Sitting of 26 May 1994

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

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 16th June, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Third Reading of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords] not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Mackay.]

  Ordered,
  That Mr. Gordon Prentice be added to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Mackay.]

Cyprus
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mackay.]
9.34 am
Mr. John Marshall: It is appropriate that we should be discussing the situation in Cyprus this morning because later this summer, the world will mark the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus in 1974. I say "mark" because the events of 1974 were a sad blot on the history of western Europe, when the three guarantor powers in no instance played an heroic role.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus resulted in more than 100,000 refugees, and even today there is the tragedy of the missing persons—individuals who disappeared in 1974 and whose relatives still do not know, 20 years later, what happened to them. They are wives who do not know what happened to their husbands, parents who do not know what happened to their children, and sons and daughters who do not know what happened to their fathers and mothers. Twenty years on, they are still unable to mourn, but hope that their loved ones will reappear.
One of the most bitter denials of human rights must be that refugees are denied the right to live in their own homes —homes that had remained in their families for generations and which they are now prevented from occupying. Last summer—together with my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and for Chelmsford (Dr. Spink)—I viewed Famagusta from afar, together with the town's mayor in exile. We witnessed the trauma of individuals able to see their own homes, knowing they cannot not live in them —homes that might be unoccupied but from which their owners are effectively barred. We shared the trauma of the mayor of Famagusta, knowing that he could not visit his own town and live in his own home.
It is a major wickedness that individuals should be deprived of their homes. The fact that we are to mark the invasion's 20th anniversary must create a sense of urgency for every right hon. and hon. Member and for everyone who is concerned about the future of the tragic island of Cyprus.
The situation is tragic not only for Greek Cypriot refugees. Many newspapers have stated that there are 30,000 Turkish troops in northern Cyprus. One asks oneself why they are there. Do they seriously expect the United Nations to allow an outbreak of fighting in Cyprus, or do they fear the wrath of local Cypriots? Do the Turkish Cypriots of northern Cyprus realise the huge imbalance in living standards between the Greek Cypriots of the south and the Turkish Cypriots of the north? Is it that to which they object? Is that why there are 30,000 Turkish troops in northern Cyprus?
Do the Cypriots of northern Cyprus welcome the fact that there are a number of Turkish settlers there? I believe that, in Cyprus, the loyalty of its people is to Cyprus itself and that they do not welcome the presence of foreign troops or foreign settlers.
The fact that we shall mark the invasion's 20th anniversary this year must give us a sense of urgency. When I first visited Cyprus in 1977, there was hope on the island that its communities would be swiftly reunited. In 1977, one sensed that hope and noted the huge resilience of

421
the Cypriot economy. The hotels and people of Limassol welcomed tourists and captured their affections in the same way as Famagusta had before 1974.
Anyone visiting Cyprus will see that the sense of hope that existed in 1977 has reappeared from time to time like a perennial plant, but there is a deep feeling of tragedy that no political movement has been achieved since then.
The green line in Nicosia seems to be as permanent as the wall in Berlin once seemed. For any visitor, the division of the island is quite intolerable. It is wrong that the hotels of Varosha, once part of the thriving tourist centre of Cyprus, have been unoccupied since 1974. Those hotels suffered in the Turkish bombardment and have become homes not for tourists but for rats and mice.
The fact that there has been no movement since 1974 means that there is a real danger that the division of Cyprus could become institutionalised. One of the benefits of this debate is that it will emphasise that, to the whole world, the division of Cyprus is intolerable and unacceptable. People who live in the north of Cyprus have suffered 20 years of economic difficulty, and the gap in living standards has widened rather than narrowed. Turkish troops and settlers have been stationed there, which is anathema to all northern Cypriots.
One of the tragedies of the past two decades is that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots have grown apart. Most Greek and Turkish Cypriots have not spoken to one another during that time. They have been educated separately; they no longer play sport together, and they live separately.
In an Adjournment debate in 1991, I said that peace would be achieved in the middle east by a series of building blocks, and that one of those blocks would be Gaza. It has now been achieved. Similarly, we shall restore confidence and trust in Cyprus by a series of building blocks. That is why I welcome the United Nations-sponsored confidence-building measures.
The UN suggested that Nicosia airport should be reopened and that Varosha should be restored to its rightful Greek Cypriot owners. Those measures are clearly interconnected. No one could seriously suggest that the legitimate Government of Cyprus should reopen Nicosia airport without a compensating concession from the Turkish Cypriots.
There is no fundamental reason why the Turks should not give up Varosha. No one lives or works there. It was once the home of, and a haven for, hundreds of thousands of tourists; now it is a mausoleum, a monument to Turkish intransigence and a home to rats, mice and stray dogs. It is a symbol of international intolerance. By refusing to accept the confidence-building measures, Turkish Cypriots are demonstrating their continued intransigence to the world.
My appeal to the Turkish Cypriots' leader is to think again. I agree with Joe Clark, the UN interlocutor, that, with the political will, a settlement and agreement could be reached quickly. The absence of an agreement shows the absence of political will, especially among the Turkish Cypriots.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the betrayal of the Turkish Cypriots is strongly felt, and that considerably more sensitivity to their needs is required than has been shown or guaranteed in the past?
Mr. Marshall: There has to be sensitivity to the needs of both sides of the Cypriot community, but the Cypriot communities of north London live in relative peace one with another. If they can work, live and talk with each other in north London, there is no reason why they should not do so in Cyprus.
When the European Union considers Cyprus's application for membership in January 1995, Europe will have to assign blame between the two parties. Joe Clark has said who he blames; we know who we blame; and Europe will know who to blame.
Cyprus has always wanted closer links with the European Union. She has had an association agreement, but she now wants full membership of the European Union. So far, the European Commission has deferred a decision until January 1995. It has said that it will take the decision in the light of political developments in Cyprus.
That is an intolerable condition. It is wrong to tell the Government of Cyprus that we will allow them to join the European Union only if there has been agreement between the two communities in Cyprus. That gives the people and the illegal Government of northern Cyprus a right of veto over whether the legitimate Government of Cyprus should become a member of the European Union, which is undemocratic.
When the decision is reviewed in January 1995, the House should send a clear message to the European Union that, whether or not there has been a political agreement in Cyprus, that application will be considered favourably. Cyprus is part of the fount of western European culture, and it would be wrong for her to be denied admission to the European Union.
There are rumours that, if Cyprus were allowed to join the European Union, northern Cyprus would react by moving closer to Turkey. That would be unacceptable to the world. We have to make it clear to the Turkish Government that such a course of action would be unacceptable to the European Union and to the United Kingdom as the guarantor power. I hope that the United States Government will also make it clear that that would be unacceptable to them.
World opinion has refused to recognise the so-called independent state of northern Cyprus. Despite having been declared 11 years ago, that so-called state has been recognised by only one country. It would be an act of unholy matrimony for that state to unite with Turkey. If Turkey craves international respectability, as I believe she does, it would be a retrograde step for her to unite with the people of northern Cyprus. No blackmail should prevent the people of Cyprus from joining the European Union.
More important, Turkey has stated frequently that she wishes to join the European Union. We must make it clear that she will not be accepted as a member of the European club as long as the Cypriot situation remains unsolved. The European Union was based on a love of democracy and respect for human rights. We must make it clear to Turkey that, if she does not follow those paths, and if she encourages the continued division of Cyprus, she will not be allowed to join the European Community.
Mr. Beggs: I accept the hon. Gentleman's view on Turkey and northern Cyprus, but does he agree that Greece must make the same commitment—that there will be no further efforts to assimilate Cyprus with Greece?
Mr. Marshall: I thought that enosis had died 35 years ago. We are now seeing a sort of Turkish enosis in reverse. I do not know what the Turkish word for it is, but there seems to be a campaign to unite northern Cyprus with Turkey, which I would find just as repugnant as I would have found enosis in the 1950s. The Government reached an agreement with the Governments of Turkey and Greece and with Archbishop Makarios which led to three guarantor powers. It is a pity that they did not remain guarantor powers instead of, in one case, becoming an invading power.
President Clerides and Mr. Denktash are products of the same political era. They are veterans of Cyprus politics; they studied law together in England and enjoyed the camaraderie of the Bar in Cyprus. They have an opportunity to become statesmen in their own lifetime by forging an agreement between the people of north and southern Cyprus.
If they fail, the world will not accept the status quo. Agreement is essential, not only for the people of Cyprus but for Turkey if it is to retain international respectability. It is essential for the people of northern Cyprus if they are ever to enjoy prosperity rather than relative poverty. Above all, it is essential if Cypriots are to enjoy the basic human rights that we in this country take for granted.
Our debate can send the message that members of all parties continue to support the people of Cyprus, but it can also send a warning to those who seek to meddle in Cyprus's affairs that the continuing division of that beautiful island is intolerable to virtually every hon. Member.
9.51 am
Mrs. Barbara Roche: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate, because the Government's policy toward Cyprus is a matter of great concern to my constituents in Hornsey and Wood Green. I am privileged to represent a large Cypriot community.
The main difficulty is the Government's attitude towards Varosha. It is my contention that Ministers are lukewarm, complacent and half-hearted about their role in finding a solution to the political problem of Cyprus. Given that Britain is a guarantor power, the Government have a heavy responsibility.
During Foreign Office questions on 4 May, I suggested to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that, after Mr. Denktash's blocking of United Nations talks, it was time to take a tough stance with the illegal regime. He merely said:
"The Security Council will be considering what future measures to take in due course."—[Official Report, 4 May 1994; Vol.242, c. 720.]
That is not good enough. The families of missing people, the people enclaved in the illegal northern regime, who are desperately trying to deal with their adversity, and the refugees who have lost their homes as a result of the invasion and the continuing occupation deserve much more.
Many of my constituents have lost loved ones. I remember calling at the home of a woman who showed me a brief recording of the BBC news that mentioned her brother, who was a police officer in Cyprus. He is still missing as a result of the invasion, and the recording is all that she and her mother have to remind them of the missing member of their family.
424
Britain, as a guarantor power, has not only a moral but a legal responsibility to the people of Cyprus. Mention has already been made of Cyprus's application to join the European Union, and this is where the Government could show their support for Cyprus. Britain has done remarkably little to help its application. President Clerides recently said that membership of the European Union would
"guarantee effectively the security of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots and, at the same time, ensure the prospects of progress and prosperity for all the citizens of the Cyprus republic."
In contrast to the Government's lethargy, I cite the work of my colleague Pauline Green, Member of the European Parliament for London North and leader of the European parliamentary Labour party, who has taken the lead in urging the European Parliament to support the Republic of Cyprus. It was thanks in no small part to her efforts that, after the Parliament had considered the Dury report on the European Union's relations with Turkey, its simple message to Turkey was that Turkey would get no money from the Community until its occupying forces had withdrawn from the Republic of Cyprus as part of a fair and lasting solution to the Cypriot problem.
After my last meeting with the representatives of the committee of relatives of missing Cypriots, I received a letter which said:
"We look to the future with hope and optimism that justice may prevail one day".
I share that hope for the future, and urge Conservative Members and the Government to consider seriously their commitment and responsibility to the people of Cyprus.
9.55 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for providing the opportunity to speak on such an important subject. Only last month, I led a Bow Group delegation to Cyprus. The group included my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). We had the great good fortune to have a lengthy meeting with President Clerides. I regret to say that I found him in despondent mood. He felt that, as the deadline rapidly approached for the acceptance of the confidence-building measures—it has now passed—no progress was being made. He felt that there was a lack of political will in the north to make progress.
Mr. Warren Hawksley: Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 25 April, President Denktash wrote to the Secretary-General pointing out that he had accepted the terms on the land and the airport, and that it was Mr. Clerides who had caused the terms to be altered? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we were to return to the original proposals of July last year, an agreement could be forthcoming if the Greeks would agree?
Mr. Waterson: No, I do not accept any of that. The pattern of the discussions has always been that the Greek Cypriots accept proposals without reservation in order to make progress, but that progress has not been made. I was about to say that Mr. Denktash raised no fewer than 82 separate issues in relation to the proposal for Varosha.

425
I found President Clerides in a despondent mood, and who could blame him? He felt that he had spent 40 years in politics, only to see the possibility of a solution crumble before his very eyes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South referred to the fact that the confidence-building measures—for Varosha and the airport in Nicosia—had failed to progress. Despite the length of time that would be required to implement either of those two CBMs, we are still more or less where we were, and the deadline of 30 April laid down by the Secretary-General of the United Nations has come and gone. It is no wonder that, when I was in Cyprus last month, I had the distinct impression that support in the south for the CBMs is ebbing away rapidly.
I strongly believe that the United Nations should now recognise that the deadline has come and gone and that Turkish Cypriots will continue to be intransigent. The United Nations should now press for the total demilitarisation of the island by both sides. That would include the 35,000 or so Turkish troops in the north.
I endorse what has been said about membership of the European Union. I believe that Cyprus's application should go full steam ahead for three main reasons. First, Cyprus has a track record of democracy. Secondly, it would quite easily meet the economic criteria, perhaps in a way that some existing members would not if they were now applying. Thirdly—although not finally—it would be a dramatic way of bringing pressure to bear on the Turkish Cypriots and on Turkey itself.
Finally, as my hon. Friend said, there is nothing more depressing than to see the green line. I hope that one day, like the Berlin wall, it will be removed. Perhaps there is another analogy with Germany, too, in that West Germany became an important early member of the European Union, and East Germany came into that organisation later. I see that as the way forward for the island of Cyprus, too.
9.59 am
Dr. Robert Spink: I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. South (Mr. Marshall) for securing such an important and timely debate, and I send the good wishes and thanks of the House to all the United Nations staff serving in Cyprus, and to the service personnel in Cyprus.
The United Kingdom has a special responsibility for Cyprus, not only because we are a guarantor power, but because of the excellent weather that British people find when they go there on holiday to enjoy the wine and the great hospitality they find on that beautiful island. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we are in a unique position to bring appropriate pressure to bear to find a settlement to the problem of the illegal occupation of the north of the island by Turkish troops, and increasingly by Turkish settlers.
First, I reassure the real Turkish Cypriot people that there is tremendous and genuine good will towards them among the ordinary Greek Cypriot people—good people such as Petros, Tassos and Michalis. There is great good will and a heartfelt desire to achieve a fair settlement that will bring into being a united beautiful island of Cyprus with two communities, one Greek-based and one Turkish-based, living in peace together under a single fair Government—a Cypriot Government, of course.
426
I shall say a little about the confidence-building measures, although I have no time now to go in detail into them or into the process by which the proposals have been followed up. The Secretary-General proposed a package of measures as a means of promoting a settlement and of building trust and co-operation between the communities.
Suffice it to say that the United States of America and the United Kingdom felt that it was a great pity that Mr. Denktash had not accepted the package, because it offered great benefits to the Turkish community. By accepting it he has nothing to lose, and all to gain for his community, for the beautiful island of Cyprus and for the wider international community.
During the April extension that Mr. Denktash secured to consider the package, intensive diplomatic efforts were made by the United States and United Kingdom Governments, and meetings were convened in Europe to secure an agreement. Meanwhile, Mr. Denktash continued to procrastinate and to ask questions. The international community sought to explain the rationale for the agreement, and the great benefits that it could bring. If progress cannot be secured on those simple measures, how can we ever expect a settlement and progress on the more controversial questions, such as compensation, repatriation and the missing persons?
I thank the Secretary-General, the Government and the Foreign Secretary for their efforts, and I urge them to continue. I urge the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council the lack of progress and the reasons for it, and to say unequivocally who erected the obstacles.
I believe that Mr. Clerides, the President of the republic, is an excellent advocate for Cyprus. He shows himself a man of great honour and dignity, as well as a political statesman with some great abilities. He is a credit to his community. I understand the difficulties of Mr. Denktash, and readily acknowledge his unique skills and diligent representation of his community. I urge those two great statesmen to get together and to do a deal for the benefit of both their peoples.
I do not despair; I have hope. This week, Mr. Denktash has convened an extraordinary meeting of his Cabinet to discuss the confidence-building measures. Even as I speak, the Turkish Cypriots may be in conference. I wish them good fortune. However, if no agreement is forthcoming in the next few days, I urge the Security Council to examine alternative means for the promotion of a solution. We owe that to the whole island of Cyprus.
I shall mention several other issues in passing. On the economic front, I believe that now is the time for the European Union to give a lead in resolving the Cyprus problem. Next January, the EU can help to force the issue, and do a great service for international stability and international law by accepting Cyprus into an enlarged Union.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) mentioned the humanitarian question. I greatly regret that there is nothing to report concerning the missing persons, and I respectfully call on the Secretary-General to take action on the matter.
I have little time left, so I shall wind up by acknowledging the fact that the debate has covered only a few of the issues. Mr. Denktash and the Turkish side have shown by their actions, clearly and unequivocally, that they are not yet prepared to reach a political decision on settlement. If progress is not made, the Security Council must pursue further measures, bring real political pressure

427
to bear on the obstructing parties and force a settlement. That would be an appropriate next move, so I respectfully urge it on the Secretary-General and the Security Council.
10.5 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has done well to secure the debate. It is obvious from the speeches and the interventions that we have heard that there is great interest in the subject, perhaps especially because of the strong ties between this country and Cyprus, and the large number of Cypriots living in the United Kingdom, especially, in London.
My hon. Friend well described the personal anguish caused to individuals and families by the political events of the past and the continuing division of the island. Great political events translate themselves into personal tragedies, and there are plenty of those emanating from the island of Cyprus.
As I have told the House in the past, we regard the present situation as unacceptable and we are exerting political ingenuity and diplomatic pressure of all sorts in working through the United Nations to bring about a reunification of the island and a peaceful solution lo the tragic dispute.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) urged the Government to do more, without making it entirely clear what more we should do. I take it that she rules out the use of force; it was certainly ruled out by the Labour Government in 1974.
Mrs. Roche: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am answering the point that the hon. Lady made. It was a Labour Government who saw the invasion of the island and ruled out the use of force at that time.
It is easy to urge people to do more—"something must be done", and so on. We are working with other interested parties through the United Nations, and it is usually Labour party policy to support the UN in its diplomatic efforts.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and others asked specifically about the application to the European Union. I must correct the impression that I think the hon. Lady left with the House—that the British Government in some way impeded that application. That is not the case. We welcome the prospect of eventual accession to the EU by Cyprus, while recognising the practical difficulties of admitting a divided island.
The European Union requires the free movement of people and goods, and it is not clear at this point how that requirement can be reconciled with the present situation in Cyprus. That gives urgency to our diplomatic efforts to bring about reunification, so as to facilitate the entry of Cyprus into the EU.
In answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and others, we do not recognise a Turkish, or Turkish Cypriot, veto over the process. That is exactly why the British Government agreed to the appointment of an EU observer, an official from the Commission, to report back to the Council of Ministers next January on how Cyprus's application for membership can be taken forward, even, if the worst happens, in the possible absence of implementation of the set of ideas and the confidence-building measures.
428
I do not want to anticipate a failure of the present confidence-building measures and negotiations. There is still a chance for all the parties to come together and to take this important and essentially modest step towards an overall settlement. The UN Secretary-General has been trying for the past year to secure agreement for the package of confidence-building measures.
At the start, it was President Clerides who accepted that package; he did so last May. However, Mr. Denktash did not at that time accept the principle of confidence-building measures, so my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have, both jointly and separately, exerted their influence on the parties concerned and with the Turkish Government to bring about an acceptance in principle for negotiations.
In outline, the package involves opening Varosha, under UN administration, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South rightly identified as a possible centre for a renewed tourist industry. It could, indeed, be a channel from the south to the north, bringing opportunities not only for improved and increased prosperity for both communities, but, even more importantly, for intercommunal contact, which is lacking.
One of the unfortunate and tragic features of the dispute is that the generation of Cypriots who are used to living and working together are beginning to enter old age. If they die and are replaced by others without that experience, it may be even more difficult in future to achieve the solution for which we all search. The other parts of the measures are essentially about the reopening of Nicosia international airport. Of course, statesmanship, compromises and even concessions by both sides are needed, but the overall benefits to both parts of the island are beyond dispute.
We were pleased when, in January this year, Mr. Denktash accepted the package in principle. Since then, there have been further negotiations to refine the package. There have been alterations to the original proposals to take account of the objections and points raised by the leaders of both communities. We still hope that Mr. Denktash will find it possible to relinquish his objections to some of the remaining details. We share the judgment of the United Nations that the package is balanced and fair.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to Mrs. Ciller, the Prime Minister of Turkey, in April this year, encouraging her to use her influence with Mr. Denktash to accept the package. In a further effort to secure Turkish Cypriot agreement, the United Nations and United States representatives met Turkish and Turkish Cypriot representatives in Vienna on 11 May. They appear to have made some progress, but so far not enough to secure Mr. Denktash's immediate agreement to the proposals.
The Secretary-General is due to report in detail to the Security Council on the progress of the talks over the past three months. We expect him to make that report in the very near future. We still hope that Mr. Denktash can find it in himself and in his Government to agree to the package on offer. If he does not do that, the report by the Secretary-General will probably reflect the facts, and will apportion at least some of the blame to the Turkish Cypriots for their failure to reach agreement on the implementation of the CBM package. That would be extremely disappointing, and I hope that Mr. Denktash will use even the last few days on offer to take a bold step to reverse the trend of the past 20 years and that he will take a step towards an overall settlement.

