere 125,000 square metres. That compares with Germany's huge 1.7 million square metres. No one would deny the benefit of permanent sites to display to the world the best of British. What we are lacking is the necessary space in easily accessible locations. I suggest to your Lordships that if the Commonwealth Institute loses its struggle for survival and funding is withdrawn after 1996, consideration might be given to transforming that building into a permanent exhibition centre for avant garde British products.
Our aid policy should, for the greater part, be designed to encourage trade. An exception is humanitarian aid. Information about bilateral and multilateral aid finance procurement opportunities must be circulated to UK companies with as much advance notice as possible. Competitive UK companies should be the beneficiaries of those contracts.
I mentioned this evening the recent matter of the trade difficulties with Malaysia only to urge all the parties to spare no effort in reaching an early amicable solution.
The media obviously have a tremendous role to play in this export drive. Circulation could be boosted by

1173
reporting the many success stories of British industry overseas and instilling a sense of pride about our achievements.
To summarise, the DTI's export promotion services generally appear to be highly valued, and I believe that there is all-party support. The Government must convince the country, however, that the measures are a carefully constructed programme designed for the long haul and should identify for clarity the precise sections of industry targeted. A clear goal would be more pro-active marketing of the services to non-users. Not enough companies are aware of those services or how to access them.
There may be merit in a sessional Select Committee being organised, with reasonably broad terms of reference targeted directly towards the export arena. I realise that that might impinge on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in another place, but in line with the President of the Board of Trade's desire to separate export promotion from trade policy, considerable benefits could derive from a regular interrogation of export initiatives and the airing of the concerns of our exporters and allied services.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to share his thoughts on that and the other points raised this evening.
9.10 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, 26 years ago—from the very Bench from which the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, opened this debate—I made my maiden speech, on the subject of invisible exports. We should be grateful for the lead that the noble Viscount has given in this discussion. He has approached the subject in a comprehensive and analytical manner which will lead to useful conclusions being drawn and useful lines being followed.
Since that day I retained some connection with the export world. For two years I was in the DTI, having responsibility among other things for the ECGD. I spent four years as chairman of the British Overseas Trade Board followed by seven years as chairman of British Invisibles. For the past 10 years I have been president of the Institute of Export.
That gives me a problem because with that background it would be assumed that one would know all the answers; but I am quite conscious that I do not. Between times I was working on the other side of the fence as a client of those services, generally seeking finance for projects overseas.
It might be interesting to look in retrospect at what has changed over those years. In the 1960s and early 1970s without doubt Britain was at the forefront of development of techniques for export support, witness the formulation of the buyer credit guarantee backed by ECGD. I had a part in negotiating the first contract financed by that means, which was for an oil pipeline in Algeria. If my memory, is correct, the sum involved was £7 million, which seemed mind-bogglingly large in those days. A very good job was done by the department, working closely with the clients, in developing those new techniques.
Sadly, there has been a change. That change occurred when the world fell into economic decline in the 1970s.
1174
ECGD had operated independently because as an agency it commanded its own reserves—about £60 million at the peak, which again seemed a lot of money. But shortly thereafter came the problems—not in millions, tens of millions but in hundreds of millions of pounds—of the bad and doubtful debts; and the Export Credit Guarantee Department fell into the thrall of the Treasury.
The story continued in that way until about two years ago when privatisation became the watchword. Developments have taken place which on the whole have been constructive although in some sense such developments have yet to bed down and show that they are fully competitive compared with what other countries are able to offer.
Meanwhile, as one would expect, the system was regularly reviewed. I refer to the Duncan review, the Berrill review (which, happily, was not much implemented), and the increasing role of the FCO. The process started with the unification of the Foreign Office, the Commonwealth Office, and the old Trade Commission service, with the recognition that part of the career path of a foreign servant was. to become expert in and adept at trade promotion. Nowadays ambassadors who wish to discuss their roles as they move to new posts tend to say, "I am there primarily to promote trade. If not, I don't quite know why I am going". Most have had some previous commercial experience; and that is a welcome message. Therefore we have witnessed a raising in the standard of service that we receive from our representatives overseas. That should immediately be acknowledged.
There has, too, been a steady development in the other services available to exporters. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I have sat together on a trade board. He will remember the discussions year by year about the development of the Fairs and Promotions Service, the export intelligence service, and so on.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, dealt with the EIS and its successor Prelink, and made some valid comments. The numbers have changed; hut in the days that I remember the EIS had about 7,000 subscribers. That seemed a devisively low number compared with the number of companies known to be engaged in exporting. The cards that were sent out at that time cost about 35p including first class postage. They now go by more rapid means. The hit rate for export orders—I do not refer simply to inquiries—was one in 10. Why would anyone not use a service which was at the front end, collecting information overseas, bringing it to one's desk and saying, "There is someone out there who says that he wants to buy what you say you want to sell"? If one bought 10 cards, one had an export order for £3.50. That would not get you to your local town to see your bank manager.
Why was that service not used more? The noble Viscount referred to criticisms. They were of a distressingly familiar kind. I suspect that they have not changed. People said, "This service is not relevant. It gives us material that we do not want". There was never more than one answer to that criticism. It was this. "If you receive information that you do not want, that is your fault. You define your own profile. You get what

1175
you ask for and pay for. So first look at what you have profiled yourself to need and see if the difficulty lies there".
It was also said that the information came too late. That is a perpetual difficulty. Commercial officers in posts overseas, sadly, have become thinner on the ground as cuts have bitten into the service. They cannot be up and about all the time. They are often supported by first class, locally employed people—a breed whose merits are substantially underestimated but who can, under the right conditions, provide an invaluable, upfront, eyes-and-ears service.
I endorse the noble Viscount's comments about classification. If that can be sharpened, the complaint about information not being relevant might be expected to fall away.
I wish to touch on some current issues which affect the exporting community. The first is the use of the aid and trade provision. In markets such as China currently, that can be the key to vast opportunities. I very much hope that such provision will not be downplayed, still less written off, as a result of the spotlight that has recently fallen on Pergau. The use of aid funds in properly defined conditions, alongside trade credit in countries which have needs and which can be seen to be needful of such extra assistance, is not only respectable but highly desirable.
Equally, I hope that the arms to Iraq fiasco will not inhibit the thought process whereby the Government plan to assist exports; or alternatively plan to assist exporters. The two are not always the same.
It is clearly difficult to devise regimes that cater, at one end of the spectrum, for the first time SMEs who are looking to venture overseas and at the other end for the companies engaged in vast project bids which are undertaken by the likes of GEC, Rolls-Royce and Balfour Beatty. I therefore echo the need for selectivity in bid support and add to that a plea that there should be enhanced team work—it is pretty good, but there is always room for it to be improved —between the specialists concerned in the FCO, the Overseas Project Board, the Projects and Export Policy Division of the DTI, ECGD, ODA and others.