429
Throughout this matter, we have worked to bolster the efforts of the UN and of the international community generally. We have been in touch with both sides, and I have explained the pressure and the diplomatic contacts that not just the Foreign Secretary but the Prime Minister have used through the Turkish Government. We await the report with interest. It is probable that if there is no further progress and if the Secretary-General has to report that, the Security Council will consider alternative measures to ensure the effective implementation of the existing resolutions on Cyprus.
We need to remember that there is no prospect of forcing the communities to the conference table at the point of a gun. We need a negotiated, workable solution and, to that end, we will continue to work diplomatically. We believe that President Clerides has exerted political will. We look for the same from Mr. Denktash. He claims that he has that will, but he needs to demonstrate it by accepting, again, the package on offer.
We regard the confidence-building measures not as an end in themselves but as a step on the road to an overall solution to this long-standing and tragic division of an island which we know and love so well

Merseyside
10.15 am
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I had no intention of raising the matter of Merseyside and Government expenditure on Merseyside on the Adjournment of the House until the exchange that occurred between me and the Minister for Local Government and Planning on 18 May. The origins of this debate lie in the Minister's reply to a question that I asked, and it is worth quoting the exchange in full.
I asked the Minister:
"Does the Minister realise that millions of people, of all parties and of none, deplore the fact that local authorities have been denuded of so many of their powers and functions since the Conservative Government came to power? Local self-government has been replaced by a vast quangocracy stuffed with Tory placemen and placewomen who are accountable to no one other than the most highly centralising Government in all Europe. Does that not amount to disfranchisement of the electors at the local level?"
The Minister replied:
"I never quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is so attached to the impenetrable bureaucracy of Whitehall, county hall and town hall. What we are concerned about is the delivery of services closer to the people. It is the people who count—not the bureaucrats or, for that matter, the councils."
I emphasise that the point that the Minister made next is the one which has brought me to my feet this morning. He said:
"The hon. Gentleman will know that, for example, in Merseyside there is an urban development corporation, on the board of which there are three councillors, spending £156 million; a city challenge programme with provision of £131 million; a task force; and an objective 1 programme of £354 million. If he"—
meaning me—
"takes such exception to all of those, I am sure that we can arrange to cancel the funding."—[Official Report, 18 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 804.]
That part of the Minister's reply was an affront to the right of elected representatives in this House to raise matters that are of concern to people generally and to our constituents in particular. It was as if a threat was being mounted against me in case I continued to raise complaints about Government policy. That was the action of an arrogant Minister and a Government who have gone beyond their sell-by date. I am astonished that the Minister for Local Government and Planning is not present today. However, I shall of course welcome the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is here to represent the Government.
In considering the subject of expenditure on Merseyside, we have to ask ourselves what has been lost. Above all else, the principle of real partnership between central and local government has been lost. In the days before the Government came to office, there was a fair rate support grant allocated to the city of Liverpool and, indeed, to the other metropolitan districts on Merseyside. We had a district health authority on which there was local council representation. When the Minister for Local Government and Planning talks about Labour Members being concerned with bureaucrats rather than with people, I refer the Government to the bureaucrats who now sit on the hospital trusts and who are precisely the kind of placemen and placewomen to whom I referred in my question.
In those days, of course, we had a Merseyside county council. I remember being elected to that council when it

431
was still possible for local, elected representatives to use their own initiative to introduce programmes, which had been placed before the electors in a democratic way, and when those councillors were at least allowed to try to get on with those programmes and to prove that they were achievable. As I have said, there was partnership at that time.
During those years, I was elected as the chairman of the economic development committee of Merseyside county council and I helped to promote a scheme to help small businesses known as CHASE—county help for active small enterprises. That scheme was able to generate 9,000 jobs on Merseyside—not small beer when one considers the economic background against which it was done. Also, it was cost effective in the creation of those jobs—even more cost effective than the regional aids which were then available to local authorities and to the regions. We helped to create 30 worker co-operatives. In other words, the partnership was not only between central and local government but between local government and the people in the areas that we represented.
We created a Merseyside enterprise board and a training board. We helped to promote the interests of Liverpool airport. We stretched out a hand to all parts of the communities in our area, including the churches. The Archbishop of Liverpool and the Bishop of Liverpool, who have done so much to promote the positive image of the area that I represent, were members of the Merseyside enterprise forum, along with trade unionists and representatives of the business community. We were the greatest promoters of the arts of all local authorities outside the area covered by the Greater London council. We were the originators of the maritime museum and, in a sense, of the Albert dock development, which has been much discussed and is an attraction to tourists throughout the world. In my constituency, we promoted the development of Croxteth hall and country park. As I have said, in those days we were allowed to use our initiative in creating, in that case, an enterprise, which became 20th in the league of attractions for tourists entering this country.
Since those days, the county council has gone, many of the services for which it was responsible have disappeared and the expenditure of that county council has fallen in large part to Liverpool city council. However, there has not been any considerable additional funding and the city council finds it difficult to fund the programmes to which the Minister referred, such as the urban development corporation. The Merseyside urban development corporation has been moderately successful, but in the area for which the corporation was responsible there were 1,000 fewer jobs after its first six years than there were before. Indeed, a report was discussed in the House which emanated from the National Audit Office some years ago.
The Minister also mentioned the city challenge programme. In fact, the urban programme, the urban partnership fund, estate action, the expenditure of the UDC and city challenge are to be integrated into one budget, which is referred to as the single regeneration budget. The total Government expenditure for that budget for 1995–96 is set at £1.5 billion, but the only new money—money over and above that which would have been available under the separate schemes and which is now to be covered by the single regeneration budget—is some £100 million. Liverpool will receive between £4 million and £5 million from that sum, whereas under the previous schemes, which include those mentioned by the Minister for Local
432
Government and Planning in his reply, Liverpool would have expected £25 million. So under the single regeneration budget there is less emphasis on areas of real need such as the city of Liverpool or, indeed, Merseyside generally.
In earlier times, the rate support grant was fair to the people in my area. Under the present Government, there have been increases in the revenue support grant, but they have been due more to changes in legislation and the way in which local government is funded by the introduction of new taxes and different funding formulas than to any compassion by the Government for an area which should be regarded as a priority in our country. With the abolition of the county council, much of the expenditure for the police, the fire services, passenger transport, waste disposal and trading standards fell on the city of Liverpool and on other districts of Merseyside.
In 1991–92, the revenue support grant included a one-off grant to keep the poll tax down, while in 1992–93 the increase was to offset the council tax. In other words, those grants were to offset the policy failures of the Conservative Government. They were to cover for the poll tax, which was such an utter disaster for the people of this country and which led to the demise of the dreadful predecessor of today's Prime Minister. The only function for which Liverpool has gained control since 1979 has been in the area of care in the community and nobody in Liverpool would suggest that that has been properly funded to meet the needs of the area.
Government controls over local authorities have meant that Liverpool, like other cities, has been placed very much in a centralised straitjacket. The standard spending assessment, which was introduced by the Government, is fundamental to determining the level of central Government revenue funding available to the city council. It has a major impact on the level of council tax which is raised by the city. Under the rating system, the poll tax system and now the council tax system, there has always been the possibility of the local authority's being capped. So levels of expenditure are controlled by the Government. But if the council wishes to raise the money to improve the conditions of people in Liverpool, it can meet possible Government action at another level.
Changes in the methodology for working out the SSA for 1994–95 will have severe consequences on many of the services provided by the city of Liverpool, not least on children's social services. The Government talk about a feeling for the family and care in the community, yet in the year following a tragic happening in Liverpool which affected children, they have reduced the SSA for children's services—what Liverpool city council is allowed to spend on such services—by £11.6 million. Indeed, the total reduction in Liverpool's SSA for next year is £16.8 million. Of course, it is the children who will suffer.
The national total that the Government allow for children's services under their SSA formula is to be increased by 3.3 per cent., but Liverpool, in the year after the tragedy to which I referred, is to receive 30 per cent. less. That is despite all the often publicised social and economic difficulties that face my city.
Ethnicity is used as a factor in the formula for calculating SSA. That has meant that Birmingham, for example, will receive for children's personal social services £4,954 per child at risk. Yet because Liverpool does not have a large ethnic minority or the problems that sometimes arise in an area with large ethnic minorities, it

433
will receive only £807 per child at risk. Birmingham £4,954, Liverpool £807—the difference cannot be justified by ethnic background. I ask the Government to examine that when they review the SSA formula. In total, Birmingham received £5.8 million more than Liverpool for children's services. Next year, Liverpool will receive £16.1 million less than Birmingham to support children.
However, the SSA changes also have an impact elsewhere. There has been a reduction in the SSA for the provision of education for the under-fives. Liverpool has a proud record in nursery school provision despite the difficulties and obstacles that have been created by the Government. The SSA for education for the under-fives next year for Liverpool will be reduced by £400,000. The SSA for highways maintenance will also fall by £400,000. For other county services, there will be a reduction of £2.1 million. The SSA to cover land drainage will be reduced by £100,000 and that for capital financing will be reduced by £3.2 million.
Liverpool city council recently sent a deputation to the Minister. It acted in a very responsible way. Its submission, which asked for a review of Liverpool's SSA, was supported by all the parties on Liverpool city council, including the Conservative party. All the members of the delegations were absolutely astonished when, instead of reviewing the SSA upwards, the Minister rebuked the deputation and the SSA moved downwards.
One of the replies that I tend to receive from Ministers is that Liverpool has a rather shaky record. During the 1980s, I and others, including the present leader of the city council, opposed the highly centralised tactics of Militant Tendency. In my view, the power of Militant Tendency in Liverpool was the other side of the same coin to the restrictionist, highly centralised activities of the Thatcher Government. Thatcher was on one side and Militant Tendency on the other.
There can be no doubt that Liverpool city council has acted in a responsible way in recent years. That responsibility has sometimes been recognised even in the speeches of Ministers. Harry Rimmer, the leader of the city council, is a responsible leader of the people of Liverpool. Liverpool undoubtedly has not been given the priority that it deserves.
I refer to a report of the Minister's own Department entitled "Index of local conditions". It was highlighted in a report in the Liverpool Echo on 19 May, the day after I was greeted by the tirade from the Minister for Local Government and Planning when I raised the issue in the House. The headline of the article was:
"City is second in the poll of poverty".
The Liverpool Echo correspondent Mark Davies said:
"Liverpool is the second most deprived city in England according to a new Government poverty league. Birmingham tops the table but the figures show that Liverpool has the worst unemployment in the country and the highest number of families without a car. Only four London boroughs and Birmingham are more run down according to the Department of the Environment survey. Only Manchester has more children living in low-earning households and more people on income support. Knowsley"—
another part of the Merseyside metropolis—
"is 12th in the league table of the country's most deprived areas."
The article is based on the Government's own statistics.
Every constituency in Liverpool has a male unemployment rate of more than 18 per cent. In my constituency of West Derby, 23.6 per cent.—almost a quarter of the male
434
population—is unemployed. It is no use the Government saying that the unemployment is caused by the recession. It may be partly caused by the recession, but unemployment has been endemic in my constituency throughout the period of office of the Government. Indeed, on the Croxteth estate in the mid-1980s, youth unemployment was no less than 94 per cent. No wonder there has been an increase in juvenile criminal activity and a drug problem on an estate that never suffered from that before. On the Norris Green estate, where I was brought up, drugs were unknown. People were never well off, but crime, despondency, poverty and dereliction were never known in days gone by.
In Liverpool, the Riverside constituency has the highest male unemployment—indeed, the highest unemployment —on mainland Britain, at 33 per cent. That fact has come about after the "economic miracle" which the former Prime Minister told us that we had all enjoyed. How often have we heard Ministers in the House say that we are all better off now than we were 10, 20 or 30 years ago? They should ask the people of Riverside or those who live on the Norris Green and Croxteth housing estates in Liverpool.
There are people who recognise the needs of my area. The European Union has recognised them by designating Merseyside as the only area in England eligible for objective 1 status. The great fear is that the money from the European Union will be regarded by the Government as an indirect means of financing the Exchequer. Grants from the European Union have often simply been used to cover what was previously provided by central Government. We also fear that the elected representatives of Liverpool and the other districts will not be consulted about how objective 1 funds will be used, but the bureaucrats, placemen and other people in my area who are not elected will be consulted.
One can contrast the way in which Liverpool has been treated over the years with the way in which, Westminster city council, that flagship—I suppose that I should put the word "flagship" in inverted commas now—of Tory local fiefdom is treated. The rogue Westminster city council featured on the "Panorama" programme not long ago. In Westminster, for every £100 spent by the council, only £4 comes from the council's tax payers. Many of us in the House, including myself, know that that means that council tax in the city of Westminster is quite low. The rest of the £100 comes from central Government grant and other external supports such as the business rate, which is set by central Government. In Liverpool, for every £100 spent by the city council, the council taxpayers of the city pay £20 —so it is £20 in Liverpool, but only £4 in Westminster, which has some of the richest people in the country living within its boundaries.
Westminster does not qualify for objective 1 status. It can even afford to sell its cemeteries cheaply at 15p a time. But it is the flagship and, despite the roguery for which it is now well known, the Conservative party's local election campaign earlier this month was started by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), in Westminster. Apparently, he thought that it was a worthy council to project the intentions of the Conservative Government towards local authorities.
In the social index produced by the Government, Liverpool has been ranked 85th in the country and Westminster fourth. Is it possible to believe that Liverpool is richer than the city of Westminster? Nobody but a fool

435
would suggest that. According to the Government's social index, it falls below Salisbury, Bath, Hereford and Hove in terms of deprivation. That is scandalous and the Government cannot be seen to have been fair. The Tories have said that the system is fair. The Minister should search his heart and ask himself how he can argue the case for the present system.
The Minister might ask himself why the Conservative party does so badly in Liverpool. It may not be readily known that between 1845 and 1955, with the exception of one year in the 1890s when the Liberals were in charge of the city council, Liverpool was ruled by the Conservatives. Now there are but two Conservative representatives on the city council, one of whom survived by seven votes in the recent local elections. There are just two Conservative representatives out of 99. The Liberal Democrats have taken the place of the Tories. I must admit that some of them have done the job well. The Liberal Democrats who were on the council before 1979 outdid Thatcher before Thatcherism. The Conservatives are not the main opposition to the Labour party in the city of Liverpool; it is the Liberals.
When we consider the history of Liverpool and the importance in the early part of this century of Liverpool's Conservative working men's clubs, we see that the Conservative party has to ask itself why the change has come about. That change is largely due to the attitude and arrogance that I encountered in the answer to the question that I asked the other day in the House of Commons.
I say to the Minister and to the Government that we who represent Liverpool have a great pride in our city, which was the second city of the empire at the beginning of the century. Its greatness is still there to be seen, not just in things from the past—its regal architecture is testimony to its great past and some of its new structures are testimony to its future. When one looks at the work of the two universities one sees that Liverpool is a city which qualifies for the title of city of learning. One must also consider its music, arts and its profitable port. Its achievements are not the result of Government policy but of the hard work of the people of Liverpool—those achievements have been gained despite the Government, not because of them.
I pity those who stand for local councils these days. What can they do when they are elected? They are reduced to the pawns of central Government, albeit the unwilling pawns of autocratic central Government. The draconian measures that have been employed by the Government since 1979 have all but ended local self-government in this country. Only in this Chamber, of all elected chambers throughout the European Union, would it be possible for a Minister to threaten to cap local elected representatives. Only in this Chamber would it be possible for Ministers to refer to the surcharging and disqualification of councils. Locally elected people are, therefore, thwarted by the Government.
The people of Merseyside are angry at the way in which so much has been inflicted on them and at the unfairness of local councillors being surcharged—not, in the majority of cases, for lining their own pockets or gerrymandering as in the case of Westminster—and they compare the lot of elected representatives in Liverpool to that of the rogues who still rule Westminster city council.
Irrespective of party, Liverpool councillors are willing to put a hand out to Government and to welcome partnership on an equal basis, based on an acceptance that in this country plural democracy is the essence, not the
436
natural centralisers in the Government who have ruled so long. We would be willing to work with any Government who have the priorities of ordinary people at heart and not simply the interests of their own party elite.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am frankly astonished that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) continues to wheel out such outdated, discredited and negative arguments. He appears to have taken exception to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning at Question Time the other day. He knows full well that he protests too much and that my hon. Friend's comments were very much tongue in cheek. Of course, throughout our relationship with Liverpool, the development of strong partnerships has been central to everything that we have done.
Local authorities have a key role to play in the economic development of their areas. That is why the Government are working very closely with Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral councils as partners in the three city challenge initiatives —successful partnerships, embracing the private and community sectors, which I know from having visited them that the local authorities welcome, even if the hon. Member does not. The three city challenge partnerships will receive Government grant of £112.5 million over five years. That is taxpayers' money which has already levered in large amounts of European funding and private sector investment for all the people of Merseyside. Equally, the Merseyside development corporation has attracted public investment of more than £300 million and has levered in much greater private investment, to the benefit of the people of Merseyside. The results of the MDC and the three city challenges, in terms of jobs and economic development, are real and there for all to see. I suggest that the hon. Member looks at what is happening in Liverpool and on Merseyside. It is very exciting.
Since the early 1980s, we have dedicated a range of urban regeneration measures to assist Merseyside. Most of those have now come together in the single regeneration budget, which will be administered by the Government office for Merseyside, working with local partners, including the local authorities. The single regeneration budget brings together 20 previously existing regeneration programmes into a single budget with an annual value of £1.4 billion, which is a very large amount of money. I must correct the hon. Gentleman, as it does not include the money made available to the urban development corporations, such as the MDC. The purpose of the single regeneration budget is to provide a flexible mechanism for supporting regeneration initiatives that are based on local need, rather than on rigid grant rules and guidelines set out in Whitehall. Local authorities have for many years requested such an initiative and it has been generally welcomed throughout the country.
On Merseyside, the SRB includes about £110 million of committed money—money that will be spent on Merseyside this year and will complement a variety of mainstream spending, such as the training and enterprise programmes and regional selective assistance. It will support other money that is also being spent on Merseyside this year. The bidding round for the financial year is under way and local authorities, training and enterprise councils

437
and others locally are developing partnership bids with vigour and enthusiasm. That is no less true on Merseyside than anywhere else. My officials in the Government office on Merseyside have been holding meetings to discuss potential bids. The lessons of city challenge have been learnt on Merseyside, with a clear understanding that the regeneration process depends for its success on an approach that is comprehensive in its planning, targeted in its application and based on strong local partnership. I have no doubt that SRB bids of very high quality will come forward on Merseyside.
As for central Government support for Merseyside, local authorities for all councils except Liverpool had increases in standard spending assessment for 1994–95, at or above the average for metropolitan authorities. While it is true that Liverpool's SSA shows a decrease compared with comparable figures for previous years, Liverpool has been fairly treated. SSAs are calculated on principles that are applied to all authorities. The decrease for Liverpool is straightforward and is due to a combination of data changes, not least loss of population, and the inclusion of the new 1991 census data and methodology changes. However, the decrease in Liverpool's SSA has been cushioned by SSA reduction grant of almost £2 million. It is absolute rubbish for the hon. Member to suggest that Liverpool has in any sense been rebuked or penalised. He also seems to suggest that the SSA allocation is rigged in some way and that Liverpool has been penalised, to the benefit of other authorities such as Westminster. That is cheap, tawdry and unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.
In evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, the local authority associations said:
"The distribution of grant to 420 authorities in England on an equitable basis is a complex task and it is not surprising that the extensive analysis and research over the years has shown there are no simple answers."
We carried out a review in co-operation with local authorities this year and the Environment Select Committee subsequently produced a report. One of its first conclusions was:
"We welcome the openness with which this year's SSA review has been carried out, and we trust the approach will continue in future years…We recognise that the. changes to the SSA methodology this year have led to some commonsense
438
improvements in the 1994–95 proposals."
As to any scintilla of a suggestion of the SSAs being rigged, I commend the hon. Member to read the evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. Tony Travers, who is widely respected and recognised as an independent and objective commentator on those matters. He said:
"A number of commentators have accused SSAs of being politically rigged…Yet there is no evidence of such political intervention".
Liverpool's SSA, like that of every other local authority, reflects the level of its population. That is why, at £875 per head, it is the highest of all the metropolitan districts—higher than that of Birmingham, any other council on Merseyside and any other metropolitan district.
A major plus for Merseyside in the next six years will be its designation by the European Union—with the whole-hearted backing of the Government—for objective 1 status for structural funds.As the hon. Member will know, objective 1 has been taken forward by a partnership, with officials in the Government office for Merseyside working closely and in co-operation with a broadly based local partnership, including all the local authorities—an essential and invaluable partner—together with the TECs, the private sector, the voluntary sector, colleges of further education, the universities and a number of others, all of whom want to, and can, contribute to the success of their bids. At the beginning of November—precisely on time —the partnership submitted its proposals to the Commission for using objective 1 money. We have made it absolutely clear that the money—the drawdown of more than £600 million at current prices—will be more than matched by contributions from other public sector and suitable private sector investment. In total, it will be a massive investment and have a major impact on Merseyside.
I do not believe that the bleak picture painted by the hon. Member for West Derby will be recognised by most people in Liverpool. Our policies are designed to encourage the greatest possible investment in Merseyside. Objective 1 offers unparalleled opportunities to improve the quality of life on Merseyside and I am sure that Merseyside is determined to seize those opportunities. We are determined to maximise them and I am confident that together we can ensure that Merseyside is able to move into the 21st century, take on the world and win.