It is a recurring theme that our overseas competitors receive more of that kind of assistance than we do. The focus shifts from time to time, frequently it is on the French. Evidence of that is hard to come by; attempts have been made and I was party to one a couple of years ago when from the guild of world traders we financed a thesis by two PhD students on the subject of the level playing field. They came up with some helpful insights which we shared with the departments concerned.
The question is not only the one suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on whether an export insurer should subsidise bad risks with the premiums from good risks, but it also goes beyond that, it is the subsidy implicit when credit insurers write what in commercial terms would be uninsurable risks. That has been done by all exporting nations to a degree at some time. It is our belief which can be well substantiated that we do less of that now than others. One can see that in comparing the premiums quoted, for example, to British
1176
companies bidding in South Africa with the premiums quoted for identical finance to our French competitors. In that case, it was four or five to one in favour of the French, and not just a matter of a few per cent. A differential of that kind will destroy any prospect of profit on an overseas contract bid, other things being equal.
The noble Viscount was right when he said that we should look at the issues on the basis that we will do what is reasonably required in line with what other countries are doing. It is well and fine to take the moral high ground and say that we are doing the right thing; others will come and join us. It is well and fine, but not so good if you stand there proclaiming the purity of your policy and starve because no one has joined you.
Of the issues currently on the agenda for discussion, it is worth commenting that the services now provided by the DTI export promotion team are highly valued by existing users. Those who are engaged in them are seen as both proactive and productive, and we are fortunate in having a trade Minister —Richard Needham—who sees that clearly and is very responsive.
We need to try all the time to market the services more effectively to non-users, to get more companies into the exporting frame of mind. We should like to see the progress of the current strategic plan left unimpeded by too much influence from outside. The DTI has been putting this together with an overarching strategy embracing about 80 sub-plans. That is against the background that there is a large number of departments of Government which have an interest in exporting. I need only mention health; defence; MAFF; environment; education; and many agencies —up to 15 by some accounts—which are in one way or another engaged in this same exercise. It is tempting to ask: why do we not do as the Japanese do; namely, put all those areas together in a ministry of international trade? That would be one answer. It has never been thought to be the British answer. We have to do the best that we can by getting a high level of co-operation, and, it should also be said, a level of non-overlap and non-interference. It is quite confusing when there are Ministers from many departments going around commissioning their own studies. One hopes that the mechanism of co-ordination will be improved.
I hope that the DTI will be encouraged to continue with the process of seeking inward secondments for experienced people and developing professional career structures for its own staff.
I have one final word, on the subject of resources. Ever since I can remember, available resources for export promotion purposes have declined in real terms. The officials in government departments and in the agencies that work alongside them are in the main dedicated, hard-working people. They are supported by literally hundreds of businessmen who give up their time, in the area advisory groups, for example, which support the British Overseas Trade Board, in chambers of commerce around the country, in the Institute of Exports and in all sorts of other ways. That is a vast and under-appreciated asset. It needs a modicum of resources to enable it to do its job. The quest for

1177
economy has gone rather too far. There is a strong case to be made for restoring a small incremental value to the budget that is available to assist those efforts.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, the House should be very grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this subject. When I say "the House" I hope that all noble Lords who are absent will read his speech with great care. One thing is absolutely certain. Despite the poor attendance and the lateness of the hour, the subject that we are discussing is considerably more important than the one that was debated for five hours this afternoon. Upon this kind of debate depends whether or not we have a local government in this country. I extend my thanks to the noble Viscount. But I would not dream of moving down the same path. I am neither capable nor experienced enough to deal in that field. I am very content to leave it to him. When I was asked to take part in this debate I thought that that would be the situation.
That does not mean that as a layman I do not appreciate the importance of exports. I am quite sure that there is no disagreement on either side of this House as to the importance of manufactured goods being made in such a way that they can be exported to the rest of the world and help us to earn our living. That is a simple statement. It is a statement of social and economic fact that everybody should continue to emphasis. We are moving into a very serious situation.
I do not want to talk about those kinds of exports at all tonight. I should like to concentrate on other exports. Some of them were not very welcome among the exports from this country. I refer particularly to the machine tools and the various methods of production that were snapped up in sales when the manufacturing industry in this country was being run down for one reason or another and they were moved to the Pacific Rim. The same machine tools were being used with cheap labour. And now where are we? The goods produced by those machine tools are in some cases coming back to this country.
In discussing the economy with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in this House, I mentioned that in the place where I lived at least 15 major factories had been producing goods for over 40 years. I do not talk about it being in my lifetime because I am getting too old to talk about lifetimes, but in a short time all except one of them had completely gone. That one factory was the Bryant and May's match factory. So there was still one factory, but now that too has gone. If noble Lords want matches, they will have to buy foreign made goods. They cannot buy any matches made in Britain because no matches are being made here. That is a bad situation.
That story ties in with what has happened recently with regard to BMW and Rover. I thought that the partnership which developed between Honda and Rover was an excellent relationship. For their part the Japanese were committing themselves to a long-term presence in England. The Government rightly boasted about it. The Japanese thought of it as an entry into Europe. It was in their interest to develop that long-term relationship. But, as I said in my maiden speech in this House in 1978
1178
—it was a long time ago and we were discussing devolution—when people spoke about the devolution of power in this country they were laughed at. The same happened when they spoke about devolution of power to Scotland or Wales or even to parliamentary government in Westminster because real power rested in the hands of those who ran industry.
At that time I pointed out that there was a very real danger that power which had moved down from the North to the South would move from the South East of England and might even jump the Channel and go to the north coast of France. People said that I was only a layman who knew nothing about the matter. In a subsequent speech, when debating the Budget, I said that we should not kid ourselves that the financial centre of London was as secure as one might think. In that same week the Financial Times opened an office in Frankfurt. That newspaper knew what was happening.
In 1979 I forecast that there was a very great danger that because of the chaos that existed in London at the time, we could well frighten away the financial world. Nobody believed me. But is not that happening? Is it not true that there is a danger to the financial centre in London and that Frankfurt may take over its functions?
I come back to my point about BMW. I do not know whether the Government knew what was happening with BMW and Rover. I never had any doubt about it. I was always of the opinion that as soon as British Aerospace could do so, it would sell off Rover in order to put money into its coffers. The company would say that it was done in order to develop a new model. It would say that it was done for the core business. I say, as the noble Lord will no doubt expect me to say, that it was done to put money in the company's pockets. Certainly it was not out of any consideration for the national interest. If one were to chose between BMW owning Rover and Honda owning Rover, there would he no doubt about that.
There is another matter that we ought to reflect upon. We should ask ourselves whether or not the permanence of the motor industry is as secure as we think or whether, because of the phenomenal success of Nissan —I acknowledge that the Government engineered it—which has now become our largest exporter of cars to Europe, there may well be a cut-back in the car industry.
As a driver of a Rover arid someone who refuses to drive any other car—cars like most of those I see in the car park of this venerable place—I know that BMW can compete with Rover. If there was a cut back, I know where it would be. It would not be in Britain; it would be in Germany. The company is only interested in Europe. Japan would not do that because it uses its stake here in order to get into Europe. That is a problem that needs to be considered.
I asked the Department of Trade and Industry what action it intended to take to ensure that the companies which manufacture the 125 executive aircraft—they are manufactured in Broughton near Chester, not far from Liverpool, a place close to my heart—Rolls Royce and Rover Cars, remain in British control. I received a reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, and what a wonderful answer it was. She said,

1179
"The Government take the view that in general it is the company itself which is best placed to decide on changes in ownership or control".—[Official Report, 19/5/92; col. 549.]
Some may say that that is free enterprise and no doubt the Minister would say that too—"Leave it to them, they know how to sell those things". I questioned the Minister again on the same day, at col. 550, and asked whether it was right that,
"the Government intend to do nothing at all to prevent these firms going into foreign ownership".
I received a very blistering reply, once again at col. 550, from the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, who said,
"we are very anxious indeed about the position of industry in this country. The resource which allows our industry to continue and for new models to be developed will be focused on with fierce concentration".
I want to know whether the Government are still concentrating so fiercely on the question of BMW. There now seems to be a rift developing. In the Financial Times today it said that BMW is to enter into an agreement with Honda. The chairman of BMW is saying, "We will obtain an agreement with Honda to satisfy the employees of Rover and BMW". He does not say what Honda says about that. My guess is that it will not enter into an agreement; it will set up in competition for the same type of car. If it does, we shall be in real trouble.
I have watched factories move from the North West to the South East in a continuous steady stream. The last one will leave Garston, my birthplace—it was a match works—next month. I have seen them move to the South East where all the power is. I have warned that they will go further to where the real "golden triangle" is; that is, somewhere around Brussels.
Now the Channel Tunnel is coming. At least, it has arrived at the north coast of France; it has not yet come here because we are still hesitating about whether or not to provide a link to London. We are told that there will not be a link to Liverpool, where there is a potential capacity for 2 million passengers. We are told clearly that the Government have said there will be no link to Liverpool. The Merseyside transport network deals with 2 million people. If anybody there wants to take a train to the continent, they must go from Preston or Manchester—they must go from somewhere other than Liverpool.
That indicates that it will be much easier for people to travel by the fast railway system in the South East of England. That perturbed me, so I asked another question. I had just seen a television programme which seemed to have all the information. I asked if somebody could tell me how many factories and distribution centres were moving from Britain to the north coast of France. It is fairly cheap in that area, where many grants are available, and the French Government went in well before the tunnel was being built in order to develop it.
I asked the DTI. When I received its reply I wondered what the devil the DTI was doing over there, apart from moving from one side of Victoria to another side of Victoria and spending more than £1.5 million in doing so. I am told that it is going to spend another £1.5 million moving back to the other side. The offices will
1180
be refurbished by the owners —a land company—and the DTI will occupy them again. In fact, the DTI is going to spend about £85 million.
I often wonder what the DTI does because I can get the information from other sources, and evidently television companies can get the information from other sources. So again I ask the question. Perhaps the Minister will tell us tonight—he has had warning of my question—how many British factories are moving to the north coast of France; and, more importantly, how many continental factories are coming to the South East of England.
The reply I received to my question stated, "There is no central register kept in Europe so we cannot answer the question". That reply came from what was hailed as the Department for Enterprise. It was hailed as such by our friend Heseltine, who was supposed to have cured Liverpool. All he has left in the place of the Tate & Lyle sugar company is the Tate Gallery; and, my God, when I see some of the things in it, he should have kept it down here. This is the Department for Enterprise. We cannot even get a proper answer to a simple question like that. Does the answer mean that no central register is kept and that the department cannot find out how many companies have come into Kent? That seems to be the case.
I do not want to go on too long because that would be unfair.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, noble Lords say "Hear, hear", but I want to get home myself. I conclude on this note. We have had a bit of fun but there are more serious issues still facing us. It is only recently that we debated the question of high electricity prices with regard to ICI. There is a real threat that if ICI cannot be provided with prices competitive with those charged to other producers, the company will be in serious trouble. I should like to know what contact the DTI has had with ICI to discuss the problem since it was discussed in your Lordships' House. I do not believe there has been any discussion. Next month ICI will be joining the rest of the chemical industries in Europe to discuss research and the pooling of resources. It could well be that, with France being much nearer the centre of the European market than Great Britain and its companies having access to cheap electricity, ICI makes a move. It is no use coming along afterwards, as in the case of BMW, and saying that we did have talks. I want to know whether or not those talks are taking place now and whether the Government are prepared to give to ICI the same kind of benefits it would receive from foreign governments.
I could ask questions on other subjects but I think it would be a waste of time. I have asked several questions of the DTI and never received an answer. I shall put down some more for Written Answer so I do not delay other people who want to go home. I conclude by saying that the lack of information coming out of the DTI suggests to me that it is not looking long term and that it is suffering the British disease of short-termism.

1181
Unless it livens up and does something there will be more and more losses from this country to the rest of Europe and perhaps to the rest of the world.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for raising this issue and allowing us to debate it this evening. It is always a great pleasure for me, as I often seem to do, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, who, as he has already mentioned, comes from the same part of the world as I do. Although our concerns about the North West are the same, our solutions are slightly different.
I should like to say to him that he raised a very important point by drawing our attention to the fact that what this is all about is competition. This country relies wholeheartedly and foremost on its ability to export and to create wealth from those exports. We have to do that in such a way that we are competitive with the rest of the world. So we have to look very carefully at our ability to produce efficiently and effectively.
I say to the noble Lord opposite—I have great affection for him because, like me, he stands for the North West—that some of the issues he raised about the change in the industrial aspect of Liverpool have to do with the fact that the companies were not competitive. Many of them were started and developed through the use of government money, but they were never efficient in world terms. The demise of many of those companies draws our attention to the fact that, if we are to have effective exports of products throughout the world, we must produce them in the most efficient way. I do not believe that the loss of those major companies is the problem or is anything like as serious as the noble Lord believes. I say that for this reason: looking at the North West alone, as those companies have failed many others have come in their place.