Child Support Agency
11 am
Mr. David Tredinnick: If George Orwell were alive today and looking for a sequel to "1984", I suspect he would have based it on the Child Support Agency. Here we have an agency just one year old, set up with the best possible intentions to make mainly absent fathers responsible for their offspring, but something has clearly gone wrong. Is it because, as has been suggested, it seeks arrogantly to impose one social rule on millions of unconnected lives, thereby unleashing the law of unintended consequences, or is it something else?
In today's debate, for which I am very grateful, I hope to explore some of the issues and I hope to offer my hon. Friend the Minister some constructive criticism. However, it must be said that, unlike the governance imposed in Orwell's book "1984", the CSA was not imposed on a reluctant people; rather, it was introduced with widespread support both in the House and outside.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt)indicated assent.
Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State nods in agreement.
The principle of the Bill had cross-party support. For example, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said:
"The concept behind the Bill—which is that parents should be responsible for their children's maintenance—is entirely unexceptional. It is only right and proper that we should support it. No father should escape his responsibilities."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 211.]
The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), speaking for the official Opposition and summing up for the Labour party, said:
"Nobody has objected to the principle, which is, wherever possible, to make parents financially responsible for their children."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 234.]
The Bill was not opposed on Second or Third Reading, although, in fairness to the Opposition, I should say that there was a reasoned amendment.
My hon. Friend the Minister has the task of making the best of the CSA within the constraints of the current law, and, I hope, in due course of bringing before the House proposals to improve it.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated his commitment to keep the Act under review, and that has been widely welcomed, but it is my hon. Friend who has one hand superglued to the poisoned chalice while the other fends off a multitude of complaints. I intend to be constructive, and hope to offer my hon. Friend some antidotes for his cup.
Before I proceed, I should like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who will also be contributing to the debate.
There are four main areas of concern. The first is the general competence of the CSA office, and the way in which it is administering the current law. The second is the quite clearly demonstrated failure of the current assessment formula to take into consideration what it needs to take into consideration when making these assessments. The third is the CSA resources devoted to checking absent parents' returns. Are we satisfied that the CSA checks
440
returns that are sent, properly to ensure that the minimum amount of fraud and disinformation is absorbed? Fourthly, are we happy with the review procedure?
Half my advice bureau cases relate to the CSA. I currently have 65 cases under review. The general competence of the CSA has been called into question before. It is with some regret that I say that the agency, despite no doubt some very fair efforts to do the right thing, is failing in some respects.
In one case, the details of an absent parent's pay and income were sent to his ex-wife. Confidential details of the absent parent's pay and finance should not be revealed in that way. It is for the agency to make the assessment.
Secondly, there is the failure of the agency to liaise properly with the courts. I have a difficult case with a constituent, Mr. Ault. The CSA failed to inform the court that it had taken over his case, and he has received bills from both the court and the CSA. He is angry and worried about that, and I am trying to sort it out. It has been a problem for him, because he has had a poor response to his reasonable request that one of those payments should be annulled.
Thirdly, there are still problems with the application forms, due to their complexity. My constituent writes:
"I have an IQ of 147 and I struggled with the forms. God only knows how educationally disadvantaged people cope with them.".
He has a point. They are not that simple.
Fourthly, there is the failure of the CSA to acknowledge change of address of absent parents. It should not be too difficult to sort out that administrative muddle, but it has led to the imposition of the so-called interim maintenance assessment, which is rather like a bank surcharge for having an overdraft which has not been approved. People are getting huge assessments which are very frightening. The agency has to look out for that.
Fifthly, there is the failure to make special allowance for those working abroad, on sabbaticals or even on a long holiday. Interim assessments have been issued when, for example, an insurance salesman or a salesman in industry is on a long visit overseas. The sensitivity with which the agency addresses such cases should be reviewed.
Sixthly, there is unacceptable delay in assessing the forms. My constituent Mrs. Hollis had to wait from September 1993 to May 1994 for her ex-husband's form to be assessed before receiving maintenance. In the meantime, she received only income support.
The helpline response is also inadequate. I had a complaint from a constituent who said that he has tried to telephone the agency in Belfast; he is put on hold and simply cannot get through. It is costing him a fortune in long-distance calls. Is it right that so few resources have been put into the helpline, when so many assessments are going out?
I am not convinced that the agency is administering itself properly at the moment. Quite an interesting, well-publicised case involving agency employees has been in the papers recently. I should have thought that the management would have done well to keep that out of the courts and in-house. It does not reflect very well on the way in which the agency looks after its employees.
The key problem at the moment is the need for a revised assessment formula.
Mr. David Nicholson: Hear, hear.
Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) agrees with me. The current formula is absolutely unacceptable.
Some 95 per cent. of the cases with which I deal concern absent fathers, and I believe that the assessments made are grossly unfair. Having seen those fathers in my advice surgeries, I am convinced that most of them want to love and care for their children by their first marriages, but they see the so-called protected income as quite unrealistic, because their essential living costs are grossly underestimated.
What are the essential living costs that the CSA does not take into consideration? They include bank loan repayments, mortgage protection and house insurance, the general debts resulting from the separation and, most important, the cost of visiting the children. I have a constituent whose children live in the Isle of Wight. He wants to visit them, but cannot afford to do so. Nor can fathers generally afford to send train tickets to the children to come to visit them. There is also the cost of telephone calls and car travel.
Many parents want to buy clothes for their children. Indeed, one of the nicest things a father or mother can do is to buy their children some clothes. That cost is not taken into account. What about gifts? A bicycle now costs more than £100; surely that should be taken into account.
There is also resentment at the fact that any reduction in maintenance liability occurs only when a child stays for two or more nights with the absent parent. Very often, children want to spend only one night, or perhaps it is possible to arrange for them to stay for only the one night.
Mr. David Nicholson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sort of cases that come to my surgery and, I suspect, to his, tend to be the most responsible of absent parents, who have paid maintenance regularly and who very often, at the time of divorce or separation, made what is called a clean-break settlement? They made a fairly satisfactory arrangement through giving the house to the wife, for example, and taking perhaps only half the proceeds. Unfortunately, the CSA formula takes no account of such an arrangement.
Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend makes very well a point that I had intended to make later. I have always opposed the overturning of clean-break settlements, because it is wrong to introduce retrospective legislation. Most, if not all, of those who come to my surgery love the children they created by their first wives. They may intently dislike their first wives, but, by and large, they love their children and want to do the best they can for them. That is an important point. However, I shall not pursue it further, other than to say that another instance of the failure of the CSA formula is that it does not take account of cash gifts. The CSA simply refuses to recognise them.
The third area of concern—in a way, it is the other side of the coin—is whether the forms returned by absent parents are correct. I have said a great deal about the problems facing absent fathers, but sometimes they wilfully falsify their returns, either out of malice towards their first wives or for some other reason.
I am aware of the case of a lady who was violently assaulted by her husband. She fled the marital home because both she and her sister had been assaulted by him and she feared for the safety of her child. Of course, she
442
probably should not have fled the marital home. She is now in rented accommodation, and her husband is making as small a contribution as possible.
The CSA made an assessment that appears to be incorrect, because the person concerned is running a successful business, living in a luxury flat and running an expensive car. I understand that it is possible that he has put those assets in the name of his brother or some organisation in order to circumvent the CSA. Can the Minister say what steps the agency is taking to investigate false submissions?
The final area of complaint to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the failure of the review arrangements. My perception is that the internal review mechanism, as currently constituted, is inadequate. It does not command confidence and it is too heavily centred in the agency. We need some form of independent review, and I ask my hon. Friend to consider that important point.
What are the consequences of the shortcomings within the agency for those affected? There is much resentment among fathers, which makes it hard for them to maintain good relations with their children. There is a tendency among second wives to say, "Is this marriage really worth it?" There is a feeling that many of them are being forced to pay for first wives, and that is widely resented.
Furthermore, second wives now wonder whether they can afford to have children, and so question the whole basis of their relationship. I need hardly tell the House about the stories of abortions and worse connected with that problem.
I believe that the system encourages first wives with care not to work, especially if their partners are out of work. That can be used as a weapon against the second wife and as a tool to damage that relationship. I am not suggesting that those circumstances always exist, but I am convinced that, on occasions, the agency's system is being used as a way to get at ex-husbands.
Another consequence, especially among blue-collar workers, is that they simply say, "I am not going to put up with this; I am going to give up my job." I tell them that they must not do that, and that the way forward is to talk through the problem carefully, but they just say—I shall not use the word in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, especially with you in the Chair, but it is a short word. They leave my surgery saying, "I am not going to pay; I am going to pack in my job." That has a negative impact.
Earlier, I told the Minister that I had not come here today to hit him over the head; I am here to be constructive. I tremendously respect—I mean this most sincerely—all the effort that my hon. Friend has put into making the CSA work. In fairness to him, he was handed the package; he did not create it. He may have an opportunity to change it; that is why we are here today. During the next few months, we hope to hear about some specific changes.
The solutions that my hon. Friend should consider obviously include examining the formula used by the CSA. It is perceived as grossly unfair and against natural justice. We must get it right. My hon. Friend should also examine the cost effectiveness of the agency. There has been a great deal of dispute about the benefits it brings, compared with what some suggest is a cost of £600 million. I wonder whether we are getting value for money. My hon. Friend must also think about some of the administrative problems that have occurred.
I should like my hon. Friend to consider making available local rate telephone lines between the agency's

443
offices and the people calling them. It is possible to do that; indeed, we know that such a service exists. Why should my constituent make umpteen calls to Belfast at the higher rate, when, with just a little generosity from the Department, he could make those calls at local rates?
I think that we are going to have to eat a little humble pie over the way in which the agency has been set up. We need to look at the system in Australia. Why has Australia managed to set up a similar agency, but one that is widely respected and has not caused half the problems that we have experienced here? There are two answers.
The first is that Australia did not rush into doing everything at once and combine all the stages with, perhaps, limited resources. It is rather like soldering the lid on the kettle and turning up the gas. Secondly, their review procedures were perceived to be fair. We must ensure that the CSA is also perceived to be fair: if my hon. Friend the Minister can achieve that, he will have done us all a great favour and made many people's lives much happier.
11.19 am
Mr. David Ashby: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and the Minister for allowing me time to speak.
I entirely agree with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth about this important matter. Five to 10 fathers at a time regularly visit my surgery; I expect about 150 to attend a meeting that will take place the week after next. All those fathers have been paying maintenance for a long time, and they are all very angry. They are not absent fathers. When they ask me for help, support and guidance, I can only say, "What help can I give?" As my hon. Friend said, the problem is the sheer inflexibility of the system.
My hon. Friend the Minister is trying to replace a system based on justice and the judgments of wise people following argument and discussion, with a system that is perceived as authoritarian He will say that he is trying to bring about justice, and I accept that the Child Support Act 1991 is not really his baby; he had to take over the Bill. If we are to have justice, however, the system must not be merely authoritarian. There must be mercy and understanding, and both sides of the argument must be heard.
There cannot be justice in an authoritarian world and there cannot be justice without any agreements for review or appeal. The system is fundamentally flawed, as is the Act. We should do away with it and start again; there is no point in reviewing a system that is transparently authoritarian and has inflexibility built into it.
Hon. Members are annoyed by the fact that, when they write to the Minister about aspects of the Act that concern them—normally matters of policy—they receive no reply from him. Their letters are sent on to the agency and Mrs. Hepplewhite replies to them. Hon. Members who want change think that very wrong.
Mr. Simon Burns: May I say in the Minister's defence that, when I have written to him about principles of the policy, I have received a very full response—although it is true that letters drawing attention to specific cases are referred to the agency's chief executive?
Mr. Ashby: That is not my experience, although it is probably the Department's fault. I hope that the Minister will do something to cure that fault.
In fact, I have just written to the Minister asking him some questions. Let me repeat some of them now. Why, for instance, is the child allowance of a father caring for one of two children, while the mother has the other child, classed as income for him but not as income for the mother? There is no logic in that; I hope to hear a logical reply from the Minister.
Why, if that caring father's 13-year-old does a newspaper round, is the income considered to be the father's? That seems daft to me. If the income of the working wife of an absent father is taken into consideration, why does not the same apply to the income of the caring wife's new husband or boy friend?
It is no good the Minister's saying that that is not the case. I refer him to the CSA's operational bulletin 22/93. I hope that he will make all its operational bulletins available in the Library, so that we can see how it works. It is vital that we should be able to do that.
Why does the agency accept the caring parent's word about her income? I have encountered case after case in which the caring parent who has made the application has acted fraudulently. When I refer such cases to the agency, I am told, "We do not inquire into the circumstances of the caring wife; we inquire into those of the absent father." I have had to write to the Department of Social Security pointing out that the wife has been fraudulent. The agency should be working with the DSS, examining cases of fraud on the part of applicants.
Then there are the costs of the agency. It is currently holding a course to train managers, and has asked to use a hotel in Bewdley or Kidderminster. I have information from within the agency: I understand that there has been a great deal of phoning around to find out which hotel has the best swimming pool. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the agency operates with income from absent parents. It charges for its services. It is the money of those parents that it is flinging around.
In my experience and that of my constituents, the agency's staff are of a low standard. If money is to be spent on training, it would best be spent on training staff rather than management, because the staff make the decisions.
I warn my hon. Friend the Minister that if the agency is not watched, it will outstrip the DSS in size, manpower and costs. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth: we are looking at "1984". The Child Support Act is a nanny Act, which I would have expected the Opposition to introduce. I fear that, in future, the agency will take over all the maintenance work currently done by the courts, enforcing its authoritarian views and replacing justice with inflexibility.
11.29 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I thank him for the way in which he made his points. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) for his remarks and my hon. Friends the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) for taking a close interest in the debate. I shall do my best to answer as many questions as possible in the

445
time available to me, but I may not cover them all. However, this is familiar territory to the House and hon. Members know a great deal about the subject—as they should.
The first point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth concerned the collective responsibility of the House, in that the legislation was not rushed through. It was widely consulted on. Some 270 organisations, individuals and hon. Members expressed views on the White Paper, "Children Come First", published in October 1990, so the measure was not sprung fully formed on an unsuspecting House or public. Everyone agreed that the existing system needed changing and my hon. Friend was fair to say that the legislation was the responsibility of the whole House.
It was kind of my hon. Friend to make the remarks about me that he did. I fully accept my responsibility as a Member of Parliament in supporting the Child Support Bill and the responsibilities that I have now as the Minister in charge of the legislation and of the agency, under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
In view of the tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West, I will present the other side of the coin. Anyone reading my hon. Friends' speeches would ask what the Government are doing and why they established the agency in the first place. It is important to place on record again the reasons for the CSA's existence, and also remarks made by some of the growing number, of women in particular, who see the benefit to them of the agency's work.
The White Paper "Children Come First" described the then maintenance system and presented proposals for change. I remind the House of some of the issues that it raised. The previous system was fragmented, inconsistent, slow and ineffective. The outcome was uncertain. There was no guarantee of consistency or fairness throughout the country. The average award per child was £16. In some cases, it was clear that higher awards of maintenance were affordable but not given. There was no automatic review process. Awards could take weeks or months, and half of all awards fell into arrears at least once a year.
In 1989, some 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers received regular maintenance—that was all, and some 23 per cent. of lone parents on income support received child maintenance. Ten years previously, the figure had been 50 per cent. Clearly, the then system was wrong and needed change. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West defended to some extent the previous system. When one looks back, the facts do not merit such support. The system needed changing, and changed it was.
The system established by the Child Support Act 1991 was designed to produce better maintenance support for children; clear and consistent rules so that both parties in a separation would know their responsibilities; consistency; regular yearly reviews that would not require the parties to return to court to argue; and prompt and reliable collection and enforcement—I shall return to that aspect later. There was also a determination to make sure that the taxpayer, who had unwittingly supported a growing
446
number of settlements over the years, would get a better deal and be relieved of some responsibility, as parents should bear prime responsibility.
In view of the often hostile comments made by many people about the CSA—understandably, because people required to pay more under a new system naturally feel more strongly about it—it is important to place on record comments made by people personally involved, who view the agency differently. One lady quoted in The Times on 31 January stated:
"I didn't know what to do until the CSA took on the case. They have been super—really helpful. I don't want to live on state benefits if I can avoid it, and I would rather work longer hours so I can save up for my daughter's future. Whatever happens in my case, I can't fault the CSA."
In a letter published in the Daily Mail on 15 February, another lady wrote:
"Despite being obliged to bring up by children on income support, they are all healthy, have good food, shoes, outings, Christmas presents and even holidays. I haven't whinged but budgeted carefully.
Now, after the intervention of the Child Support Agency, my ex-husband must make proper maintenance payments. I am delighted and so are my children. They feel they now have a place in his life equal to his other children. We are grateful to the CSA for everything it has done, as are many other people I know. It will now be possible for me to work part-time and raise our standard of living to family credit level."
A letter published in the Lancashire Evening Post on 14 February stated:
"I have read many criticisms of the Child Support Agency, and feel that I must put pen to paper in defence.
Since 1986 we have provided a home for our granddaughter. Court appearances and solicitors visits too numerous to mention resulted in a court order, £8.33 to be paid weekly. In fact £40 some months, then no payment.
On returning to the solicitor I was told a further request had to be made to Legal Aid, and could take eight weeks or more to come through, then court applications.
In the years since 1986 the father has been in lucrative employment—and at the same address (owner of a large detached house). I rang the Child Support Agency—they sent me forms and letters of guidance the following day.
At least we feel somebody is taking notice. I think the solicitor could have advised us."
In recent weeks, a number of lone parent groups have linked to argue their side of the case. I pay tribute to the work of Lynda Sunderland, who established an organisation named Smile. It states that many lone parents are desperate for the Child Support Agency to work.
In saying all that, I do not suggest that there is not another side to the story, but emphasise that other views are held. I stand here to support the agency's work and to work through the issues raised by my hon. Friends and many others, because I believe in the principle of the CSA and can see practical benefits resulting from it. Clearly, it is part of the Government's aim and my own to make sure that acceptance of the agency's success is felt more widely.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Now that the Minister has got all that off his chest, will he answer the specific points originally raised about the agency's competence, assessments, and so on, and not avoid them?
Mr. Burt: I am sorry that that intervention lost 30 seconds.
I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth described a number of operational difficulties. The agency has not worked as well as we had wished. A number of the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned should not have occurred and the agency is determined to address them. It is certainly true that a

447
court order and a Child Support Agency order should not be in effect at the same time. My hon. Friend is right to say that the court order should be stopped. Where there has been a breakdown in communication, it must be improved.
The forms were carefully trialled and tested—not only on people with high IQs but by a range of organisations, which presented the forms to their client groups to see how well they would work. Many forms in the benefit system are complex, but people find their way through them. We try to make sure that forms are properly written and provide the right information. If one wants to obtain as much information as possible at the first attempt:, to cut costs and improve processing speed, the form must be long. The forms are constantly checked and worked through.
As to telephone help lines, attempts are being made to improve that service. We appreciate that people should not have to wait as long as they do, and we want that aspect improved. I shall take on board my hon. Friend's suggestion of calls being charged at local rates. That has not previously been considered, but I take his point. I acknowledge that the agency must improve in some areas, and I assure my hon. Friend that much work and effort is going into achieving such improvements.
Some of the agency's problems have not resulted from inefficiency. Much of its work was built on assumptions that could not be tested until it was up and running. For example, an assumption was made about how quickly people would return forms and provide information. That has taken longer than we expected and verification has proved to be more difficult. That is not a fault of the agency but one of the lessons that we learn from experience. Where the agency can improve its performance, I assure my hon. Friend that it will do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire North-West, raised a number of policy issues, which we have touched on before but which I am happy to comment on once again. The formula is rigid, but it cannot be any other way. The system is either discretionary or it provides some element of consistency. That is why the formula is as it is.
Requests have been made to expand the formula to take into account some of the matters that my hon. Friend raised, such as claims for travel costs, contact costs and the like. The difficulty is that the formula was designed to make the payment of maintenance to the child the priority. Indeed, the payment of maintenance was seen as a priority by the Select Committee on Social Security, which reported at the end of last year.
The danger is that, if too many costs are allowed into the formula as exempt income for assessment purposes, the payment to the child will lose its priority. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said, and a number of people have said the same. The Government keep the formula and the workings of the agency under review. The principle of keeping a formula is important to us.
Mr. Donald Dewar: I appreciate the Minister's courtesy in giving way. It is well known that much work is going on in the Department, particularly on an independent review process, which might at least introduce an element of flexibility in hard cases. Are we likely to get a statement before the House rises for the summer recess?
Mr. Burt: I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman an answer. As he knows, following consideration of the Act and the agency, we made changes in February. That was an indication of our good intent: that, where we saw the need for change, it would be made. A lot of work is going into evaluating those changes, but it is not possible to say whether changes will be made. The Government should not, therefore, be held to a timetable.
My hon. Friends asked about appeals, which we have discussed before. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has thought deeply about the problem of appeals and I appreciate the way in which we have been able to conduct this debate. The problem remains that introducing an open appeal system would take us back to the discretionary system of the past; the formula might well be second-guessed by an erudite person. There would then be no point in having the formula and we would be back where we were.
If that is not to be the outcome, the appeal system must be narrowed and we must have gateways for it. I am still awaiting suggestions of where those gateways might be. It is relatively easy for politicians to say to an aggrieved group of people, "We shall have an appeal system and all your problems will be solved," but it is more difficult to say, "There will be an appeal system, but you, you and you will not be included." That is the problem and I am yet to be convinced about a means of overcoming it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth mentioned the Australian system again. Distance lends enchantment. The Australian system is not without critics in its own backyard. It is much more broadly based than ours. It is a much blunter instrument and it does not make allowance for protected income.
Someone can fall below support limits in Australia, but that is not possible here. We built housing costs into our formula; they are not included in the Australian one. The Australian appeal system is being increasingly used and my hon. Friend will be aware that a major difference between our systems is that the Australians do not consider previous settlements, whereas we do; they simply look forward. Pleas are now being made by those who were excluded from the new system to be included in it.
Other systems offer no easy answer. Lessons from around the world show that any system that has tried to improve the mechanism for child support has had its difficulties and critics. I recently read an article by an Australian journalist, who spoke of problems with the Australian child support agency in almost the same terms as people speak about the problems of ours.
Mr. Tredinnick: And fraudulent returns?
Mr. Burt: Fraudulent claims on both sides are looked at. It is an important point of principle that if an allegation is made of a fraudulent claim by the parent with care or by the absent parent, the Child Support Agency should, if the information has not been passed on, take that up with the local benefits office. There is no instruction to accept the word of one side or the other where a complaint has been actmade but not verified.
I am grateful to have had the chance to answer some of the issues raised by colleagues. I am aware of the feelings of hon. Members. I hope that I have put the record straight on why we feel it is important to continue with the agency, and why I will continue to look carefully at what colleagues say.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the next hon. Member, I must notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Insolvency (No. 2) Act 1994.

Intelligence Services Act 1994.

Church of Scotland (Properties and Investments)

Order Confirmation Act 1994.

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Act 1994.