I intend to speak on two issues. As regards exports; one is technology and the other is food. As regards technology, I am involved with the North West Technology Centre, which is responsible for the export of technology from the North West. With the great support of the DTI—which I found enormously supportive of anything to do with this area—we have recently developed Eurotech North West. That organisation is designed to market the technology from small companies throughout Europe and the rest of the world. We had the launch meeting in Liverpool. We had identified 200 companies in the Merseyside area which had technology which could be marketed to the benefit of the North West as a whole. Over 100 companies came to the meeting. They were not large companies, but those which had been started by people who had been involved in the major industries when they were running but who have now moved out into their own businesses. They were all extremely successful in developing new technologies for the future markets which are required. I was very encouraged. A company has to pay £500 to join the scheme in order to gain the benefits. The Liverpool Corporation said that for the companies within its area it would pay half the start-up costs, which would encourage more companies to join the scheme.
1182
I certainly see now a reduction in the number of large companies who were the main employers in Liverpool. But all that energy and resource has moved into a vast number of smaller companies which are at the very forefront of technology and ideas. That was not happening with the major companies, which were bogged down with bureaucracy and all the activities which prevented them from being at the forefront of technology and competitiveness. Although I understand the noble Lord's problems, what is happening now is very much more encouraging than seeing massive companies which were uncompetitive in the world marketplace. That is the key to exporting; namely, to be able to produce at such a level that we can be competitive in any marketplace in the world. I believe very strongly that what the DTI is doing, to encourage new start-ups, new businesses and new opportunities is the right way to go. I have been very supportive of the great number of initiatives and projects which the DTI is now working to develop in this area.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will be speaking in this debate. He and I have a mutual interest in Combined Heat and Power. One of the things about which I might possibly complain bitterly to the DTI is that we are trying very hard to get its support for a trade mission to market Combined Heat and Power in Russia, but we have had very little success. We have tried on two or three occasions. It may be that my noble friend sitting on the Front Bench with his legs on the table will —when he leaves this place and when we make our next application to sell Combined Heat and Power in Russia —give us a little more positive support.
Following on from that, the other great aspect of exporting is that most people do it for the adventure to begin with. It is not easy to pack your bag and set off for a foreign country where you may know very few people, nor to create a new market by meeting people, gaining their confidence, understanding what they want and perhaps learning their language. People who do that are taking the first great risk, which is what exporting is about, first and foremost. That is something that the DTI and the Government never quite understand. We are talking about a very different sort of person with the courage and ability to go out and create a new market for a new product.
The markets that are now opening up in the world, and in which Britain must have an important say, tend to be in the more "adventurous" places such as Russia, China and the Far East. Those are places to which our exporters have not gone historically. Doing that needs a little more impetus and support than setting out for, say, Germany, where we might expect to make contacts. I should like to see much more encouragement given to help people to take that first very brave step of going to a new country and opening up and developing markets. That is why we need support for export refunds, for trade missions and for the individuals who are prepared to take the risk. That is an important early element in encouraging people to enter new markets.
I should like to refer to the food industry, which is the area in which I have had most experience in exports. I should declare an interest, in that I am now involved in a company which is a major exporter of food products.

1183
As I was discussing with the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, before the debate, we can use promotions in two ways. One can think up a specific promotion in which one develops promotional activities or one may encounter a general climate which encourages exports.
The food industry has Food From Britain, which has the job of doing the actual promotion. When one compares that with what happens in any other country in Europe, one realises that it is ridiculously underfunded. In fact, it is so ridiculously underfunded as to be hardly worth while. On top of that, the organisation makes large charges to the companies that want to use its services. Britain will never have the opportunities for the export of foodstuffs that exist in France, Germany, Holland and Denmark unless we look very much more positively at the support that we give to promotional activities.
We need to look at this matter very much more carefully given the impact of GATT on food exports. Whatever way one looks at the impact of GATT, it will enormously reduce the amount of food that we shall be able to export. It will squeeze our home production. It will increase imports and squeeze exports, yet we already have a massive £6 billion deficit on the import of food as against our exports. The added value of quality British food could present us with an enormously important export commodity. However, if that is to happen, we must look seriously at the sort of support that the Government should provide, especially given the new GATT arrangements. These will put tremendous pressure on everybody, particularly those involved with certain commodities, such as milk powder, which it will suddenly not be possible to market at a profit.
I should like to refer to two other issues. It is not just a question of promotion, but of the Government's attitude to the mechanics of exporting. Great Britain could do a lot of business marketing products through EC countries to third world countries. One might, for example, ship a load of cheese from Crewe to Marseille, with another exporter then taking it on to Algeria or North Africa. Every other country in Europe deals with that problem effectively. However, our Government insist that they need to know the name of the end user. The British exporter might not know who that is. That gives our exporters an added problem that does not have to be faced by exporters from Holland, Germany or any other part of Europe. That is a matter which has been raised by the UK Provision Trade Association and many others in the business who have tried to get MAFF to look more closely at it and to simplify the procedures. That has not yet been done but perhaps my noble friend, with his renewed energy, can bring some pressure to bear to try to simplify the procedure.
I should like to refer to another problem. Cheshire has one of Europe's major salt producers. It is an efficient and profitable company which receives no support from anyone. However, a Dutch company has now decided to put up a salt factory, using public funds. This will be in direct competition with our British operation. That is another aspect of food exports, and the development of food exports, which needs to be
1184
studied by the Government. If there is a business in Britain which can make a profit on the open market and market throughout the world without government support, is it right to allow another European government to use their taxpayers' funds to create a company which is in direct competition with ours? I could give a number of similar examples which need to be looked at more closely.
We have debated in this House on many occasions the subject of fraud in the EC, especially in relation to food and the CAP. As a result, the Customs and Excise are more vigilant. They open and look in containers. They have gone from doing nothing to doing everything. It seems odd that companies that have been traditional and well qualified exporters for many years under the new regulations now have a large number of their containers opened at considerable expense. If a container is opened and all the products are gone through, that can easily cost £1,000. That is an area that my noble friend might look at. He could inquire whether that procedure is being carried out in a sensible and efficient way to see that we are not penalising many exporters by controlling what they are trying to do.
I believe strongly that this Government, above all others, realise the importance of exports and, through the DTI, have taken enormous steps to encourage and support the development of exports. But, as in all things, there is always more to do. In fact the more that is done the more there is to do. I hope that, in addition to the many things that the Government have done, they will continue to work at the many things that still need to be done.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on introducing this timely debate and on his most constructive and detailed speech. I must declare an interest as I spend much of my time travelling the globe, assisting in the export promotion of a British product. In that task I have been fortified by the knowledge of the excellence that is the proud tradition of British manufacturing.