Ministry of Defence Police
11.45 am
Mr. David Rendel: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker for allowing time for a debate on the important subject of the Ministry of Defence police, particularly as you also called me last night. I am speaking for the second time in 24 hours and I appreciate that privilege.
For many years, the MOD police have done a good and effective job, often in difficult and, indeed, sometimes dangerous conditions. I have an interest in their problems as my constituency includes Aldermaston, Burghfield, Greenham Common, Welford and a number of other smaller defence establishments. Many of the staff in those establishments live in my constituency; others live in Reading, north Hampshire and south Oxfordshire. I hope that hon. Members representing those regions will support me in this debate.
When those establishments were first brought into use, homes were built for many of the staff in surrounding towns and villages. They were all rented homes and, to start with, most of the staff could afford to purchase their own homes. After a number of years, the MOD considered and introduced a policy of selling some of those homes to sitting tenants.
When my predecessor's predecessor was still the Member of Parliament for Newbury, I was contacted by a number of the wives of serving MOD policemen, who complained that their husbands were being discriminated against as they alone were not being allowed to purchase their own homes.
It was never clear why that discrimination was being practised. At the time, the MOD's excuse was that it was important that it maintained control over a supply of homes in the region close to the bases concerned so that it would always be in a position to offer new MOD police recruits some form of convenient accommodation.
The MOD police wives ran an excellent campaign. It had to be run by the wives because their husbands, as policemen, were not allowed to participate in any political activity or to take part in demonstrations, even if they were not overtly party political. Although that was before my election as the Member of Parliament for Newbury, I was pleased and proud to be asked to play a leading part in the campaign.
I mention the campaign because I wish to give some of the background to the concerns being expressed by the MOD police and to show why we feel some mistrust in the Ministry. However, we have had some good news. In March this year, suddenly and unexpectedly, the campaign was successful. An announcement was made that the MOD police houses were, after all, to be offered to their sitting tenants in all but one or two cases, those being where the houses involved were so close to the site boundaries that security considerations prevented their sale. Unfortunately, although the news was excellent, it was entirely spoilt by the more or less simultaneous leaking to the media of plans to make most, if not all, of the current MOD police force redundant. This shocking news has, as one might expect, had a shattering effect on a comparatively small and close-knit community.
The problem arises from the review set up last December into the future role, aims, objectives, structure and pay of the 5,000-strong MOD police force. The review,

451
led by Sir John Blelloch, was supposed to produce a report by 1 June this year, but in March a confidential interim report was leaked to the media. It proposed that Defence Ministers should actively consider the introduction of a new paramilitary force to replace the MOD police's armed guarding role. Although it was presented as a savings measure, the option is a thinly disguised attempt by service chiefs to provide employment for thousands of redundant service personnel. Let us consider the proposal in greater detail.
It appears that the report proposes the creation of an armed home guard battalion to be known as the military home service engagement or MHSE. The force has the potential to become a sort of latter-day Dad's army. The official case for the MHSE is that the new battalion would be considerably cheaper to run than the existing police force and would give the armed forces greater command and control than they have over the MDP.
The financial motivation does seem to be part of the explanation for the interim report's recommendation. The inquiry has clearly been subsumed into the defence costs study programme, an initiative which is much more interested in cutting costs in the short term than in the long-term—and non-financial—considerations.
In reality, however, it is clear that the preferred option is as much the product of political expediency and internal service pressure as an attempt to obtain financial benefit. While Sir John Blelloch has been given the task of performing an objective study into the future of the MDP, he has clearly been placed under considerable pressure from a number of sources to deliver a particular verdict. First, he is under pressure from the Treasury to meet cost reductions, whatever the implications for operational efficiency. Secondly, he is under pressure from service chiefs to provide employment for redundant ex-service personnel.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that that was in Sir John's terms of reference?
Mr. Rendel: No, I do not believe that it was in his terms of reference. He was supposed to provide an objective report, but I am afraid that, to some extent, he may have been tempted to go beyond his terms of references by outside pressures.
It is widely known that the armed forces are facing a 5.1 per cent. reduction, or some 13,000 redundancies, over the next 12 months. The Government are receiving much criticism for that, which is hardly surprising, given that, at the last general election, they made great play of the suggestion that the two Opposition parties were likely to introduce defence cuts, but that they, of course, would never do such a thing. It is clearly in the interests of service chiefs and politicians alike to secure employment for redundant service personnel and I believe that pressure has been placed on Sir John Blelloch to take such concerns into account.
In advocating the formation of the MHSE, the report is colluding in the creation of a second-class soldiery. While MDP officers have a wide range of duties, only one of which is armed guarding, MHSE officers are likely to come to resent what would be their limited single function. The low job satisfaction offered by the MHSE is likely to attract only fairly low quality applicants, which can lead only to lower levels of security. That is surely a problem
452
which the Government should be examining seriously. Instead of being an independent and objective review, the inquiry seems to have degenerated into a service-led exercise aimed at safeguarding the military's position at the expense of the MDP.
I deal now in more detail with the economic justification for the proposal. The report suggests that because MOD police officers receive police pay, they are an expensive security option and that, in some respects, their function is inferior to that of other forces. The wide range of MDP officers' duties—policing, security, armed guarding and defence specialism—proves that that is clearly not so. MDP officers are routinely armed and possess the special expertise identified by HM inspectorate of constabulary. In fact, by securing police officers with those two additional capabilities at standard rates of police pay, the MOD is getting a very good deal. Furthermore, the limited single-role function of the MHSE would mean that other functions, such as the protection of MOD property against burglary by civilians, would in future have to be performed by other Home Department forces that possess the necessary constabulary powers.
The interim report claims that the introduction of the MHSE would lead to considerable savings for the MOD. However, the possibility of savings remains merely an assumption yet to be proven. Indeed, taking into account redundancy payments for MDP officers and the huge costs of creating a new force from scratch, with all the additional training involved and the other burdens that would be placed on Home Department forces, the creation of the MHSE is likely to be more rather than less expensive.
The introduction of the MHSE would lead to the ludicrous situation in which service men and women, who have only recently received their redundancy notices and payments from the MOD, would be re-employed by the same Department in place of others who would, in turn, be made redundant and receive redundancy pay. Given the MOD's special circumstances, especially the duty of care that it must observe for all its employees, it would be wholly undesirable—and, in practice, impossible—to separate the MDP's two roles.
The MDP combines uniquely a police role with a security function. While an MDP officer is, for example, policing the community of a married quarters estate, he or she is also acting in his or her capacity as an armed guard against potential terrorist attack. If the MHSE were given the task of guarding MOD establishments, its personnel would be unable to perform that operationally invaluable and highly cost-effective dual-purpose role. Its personnel would, first, lack the appropriate levels of training and experience and, secondly, have no jurisdiction' over civilians or events outside military establishments. They would not, for example, be able to undertake "base-plate" patrols on the outside of a perimeter fence, although that, as recent events at Heathrow have shown all too clearly, is an essential element in the prevention of mortar attacks by terrorists.
Unlike the MHSE, the MDP is much more than an organisation of armed guards. As the civilian police force of the MOD, it provides a full range of police services and more, including its own criminal investigation department —CID—and fraud squad, dog patrols, marine units, mobile and foot patrols, armed policing capability, protection of classified material, traffic duties, escorts and personnel protection, and community policing.

453
Unlike the personnel of any future MHSE, MDP officers are fully attested constables, who exercise their constabulary powers and privileges every time they patrol outside an establishment. The MDP's position as a full police service is underlined by the fact that it is frequently asked to assist neighbouring county forces—evidence that its standards of training and competence fully conform to Home Office requirements.
The MDP represents an enormous asset to the MOD and to the wider community. The broad range of experience and expertise gained by each individual officer in the course of his or her career creates a quality and value of service far beyond what could be expected from a single-function guard battalion.
Having met many of the members of the MOD police and their families I know that they are dedicated men and women, many of whom have given a lifetime of service to their country. As in any other establishment, some are better at their jobs than others. Given the difficult circumstances in which they work, it is no surprise that mistakes are sometimes made. For example, they may sometimes over-react to a perceived threat. But I believe that the vast majority of the people in my constituency, and no doubt in the rest of the country, too, would far rather suffer an occasional over-reaction by the MOD police than allow the smallest possibility of a real terrorist threat to a nuclear site.
The men and women concerned are highly trained in a specialised job. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to obtain elsewhere equivalent employment that would fully and properly use their skills. The Blelloch proposals would not create one extra job; they would simply give jobs to redundant ex-service men at the expense of MOD policemen—robbing Peter of his job to give it to Paul.
I remind the House what I said when I started the debate: the MOD police do a difficult and sometimes dangerous job. They deserve our respect and gratitude, and our support.
12.1 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on his success in securing the Adjournment debate. The Ministry of Defence police is an organisation little known outside the Department—apart from in the specialist areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, it is well known and valued within the Department and I welcome the opportunity to inform the House of the important work that it does.
The MOD police force—or MDP, as it is now known —has been in existence in one form or another since Samuel Pepys was Secretary for Admiralty Affairs. In 1686 he issued an instruction to the commissioners of dockyards:
"to enquire after and make use of all means for preventing the embezzlement of any of our stores.. to be frequent in visiting the Workmen at their departure of our yards, keeping a Strict and Severe eye upon the respective Porters of the same and to the attendance given at the gates … and lastly, to be as frequent as he may in his nightly rounds in and about each of the said yards for discovering any unfaithfulness or neglect that may be found in the Watch, charged with the safety of our stores".
454
Some three centuries later, the MDP was formed in its present role by amalgamating the Admiralty, Army and Air Force department constabularies.
The Ministry of Defence police is a disciplined body of about 5,000 civilian police officers, who are also civil servants. They possess full constabulary powers; they are trained along similar lines to their Home Department police force counterparts and serve under a chief constable who exercises command and control and who is appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence, to whom the MDP is accountable, in much the same way as the Metropolitan police force is accountable to the Home Secretary.
The Ministry of Defence police differ in several important respects from Home Department police forces. First, they are a national police force operating throughout the United Kingdom. Their organisation and structure has been developed to cope with the extended logistics of national deployment. As a condition of service, all MOD police officers may be required to carry arms and all are trained to do so. To that end, a training system unique to the MDP, but acceptable to the military and Home Department police forces, has been introduced. Standards of safety and proficiency are extremely high.
The training system represents a considerable investment by the Ministry of Defence in time, devoted to both initial and continuing training, and equipment. The force has a purpose-built firearms training centre at Wethersfield, equipped with the latest technology. The standards of instruction and facilities have been inspected by the School of Infantry and were assessed as being excellent. There is a continuing process of development as and when the requirements of armed policing change.
Most recently, armed response vehicle training has been introduced and instructors are preparing syllabi for rapid intervention training courses. Investment is also made in sponsoring MDP instructors on firearms courses run by their Home Office colleagues, which enables the force to keep abreast of the latest techniques in its field of armed policing. All are trained on the 9mm pistol and about 3,000 officers have been trained on the 5.56mm rifle. At any one time when the police are deployed, well over half are likely to be armed.
Furthermore, the MDP is the only police force in the land that has a transition to war role. This was most recently exercised during Operation Granby in the Gulf, when it was deployed to guard key points—airfields and hospitals, among other locations.
It is perhaps also worth noting that the force's flexibility in being able to undertake 12-hour shifts means that the MDP is capable of doubling its operationally deployed manpower for special events where increased policing or guarding levels are required, such as Battle of the Atlantic ceremonies, and for the forthcoming D-day commemorations.
The chief constable of the MDP also has professional oversight of the Ministry of Defence guard service—the MGS—which is deployed at establishments not requiring armed guarding or the exercise of constabulary powers, and is trained at the police training school at Wethersfield. The MGS was set up to provide an integrated professional security organisation to deal with aspects of security not requiring the carriage of arms or police powers.
The task performed by the MDP enables its personnel to act as community beat officers across the defence estate in garrisons and married quarter estates, because they are civilian police officers. The Ministry of Defence police can

455
use their civilian constabulary powers to deal with members of the public. Service police forces do not have that power. Thus, they currently assist in exercising the MOD's duty of care in respect of the safety of service families and civilians using the defence estate. They are also able to use those powers to deal with anti-nuclear protesters on and off the defence estate, as well as others whose illegal activities cost the taxpayer so much money.
Recently, on 25 March, I answered an Adjournment debate initiated by the late Bob Cryer, and cited the fact that a detachment of MOD police was assigned to the Menwith Hill station, which was the subject of the debate. I said that the MDP officers there were responsible for security and that the costs incurred were reimbursed by the United States, which runs the station.
However, it was worth mentioning then, and it is worth mentioning again now, that the overtime occasioned by the activities of protesters is a direct cost to the United Kingdom. That cost amounted to nearly £500,000 in the previous financial year. The protesters are not clever; they are simply destructive and wasteful. They are certainly not acting in the national interest.
More important, in its armed guarding role the MDP is also active in the fight against terrorists. As with the Home Department police forces, the MDP, in addition to audit and other departmental inspections, is inspected by Her Majesty's inspector of constabularies every three years. The judgment resulting from the most recent inspection, in 1992, was that the MDP achieved a high level of professionalism and was an efficient and effective organisation. That is an accolade not lightly given.
A number of the specialist capabilities that have been developed by MDP in some areas are not to be found in other civil forces in the United Kingdom. The marine unit, which is the largest in the United Kingdom, is acknowledged to be a leader in its area. The patrol boats and the rigid inflatable boats will be deployed in the water off Portsmouth in just a few days' time during the 50th anniversary of D-day commemorations, as the MDP is responsible for the seaward-side protection of all naval bases.
Some MDP officers in the marine section hold deputations issued by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise which give them the legal powers of officers of Customs and Excise to stop, search and seize. All are trained to Department of Transport qualifications level, sponsored through the recognition of their marine training establishment by the Royal Yachting Association.
The MDP also has its own fraud squad which is well equipped, with a team of very experienced officers. Indeed, its activities vary enormously, and of £22 million of fraud investigated by the squad last year, it was able to secure the return of £17 million. I think that that achievement speaks for itself. A particular expertise of the CID AS the investigation of defence contractual fraud. The vast majority of MOD employees are honest and hard working, and would not even think of getting involved in fraud or corruption. Unfortunately, there are a very small number of exceptions who do great damage to the Department's reputation. My Department is giving much attention to the use of sound management practices designed to make it far harder for such people to engage in such conduct. Any who do must expect to be found out and brought to justice; for that we are indebted to the MDP.
The operational support unit specialises in public order activities, like the equivalent units in Home Department
456
police forces, but is also capable of rapid deployment anywhere in the United Kingdom to supplement local MDP resources. The force uses more than 400 dogs, some of them trained as arms and explosives search dogs, making that section the largest in the country for policing purposes.
The police are often deployed on special operations. I have already mentioned the 50th anniversary of D-day. They are regularly deployed during the summer solstice celebrations at Stonehenge, for example, to protect MOD land locally. They were seen at Liverpool last year during the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic in support of the Royal Navy and at a number of shows, such as Farnborough, in defence of our aviation interests.
In addition to its specific defence unit duties, the MDP is deployed at United States air force bases, at Royal Ordnance factories and, with special authority from the Secretary of State, at the Royal Mint.
I think that hon. Members will agree that the MDP represents a force to be reckoned with and I am delighted to pay tribute to its professionalism and achievement.
I now turn to matters of the moment. Sir Patrick Sheehy presented his report to the Home Department last year, making certain recommendations on the conditions of service and pay arrangements for Home Department police. As my Department's police are linked to Home Department police for pay and conditions of service, it was right that the Department should consider what recommendations made by Sir Patrick should be applied to the Ministry of Defence police. Terms of reference were drawn up for a study to be made into the role, aims, objectives, pay and conditions of service of the Ministry of Defence police. This was announced last December and is being led by Sir John Blelloch, to whom the hon. Member for Newbury referred. His final report is now expected towards the end of June.
There has been some speculation in the media, and in the House today, about the proposals Sir John made in the context of the defence costs study, "Front Line First". That study has taken a radical look at all aspects of support to the front line and I trust that hon. Members will agree that it was wholly right not to exclude an examination of the MOD police. Happily, the coincidence of timings meant that Sir John Blelloch was able to conduct the work as part of his wider review. In essence, Sir John's remit was to see whether there might be scope for carrying out MOD police functions more cost effectively.
Mr. Donald Anderson: What were the precise terms of reference of the inquiry?
Mr. Hanley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise terms of reference. I have mentioned them before in the House. I shall send them to him.
The important point to remember is that a review has been carried out by Sir John Blelloch and, as part of the defence costs study, we asked him to bring forward certain of his recommendations. It would have been wrong to exclude such an important part of the support of our defence activities at this time. The remit was to see whether the MOD police functions could be carried out more cost effectively.
The proposals that have emerged are still under detailed consideration and hon. Members will understand that I cannot discuss them today or even comment on speculation about them. As we have made clear on many occasions, we

457
expect to reach final conclusions on "Front Line First" as a whole in July and we shall make an announcement then on its broad outcome. I have also stressed that Sir John has much more work to carry out before we come to conclusions.
The hon. Member for Newbury has taken the opportunity presented by the debate to express his views on the possibility of creating military home service engagements under which personnel would act as guards. I can, indeed, confirm that this idea was among those that had emerged from the work on the MDP, but I stress that it was only one of a number of ideas. That concept and its implications are to be subjected to much more work. We need to look at such ideas carefully to see whether they provide a more cost-effective solution, but still deliver the service we require. I am grateful for the view that the hon. Member expressed, in rather disparaging terms, about the prospect for a military home service engagement. I do not believe that his views will be generally held. Certainly, his condemnation of the concept will not prevent us from considering it carefully. However, we will take into account the views he expressed today. As I have stresed on two or three occasions, there is much more work to be done.
I also stress that the defence costs study has nothing to do with some sort of job creation schemes for redundant service men, as the hon. Member for Newbury implied, and certainly has nothing to do with an attempt to cut corners with essential security to cut costs. Our aim is simple and, I should have thought, uncontentious: to explore whether our security requirements should continue to be met, but at a lower overall cost, so that resources are not diverted unnecessarily from the front line.
I recognise, of course, that the current period of uncertainty is inevitably worrying for MOD policemen and their families, as it is for many other groups of service men and civilians in the Ministry. I hope that these turbulent times will lead to greater stability in due course.
No one underestimates the dedication and professionalism of the members of the force. I understand that concern, but, as I said, I am afraid that they are not alone. I ask all who find themselves in this position to be patient for a little while longer until we have drawn together the threads of all the studies. We will then lose no time in telling them the results and giving them an opportunity to express their views during the normal consultation period which will follow.
As I have already said, Sir John Blelloch and his excellent team are continuing their work according to their original terms of reference which, among other things, embrace MDP terms and conditions of service. Their full report will not be available within the Department for a month or so and it would, therefore, be wrong to speculate on what it might conclude.
Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister agree that the present MOD police are highly trained to do precisely the security job that is so necessary in our defence establishments? Does he agree that any replacement by less well-trained people would inevitably lead to a reduction in security?
Mr. Hanley: The substance of what I have said so far this morning is that the MDP are very well trained. They carry out their security task very well. However, it is a
458
responsibility of Government to look at the way in which we carry out our activities, even those that we carry out efficiently and effectively, to see whether they could be done better. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. Perhaps the absence of responsibility for so long has caused him to express those emotions.
I have said that the full report will not be available within the Department for a month or so. It would, therefore, be wrong to speculate on what it might conclude. All that I ask is that we wait until the work is complete and has been considered within the Department so that we can address the substantive issues that emerge, rather than relying on rumour and speculation or, even worse perhaps, on political fears manipulated for particular party political preferences.
Hon. Members will be aware that I announced to the House on 19 October 1993 that the MDP had been identified as a suitable candidate for agency status. As part of the usual progress towards agency status, we have considered with central Departments the alternative options for the MDP. Those options were abolition, privatisation or contractorisation and, for various reasons, we have dismissed all of them. Although we are awaiting the outcome of the studies to which I referred earlier before proceeding any further, the main features of the agency would be as follows: first, the chief executive would be the chief constable; secondly, the owner, representing the Secretary of State, would be the second Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence; thirdly, the police committee, the statutory body providing advice to the Secretary of State, would continue; fourthly, a separate committee would be set up, acting as the "owners" board; and, fifthly, as in most defence agencies, the Secretary of State would remain accountable to Parliament for the MDP, but Members would be encouraged to deal directly with the chief constable, if they wished to raise questions.
Faced with the current situation that major studies affecting the future role and the size of the MDP are still continuing, the time is not right to launch the MDP as an agency. Depending on the results of Sir John Blelloch's review and the defence costs study, we hope to launch the MDP as an agency in April 1995. Therefore, it is certainly the case that, at this stage, I can put on record my Department's appreciation for the essential and reassuring work carried out by the MDP.
Before concluding, I shall mention a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Newbury. First, he mentioned the MDP personnel and their families living in houses in the areas of Burghfield and Aldermaston. His plea for the purchase of houses comes rich from a member of the party that has always resisted the right to buy. However, I am not aware of any case where people are not being allowed to purchase their houses. There are council houses. I do not believe that there are married quarters, but even if there are, we have paralleled the right to buy. I am not aware of any personnel who are being discriminated against in the hon. Gentleman's area, but, of course, I will look into the point that he raised.
In the middle of his speech, the hon. Gentleman could not resist a nasty little political dig at the defence costs study programme. Let us get it absolutely clear that the defence costs study programme preserves our fighting capability by reducing needless costs in support areas and, if we can find more money than we need in achieving our target, we will try to enhance our front-line forces. It was only last year that the hon. Gentleman's party, at the

459
Liberal Democrats conference, voted to reduce the defence budget by 50 per cent., not only in support of the armed forces, but across the board, because it panders to its unilateral disarmament, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, pacifist wing. Of course, the Liberal Democrats were rumbled and the Government managed to exploit the fact that they were going to cut the whole of the defence budget by 50 per cent. by the year 2000.
The hon. Gentleman's leader said at the time that they had announced the reduction of 50 per cent. because it was post cold war, the Berlin wall had come down and that it was a safer world. He announced that at exactly the same time as Saddam Hussein was invading Kuwait. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may remember that we exploited that proposed 50 per cent. cut in the armed forces so much that the hon. Gentleman's leader did one of his classic U-turns. Of course, the party was rumbled.
What do we have this year from the Liberal Democratic party? We are now told by the party leader that, of course, we are in an uncertain world and we cannot cut our armed forces. That is exactly what the Government have stated and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has emphasised. In the "Front Line First" programme, we are preserving our front-line fighting capability because it is a most uncertain world. What the hon. Gentleman's party has come up with for the European elections is a wonderful European idea—a European army. The party leader has suggested it because he claims that we all want to work towards the integration of Europe and that a European army should mean that each nation in the European Union should specialise in one particular, separate military skill. Therefore, a European army could be deployed as a seamless robe. Then somebody said to the hon. Gentleman's leader that there is such a thing as national sovereignty. The leader said, "Oh, yes", of course there was national sovereignty and, therefore, each nation will have a veto on the deployment of its part of European army.
Let us say that the Germans were specialising in armour. They could decide not to deploy their armour if the European army needed to deploy troops to a particular incident. If we specialised in amphibious capability, we would have the sovereign right to say that the European army may deploy, but not with our amphibious capability. In other words, the Liberal Democratic party is trying to have it both ways and has it in none. It would create a capability gap that would threaten all of us in Europe. It is typical double speak and double dutch. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, in criticising us for trying to discover needless expense in the support side, is laying himself completely open to attacks on his party's defence policy. Indeed, I would not have referred to his party's defence policy had he not tried to make political capital today.
Mr. Rendel: Will the Minister confirm that it has been my party's policy for a long time to cut the unnecessary extent of our nuclear forces after the cold war, as opposed to the policy of his party, which is concerned with cutting our immediate service personnel—the front-line troops in the area?
Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman talks about our nuclear capability. That reminds me that, when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) stood on a CND platform, espousing the abolition of our independent nuclear deterrent, he was supported by a very left-wing party. Now it seems that that Liberal Democratic policy has disappeared. Again, that is perhaps because the party realises how ridiculous its stance is and how irresponsible it is when talking of the defence of the western world.
I do not need to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the fact that his party believes that we should cut out long-term security by preserving short-term jobs. May I stress to the hon. Gentleman, because, clearly, he has not heard what I have said, that we are not cutting front-line capability. Indeed, it was only in November that we added 3,000 more to the planned strength of our Army's manpower. We do not intend to cut a single front-line fighting capability unit, be it in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. The defence costs study is looking at support and therefore to re-directing money, which is needlessly being spent, towards our front-line capability. How different that is from the policy of the hon. Gentleman and his party.
It is quite wrong to portray the work that Sir John has carried out on behalf of the defence costs study as a short-term, cost-cutting exercise. It is anything but that. It is looking at the Ministry of Defence police and at the way in which we guard our nation's security. I believe that that is a responsible task. We should not preserve everything that happens to exist in the United Kingdom merely because the hon. Gentleman can see political advantage in the status quo. Change—even change for the better—is difficult, but the Liberal Democratic party would never have change because it wants to preserve the status quo for its political advantage.
I conclude by putting on record my Department's appreciation of the essential and reassuring work carried out by the MDP. It is a role which will continue to be necessary in the future. I have every intention of ensuring that it continues to be carried out in the most effective way possible. I pay tribute to those in the MDP and ask them to trust what we are doing, which is a fully comprehensive review of the status of the Ministry of Defence police. The comments of the hon. Member for Newbury and the fears that he has spread should be seen for what they are—nothing more than cheap political advantage.