Those of us who travel, either for business or pleasure, are constantly made aware that we live in a global village. Similar products are bought and sold wherever one goes. Undoubtedly, the customs and legislation of individual countries, near and far, will help determine the variants of pricing available for any one product, sometimes with great distortions, as we can witness in some South American countries where exceedingly high tariffs are imposed. But, in general, one can buy the same goods at competitive prices at many destinations.
However, each year our competition becomes more and more exacting as advanced technology is improved and as our communications systems become increasingly sophisticated. As my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton suggested, we must reinvest in our businesses continually in order to keep pace with the constant and, at times, radical changes.
Our exporting techniques must also become more creative and competitive to maintain and increase our superiority. Not so long ago this country was feeding an

1185
empire that had an enormous appetite for the comforts of home. That empire is now part of the global village, with a not so dissimilar appetite, consuming a multitude of products available from worldwide resources.
Many of our manufacturers have struggled and are struggling to ensure the legacies of quality and in many instances the level of skilled craftsmanship that is the envy of our competitors. While that is commendable, it is not sufficient to combat the competition. The scenario of rapid increase in world competition emphasises the paramount importance forced upon us to aid and abet this effort in a more challenging and effective manner. Manufacturing programmes must be interwoven in the efforts of the marketing and sales teams. The general trend among retailers has been to reduce inventories so that stocks can be quickly turned. The effect is that marketing and sales personnel must be efficient and knowledgeable forecasters in order to keep manufacturing in line.
It is most reassuring to see my honourable friend the Minister for Trade giving enormous support and encouragement to our manufacturing base. His genuine concern and creative approach to this problem have already paid dividends. By spearheading a number of overseas trips, especially to the Pacific rim countries, he has identified many profitable opportunities in the expanding economies that are generating a high proportion of the world growth. It is therefore essential for British manufacturers to establish a strong foothold. Your Lordships will be aware of the enormous opportunities in China—the country, that is, although I am bound to say that the ceramic products have an exciting future too. I suggest that well planned business missions to China, such as the successful November 1992 Group of 100, should be given priority.
Clearly, the President of the Board of Trade has given much emphasis to this topic. The allocation of personnel and the separation of export promotion from other activities such as trade policy will strongly assist our endeavours in overseas markets. However, we must ask whether the range of government support in this process is sufficient and whether there is appropriate accountability to make the constant necessary adjustments. It is all very well to have the grand vision and expectancy, but we must set tough goals to be achieved by our export support services. In this manner we will generate the excitement and enthusiasm that are infectious to all agencies. Around the world I can envisage our consuls and embassy staffs walking taller and straighter and shouting our praises rather than taking the softer options that are more prevalent today.
It is right that the British Overseas Trade Board has identified the United States as a key target for British firms. For more than two centuries manufacturers have enjoyed this very lucrative market, albeit with a short intermission following our dispute in 1776. Americans harbour a great respect for the quality of British products. North America is also the target of manufacturers from other countries. We can never forget that its ability to produce is constantly upgraded. Are we realistically attacking this vital area to meet the optimistic goal of a 2:5 per cent. increase in our share of the American market by 1995?
1186
I followed with great interest the recent visit to the United States of His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent. His endeavours on behalf of British products, emphasising the excellence of their manufacture, should be commended. I am not suggesting that our Royal Family should become super salesmen and road warriors of the world. But it is clear that we have an enormous advantage that could contribute to our winning edge. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, if given the support and direction, could enhance our opportunities dramatically. His Royal Highness already participates in this area in his overseas trips, but a more specific role needs to be developed in order to enhance and increase the support that he is able to provide.
I believe that we shall realise that the Prince of Wales is an enormous asset to this country. This time the Palace and Whitehall handlers have the opportunity to correct the mistakes and inefficiences of the past and provide a creative but respectful platform from which His Royal Highness can operate. That, coupled with his own forward thinking and sensitivity, would provide inspiration and encouragement. The Prince of Wales could then become the champion of a new and hungry generation that will support him well into the next millennium, when we can reasonably expect his accession to the Throne.
At home we are often critical of our industries' inadequacies to compete; and we have heard about that this evening. Abroad we are sometimes ridiculed for not seizing our obvious advantages. Time is running out and the rest of the world is about to catch up. It is time to take off the gloves and fight more vigorously for our share of the pie; and not only for our share of the pie, but more.
10.6 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, like all other noble Lords who have spoken, I congratulate the noble Viscount on the timeliness and importance of the Question that he has raised this evening.
There is not the slightest doubt that enormous efforts are being made by exporters to increase our trade abroad and that there is a more positive and pro-active attitude on the part of the DTI than there has been for many years. But we must see all those efforts in the context of what is happening to our overseas trade; and the position is not particularly encouraging, in spite of all those efforts.
I had occasion to ask a question the other day of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on this very issue; namely, that, in spite of the efforts, we showed last year, according to the latest figures, a deficit of over £13 billion on our visible trade. According to the Central Statistical Office, that trend is rising. There are indeed some financial institutions which consider that that figure is understated, because, as your Lordships will probably recall, there has been a complete change in the way in which those statistics are now being collected.
Exports have indeed risen from £100 billion in 1992 to £113 billion in 1993; that is an extremely commendable performance. Unfortunately, imports have risen faster, from £115 billion in I992 to £128 billion in 1993, and the gap is widening. Therefore, one

1187
must ask whether we are unfortunately getting back into the old familiar cycle that, as the economy recovers, so we bring in proportionately more from abroad than we send abroad. That is similar to the situation which arose some 10 years ago. It was about 10 years ago that we began to show a progressively increased deficiency on our visible trade. That situation gave rise to the establishment of a committee of inquiry into overseas trade which was presided over extremely efficiently by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. Its report was published in 1985.
I should like to read out the reason why the committee was set up, because those words could be written today. It was explained that:
"The committee's appointment followed expressions of concern on many sides of the House that the mounting deficit in the balance of trade in manufactures required close scrutiny".
If your Lordships look at the conclusions of that report, it will be seen that many of the recommendations still need to be taken up. Some but by no means all have been acted upon. There is no need to have another inquiry into overseas trade because all that we need to know is in the report published 10 years ago.
Therefore, we must ask ourselves what we are going to do about that situation and how we can get ourselves free from the stranglehold. As many noble Lords have said, it is not just a question of export promotion; it is a question of macro-economic policies, currencies and many other factors. However, this evening we are concentrating on export promotion.
Many initiatives have been taken. For example, the noble Viscount referred to the export promoters scheme, which seems to me to be an extremely innovative proposition, though we still have to see how effective it will be. There are many other initiatives, too.
I wish to follow up the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, who has had remarkable experience in export promotion. I had the honour of serving under him at BOTB when he was chairman of that organisation. I was as concerned then as I am now about the progressive diminution in the funds made available for export promotion. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that expenditure on export promotion, perhaps by someone in the recesses of the Treasury, is regarded as a residuary activity and something to be cut at the end of the day when the final few million pounds are in the accounts.