Superstores
12.28 pm
Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful for the opportunity of this Adjournment debate. I am particularly pleased that the Minister who will reply knows the delights and the character of my constituency, having visited it on several occasions. I know that he will appreciate the concern that I and my constituents feel about the problem of planning and superstores.
The importance of the constituency of Esher is that, although it is adjacent to London, it comprises a series of communities. Those communities are important to the people who live in them, and have identifiable characters. The community spirit in the constituency of Esher means that many people are involved in voluntary work and many people help each other. That gives a character of life across that community.
Many social groups, leisure facilities, artistic and cultural activities are conducted by amateurs in the villages and communities that comprise the constituency. That is extremely important. Underlying that, in each of the communities, is access to local shops, which provide lifeblood to the people who live in them.
Two particular problems have emerged following applications from superstores to build on the edge of communities within my constituency, at Thames Ditton and Long Ditton. I know that the Minister is familiar with the problem. I appreciate that, given that we are waiting for the inspectors' reports, I am unlikely now to receive a clear and encouraging response as to the outcome. Nevertheless, this is a timely opportunity for me to raise in the House the fears that have been expressed locally.
More than 3,500 letters have been sent to me, and they have been sent on to the Minister. I know that many others locally feel strongly about the matter but have not written. There is no doubt that it is an issue of considerable local importance, and one about which people are rightly agitated.
The importance of the issue to the communities and village shops within them is displayed by what one constituent helpfully summarised for me about Thames Ditton—one of the two communities under threat. Shops in Thames Ditton include a butcher, a baker, a stationer, a children's clothes shop, a greengrocer, a provisions merchant, a video shop, a needlework shop, a wine merchant, a florist, a dress shop, a hairdresser, a newsagent, a travel agent, antique shops, a betting shop and a gift shop. Sadly, one or two premises are empty. I hope that, as the economy continues to recover, they will be filled. However, it is unlikely that those empty shops will be filled or that the existing shops that I have listed will remain open if superstores are built on the edge of the community. Such superstores will suck life out of that community, and will certainly damage the local shops.
I shall give the House some of the background to the applications. Sainsbury has applied to build a 76,000 sq ft superstore at Long Ditton, with 651 parking spaces. That is a variation on an earlier scheme, which proposed slightly more parking spaces. It was found that there were problems with certain listed grade 2 provisions on the main buildings of the waterworks and some of the surrounding railings.
The Department of the Environment declined to hold a joint inquiry on that application and the application from Tesco to build at nearby Thames Ditton. The two schemes
462
are roughly a mile apart. Tesco applied to build a 62,000 sq ft superstore plus 550 parking spaces. So the net effect on two adjoining communities would be an additional potential for 76,000 sq ft plus 62,000 sq ft of shopping, and 651 plus 550 extra parking spaces. Clearly, neither the stores nor the parking spaces were designed to meet the needs of those two relatively small local communities. The appeals have been made and public inquiries held separately, and we are now awaiting the inspectors' reports.
Of particular concern to us locally was the statement by Tesco and Sainsbury that they would both build superstores if they were permitted. It is not merely a question of one giving way to the other, depending on the success of the appeals: the probability is that, if the planning guidance were not clear and the inspector approved both, both superstores would go ahead.
I contend that, in the long term, both superstores would not be viable. In those circumstances, one might close, which would not be a disaster for Sainsbury or Tesco, bearing in mind their national coverage, but the disaster would already have occurred for the local community, which would find it difficult to recover from the intrusion on its style and way of life.
One problem is that, when superstores calculate the potential retail market, they often do so on the basis of the nearest significant town centre rather than on local amenities, particularly village shops. That means that the damage to village shops from superstores is often underestimated when planning permission is requested. It was explained by one Long Ditton shopkeeper in the Sainsbury inquiry that only a modest diversion of trade from a corner shop can mean the difference between survival and closure.
The local borough council of Elmbridge—I have the honour to represent part of the borough of Elmbridgeobjected to both applications on the grounds of trade diversion from existing centres and local shops, loss of housing land, which is particular to the Sainsbury development, adverse environmental impact, particularly evening and weekend traffic, and the impact, in the case of Sainsbury, on listed buildings.
Additionally, in relation to the Tesco scheme, there was concern about the effect on a conservation area. The objections in relation to the Sainsbury appeal in Long Ditton were joined by objections from Kingston borough council, which is the adjoining borough council within Greater London. I wish to place on record the valuable help that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has given me in objecting to the planning applications.
There are some interesting background facts that I shall quickly explain to show that the local communities' need for the stores is simply not proven.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his debate. I wish to assure him that the phenomenon that he has described in his constituency is more widespread than he might imagine. I have precisely the same problem in my constituency in the town of Tewkesbury, where an application has been made for a large retail warehouse that will bring in 1.5 million visitors from as far afield as Bristol and Birmingham.
There is considerable fear that the development will have an adverse impact not only on Tewkesbury and

463
surrounding village shops, but other towns in the district. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called in the application and the inspector will hear it in August.
My hon. Friend may also be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment is currently conducting an inquiry into the impact on town centres of out-of-town shopping centres. He may also know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has issued two new planning guidance notes—the first, PPG6, under which the inspector will be specifically required to take into account the impact on town centres, and the other, PPG13, under which car emissions must be taken into account. Those will be relevant factors when the inspector makes his, decision on the schemes in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His evidence shows that it is not merely my problem but one that is widespread. Before I conclude, I shall urge the Minister to deal with those planning guidance notes, so that we can have further clarity.
In my constituency, the important fact is the existence, not far away, of five main town centres: Cobham, Esher, Molesey, Walton on Thames and Weybridge, which contain approximately 400,000 sq ft of retail sales floor space. Access to shops is available, especially in Walton, where nearly half of the floor space is located. The borough of Elmbridge also has a number of smaller centres, including Claygate, Hersham, Hinchley Wood, Oxshott and Thames Ditton, which meet the everyday requirements of local residents.
Within easy reach of the borough are several major regional centres—Kingston upon Thames, at approximately three miles, Guildford, at approximately 13, Epsom at about five, and Staines and Woking, which are both about seven miles away. Those towns have specialist shops and very large stores. In addition, there is a superstore on the A3 near Cobham and a new superstore centre—Marks and Spencer and Tesco—at the old Brooldands racing circuit, which is in easy driving distance.
Those facts are very important. I cannot understand why it is regarded as reasonable to plonk potentially enormous shopping centres in Thames Ditton and Long Ditton, when anyone who wishes to go shopping by car has easy access to other centres of that sort.
Elmbridge borough council's plans are very clear in that respect, and I endorse them. The council has attempted to set out clearly in its local plan its ambitions for local shopping and I find those reasonable. The plans would certainly preclude the creation of two new shopping areas in Thames Ditton and Long Ditton.
I shall list the aims. They are to reinforce the multi-purpose role of the borough's main centres; to maintain the balance in the shopping hierarchy in the borough and resist the development of major out-of-town shopping centres; to maintain and enhance the quality of existing shopping facilities and improve the physical quality and environment in town centres; to maintain convenient access to and within town centres and ensure adequate provision of parking facilities; to encourage the retention of local shops; and to protect the green belt and other environmentally sensitive areas from shopping developments.
Those aims reflect my constituents' interests, and are
464
the policies that we want to be pursued. The planning applications intrude on the wishes of the local community, which is why they are resented.
In the House a week or two ago, I referred to Tesco and Sainsbury as "villains". That raised an eyebrow or two, and I am glad. Sometimes it is better to attract attention by using an emotive word than by quiet argument. I do not retract that word. In the context of what they are attempting to do, against the wishes of the local community, they are villains, in the old-fashioned sense of the word.
Also, despite what was said to the planning appeal and the public inquiry, they are not totally clear what these plans would do to their other stores in the area. There is a Tesco store in Molesey. What would be the intentions about the future of that store, which happily serves local residents because it is in the main shopping area, if another store is built in Thames Ditton? That is another aspect that causes me concern as a constituency Member.
Although the resident population in Elmbridge may not grow significantly in the next 10 years, there will be extra consumer expenditure. I hope that it will enable smaller shops to come back where there are now empty premises in our towns and villages. If the superstores go ahead, it will stop this benefit to the local community.
So many reasons have been put forward by my constituents in all the letters I have received that I have not time to talk about them in complete detail; nevertheless, the issues I have raised so far demonstrate just why there is such intense opposition.
One point I shall add is that it is not widely realised that, under the deregulation proposals now issued by the Government, there is the prospect of unfettered opening of stores for 24 hours a day, six days a week. In those circumstances, although Tesco and Sainsbury have said that they have no current intention of doing so, the damage to local communities could be even greater than is currently realised.
I am not against superstores; I am aware that the patterns of life and shopping have changed. I am concerned about whether the Government will clarify exactly where superstores are welcome to be built. They should be only in town centres, not in out-of-town or edge-of-community developments, because in both those cases they will suck the life out of that community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to policy planning guidance note 6, which I have read with great interest. It raises some important points for the Government to clarify. Paragraph 33 states:
"when drafting plan policies or considering planning applications for developments outside town centres, local planning authorities should take account of the possible impact (including the cumulative impact with other recent or proposed retail developments) on the vitality and viability of any nearby town centre as a whole, as well as of other factors such as the possible impact on the rural community (including the role of village shops)".
Hear, hear: we endorse that. If that was that, there would be no doubt in my mind that the solution was in hand and the planning appeals would be thrown out.
However, later in the same guidance note, there is a slightly more favourable mention of "edge-of-centre sites". I would ask the Minister to clarify what is meant by edge-of-centre sites. PPG6 refers to the fact that they should be accessible by foot from the existing shops. In neither case that we are discussing would I consider that to

465
be the case. It is more likely that people will go to either of the two superstores we are talking about by car and leave by car, not using the other shops in those communities.
There is considerable concern about what the planning guidance currently is. If my hon. Friend the Minister wants the reference, it is in paragraph 35:
"the best solution will be the edge-of-centre foodstore that provides parking facilities".
In these circumstances, "edge-of-centre" is not a valid description; they are sufficiently far away to mean that the local shopping centres will be denuded of casual custom generated by superstores within proper town centres.
I referred obliquely to traffic pollution. I note that PPG 6 talks about the unacceptable increase in carbon dioxide and other polluting emissions. I am concerned about that. There is no doubt that the planned superstores will suck in traffic from elsewhere. They are not serving the local community; they will encourage people to come into the area. The movement of traffic will not be in the interests of people living in Thames Ditton and Long Ditton.
I am very concerned that the excellent statements by the Secretary of State, which appear to resist out-of-town superstores and certainly reaffirm the importance of protecting the green belt, could be assumed by inspectors to give a green light to developments which are not out of town on open fields, but on the edge of communities—almost in the heart of those communities, but sufficiently detached to damage them. That is not acceptable.
We, as Members of Parliament, do not have authority over, and cannot control, the planning process. We allow local authorities to make decisions in accordance with local plans. There is a system of appeal which does not come to the House for decision; the appeal goes to the Secretary of State. A Back Bencher can raise the issue on behalf of his constituents and hope that his complaints are listened to.
A week or two ago, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment launched a campaign called the urban quality initiative. Today, I am talking about a suburban quality initiative to try to protect those places outside urban areas, where village and community spirit is high and where the unwelcome intrusion of such a massive area of shopping space could do untold damage to the fabric of local society. I rely upon my hon. Friend the Minister to support me in my campaign.
12.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I readily commend my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on the very clear way that he has put forward the concerns of his constituents. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) have made clear, our new policy on town centres and retail developments was set out in policy planning guidance note 6 last July. It has received considerable publicity and, generally, a wide welcome. Interestingly, this is the first time that it has been debated in the House, so I welcome the opportunity to comment on what we are seeking to achieve.
My hon. Friend has made clear his specific concerns about two particular applications. He will appreciate that I am unable to comment on those cases while they are still in progress, since that could be seen to prejudice the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role. However, it was
466
implicit in what my hon. Friend said that the two applications were turned down by the local planning authority, doubtless for the reasons he gave. The applicants then appealed to the Secretary of State against those decisions, as they are entitled to do in law. An inspector was appointed, and an inquiry held.
Usually—in the vast majority of cases—the inspector, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, determines an appeal. However, because of the importance that we attach to these cases, the Secretary of State has recovered the appeals for his own decision. We have now received the inspector's report on the Tesco appeal, and await the report on the Sainsbury appeal. I anticipate that the decisions on both appeals will be taken at the same time. As I have said, I cannot comment on the merits of the cases, as that would almost certainly be held to have prejudiced the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role.
What I shall certainly do is to explain, first, our policy on superstores, as set out in recent planning guidance; secondly, our latest advice for helping town centres remain vital and viable and meet the challenges of competition; and thirdly, the implications of our latest policy guidance on transport as set out in PPG13, to which my hon. Friend referred. It may also be helpful if I refer to our criteria for call-in.
Our planning guidance PPG6 provides a clear statement of the objectives of Government policy, which are:
"to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres which serve the whole community and which provide a focus for retail development, where proximity of competing businesses facilitates competition from which consumers can benefit".
My hon. Friend gave a clear description of an existing town centre where a number of businesses and shops exist, which, in a sense, compete with each other.
The statement of objectives continues:
"to ensure the availability of a wide range of shopping opportunities to which people have easy access (from the largest superstore to the smallest village shop), and the maintenance of an efficient and innovative retail sector."
The policy emphasises our commitment to competition, access and choice in retailing, which will benefit all consumers.
Town centres have grown over the centuries as places where people come together to buy and sell, usually close to where people live or where major routes converge. Historically, markets and other activities developed alongside each other, taking advantage of the congregation of people and the opportunities for attracting visitors. The marketplace and retail functions have therefore been at the heart of the evolution of today's towns and cities, which provide a range of services and functions for those who live or work either there or in the surrounding areas.
I see the town centre as the preferred location for much of this new shopping development, especially food shopping. We want to encourage financial investment in our town centres—not just for shopping, but for a wide range of activities and services including offices, entertainment, hotels, restaurants, cafes, museums and housing. All those will introduce diversity and variety, which add to the vitality and viability of our town centres.
Above all, as our planning guidance makes clear, the town centre is and should remain the anchor of our retailing system. That is especially true of small towns —the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher.
For that reason—our desire to maintain the vitality and viability of existing town centres—we need to take a more

467
cautious approach to out-of-town shopping, to look more closely at the impact of out-of-town developmems, and to consider the implications of their location for accessibility and overall travel patterns. We want shops to be accessible, as far as possible, to everyone, not just to those with cars.
My hon. Friend rightly expressed concern about village shops. Our planning guidance states:
"Village shops play a vital role in rural areas and the loss of the traditional village shop can have a particularly severe impact on the community it serves."
Other planning guidance advises local planning authorities on the need to maintain a healthy rural economy.
One of our main concerns is that out-of-town shopping may have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres. It may not only divert trade and activity from the town centre, but affect the private investment that our towns will need to ensure their continuing vitality and viability.
It would be unwise to allow further developments that seriously damage town centres, and then simply have to spend public money on trying to remedy the situation. If retail developments are located in town centres, they will contribute to the economic strength of those centres rather than undermining it. We have made it clear that we want to sustain our town centres, and that developments that would undermine the vitality and viability of town centres should be refused.
Assessing the likely impact of a development is primarily a matter for local planning authorities, but we have provided clear planning guidance. Only a couple of weeks ago, we published a report entitled "Vital and Viable Town Centres: Meeting the Challenge". It provides local authorities with an action list for their town centres, promoting strategies for town-centre management and suggesting the type of measure most likely to ensure that their centres remain successful.
468
It is not the function of the planning system to frustrate competition. We are seeking to encourage investment in town centres—to persuade retailers to compete in the same market place, rather than locating all over the place. We want competition from which everyone can benefit.
If suitable town centres cannot be found—in a number of instances, it may not be possible to find a suitable site in a town centre—edge-of-centre sites will be the best location for food supermarkets. That will allow those who arrive by car to walk into the centre to conduct other business in town: one trip will serve several purposes. Such stores will also be more accessible to those without cars, who can walk to the store while visiting the town centre. By "edge-of-town", we do not mean "out-of-town", but, as I have said, on occasion it will be impossible to find a suitable site. We want wherever possible a choice of means of transport, with access for everyone. In the case of out-of-town development, more than 90 per cent. of customers arrive by car. We want retailers to choose locations that serve not only those who arrive by car but those who travel by bus, walk or ride a bicycle. Users should have a real choice. If we believe that planning guidance is not being complied with, we shall have no hesitation in calling in decisions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to determine. He did that in the Tewkesbury case to which my hon. Friend referred.
Our concern is for the future of our town centres—particularly those that would be adversely affected by out-of-town superstores. Town centres need reinforcing, not undermining. Our planning guidance and policy does just that. We want to reinforce the vitality and viability of existing town centres, and in that I am sure that we will have wide public support and the support of my hon. friend's constituents.

Northern Ireland (Opsahl Report)
1 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Opsahl report on Northern Ireland, published in June 1993, was based on the views of many ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland rather than on those of politicians. The range of views expressed to the commission was as wide as those of politicians and perhaps more complicated because they reflected many different nuances and attitudes, as might be expected when speaking to the general public.
A charitable body established with the backing of charitable-trusts and foundations, Initiative 92's Citizens Inquiry, obtained 3,000 responses in the form of 545 written and taped submissions. Many of them were examined in meetings and by seven experts from both parts of Ireland, from Britain and from the United States of America under the chairmanship of the leading Norwegian human rights lawyer, Professor Torkel Opsahl. Unfortunately, he died shortly after the report's publication, but I was fortunate enough to meet him for its launch in Britain at a meeting that I hosted in the House on 10 June 1993.
The report initially received a great deal of attention in the island of Ireland. It was fully discussed in the Irish Parliament and was outlined and discussed at a meeting in Cork of the British-Irish parliamentary body, which took the report seriously enough to propose that it would be taken into consideration by future committees concerned with education, social provision, pensions and other matters, and that attempts should be made to adopt its proposals. It was hastily rejected, however, by Northern Ireland politicians, partly because it suggested that a number of them should attend political educational institutions and downgraded them by giving priority to the views of ordinary citizens.
The Opsahl report was also discussed by the European Parliament, but little attention has been paid to it in Britain. In the other place, a debate was initiated on 3 March 1994 by Lord Holme of Cheltenham, but the only references to it in this House were in a speech made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 22 October 1993, when he devoted three minutes to the report, and in my three early-day motions, in written questions, in a supplementary question and in an oral question, and on other occasions when I have made passing reference to the report. The House has not given the report the consideration that is due to it. We can belatedly make amends for that today.
The report has not been superseded by dramatic events in Northern Ireland in the past year, such as the revelation of the Hume-Adams talks and the publication of the joint declaration, which is of tremendous importance but which differs from the nature of the report. The joint declaration seeks relatively speedy means of reaching peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland on key areas such as terrorism and constitutional solutions. The Opsahl report is broader and in some ways more plodding, although it may be more practical and selective of the issues that it examines. It deals with economic, social, religious, cultural, and education issues, which are given as much weight as the political, constitutional, terrorism and security concerns. The House normally deals with those concerns, but it gives too little attention to the economic and social agenda.
470
The report is very much in favour of the development of cross-border co-operation on the economic agenda. We are in the era of the Single European Act, disappearing trade barriers throughout Europe and advancing trade and commerce between nations and regions. That needs to be encouraged in the island of Ireland. The report recognises, however, that for that to take place we need a new Northern Ireland Government, acceptable to the communities involved, to work with the Irish Government. It is a matter not of sharing Executive power but of discussion and negotiation between two sides and two interests. The policies of the IRA lead to borders being placed between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which considerably disrupt trade. For instance, the IRA attacks trains travelling between Belfast and. Dublin to push goods back on to the roads, where protection rackets can more readily and easily operate.
The report also suggests regional development plans with economic and social goals, as proposed by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. The argument is that we should move beyond just considering the free market and that we should introduce development, planning and regulation, which runs counter to the deregulation legislation introduced by the Government. The arguments about the operation of economic and social matters in Britain differ from those in Northern Ireland because an incentive is required to draw communities together.
On the social agenda, the report states that there should be a gradual policy of integration over wide areas. It stresses the need for integrated education. A small and admirable integrated education programme exists in Northern Ireland, but the report recognises that it should be extended much further. The compilers of the report were impressed by the sixth forms in Northern Ireland, whether basically Catholic, basically Protestant or integrated. They felt that pupils wished to express their desires and suggested that they be allowed to find out much more about the different communities, their histories and traditions. There is a programme of education for mutual understanding in schools, which the report stresses should have more funding.
The report stresses the point that there is a problem with the Catholic hierarchy in terms of the development of integrated education. I have always believed that integrated education should start with teacher training, but at present integrated teacher training is limited to university provision. The fact that one of the separate teacher-training colleges is Catholic means that the other, in practice, caters for Protestants. We cannot envisage more integrated education if the teachers themselves are not integrated and I often press the Government about what can be done to break down the barriers to integration.
The report also stressed the need for pilot integrated housing schemes. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has done much valuable work, but unfortunately certain free market policies have recently been imposed on it. It tends to develop different housing schemes in different areas according to the representations made to it, which causes problems, but pilot schemes with subsidised rents would attract people. Community work is also highlighted and the report suggests that the type of cross-community trust which exists in Derry should be extended.
It is also recommended that the integration of men and women in the political process should be pursued. Women

471
are very poorly represented in Northern Ireland politics, in the parties in general and on public bodies. Some of the entrenched sectarian attitudes, which are strong among the men, may rub off less strongly on women because of the nature of their activities, the problems that they face and the ease with which they recognise the common problems faced by, for example, unemployed families, whether they be Protestant or Catholic.
The report also stresses the need for cultural integration. I have already mentioned the education programme for mutual understanding, which states that there appears to be an interest among Protestants—especially schoolchildren —in understanding their Irishness, but without the traditional nationalist propaganda. It believes that an understanding of the cultural development of Northern Ireland is important. Comments on the Opsahl report tend to concentrate on its political and constitutional agenda, but I have sought to stress the economic and social aspects because they deserve more attention than they receive.
On constitutional matters, the report said that if the talks then taking place failed a commission should be set up in consultation with the Irish Government to speak directly to the people—in other words, that an "official Opsahl" should remain in existence. I know that that idea has been dismissed, on the grounds that the talks will not fail and that there is another stage to come, but we should keep it on the agenda all the time because the Opsahl commission found areas in which no movement could be made, due to entrenched positions. There were arguments about ways of overcoming that problem through continuing work, which could then be picked up officially.
The commission argued for the legal recognition of nationalism, so that in a new Northern Ireland Government parity of esteem would be recognised. For some of us there is a problem with that idea, because it rather suggests the sort of veto that might be operated by nationalist or unionist politicians that runs against the integrationist principles for which the report argues elsewhere. However, in order to get government off the ground in Northern Ireland something of that sort may be needed as a starter, and if the principles of integration were running elsewhere there would begin to be a principle of integration in the political sphere. The report also suggested that it was not good enough to get a mere arithmetical majority agreement on the future constitutional position. A consensus was needed—a consensus broad enough to be reflected in both communities. The report says that majority support for the advances would be needed in both communities.
The commission was criticised for arguing for consultation with Sinn Fein—unfairly, because such consultation was already taking place at the time. We have heard a lot about that, and whatever might be said about the initial discussions, the Government have adopted the correct approach since then, both in the declaration and in their clarification. The questions that have been asked back, such as when the violence will end, really put Sinn Fein on the spot. The Government's present position is within the spirit of the Opsahl report.
There is also stress on the need for a Bill of Rights, for which there is wide support in many areas. John Bruton, the leader of Fine Gael, suggests that the talks could initially be about a Bill of Rights as a subject on which people may be able to make a start.
The most impressive aspect of the Opsahl report is not so much its recommendations as the fact that it is a process and gives the reader a feel not just for the difficulties and
472
problems of the Province, but also for the hopes. The problems can be expressed in the words of a 15-year-old Catholic schoolgirl, who said:
"Like the thin white ribbon that the police use to seal an area, we wrap ourselves in our territories, where we know we are safe".
Perhaps the Opsahl process can help to make life feel safe and good for both Catholic and Protestant schoolchildren outside the territories marked by white ribbons. The white ribbons may even no longer be there to form barriers in people's minds between two areas.
I hope that the British Government will start to take the report seriously—more seriously than has been suggested by the off-the-cuff and sometimes rather glib remarks that they have made so far.
1.17 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I am grateful, as is the House, to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for providing an opportunity for the House to debate Northern Ireland today. But for the Whitsun recess, we should have had Northern Ireland questions today, so the debate provides a useful opportunity to ensure that Northern Ireland remains at the head of the parliamentary agenda, as it does at the head of the Government's agenda.
Sadly, day-to-day events tend to keep Northern Ireland in the spotlight. In recent days there have been further savage attacks and killings by both loyalist and republican terrorists. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House remain united in our utter rejection of those cowardly and futile crimes, and in our determination to find an answer to the tragic problems that for too long have caused suffering and despair in that beautiful land.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is well known in the House for his caring concern for Northern Ireland. Specifically, he has shown a close interest in the Opsahl report ever since it was published last summer and the House will be grateful for his commentary on the report today. It was a wide-ranging report, sometimes far more wide ranging than it is given credit for publicly. It was certainly not just political and constitutional. I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said, especially about education which, as he knows, is one of my responsibilities within the Northern Ireland Office.
The hon. Gentleman knows of the Government's current support for the principle of integrated education where there is a parental demand for such education, and for the principle of the cross-curricular themes of education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage within both the controlled and maintained sectors. There is little difference between us on the need to ensure that within the education system there is a permanent cross-current which brings the communities together.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is already on record as responding to the report on behalf of the Government. In reply to a written question tabled by the hon. Gentleman last June, my right hon. and learned Friend said that the report
"provides a valuable record of the commission's work, which clearly did much to stimulate the submission of views from a wide range of individuals and organisations."—[Official Report, 28 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 339.]
He also observed that a number of the recommendations were clearly controversial and had provoked dissenting comment. He said that in his view the value of the report lay principally in enlivening and developing informed public debate. He went on to recognise that the report

473
offered an important source of ideas. Today's debate is an indication that the principles outlined in the Opsahl report are, indeed, continuing to cause and enliven debate.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State also mentioned the report in more detail in an Adjournment debate on 22 October, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The report was also the subject of a full debate in another place on 3 March. On that occasion, Baroness Denton responded in some detail to many of the main points in the report and I shall not go over all that ground again today. As I have said, the report covers a wide range of areas and is addressed to a number of groups, not just to the Government. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the report received a cool reception from the Northern Ireland parties generally. Nothing would be gained today by going over the recommendations again in great detail when, as I have said, our position is already on the record.
On the political front, however, the report suggests ways in which to find a political settlement in Northern Ireland. The great value of today's debate is the way in which it highlights, once again, the need to continue to pursue the goal of an agreed, wide-ranging political accommodation. In that regard, the Government certainly share the political objectives of the report, although we differ on the means by which to achieve them. The report suggests that if the talks fail—that is an important phrase —the Government, in consultation with the Irish Government, should establish a commission to study the situation and to make recommendations for further consultation with the political parties and, if necessary, directly with the people of Northern Ireland. The report identifies what it calls seven realities which it believes must be accepted before an accommodation can be reached. The report also talks in terms of equal sharing of power by both main parts of the community and proposes at the same time giving legal recognition to Irish nationalism.
As I have said, I do not want to get involved in too much of the detail today, but I must say at this stage that I reject totally the notion that the talks have failed—the triggering device within the report. As the House is aware, dialogue is continuing both with most of the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government. The House will also wish to bear in mind the fact that events have moved on considerably since the report was published last June, despite—I say this with all respect—the hon. Gentleman's assertion that they have not done so to any great extent.
The main change has been the historic joint declaration by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach last December, which established a new level of understanding between the British and Irish Governments about how Northern Ireland's future should be determined. In particular, it offered a clear opportunity to those who support violence to turn away from it and to join the political process. The key to that was that violence must be ended, permanently and for good. It is testimony to the way in which the declaration sets out a balanced set of principles, founded on the notions of agreement, consent and the rejection of violence, that it has been warmly welcomed nationally and internationally, including by the Opposition parties and by the hon. Gentleman in particular.
The Opsahl report suggests that arrangements for government within Northern Ireland should be based on
474
the principle that each community has an equal voice in making and executing the laws or a veto on their execution, and equal shares in administrative authority. The Government come to the issues from a different angle. We do not propose to impose a solution. We do not have a blueprint for a settlement. To quote the joint declaration, the Government's
"primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people who inhabit the island".
Further, the declaration makes it clear that
"The role of the British Government will be to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of such agreement over a period through a process of dialogue and co-operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland".
To put it another way, Britain's purpose in Northern Ireland is to ensure democratic debate and free democratic choice. The Government fully accept the need to restore locally accountable democracy in Northern Ireland. However, as the Opsahl report recognises, for any new structures to be both fair and workable, they must command wide support and allegiance in Northern Ireland itself. That means that any accommodation must address those arrangements in the context of wider relationships.
We believe that the best forum for reaching such an accommodation lies in the talks process, which is continuing. For the past eight months, I have been in private bilateral discussion with three of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, exploring areas of common ground across all the relevant relationships —in Northern Ireland, among the people of the island of Ireland and between the two Governments. We have built on the work carried out in the 1991 and 1992 talks, and in recent weeks we have submitted to the parties a paper which floated ideas relevant to those relationships.
Mr. Barnes: The additional point about the Opsahl report is that there can be a nibbling away at many of the areas that help to nurture the extremists in Northern Ireland. The avenues of integration that are talked about, the tackling of problems of unemployment and deprivation, take the ground from under extremists in Northern Ireland when they are arguing their case against the alternative community and the alternative political settlement. We should not look only for a dramatic solution, although one hopes that that will happen. I support entirely the joint declaration and everything associated with it, but other action may be taken in economic and social areas which would help to improve the situation.
Mr. Ancram: I do not dissent at all from what the hon. Gentleman says. We have always regarded the political process as being one of the policy priorities in Northern Ireland. Equally, security is another and the third is economic advancement and the type of integration and opportunity to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
In the last few minutes available, I shall concentrate on the political side. As I have said, we have been building on the talks which took place and we shall continue to do so. There will be further exchanges with the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, and we hope that in the end we shall be able to persuade them to return to a more formal talks process. In parallel with my discussions with the parties, intensive consultations with the Irish Government have been in progress to develop a joint framework to carry the talks process forward. A progress

475
report was made to the last intergovernmental conference on 25 April and work is continuing. Our intention is to bring together those two areas of activity and to return to multilateral talks involving the two Governments and the main constitutional political parties at the appropriate point. Our objective is to facilitate a comprehensive political settlement covering all the main relationships, as set out in the statement of 26 March 1991.
The Opsahl report also recommended that the Government should open informal channels of communication with Sinn Fein to test that party's commitment to the constitutional process. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East made clear, the joint declaration delivered a direct challenge to Sinn Fein as to whether it carried on supporting the odious and futile campaign of violence or adopted the way of constitutional politics. The ball is now firmly in its court and we await its answer. It has prevaricated long enough. It has made an issue of so-called clarification. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, last week we issued a statement commenting on its questions. We said in that statement:
"The vast majority of people in Ireland, North and South and of both traditions, demand an end to violence now. Their wishes could not be clearer."
That is the wish that brings the hon. Gentleman and me together today in what we are saying. It is certainly the wish of the people of Northern Ireland. It was also the wish expressed in the Opsahl report.

Cuba
1.29 pm
Sir Thomas Arnold: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on British trade with Cuba. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will reply on behalf of the Government, not just because he is a parliamentary neighbour of mine but because I know that he is a man of culture. He will appreciate the reference when I say that earlier this year Channel 4 showed a delightful film called "Weekend in Havana" starring Carmen Miranda and other famous film stars. The film was made in 1941. When I saw the film, little did I realise that a few weeks later I, too, would spend a weekend in Havana. I did so at the end of February as the guest of a British business man who believes that we should develop closer trading links with Cuba. I invite the House to see the declaration that I have made in the Register of Members' Interests.
While I was in Havana, I had a long discussion with Dr. Ricardo Alarcon, the chairman of the National Assembly of People's Power. I was left in no doubt that he was promoting change and reform and was committed to that process. Therefore, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), in his capacity as chairman of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, decided to invite to Britain a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Cuba, led by Dr. Alarcon. Indeed, the delegation has been with us in the House for most of this week. The visit has been a success. We have had the opportunity to explain to the members of the delegation some of the finer points of the procedures of the House. Although in certain matters they may be as mystified as I still am after 20 years, I think that they have enjoyed themselves and the House has certainly enjoyed having them with us.
Yesterday afternoon, Dr. Martinez attended the Treasury Select Committee to listen to the Governor of the Bank of England give evidence. Dr. Tablada has been very active in asking questions about the health service. Dr. Alneida has been inquisitive on several matters, about which he has asked detailed questions. Mr. Rodriguez has also been with us throughout the proceedings.
I believe that an improvement in relations between Britain and the Government of Fidel Castro has taken place, and that it indicates growing opportunities, above all perceived by British business in Cuba. In some respects, this is a case of trade taking the lead. There is no doubt that most British business men who are familiar with the Caribbean would like to see the Cuban market open up to British business interests. That needs to be done in conjunction with the Government because several knotty problems have to be overcome.
I have referred to the process of change in Cuba. Cuba is an economy in transition facing real and painful difficulties. I was reminded during my visit to Havana of some visits that I made to Moscow towards the end of the 1980s in my capacity as chairman of a company limited by guarantee, using money from the British know-how fund and private sources to assist the Russians in their process of transformation. Many of the problems which are apparent in Cuba are problems that we have seen elsewhere in eastern Europe, particularly in Russia. I am under no illusions about the immensity of the task facing the Cuban

477
Government as they seek to bring about much-needed change and reform. That will not happen easily; nor will it happen quickly, because the habits of mind inculcated by 30 or 35 years of a command economy are not easy to remove overnight. The transition process will require patience and a measure of understanding on the part of those of us who want better trade relations with Cuba and it would be greatly assisted if the United States Government could be persuaded gradually to adopt a different attitude towards the embargo.
It is a pity that the embargo remains in place. My own view—I know that it is not one shared by Washington—is that if the Cubans can get the economy moving there will be further reform. I believe that trade and perhaps even a measure of aid are essential ingredients in improving the living standards of the people of Cuba, getting the economy moving and, thereby, assisting in the reform process.
Britain has always maintained diplomatic relations with Cuba. We have a number of companies that are well established there, not least the sugar company, E.D. and F. Man, which is, at this very moment, hosting a reception for the Cuban parliamentary delegation. I believe that it is the virtually unanimous view of British business men that the United States Government should be invited to review their policy.
We believe that the changes that have taken place are now irreversible and we need to concentrate on the speed at which further reform can be implemented. My understanding is that there has been an acceleration in the process. Among the measures that have been introduced or are expected to be introduced during this year and 1995 are the following: the legalisation of holdings of foreign currency; the introduction of a fully convertible peso; the introduction of a new banking system; the introduction of corporation and income tax—controversial, but necessary; the removal of subsidies from state industries; the introduction of new legislation relating to investment, trade marks and intellectual property; the privatisation of non-essential aspects of the economy; the establishment of autonomous control for most state industries; the acceptance that such measures may lead to unemployment, and probably will; the development of debt for equity swaps; and more active encouragement, on easier terms of investment, in virtually all aspects of the economy. In short, Cuba is undertaking a major structural adjustment programme—there is no doubt about that. The process is introducing market forces within a managed socialist system. It is also leading indirectly to a form of political pluralism as the National Assembly and parliamentary commissions begin to question the solutions proposed by the Cuban Government and the Cuban Communist party.
It is worth commenting for a moment on one piece of background reform and action that should figure largely in the mind of the Cuban Government when attracting foreign investment. While recognising that the economy is doubtless in a serious state, with foreign debt at US$10 billion, plus interest accruing daily, no payment of interest has been made since January 1988, despite Paris Club rescheduling in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. Until then, Cuba's debt repayment record was good. While Cuba undoubtedly needs to show a genuine balance of payments need, the Government should show some signs of
478
willingness and ability to pay something before further rescheduling is considered by the Paris Club. If the Cuban Government can recognise that, they will send a signal to the business community that Cuba is serious about meeting her obligations and, in return, no doubt we can take a more generous attitude to what needs to be done.
There are positive signs in the Cuban economy of a welcome change from the practices of the past. I was pleased to learn that the Government have now decided to send my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology to Cuba in the autumn. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say something about that visit.
There was a Caribbean Trade Advisory Group—CARITAG—mission to Cuba recently. Can my hon. Friend comment on the way forward for the United Kingdom-Cuba commercial relationship following that visit? When the British ambassador formally announced to the media that the Minister was to visit Cuba, and officials accompanying the delegation were able to familiarise themselves with the economic changes taking place, the Cuban Government recognised that we are serious about promoting inward investment and helping British companies to make the most of the opportunities that could exist there.
Will my hon. Friend say a word or two about outstanding commercial debt and how that problem might be resolved? I believe that part of the United Kingdom debt is not covered by the Export Credit Guarantee Department and that CARITAG' s chairman has proposed new ways in which the debt might be dealt with.
I would also appreciate it if my hon. Friend could say a few words—if not now perhaps in correspondence—about ways in which the British Government and British companies might provide technical assistance, through scholarships, training and seminars. I should like to think that we could reach a time when some sort of know-how fund could be set up, because that would greatly assist the reform process. The fund has a proven track record of success in eastern Europe and Russia. With a small amount of adaptation the same principles could be put to work in Cuba.
A great deal is taking place and we should not be impatient with the speed of change and reform. When I was in Havana the very real problems that the ordinary Cuban has to confront daily were striking. I understand that the Cuban economy contracted by about 50 per cent. last year, which is a truly staggering figure and a measure of the problem. Yet, British business men are keen to explore the opportunities, not merely because Cuba is potentially the largest market in the Caribbean, but because Cuba's long-running isolation produces some instability in an area where Britain has important commercial interests.
In that respect the Government have a very real interest in promoting the stability of the Caribbean, not least in view of the location of British territories, such as the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos nearby. I urge the Government to hold further talks with the American, to find out whether the embargo could be eased and then lifted.
Finally, I was impressed by the objectives that the parliamentary delegation from Cuba set out to achieve this week. Clearly, the delegates want to apply some of their findings to their parliamentary system, which is in the early stages. I am convinced of their sincerity in that regard.