This, I am afraid, is borne out by the figures which I have drawn from the Government's expenditure plans for trade and industry for 1994-–95 to 1996–97. It is shown there that total expenditure on international trade and export promotion in 1992–93 was £63.1 million. I am sure noble Lords would consider that a modest sum but that was what it was. In 1993–94 the estimate is £56.7 million, in 1994–95 £57 million, in 1995–96 £60.3 million and so on. In other words, the funding is being progressively cut back at the very time when we require greater expansion in that expenditure.
I have examined the make-up of the expenditure and I have looked at trade fairs, to which the noble Viscount referred. I was amazed to see that while in 1992–93 support was given for 325 trade fairs—that is, for
1188
British exhibits—in the following year that figure was cut to 285. It is explained that the reason for that is that, with the devaluation of sterling in September 1992, there was not enough money to go round. I find that a most extraordinary conclusion to reach because the devaluation of sterling was one of the biggest boosts that our export potential could have received for many years. That situation does not last very long. One devalues the currency and one obtains a short-term benefit for one's competitiveness. That would have been the very time—if thought had been given to it —that we should have redoubled our efforts to exhibit our goods abroad, not cut them back.
I wonder who brings these two strands of policy together. On the one hand efforts need to be made—a lot of ideas emanate from the DTI—but on the other hand all this seems to be diminished by the people who hold the purse strings. Should we not for once have another look at this? Should we not start from the opposite end and decide in the light of all the many suggestions made by your Lordships tonight what we should be spending in order to close this export/import gap? Perhaps that might be done at the expense of some other item but exporting is the lifeblood of the country. I believe we need to consider seriously this aspect of the way in which we are progressively diminishing our expenditure on export promotion.
10.14 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for raising this important matter. I share with my noble friend Lord Sefton his views on the importance of this debate. I shall not delay your Lordships by summing up what has been said. I shall confine myself to making some suggestions which I hope will be helpful. I will try not to repeat too many of the points which have been made by other noble Lords.
I recently counted almost a dozen services provided by the DTI and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to exporters, all of them apparently valued by the users, as most noble Lords have implied this evening. Among them are the export credit guarantee services and the services provided by the British Overseas Trade Board. There are special initiatives such as "North America Now", to bring trading opportunities to the notice of British business. There is the Overseas Projects Board. There is a Director General of Export Promotion, with a target of 100 men and women from the private sector to work on export promotion and co-ordination. There are Pre-link, Business Link and trips overseas by senior politicians, members of the Royal Family and others to promote British business. Recently those services have become better co-ordinated, as many noble Lords have pointed out, and therefore have become more effective.
For a Government who seek less involvement with the private sector and believe in leaving matters to the market, that is indeed an impressive list. It is a list for which we on these Benches have been calling for many years because of our concern about the deteriorating balance of payments. Exporting is not easy and exporters need a helping hand. They do not need hand-outs.

1189
The first question which must be asked is why those services were not working properly four or five years ago when our manufacturing sector was in serious decline. The high ECGD rates at that time, the lack of co-ordination and leaving exporters to fend for themselves must have caused some of the irreparable damage to the manufacturing sector to which my noble friend Lord Sefton referred. The improvement, though late, is welcome. However, there is no cause for complacency, because those improvements probably bring us up to the level of service enjoyed by our competitors.
Nor is our balance of payments deficit improving, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, pointed out. Last November exports were predicted to rise by 5.75 per cent. in 1994, but the latest figures released on 24th March show that they are actually falling. We must do better. I should like to suggest a few ways in which we might achieve that.
First and foremost, we must encourage more firms to use those services. According to the Institute of Export there are some 40,000 exporters in the UK, and the DTI is in touch with approximately 6,000. Perhaps a further 4,000 do not need the DTI's services because they can manage very well on their own, but what about the other 30,000? They are probably small and medium-sized enterprises which could benefit greatly from the DTI's services. We must find a way of getting in touch with them and help them to export more.
I am well aware of the need to reduce red tape and regulations, but I am also aware of the need to enlarge the use of the export services. Perhaps from the information at Companies House, the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise, the DTI can identify those 30,000 exporters who can benefit from its assistance. Only the Government know whether that information is available and the cost and time involved in extracting it.
Alternatively, as other noble Lords have asked, have the Government considered registration, as on the Continent? That will be quick and accurate. Compulsory registration with Chambers of Commerce provides an accurate record of business activity which is essential for targeting. I share the doubts of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. This is far too important to be left to the as yet untried Business Link initiative.
There is an added bonus in that we could then seek reciprocity with Chambers of Commerce in the rest of Europe so that we could make use of their services. That would facilitate trade and provide valuable marketing information. Much business is done in Europe through the Chambers of Commerce. Companies and people do business, not government departments, but you have to know who the people are.
That brings me to Europe. The European Union is on the verge of enlargement and, if I remember rightly, the whole purpose of the Union was to create a single market. The Financial Times reported on 4th January this year that a survey of 6,400 companies found that almost 50 per cent. of the respondents felt that they had received no benefit from the completion of the single market a year earlier. That was largely because deliveries were neither faster nor cheaper, probably because of bureaucratic barriers.
1190
The problem seems to me that the DTI still treat; Europe as an export market. I suspect that that is because of the ambivalent attitude towards Europe of the noble Lords opposite. The Department of Trade and Industry has to make the mental leap of moving from an exporting exercise to a marketing exercise with regard to the Union.
There is a difference. If the mental leap is made, Ministers would be more careful about showing their hostility to Europe. Instead of concentrating on documentation and administration for Europe, the DTI could encourage paperless selling. With electronic data interchange, transport today does not need a piece of paper. Customs check at the suppliers or at the customers, or just check that the systems are working properly. That would encourage more marketing exercises such as Food from Britain. What about pots and pans from Britain, or home furnishings from. Britain?
The other attitude which needs to be changed is that. towards manufacturing. Thankfully the Government now accept the importance of manufacturing, but while their attention was elsewhere, the DTI may not have noticed that manufacturing itself is changing. It is changing from mass production to lean production.
Lean production has been a personal crusade of mine for many years. Of course, the famous examples are the Japanese car manufacturers and their component suppliers. But that philosophy is taking hold in every sector of business and industry world wide. Its effects are everywhere. Only last week one of our major companies, W.H. Smith, announced 400 redundancies because, in future, they will have only two layers of managers per store instead of four. That is an example of lean management where any factor which does not give added value is eliminated. That is how we shall see our economy becoming more competitive. Therefore the attitude in the DTI Exports Services Division has to adapt.
Size is not important in this new style relationship; but attitude and ability are. Knowing the Minister's enthusiasm for small and medium sized enterprises, he may find that thought of special interest.
Customers in Europe and elsewhere are anxious to buy from "lean" suppliers and to build up relationships with them. Purchasers nowadays spend a long time trying to find suppliers who can work in that way, and our Export Services can provide a very useful service by introducing them to those suppliers in the UK who can operate in that way and, if necessary, vouch for them.
The President of the Board of Trade has identified encouraging best practice as one of the ways of increasing our competitiveness, and here is a way Export Services can help. The impact on manufacturing in the UK could be important.
Once our export services adapt to lean thinking, they will find all sorts of new ways of being helpful. For instance, take letters of credit. Some two years ago I remember a survey undertaken by an organisation dedicated to simplifying export documentation. The survey found that 60 per cent. of letters of credit are rejected on first presentation. In preparing for the

1191
debate, I asked whether a new survey had been undertaken, and I was told no, but the reject rate still seems to be much the same.
We live in an age of "right first time" and "zero rejects". Would not the Minister agree that that record is awful? I am not sure how much money that represents, but it must be many millions of pounds. If letters of credit are cashed on first presentation, all this money, instead of being in the banking system, would be in the cash flow of the small and medium-sized enterprises which are probably the firms presenting their letters of credit more than once. Also it could make a one-time reduction in our balance of payments deficit. This must be an opportunity for specialist training which the export services division could organise.
While on the subject of money, perhaps the Minister will clear up one more question about export credit guarantee rates which many noble Lords have mentioned. Although the rates have come down—and this is welcome—how do the rates compare with those of our competitors? There seems to be no comparison made and some companies wonder whether their competitors overseas are being subsidised by uneconomic rates.
Finally, exporting of know-how and technology: the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred to the Eurotech scheme. The GATT is yet to be fully ratified; but the problems of regulating this kind of business have been addressed by the GATT. When it is ratified, the lack of protection which has inhibited our exports in intellectual property should no longer apply and this should be an important area of business for the UK. The transfer of intellectual property is a growing sector and although ECGD cover is available, what plans do the DTI have to promote it? We seem to be quite good at marketing other people's know-how and technology as well as our own.
The export services are of value and are especially valued by those who use them. But the number of firms using them is far too low and registration is a way of targeting the services so that they become more widely used. The export services department must throw out some of their old concepts about exporting and manufacturing and keep pace with the changes. In doing so, their services will become more valuable than ever.
The service to exporters at the DTI has improved during the last 18 months and because of this a new government are not likely radically to alter them. This is important because exporting is a long-term business and exporters must be sure of continuity of service. This is why the short-term funding of some of the services causes some anxiety, as other noble Lords have said. Business Link is funded for three years and the co-ordinators for two years. If these are not self-supporting after this period of time, what is going to happen? Will there be yet another U-turn? Perhaps the Minister can reassure us of his department's long-term commitment, especially in view of the reducing expenditure so dramatically explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I did not wish to interrupt his flow but perhaps I may support one point he made. It was in relation to being right first time particularly with letters of credit, and the need for training. The Institute of Export exists precisely for the purpose of delivering that training. At any one time thousands of people are taking the courses which are aimed to deliver precisely that high level of expertise. I think it would be helpful for the House to be aware of that.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I entirely agree and compliment the Institute of Export on the excellent work it is doing.
10.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, it is always a pleasure to take part in a debate with so many noble Lords who have great experience and knowledge on the subject under discussion. I join others in welcoming and thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for putting down this Unstarred Question and making an excellent and well researched speech. He raised a number of issues, many of which I shall touch on during my reply. Many other noble Lords raised questions and if I do not answer them all tonight I shall certainly consider whether I can answer them by letter.
I also wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I know that it is his first time at the Dispatch Box on the Opposition Front Bench and he takes up a notable position. I hope that he will very soon be a senior Opposition spokesman and long may he remain that: senior and in Opposition.
The noble Lord was absolutely right to raise the whole question of quality and about being right first time. I thank my noble friend Lord Limerick for the way in which he explained some of the work that is being done. It is absolutely crucial that we get things right first time.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, made, in parts, a magnificent speech. He started particularly well. I agreed—perhaps surprisingly to the noble Lord—with a great deal of what he said. In his brief diatribe against the devolutionists he explained that he was not so much a trade unionist as a Great British unionist.
The noble Lord spoke about cheap labour abroad and the export of jobs. Perhaps I may tell him of an experience that I had only a few weeks ago when I was on a trade mission to Taiwan. I came across a company that had a factory in the United Kingdom and one in Taiwan. That company paid its workers in Taiwan more than it paid its workers in the United Kingdom. The workers in Taiwan were 50 per cent. more productive than those in the British company. That is why the key to this whole debate about the future of British industry comes down to one word; namely, competitiveness. My noble friend Lord Wade concentrated so much of his speech on that issue. It is the key.
Many factors influence our competitiveness. I hope that in the course of the next few months we shall have many opportunities to discuss those factors. I say to my noble friend Lord Wade that I should certainly be

1193
interested in investigating further his question about the export of CHP, which is such a valuable technology, to Russia.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, concentrated on expenditure rather than on output. I believe that over the course of the past few years, and particularly since April 1992, the output in terms of the promotion that we expect for the money that we spend has been vastly improved.
The United Kingdom has always been a great trading nation. We already export 25 per cent. of what we produce, and per head of the population we export more than the USA and even Japan. Recently we have seen dramatic increases in exports to markets as diverse as Hong Kong, South Korea and the USA, but the opportunities are still vast.
As a Government, we have a key role to play in ensuring that firms find those opportunities and make exporting an integral part of their business strategy. As part of that, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is leading the most dynamic and important export drive this country has seen in decades. I believe that that fact was recognised by many noble Lords who spoke this evening.
The single most important recent event on the world trading scene was the completion of the GATT Uruguay Round negotiations. As a result of the round there will be large reductions in import duties on industrial goods. Our largest export markets will move towards zero tariffs in many sectors, including pharmaceuticals, steel and spirits, and harmonised lower tariffs on chemicals.
My noble friend Lord Wade mentioned the export of foodstuffs perhaps coming under increased pressure because of the GAIT round. I pay great tribute to the work done by Food from Britain and many other organisations up arid down the country, particularly in Scotland, Wales and. Northern Ireland, which work tirelessly to improve the overall level of our food exports. But all those exporters can of course still use the upgraded, sharper focused export services that are now provided on a national basis by the DTI and its sister bodies.
Of course the Uruguay Round was about more than just trading goods. Great benefits will also come from the export of goods to invisible trade such as services, intellectual property and investment.