479
I am also impressed by the vulnerability of the Cuban economy and I want a situation to arise in which we can assist it, as one of the remaining command economies—I think that it is one of only two in the world now, the other being North Korea—to embark fully on introducing private enterprise, market reforms and all the other measures that are needed to raise the Cuban people's standard of living. To the extent that British trade and investment can assist in that process, it is to the mutual advantage of both our countries. I look forward to listening to my hon. Friend's reply.
1.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Neil Hamilton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on securing this debate. When I discovered that my hon. Friend had been successful, knowing of his interest in Cuba, I insisted on being here myself to reply to the debate in the place of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.
There is a growing interest in Cuba and hon. Members will be aware that a delegation from the Cuban National Assembly is here at the moment as guests of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.
I know that it is a subject which interests hon. Members on all sides of the House, and I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). The Cuban Minister for Basic Industry, Senor Portal, is also visiting the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members may also recall the debate in another place, sponsored by my noble Friend Baroness Young, whose interest in the Caribbean is well known. We must also welcome the efforts of the West India Committee and my Department's own Caribbean Trade Advisory Group —CARITAG—which have led successful business missions to Cuba in each of the past three years.
The Cuban economy has received a series of profound shocks, as my hon. Friend pointed out. They resulted from a number of extraordinary changes in recent years—in particular, the loss of subsidised trade with the former Soviet Union and a disastrous sugar harvest last year. All that was against the background of the long-standing United States trade embargo.
Those shocks, more than anything else, have forced the Cubans to look towards reform of their economy and to diversify their trade away from the old eastern bloc countries. There is, of course, a long way to go, but the fact that reforms are being introduced is a hopeful sign and the Cubans are actively encouraging joint ventures and other forms of economic association with foreign enterprises, which would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, Cuba is one of only two countries in the world which could be characterised as command economies. I believe that the Cubans are making tentative steps away from that rather disagreeable position of isolation. We shall then be left with only one, in North Korea, and I am sure that it will not survive indefinitely.
The British Government's policy is to maintain normal commercial relations with Cuba. British companies should be able to trade with Cuba and invest there, if they see it as being in their commercial interests to do so. Moreover, the DTI market branch and CARITAG are actively drawing British industry's attention to the opportunities which are opening up as a result of Cuba's reform process.
480
I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the isolation of Cuba and trade embargoes. I have never been a great believer in trade embargoes. I believe that the embargoes of some countries and the isolation which was enforced upon South Africa did not make it any easier for the reform process to start there. I take a similar view of Cuba. My hon. Friend was quite right when he said that it would require a change in the habits of mind of the people of Cuba, who have been insulated from the real world for so long now that the structural reform process will need to be very significant.
It is undoubtedly true, as my hon. Friend said, that we shall need to exhibit a certain amount of patience. I have had some experiences recently in eastern Europe, talking to people in many of the countries that are also having to undergo difficult structural adjustments. I am going to Romania on Tuesday. In many ways, Romania resembles Cuba several years ago before the nosedive in trade and GDP which the Cubans have recently suffered.
Those countries are also having to contemplate changing how they do things and think about things. The basics nostrums of a market economy have been lost and they have to be recreated. They cannot be recreated if we refuse to trade with them. Only by example, by showing the advantages of trade and investment and dangling the carrot in front of them, can we induce them to make the necessary changes which will transform their position.
Ultimately, there is an element of self-interest, because trade and development benefit the purchaser, the seller, the investor and the country in which the investments take place.
I am very much in favour of reconstruction in Cuba. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend refer to that notable company E.D. and F. Man. That company was represented when I was recently in Warsaw engaged in the similar task of bringing together eastern European countries with the G7 countries and trying to find a way through their current difficulties in making the transition from command economies to private enterprise economies. I believe that the company has a significant degree of experience that will be of great value and will help us to find a way through Cuba's problems.
I know that the United States of America takes a different view on trade embargoes. That is a matter for it and I have no intention of delving into what the Americans see as their domestic political interest. However, we do not accept that British subsidiaries of US firms should be prevented by US law from trading with Cuba. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade took action under the 1980 legislation on the protection of trading interests to safeguard the interests of companies incorporated in the United Kingdom, whatever their parentage.
I very much hope that British trade with Cuba will expand in future years. I have always done a modest amount of trade with Cuba, in that I have smoked a large number of its cigars over the years and intend to continue to do so—I hope in ever-increasing numbers. However, on the political side of the argument we enjoy normal relations with Cuba, although there is no doubt that we have our differences, such as different concepts of human rights and fundamental freedoms; different ideas of the role the state should play in everyday life; and different views on the value of a democratic society.
I am pleased that Cuba is embarking on a process of change. I hope that the current economic reform programme will continue and that the first moves that we

481
saw last year towards political change will be developed. It is important that Cuba is encouraged to take those steps and we will do all that we can to help. I look forward to expanding our political relations as Cuba makes progress on those fronts. We very much welcome the fact that the Cuban delegation is in London at the moment. We hope that it has profited as much as we have from the experience.
United Kingdom direct trade with Cuba has suffered from Cuba's economic problems, the lack of foreign exchange and the absence of ECGD cover while Cuba's existing debt commitments remain unresolved. In 1993 UK exports were £14 million, down 50 per cent. on the previous year. That mirrors the fall in GDP to which my hon. Friend referred. Exports are mainly agricultural chemicals, industrial machinery and manufactured goods. Notwithstanding that, there has been an encouraging increase in interest by UK companies attracted by Cuba's potential and anxious to position themselves favourably in a changing market.
However, there have been colossal shocks—it is not easy to circumvent the rapids and rocks. A fall of almost 40 per cent. in GDP since 1990 and a fall of more than 70 per cent. in the capacity to export are formidable problems which, inevitably, will produce great difficulties for any company that wants to trade with Cuba.
As my hon. Friend said, the debt problem is also significant. Cuba's commercial debt has largely arisen since the foreign exchange problems started in the mid-1980s. Before that, it had a good payments record. Recent events have compounded the debt problem. The British embassy in Havana continues to press the issue with the Cubans on behalf of the UK companies that are owed money. However, I am sorry to say that no recent payments have been made on outstanding debts to UK suppliers.
Any foreign exchange available is used to pay for essential imports in the priority sectors, such as agriculture, tourism, biotechnology and health care. United Kingdom companies doing business with autonomous enterprises in the priority sectors that hold their own foreign exchange accounts are in a better position to secure payment for goods supplied. Although Cuban officials have given an undertaking that all debts to United Kingdom companies will eventually be honoured, companies need to be inventive to get round the problem—for example, by agreeing to "roll over" existing debt. There may also be opportunities for "debt for equity" swaps and counter-trade arrangements involving Cuban sugar.
I am afraid that I have no easy answer to Cuba's problems with international debt. One thing is certain, however: Cuba's capacity to repay debt, or even to finance it, will be gravely restricted if trade between it and the rest of the world cannot expand. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. I very much hope that growing trade links—to mutual advantage—will help us to sort out the continuing debt problems.
A recurring theme in the February debate in another place was the call for more official dialogue with Cuba, and in particular a visit by a British Minister. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
482
State for Technology, will visit Cuba in the autumn, accompanied by a small group of high-level business men. My only regret is that I shall be unable to go with them. I hope that in due course I shall have an opportunity to become more familiar with Cuba and, indeed, the Caribbean, which I have never visited.
There is no doubt that there are great opportunities for Britain in that part of the world. We have taken the initiative in proposing to the Cubans a bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement, which will set high standards of investor protection and encourage investor confidence. I am glad to say that the Cubans have responded positively.
Cuba is the sleeping giant of the Caribbean. So far the reforms, although encouraging, have been limited, and are being introduced slowly; but I believe that, if Cuba succeeds in making the difficult transition to a more market-led economy, more commercial opportunities will be provided for UK firms to participate in its development.
I think that we should be encouraging and constructive. The British Government can give the Cubans the benefit of our expertise in privatisation and economic reconstruction, which has been exported all over the world in recent years. Many British firms—firms of consultants, as well as those in the industrial manufacturing sectors—have now acquired significant experience of the problems of change from a command economy to one that is more market led. Britain leads the world in many of those fields, and consequently is now a major export and foreign exchange earner. I believe that Cuba offers us opportunities, although it is one of the last countries to embark on such a transition.
I do not say that in an entirely self-interested way, on behalf of this country. I believe that there is room for a spirit of generosity towards Cuba—that we should assist it to make this difficult change. No one should underestimate the pains of transition, as will be plain to anyone with knowledge of the so-called Visegrad countries of eastern Europe, which are miles ahead of Cuba in this respect and have relatively easier prospects. Cuba's problems will be even greater because it is moving from more extreme conditions.
If Albania can achieve such a transition, surely Cuba can. There is no lack of good will in the British Government—or, I would say, among the British people —in helping the process. Cuba is likely to develop its tourist potential. In the 1950s, when it was last connected with the western world, it was one of the major tourist locations of the Caribbean; tourism is potentially a huge foreign exchange earner. It is an attractive destination. Very few people go there nowadays, but every week the New Statesman and Society—which I read—features a full-page advertisement for "progressive tours". I have never taken a progressive tour myself, I hasten to add, but that company advertises the delights of Cuba for those who would like to take advantage of them. Perhaps I am more used to retrogressive tours.
We certainly warmly applaud the opportunity to return Cuba to the mainstream of the world economy, which is not only in our interests but in Cuba's interests, too, and to maintain the stability of the Caribbean—the importance of which was also stressed by my hon. Friend. I hope that we will assist in that transition process, rather than stand in its way.

Civil Rights (Disabled People)
1.59 pm
Mr. John Austin-Walker: I want to deal with this issue in three parts. The House recently considered a Bill which, had it been passed, would have secured civil rights for disabled people. I wish to review the way in which the Government approached that remedy. I intend also to consider the general issue of rights for disabled people and the argument for legislation in addition to education and persuasion. I shall also examine the costs of providing civil rights for disabled people in this country.
The Government are aware that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members are in favour of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Because of that, the Government ran away from the issue and deployed a series of delaying tactics to prevent a Bill which would have afforded civil rights for disabled people from becoming law.
Yesterday Madam Speaker had the task of rebuking the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) —and rightly so—for denying that the source of her amendments was other than herself. The House is well aware that those amendments had been drafted by parliamentary counsel on Government instructions.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The subject of the hon. Gentleman's debate is civil rights and disabled people; it is not meant to be a re-run of events surrounding a Bill which aroused a certain amount of controversy. I therefore ask him not to stray into matters which have already been fully debated.
Mr. Austin-Walker: I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my understanding is that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is still before the House and that there will be another opportunity for the House to return to it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to that Bill.
Several hon. Members indicated dissent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to stifle debate, but the hon. Gentleman can refer to the Bill only incidentally. I trust that the hon. Gentleman understands me.
Mr. Austin-Walker: It is clear that disabled people in this country believe that they are denied their civil rights. There have been repeated attempts in the House to secure those rights. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was a Minister, he established a committee to examine the issue. That committee reported 12 years ago. Since then, there have been repeated attempts to introduce legislation, including that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe in the last Parliament.
More recently, a Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), which was also debated. In accordance with your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not debate the way in which that Bill was obstructed. However, I shall examine the difference in the approach of the supporters of that Bill and that of the Government.
Until recently, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People had earned the respect and confidence of
484
many disabled people and organisations for the disabled, and it is tragic that he has become the fall guy in the blocking of a measure which could have given civil rights to disabled people when responsibility in fact rests not with him but with his senior colleagues and, ultimately, the Prime Minister.
On 12 April, the Prime Minister told me that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would provide an opportunity to examine the practical implications of such legislation in Committee. I regret that that did not happen and I want to discuss the reasons that the Government give for not embracing comprehensive civil rights legislation.-For the Prime Minister's commitment to be honoured, it would have been necessary for the Government to put their view in Committee, but they did not do so.
In the last Session of Parliament, the Minister said that he did not want the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe to proceed because we were coming to the end of the parliamentary Session and the Bill required detailed examination during a good long run in Committee. In the short period before the summer recess the House may, if it wishes, debate in detail and pass into legislation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no opportunity today for such a discussion. The hon. Gentleman should return to the subject of the debate. We are discussing civil rights and disabled people. Most of his speech has dwelt on the Bill.
Mr. Austin-Walker: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that we need legislation to secure the civil rights of disabled people. The Minister told us that he favours a process of education and persuasion. We need education and persuasion to assist in the fulfilment of civil rights for disabled people, but if we rely on that alone, thousands of disabled people will endure years of frustration, unemployment, poverty, low incomes and the denial of dignity and basic human rights. Disabled people are not asking for preferential treatment. They are seeking equality of opportunity. They are asking for the right not to any and every job but to be considered fairly for any job.
Sometimes a disability may prevent a person from doing a particular job. In those circumstances if the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood had become law, an employer would not have been guilty of discrimination by not employing a disabled person. More often than not, however, if the disabled person has the skills to carry out a job, some obstacle will be placed in the way. Often the barrier to a disabled person doing a job can be cheaply and easily removed.
Much has been made in past debates, not only in this Session, about the cost of securing civil rights for disabled people. At no stage, however, have the Government costed the benefits of people moving from dependence to independence and the savings which result for the community if disabled people are in work contributing to its wealth rather than receiving benefit.
Employers' research clearly shows that their perceptions of disabled people in work are flawed. Disabled people are far from being a burden. Statistical evidence shows that the job performance of 91 per cent. of disabled workers is average or better than average and that the attendance of 93 per cent. of them is average or better than average compared with able-bodied people.

485
Direct discrimination is a problem, but institutional discrimination is probably a greater problem and more difficult to tackle. Anti-discrimination legislation is the only effective way to tackle that. Institutional discrimination can be addressed only by changing organisational, social and individual behaviour. That requires legal prescription. The Government recognise that in terms of racial discrimination, but not in terms of disability. Martin Luther King dismissed the case for relying on education and persuasion alone to end racial discrimination. He said:
"Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
Attitudes need to change, but in the meantime behaviour and practices need to be regulated to ensure that disabled people enjoy their full basic human and civil rights.
Disabled people are fed up with charity and with paternalism. They want rights. A disabled person who has been refused a job or denied access to a restaurant does not want to wait for the Minister's favoured course of education and persuasion to take effect. In employment, we have had education and persuasion for more than 50 years. We have had ineffective legislation with virtually no penalties since 1944. There is a power to prosecute under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, but the Government have not embarked on a single prosecution since they took office, preferring the path of education and persuasion; yet today, 50 years after the legislation was introduced, only 20 per cent., or one fifth, of employers comply with it. We are approaching the year 2000, but at the current rate of progress we shall be two centuries into the next millennium before all employers comply. However, even that is not what disabled people want.
The 1944 Act imposes quotas, a concept that is specifically unlawful in other forms of legislation such as the Race Relations Act 1976. Quotas are, by their very nature, discriminatory. Disabled people do not want quotas or tokenism and they do not want to be patronised. They want rights. The Morris Bill and the Berry Bill would have provided basic civil rights for disabled people.
One objection to such all-embracing legislation is the cost involved. The Government have argued that those who produced—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in such a short debate, but I must draw his attention to the rules of the House. "Erskine May" states:
"In general, matters which would entail legislation must not be discussed on a motion for the adjournment".
The hon. Gentleman must not refer to legislation.
Mr. Austin-Walker: Perhaps it would be appropriate to refer to the Select Committee on Employment, which in 1991 called on the Government to
"explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunity legislation for the employment of people with disabilities and report to Parliament upon the potential effect and costs in the Labour Market."
Mr. Alfred Morris: Perhaps my hon. Friend could also discuss the point that many people make as to why it is argued that this country cannot afford civil rights for disabled people on grounds of cost when so many other countries can afford full civil rights for their people.
Mr. Austin-Walker: I agree with my right hon. Friend.
486
We have not yet seen the report so urgently called for by the Select Committee on Employment in 1991 to examine the cost and the effects on the labour market of equal opportunity legislation for people with disabilities. Before comprehensive legislation was introduced in the United States, there were suggestions that it would place enormous burdens on industry and small businesses in particular. However, the evidence from the United States, which has pursued a policy of all-embracing equality legislation and adopted the civil rights approach, shows that those forebodings have not been realised. Industry has not been crippled and firms have not gone out of business as a result of civil rights measures.
The Government said that giving civil rights to disabled people would cripple industry and the competitiveness of small businesses. Will the Minister tell us how many businesses in the United States were brought down by the cost of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act? In fact, most employers found that the rhetoric in this country—from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment—is true, and that compliance with the ADA in America has benefited them because they have been able to tap a previously unknown market. There has also been a massive shift in public attitude and a massive improvement in accessibility, and the public and the media have become more aware of disabled people and their rights. The ADA works in America and it is based on the concept of civil rights. The same pattern has been followed in New Zealand, Canada and Australia, but not in Britain. The Government simply trot out the old adage, "We can't afford it."
I deal now with the Government's assessment of the cost of compliance if the Berry Bill—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Measure."]—if the Berry proposals had been accepted. The £17 billion that has been quoted is wildly unrealistic. It assumes that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe wanted the legislation implemented, with full compliance, from day one when that was certainly not the case. I believe that there is also an element of double costing in the Government's assessment as they have already made available £2 million per annum for the private sector through the new access to work scheme. I do not think that they took account of that in their calculations. I also do not believe that they have made full and effective assessments of the benefits to this country.
During the debates in the House there has been some discussion about the terminology that we should use to describe disabled people. I always felt that we should use the term that disabled people themselves wish to be used. I am pleased that we used the term "disabled people" rather than "people with disabilities". The term "people with disabilities" suggests the concept that a person has a problem and we cannot do anything about it. If we use the concept "disabled people" we can perhaps consider what society does to people. Society can close doors or it can open them. Society can disable people or it can enable them. I believe there is time in this Parliament to reconsider the civil rights of disabled people and to ensure that we are an enabling rather than a disabling Parliament.
2.15 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: I shall be brief so that the Minister can speak for 10 minutes. He is not used to such brevity, so I shall do my best to assist him.

487
For a reason which escapes me, in the past six months we have had many debates on civil rights and disabled people. Both in the Chamber and outside, every 'time we have debated the need for disabled people to have their civil rights, disabled people and their supporters have always won the arguments. Every vote on the issue has been won without any opposition whatever. At the end of the day, one thing remains clear. Once and for all we have seen a clear recognition by everyone that the time will come very soon when disabled people will be guaranteed their civil rights. Nobody now doubts that. That has been one of the features of the debates over the past few months; all the arguments have been won.
The second feature of the debates on civil rights over the past few months has been disabled people's feeling that the House has not treated their concerns properly and with due respect. Numerous devices have been employed against those campaigning for civil rights for disabled people. I shall not describe those devices now. They are well known, and it is clear who has been responsible for them. The feelings of disabled people, too, are a matter of record.
The one major argument against ensuring that disabled people have their civil rights relies on the costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred to that argument. Indeed, it is the only argument left. Only two days ago the Prime Minister said that the Bill to ensure civil rights for disabled people would
"impose costs of £17 billion on private industry".—[Official Report, 24 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 180.]
That is not even what the Government's own document says, and it is a further example of the House being deliberately misled. The Government's document refers to time scales for implementing the legislation which are not being suggested by disabled people or by their supporters in the Chamber. A totally spurious time scale has been invented to give rise to totally spurious cost estimates. Everyone in the House knows that.
The inevitability of measures to secure civil rights for disabled people is recognised. There is still an opportunity this Session for that recognition to be translated into legislation. The Government still have an opportunity to rescue what, to date, has been a rather shabby performance on this matter.
2.19 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on his good fortune in securing time, albeit brief, once more to help to keep what all of us who have been involved in the issue over the years recognise as an important matter high on the political agenda. Some people have come somewhat lately to the matter and may have used it for their own particular purposes—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Rubbish.
Mr. Scott: The hon. Member for Woolwich, who initiated the debate this afternoon, has a long-standing interest and commitment in this area. He has always taken a most serious interest in the subject and he has taken part in our debates. I recognise his contribution—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wishes to intervene, I am perfectly happy to give way to him.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister has had a long-standing interest in these matters, but he let the side down by deliberately misleading the House and the country—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister should be ashamed of himself—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and he has already heard—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister has no honour—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the last time that I shall say "Order". The hon. Gentleman has long experience in the House and he knows full well that his intervention was out of order.
Mr. Scott: I was paying a sincere and well-deserved tribute to the hon. Member for Woolwich, who has played such a valuable part in our processes. He was a valuable member of the Standing Committee.
For seven years, as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, I have sought, as I hope will be tolerably widely recognised in the House, to voice and to demonstrate the Government's commitment to the principle of seeking to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and to widen the opportunities available to them fully to participate in our national life. My personal belief in the work that needs to be done remains as strong as ever. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to that principle when he said recently that the Government
"share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 15.]
Recent events, welcome in some aspects, have raised the profile, to use a modern expression, and the rightful expectations of disabled people in our society. They have probably enjoyed rather more coverage in our national media in recent days than they have ever achieved before. I sometimes wonder how many of those who have uttered so strongly and firmly on the issue have employment or access practices that reflect today's needs for disabled people.
What I have done and what I shall continue to do, whatever legislation we have, as Minister with responsibility for disabled people is to seek to raise the profile of the issue and to ensure that more and more people take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of disabled people.
I deny categorically that the Government have ever sought to mislead people about their attitude towards the approach taken recently in the House by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will not stray on to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has been the subject of controversy recently. I have already made my point clear. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to take into account on this matter the words following the passage which you quoted from page 320 of "Erskine May". It says:

489
"In general, matters which would entail legislation must not be discussed on a motion for the Adjournment; but under Standing Order No 29 Mr. Speaker may permit such incidental reference to legislative action as he may consider relevant to any matter"—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is exactly what the Deputy Speaker has been doing.
Mr. Scott: Certainly, I was not seeking to stray into the merits or otherwise of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, but was talking about the approach advanced by Opposition Members. As I have said on a number of occasions, and I shall reiterate what I have just said, we share the overall aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. I unashamedly and fiercely defend the record of the Government, because of the significant achievements that have been made over the past 15 years by the Government, and in the private sector with the encouragement of the Government, to eliminate discrimination, to reduce discrimination against disabled people and to expand the opportunities available to them. Frankly, although I well understand the narrow political reasons that lead Opposition Members to take such an attitude, I think that it is rather churlish of them—[Interruption.]—rather churlish of them to dismiss the progress that has already been made.
We have made a number advances in the field of employment, the most recent being the access to work announcement of my right hon.—
Mr. William McKelvey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, during this debate, for the Minister to attempt to rescue a reputation that is in tatters over this very matter?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Scott: I believe that the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a really positive step in the right direction to remove the many barriers that we all acknowledge face disabled people in their efforts to obtain employment in this country. We all know that the quota system, which has been in existence for many decades, is not an appropriate or effective way in which to achieve equality of opportunity or to remove discrimination against disabled people.
Mr. Alfred Morris: What pride does the Minister take in the fact that the Department of Health employs only 0.7 per cent. of disabled people, the Home Office employs 0.3 per cent., or a tenth of the 3 per cent. quota, and that there is not a single disabled employee in No. 10 Downing street?
Mr. Scott: If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman should know better, because he was the first person to hold the job that I hold at the moment. He knows that failure to meet those quotas or failure to prosecute those who fail to meet them was the same under previous Administrations. We all know the fact about the quota is that there are not sufficient registered disabled people—the number to which the percentage figure applies—for employers to match. In my Department, the Department of Social Security, as I have said to the House on previous occasions, 1.5 per cent. of our employees are registered as disabled, but 5 per cent. of our employees identify themselves as being disabled in one way or another. I believe that that is a more realistic measure of the willingness of Government as a whole to employ and give opportunities to disabled people. We have already said that we shall continue to build on the work that the Government have already done in that important area. I recognise its importance and its sensitivity. We need to ensure that it is taken forward at a pace.
We have already announced our proposals— [Interruption.]—to consult widely in the following key areas affecting the quality of life of disabled people in our society. The first area is the removal of discrimination in employment. We know the importance of that, but anybody who has had my responsibilities or has taken an interest in the matter knows that employment for many disabled people is not a realistic ambition. More and more will be able to avail themselves of that opportunity as a result of technological advances and steps that the Government are considering taking and will be consulting on in the near future.
Employment is a key area, but access to goods and services is also very important for those who experience disabilities in our society and that, too, is a matter on which we shall be consulting. We shall also be considering the possibility of codes of practice for the financial services industry where I know—[Interruption.]—I know that disabled people have to face non-actuarially based discrimination in insurance, banking and so on. That is another area that we need to tackle.
We also know about the impact of building regulations on the lives of disabled people and on their access to buildings, whether domestic or non-domestic. We need to consult on the possibility of creating a new advisory body to discuss those matters and investigate matters of discrimination against disabled people. That is the range of issues on which the Government are determined to consult in the coming months. At the end of that consultation process, the Government will consider the best way forward. I believe that that is much more sensible, realistic, practicable and affordable than the concepts embraced in the proposed legislation that was recently discussed.