My noble friend Lord Limerick mentioned invisibles. I think that he was being unduly modest about his whole role in the export world. His experience and knowledge are highly respected in this most important field. If I may say so, he brought a valuable perspective to the debate this evening. This GAIT round will be of particular benefit to the United Kingdom, which is a leading world player in the area of invisibles. Our invisible earnings in 1993 amounted to £115 billion, which is more than £315 million, earned for Britain every day.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to a subject raised by many Peers; namely, the ECGD. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, particularly concentrated on that issue. We have to start off from the basis that we have exceptionally favourable economic conditions currently at home. We have low inflation, low interest rates and a
1194
competitive exchange rate which the Government are committed to maintaining. That excellent position is due to tight control over costs in both the public and the private sectors. Low wage settlements and rapid productivity growth have increased the international competitiveness of British firms. The President of the Board of Trade and my honourable friend the Minister for Trade are driving home the message about exports to both the private and the public sectors and are involving all departments. I thank my noble friend Lord Wedgwood for recognising that.
Of course the ECGD is important. During the course of the past couple of years premium rates have on average been cut by more than a quarter. In the last Budget the Government announced a further round of reductions, some as high as 20 per cent., for certain countries. The Government have also taken substantial steps to make more ECG cover available where it is needed and to accelerate the pace for resuming cover on markets emerging from previous debt problems.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, asked a very interesting question about comparisons. I cannot give him an answer now. But I suspect that comparisons are. very difficult. I shall try to find out and perhaps I may write to him.
It is the partnership with business that is so vital to our strategy. The Government's principal adviser on trade promotion is the BOTB under the chairmanship of Sir Derek Horny. There is also a network of more than 200 business people with experience of markets around the world. They ensure that the needs of businesses are reflected in the Overseas Trade Services operation and help formulate specific initiatives to increase trade.
On the question of secondees raised by my noble friend Lord Limerick, export promoters are now playing a key role in all these initiatives. Some 70 have joined the DTI and are actively helping business. The Government's efforts to help UK business to win major overseas projects are also being enhanced with the guidance of the Overseas Projects Board, under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Cockshaw. We have been successful in attracting senior heads of industry to work in each sector group.
As part of the overall strategy for export promotion, market plans are being drawn up by Overseas Trade Services for each of the UK's top 80 overseas markets. These will guide the future export promotion work programmes and help ensure that resources are focused to the very best effect.
The DTI and the FCO jointly provide a first class information, advice and support service for UK exporters under the banner of Overseas Trade Services. This is confirmed by our customers, 90 per cent of whom tell us that the Overseas Trade Services are of good quality and that they would use them again. Listening to what our customers tell us they need, we have recently introduced a package of new services which are being piloted right across the world.
A number of noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Limerick, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, asked about marketing services to users, persuading more people to use export services and the whole

1195
problem of obtaining the right access to services to get increased penetration across so many companies that currently do not use the services available. That problem is widely recognised. That is why the President of the Board of Trade challenged, and indeed encouraged, local organisations—chambers of commerce, training and enterprise councils, local authorities and local enterprise agencies—to come together to establish the one-stop shop concept, now called Business Links. With government support they are forming partnerships for the benefit of local businesses, delivering high quality, practical and effective business support tailored to local business needs. I am glad to tell the House that today the number of Business Links around the country has doubled to 10, and when we return from the Easter break they will have doubled yet again to 20.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for giving me the opportunity to assure the House of the Government's firm commitment to the long-term funding of Business Links. It is an important part of our overall strategy for helping business to win, and I believe that it will be a great success.
Of course, there are many initiatives run by the Government and the DTI. For instance, the North America Now campaign, which was launched by the President of the Board of Trade last March, aims to help British industry reinforce its trading position in the United States and Canada and increase its market share by 25 per cent. over the next three years. That means increasing our visible exports by at least £3 billion. That initiative, along with the Priority Japan and Business in
1196
Europe campaigns, will raise the profile of the trading opportunities available to British business in our major overseas markets.
I join my noble friend Lord Wedgwood in paying tribute to members of the Royal Family who work so hard to encourage exports overseas, and particularly to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, who works tirelessly in many areas but who has such a great interest in our projects, our performance and our ability to export.
The services that I have described during the course of this debate so far represent only part of the ways in which we promote exports. In addition, Ministers undertake a series of high level visits each year with business representatives. Last year Ministers, including the Prime Minister, made a great many overseas visits to a wide range of world markets to great success. When the Prime Minister visited India last year he was accompanied by a team of 17 captains of industry, and as a result of that initiative over 10,000 companies have been contacted with the message that India is a market on the move offering immense potential for business development.
In conclusion, I believe that we are in a most exciting period of redefining the way that UK business is helped to export. We are committed to working together with business to ensure that United Kingdom firms are best placed to achieve rapid and sustained success when they trade abroad.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  EUROPEAN UNION QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING
  EUROPEAN UNION QUALIFIED MAJORITY VOTING
  GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
  GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY
  IMMIGRATION DETENTION COSTS
  IMMIGRATION DETENTION COSTS
  CORMORANTS
  CORMORANTS
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION PAMPHLET
  EUROPEAN COMMISSION PAMPHLET
  SEX EDUCATION: PARENTS' RIGHTS
  SEX EDUCATION: PARENTS' RIGHTS
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  PUBLIC INTEREST IMMUNITY CERTIFICATES
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: EARNINGS CALCULATIONS
  CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY: EARNINGS CALCULATIONS
  SOCIAL FUND PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE
  SOCIAL FUND PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE
  HEALTH EDUCATION AUTHORITY: SEX EDUCATION
  HEALTH EDUCATION AUTHORITY: SEX EDUCATION
  NON-COMPETITIVE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS: RETURN ON CAPITAL
  NON-COMPETITIVE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS: RETURN ON CAPITAL
  SERVICE CAREER AND MANPOWER STRUCTURE: REVIEW
  SERVICE CAREER AND MANPOWER STRUCTURE: REVIEW
  SUPPORT HELICOPTERS
  SUPPORT HELICOPTERS
  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENT
  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENT
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS:PPG NOTE
  HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND CONSERVATION AREAS:PPG NOTE
  HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL: ADVERTISEMENTS
  HUNTINGDONSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL: ADVERTISEMENTS
  OLD MINERAL PERMISSIONS: REFORMS
  OLD MINERAL PERMISSIONS: REFORMS
  CONSERVATION AREA PLANNING CONTROLS
  CONSERVATION AREA PLANNING CONTROLS
  WATER COMPANIES: REVIEW OF TECHNICAL AUDIT PROCESS
  WATER COMPANIES: REVIEW OF TECHNICAL AUDIT PROCESS
  ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, 24 AND 25 MARCH
  ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL, 24 AND 25 MARCH