Local Government Reorganisation (Humberside)
2.30 pm
Mr. James Cran: It gives me a little satisfaction that I may be the Back Bencher who gets in the last word before we rise for the recess, given the amount of hot air generated this morning. I am bound to say that the last debate was riot hot air. It also gives me some satisfaction that I voted for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on Second Reading. I am even more satisfied that the Government intend to make their own proposals.
The issue that I wish to raise is a national issue that affects my constituents. It is local government reform on Humberside. My constituents and I are worried about the issue and the amount of opposition to local government reform which is clearly developing in some quarters. That opposition does not form the majority of opinion, but vocal objection is beginning to develop against reform. I see it in terms of press speculation, propaganda from local authority associations, or at least some of them, arid the attempts to seek judicial review by some who wish to see the status quo maintained.
The question that occurs to my constituents and to me is how that opposition will affect Humberside, particularly the north bank of the Humber, where my constituency happens to be. In this short debate, I simply want to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that we in north Humberside are enthusiastic about reform of the status quo. In other words, we wish to see an end of Humberside county council. Coincidentally, I received a letter from one of my councillors, Mrs. Betty Eaton, who wrote, unbeknown to me, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday asking again that he get on with the reform of local government in Humberside. That is legitimate because it is against the background of a long campaign in my constituency and area to re-establish the ridings of Yorkshire—for our area, the east riding. That obviously involves the abolition of Humberside county council.
I am sorry to say that Humberside county council was imposed on us by a Conservative Government back in the early 1970s. That was a considerable mistake. That is evidenced, if by nothing else, by the fact that almost the day after the decision was announced, a campaign began to have Humberside abolished. That was not a very good start. The result is that in 20 years or so no loyalty or, to be fair, little loyalty has built up between the electorate and Humberside county council.
Few of my constituents are able to identify with Humberside county council. They seem to think that the borough of Beverley delivers all the services. That is evidenced by the letters. It suggests that the borough of Beverley, to take that example, has achieved a bond between it and its people whereas Humberside county council has not. There were those who believed back in 1987—I was one of them—that a change in the name of the county council was all that was needed to save it. We believed that all that was needed was to change the name from Humberside county council to another name such as East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire county council. That might, at the time, have satisfied those who wanted
492
north of the Humber to return to the ridings, but I do not believe that such a change would satisfy public opinion now, at least in my constituency.
Mr. Elliot Morley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me during his debate. He has made the case fairly on behalf of his constituents, but there is a feeling among a large number of people in the county that many high quality services, such as the hearing impaired service which has been very successful, are under threat from such changes. Many people have changed their opinion again in the course of the debate as they have looked at the issues. They are now beginning to question whether reorganisation is worth the cost, inconvenience and threat to high quality services. I question whether it is worth going through the change all over again after the disruptive change of 1974, which the hon. Gentleman rightly described.
Mr. Cran: The hon. Gentleman has his own view, but his fears are not reflected in the views of my constituents who write to me on the subject. All psephological evidence on the subject shows that what I have been saying to the House and my hon. Friend the Minister is true, and that the bond of loyalty between the people of Humberside and the county council simply does not exist. That is why the county council is fighting a vigorous—I do not think that it will be effective—rearguard action, the latest part of which is the attempt at a judicial review.
I understand that leave to bring in a judicial review has been refused and an appeal is pending—perhaps the Minister can confirm that. The mere fact that a judicial review is being sought does not reflect popular public opinion in my constituency or, I would venture to say, the whole of the north bank of the Humber. Therefore, if I get nothing more out of my hon. Friend the Minister this afternoon, my constituents and I would like him at least to restate the Government's commitment to reform on the north bank of the Humber.
Before the Local Government Commission put forward its proposals I was in favour of single-tier, all-purpose local government, based on the district, as that was what all my experience told me would be best. It would be small enough to attract the sort of loyalty that a local authority requires to get consent. However, the commission did not come up with that, but with what will be, in effect, an East Yorkshire county council. As a result, there has been a bit of difficulty—I put it no higher than that—with some of the districts in considering that proposal, but there has been no profound objection.
I am sure that the Minister already knows that the districts are unofficially beginning to work together to consider the practicalities of how they should be organised when the change is implemented. Therefore, I underline the fact that I have no doubt that the districts, and all of us who will be affected by the change when it comes—I hope that it does—will make the recommendations work. That should give the Minister some satisfaction when the proposals are brought forward after any judicial review, if it takes place—I do not expect that it will. I am not here to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to get the Secretary of State to give us the decision, which will come in the fullness of time. All that I want the Minister to say is that reform is on its way, irrespective of what may be happening in other parts of the country.

493
Why am I emphasising this issue? I could be doing all sorts of things. I could be on my way to my constituency to help win Humberside for the Conservatives in the European election, which is what I expect to happen. I am asking these questions because one hears rumours—admittedly mainly in the press—that the Government are thinking again about the pace of reform. I have given them no credence, but I am providing the Minister with the opportunity to give no credence to the rumour that Government zeal for reform is waning, that Ministers are not as keen as they were about the reforms that I am talking about and- that the status quo would give them fewer problems.
I hope that that is not the prevailing Government view. Judging from my hon. Friend's reaction to one or two of my remarks, I think that I now know what his and the Government's views are. If it were any different, my constituents would feel let down. They rightly feel that they have been promised reform and that is what they want.
To use a cricketing metaphor, if the Government want some runs on the board, we can provide them in Humberside. Reform does not run counter to the Government's philosophy over the local government review. As I recall it, that philosophy was that there should be no blanket solutions or iron rigidity and that what is agreed for the south-west of England should not be forced on us in Humberside. We need flexible solutions. If there is to be no reform in the south-west, it should not mean no reform in my constituency.
I need clarification from the Minister this afternoon so that he can reassure me and my constituents. He could best do so in the following way. First, he could make a clear statement that local government reform will come about in Humberside. He and I both know that there is the complication posed by the judicial review. If he cannot answer this now, perhaps he will do so in a letter, but if the review succeeds by some mischance—I do not think that it will—what will be the Government's strategy for my constituency?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend say something about the timetable and reconfirm what we all understand to be the case—that in May 1995 we expect shadow elections for the new authority, whatever it is to be, which would lead to the starting date for the new council or councils in April 1996? I want to know that we are going to achieve that target, if he thinks that it is the correct one. Or does he anticipate any slippage, perhaps not due to the judicial review, but to any other consideration that none of us knows about?
Finally, will the Government introduce separate parliamentary orders? He may not have the information, but perhaps he can write to me. I am aware of the written answer, which stated:
"we shall decide on handling at the time, taking into account the pressure of parliamentary business."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 444.]
What would be the effect if a contentious reorganisation —I guess that there is none—were coupled with a non-contentious change, which is what I expect in the case of Humberside?
Could my hon. Friend also tell me a little about the timetable? I note that the implementing order for Cleveland is likely to be laid in June and made in July —at least, that was the position as I understood it at the last time of looking. What is the position for Humberside?
494
That is all I want to say. I merely thank my hon. Friend the Minister and everybody else for listening to me—all two of them plus the Minister on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind the fact that we are enthusiastic about his proposals and we want him to get on with them without any delay.
2.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) for giving me the opportunity to give a further report to the House on our progress in undertaking the review of the structure of local government in England and for providing me with the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that we are on timetable. The review is on track.
Naturally, my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to make clear his views about the review in relation to Humberside. I know that he understands that it is not possible today to provide him with a definitive answer to his questions about the future structure of local government in Humberside. We are giving careful consideration to the Local Government Commission's recommendations for the review area, which includes Humberside, and also two other large county areas, North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.
As my hon. Friend said, the commission recommended that the county of Humberside and the county council should be abolished and replaced with four unitary authorities. It is clear that there is widespread support for that recommendation throughout the Humberside area. The recommendation does not stand alone. The commission has provided us with a complex series of recommendations covering the future of all three of those counties and the 23 district councils within their areas. As my hon. Friend would expect, the interrelationship between the recommendations needs to be carefully considered. That notwithstanding, I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be reassured to know that I do not expect that it will be too long before we can announce our decisions on Humberside.
Given that I cannot say a great deal about the specific detail on Humberside, it will, I hope, be helpful to the House if I speak briefly about the commission's progress on the review generally, and helpful if I restated the principles that lie behind our proposals for the reorganisation of local government. I emphasise first that we are not seeking to impose from the centre a blueprint on local government. Through the review process, we are seeking to provide local government and local people within each review area with an opportunity to consider the best means of delivering effective and convenient local government, which at the same time recognises an individual community's particular identity and needs.
We believe that there is a strong case to be made for unitary authorities. In a unitary authority, the public knows who is responsible for the delivery of local services. That clarity of responsibility for provision enhances accountability. People need to know who is responsible for what and that makes the ballot more effective when services are delivered well or, indeed, if they are delivered badly. The voters' message will be clearer if there is no confusion as to who in local government is responsible. Also unitary

495
authorities can accommodate and represent strong community identities. If people identify with their council, they will be more interested in what their council is doing.
There can also be substantial savings in costs when only one authority is responsible for providing a complete range of services, because of the lack of duplication and the consequent reduction in bureaucracy. That can also result in the improvement of those services. If all services are under one roof there is tremendous scope for co-orclinating them from a consumer standpoint. It will be possible to bring together housing and social service issues, so that the person who has needs that cross those two responsitbilities is not shunted from one set of officials to another or from one office to another.
One can co-ordinate development control and transport issues, which will be much better from the citizen's point of view.
Mr. Morley: I thank the Minister for giving way. I wish to raise just two quick points. First, does the Minister accept that there is a great deal of concern in Humberside and among my constituents about issues that are not resolved, such as specialist education services and specialist social services, which will be difficult for unitary authorities to maintain? I know that joint arrangements have been mentioned, but in a letter from the Minister for Local Government and Planning all that was said was that he hoped that local authorities would get together on a voluntary basis and provide those services.
That is not much of an assurance to people who are concerned about a threat to the high quality services that are provided by Humberside and supported by a great many people. Even though there is a difference of opinion, I hope that the Minister will seriously take into account the representations of those who are opposed to the changes.
Mr. Baldry: Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns, I find them strange. Many of his colleagues who represent constituencies with unitary authority areas do not experience problems of coordination on specialist education or whatever. It is therefore surprising that the hon. Gentleman raises that as a point of concern.
Unitary authorities can enhance accountability and provide a desirable balance between efficiency and access. I thought that we had achieved a strong measure of cross-party support for that approach. That was evident in the recent debate on the order establishing a unitary authority on the Isle of Wight—the first order under reorganisation to come before the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who speaks for the Labour party on local government matters, said:
"I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition firmly support the principle of the establishment of unitary authorities in England. We have not been converted recently to that: we have believed in it for a long time, and even before the 1974 reorganisation of local government. We support the principle because we believe that boundaries that can be established on a unitary basis in many instances better reflect the communities that the local authorities based in those boundaries seek to represent. There is a sense of identity that is sometimes missing from the structure of local government in some parts of the country.
The Opposition have also supported the principle of unitary authorities because an effective and efficient unitary authority can avoid duplication—of which, as many hon. Members know, there are many instances in local government. On planning, for example, district and county councils have to liaise and there is sometimes a certain amount of difficulty in understanding who
496
has responsibility for what. On recreation and the link with school sports, there can often be different responsibilities for providing similar facilities…
One strong argument in favour of unitary authorities is that the public know who is responsible for issues affecting them and administered by local government. I have always found that helpful in my own local authority. The public know that if the matter is one dealt with by local government…they do not have to determine whether it is a district or county council issue. Those arguments have long been held by the Opposition in supporting unitary councils."—[Official Report, 18 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 690.]
There is clearly broad cross-party support for what we are seeking to achieve.
I shall repeat something I have said often before. We are determined that transitional costs will not fall to the council tax payer. We expect' local government reorganisation to be worth while and cost-effective over time. We expect substantial and continuing savings in the longer term to follow the commission's reviews. Estimates for the costs and savings for the changes agreed so far—Cleveland and the Isle of Wight—look good. The 1994–95 council taxes in both areas include nothing for transitional costs. They do not think that they will incur transitional costs. However, there will need to be some investment to secure savings in the future. For example, in Cleveland the authorities estimate that the £2 million they may be required to spend on redundancies will secure savings of £1.5 million a year thereafter, in each and every year.
We accept that the review may not always lead to a unitary authority solution—it may well be that in certain circumstances arguments in favour of the status quo will prevail and the two-tier system will be retained. It is, of course, in the first instance for the commission to recommend what the future structure of local government in any area under review should be.
I come now to the progress that the commission has made to date. We have received its final recommendations on 10 review areas. We have accepted, and this House and another place have passed, orders implementing the commission's recommendations for the Isle of Wight—one unitary. We have also accepted its recommendations for Cleveland—four unitaries. However, we have found it necessary to refer back to the commission for further consideration its recommendations for Gloucestershire,Derbyshire and Durham. As I have said, we shall be announcing our decisions on the commission's outstanding recommendations—including those for Humberside—in due course.
I am sure that the House will agree that it is in everyone's interest for uncertainty about the review to last for as short a time as possible. Inevitably, when we announced the acceleration of the commission's review timetable last autumn, scepticism was expressed in some quarters about whether the revised targets could be met. I am pleased to be able to confirm that all the local authorities in the first phase had made their initial representations by the due date—8 April—and that the commission is now preparing its draft reports on the areas involved. I am confident that reports on most areas will be published by early June.
Success in meeting the timetable has depended to a great extent on the willingness of local authorities to co-operate with each other in designing future structural arrangements that meet local needs. I would expect the commission to reflect that local consensus in its recommendations to us. In areas where consensus has not been achieved, I very much hope that the review process

497
will provide an impetus for authorities to get together: only if local authorities and local people get together can we be confident that local wishes are being addressed and will be met.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley explained that his constituents, who have welcomed the proposals for the abolition of Humberside county council, feared that the review of the structure of local government might in some way be abandoned, or that its momentum had somehow faltered. Let me make it clear that the review of the structure of local government in England is on time and on track, and we are determined for it to stay on time and on track. We are determined to complete the task fully, thoroughly and expeditiously, to the benefit of all concerned. If we had intended to bale out of the review, the time to do so would have been about a year ago. It would not have been now—and it certainly will not be now, or at any time in the future.
As I have explained, the review is on course, the commission is on schedule and the timetable is being adhered to. The fact that a number of councils have chosen to seek judicial review of the commission's recommendations has meant that the short-term timetable has needed to be amended—nothing more. Ultimately, what matters is our intention that in May 1997 the last of the new authorities will assume their full responsibilities, and we are still well on target to reach that date.
My hon. Friend asked what we would do if the court reached a certain decision. We can only trust in the court's good judgment; certainly, it is impossible to anticipate its decision. We are confident, however, that all the new authorities will be able to assume their full responsibilities by May 1997, and, as I have said, we are well on target and determined to meet that deadline.
This is the last debate before the Whitsun recess. Like my hon. Friend, I suspect that it is less a recess than an
498
adjournment to enable us all to help campaign in the European elections. Those elections will be as important to the people of Humberside in the immediate future as the reorganisation of local government.
The elections on 9 June will present the people of Humberside, and those elsewhere, with a straightforward choice between two types of Europe. There is the Conservative choice of a thriving, open, deregulated and decentralised Europe where opportunities are grasped, trade is encouraged and jobs are created—a Europe where nation states work more effectively together to solve all the problems that they share, but where individual nation states retain responsibility for most areas of policy.
Then there is the Lib-Lab vision of Europe, which is very different. Both parties are signed up to more controls, more regulations and new costs and burdens for employers. Just when Britain is showing the way to economic recovery and shrinking dole queues, Labour and the Liberals are proposing a charter for job destruction on Humberside and elsewhere. Instead of making Europe less remote and more accountable to the citizens of Humberside and elsewhere, they are proposing to centralise decision making in Brussels by signing away Britain's national veto.
I suspect that that is not what people in Humberside want, or what the British people want. We shall make every effort, therefore, to spell out the facts between now and 9 June. The British people want a very different sort of Europe. They want a European Parliament that uses its powers to deliver benefits to ordinary people—such benefits as a real single market, a crackdown on European Community fraud and better control of the Brussels Commission. It means a strong Britain in a strong Europe: That is the choice on 9 June; for Britain's sake and for Europe's sake, we are determined to make it a Conservative choice
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock till Tuesday 14th June, pursuant to the Resolution [19 May].

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Maastricht Treaty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the procedures for informing industry, commerce and the public about the effect of the provisions of the treaty of Maastricht.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am satisfied that an appropriate effort has been made to explain the effects of the Maastricht treaty. We have issued a number of publications. Recent Foreign and Commonwealth Office publications include Europe After Maastricht, Britain in Europe, and The European Elections—Why They Matter to You. The Department of Trade and Industry recently issued The Single Market—Making It Work For You". This includes advice to business on the European Community's legislative process.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department is offering to the people of Gibraltar following cuts in Government spending; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have established the joint economic forum to bring those concerned together to help overcome Gibraltar's economic difficulties. The forum includes United Kingdom Government Departments, the Government of Gibraltar, trade unions and representatives of local business. We have negotiated substantial European Union funds for Gibraltar. The Ministry of Defence is offering training, and will continue to purchase local goods and services.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) of 10 May,Official Report, column 83, what arrangements have been made to enable Gibraltarians resident in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries to vote in the European elections.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Gibraltarians resident in the United Kingdom are entitled to vote in European elections. Gibraltarians resident in other member states of the European Union are entitled as citizens of the European Union to vote in European parliamentary elections on the same terms as nationals of that member state under article 8b2 of the treaty on European Union.

  Wilton Park Executive Agency
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Wilton Park executive agency performed against the targets which were agreed for 1992–93; and if targets have yet been agreed for the current year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  According to provisional figures, which are subject to full audit, Wilton Park exceeded two of the four targets set for the 1993–94 financial year, for the number of conference participants and the cost per head to the FCO. It failed to achieve those for cost recovery and commercial income by margins of 0.1 per cent. and 0.6 per cent. respectively. Commercial income was again affected by adverse trading conditions.

  The Wilton Park departmental board met on 19 April. We have agreed to the recommendation of the board that the following key targets be adopted for this financial year:
  to increase overall income from £953,000 in 1993–94 to £1,039,000;
  to increase cost recovery from 71.9 per cent. in 1993–94 to 72.8 per cent.;
  to increase the overall number of Wilton Park conference participants from 1,077 in 1993–94 to 1,260;
  to reduce the average cost to the FCO of each participant from £345 in 1993–94 to £307.

  It has also been agreed that for 1994–95 Wilton Park will aim to recover 80 per cent. of the costs of its commercial activities and 64 per cent. of the cost of Wilton Park conferences.

  Arms Sales (Middle East)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the sale of arms to Israel and Syria.

  Mr. Hurd
  I have decided that, in the light of favourable developments in the middle east peace process; in particular the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho, the United Kingdom's arms embargo against Israel should be lifted. This will bring the United Kingdom into line with our European Union partners.

  Forthwith, all applications for the sale of arms to Israel
  will be considered cases by case in the light of the international guidelines to which we are committed. Those include whether a proposed transfer would be likely to increase tension in the region or contribute to regional instability.

  The Israeli Government have made it clear that they have no territorial claim on Lebanon. We hope to see progress on the Syrian track in line with that seen on the Palestinian track. In that context, we will be ready to raise with our European partners the lifting of the European Union arms embargo against Syria.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Citizens Charter
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to include in the citizens charter specific charter provisions for disabled people.

  Mr. David Davis
  The citizens charter applies to all users of public services. One of the six key principles of the charter is that service providers should inform their
  225
  customers of the standards of service that they can expect. It is for individual organisations to decide on the specific commitments that they are able to meet in order to improve the quality of their services to disabled people.

  There are currently 39 charters, of which 35 make particular reference to people with disabilities.

  Parliamentary Counsel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what consideration he has given to the role of civil servants in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in preparing amendments and new clauses for private Members' Bills.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The civil servants in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel are accountable to ministers in the same way as other civil servants. Their work in preparing amendments and new clauses for private Members' Bills is, like their other work, undertaken on the authority of Ministers.

  Consultants
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the expenditure on management and financial consultants by his Department in 1992–93.

  Mr. David Davis
  The expenditure in 1992–93 on management and financial consultants by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's. Departments was:

  £

  Office of Public Service and Science and its Agencies1

  949,031

  COI

  136,460

  HMSO2

  410,075

  1This figure does not include CCTA contracts let on behalf of other government departments.

  2HMSO records do not distinguish between types of consultancy. The figure provided represents expenditure on consultancy during the HMSO financial year January to December 1992.

  Civil Estate
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements have been made to publish the efficiency unit's scrutiny report on the management of the Government's civil estate.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I am pleased to publish today the Scrutiny report on the management of the Government's civil estate.

  The Prime Minister has welcomed the findings. He commissioned the scrutiny in July 1993 to consider how far responsibility for civil estate properties could be passed to Departments and agencies and to identify central systems which should be retained or established. The Government will now proceed to implement the reports broad findings. The reports main recommendations are:
  that Departments should take responsibility as principals for the property they occupy;
  that property holdings should be reconstituted as an executive agency; to co-ordinate the Government's market activity on the civil estate and to promote rationalisation of the estate; to provide Departments with a body of off-the-shelf advice and support; and to provide intelligent customer support to those Departments who do not have in-house facilities. (The Government will consider further which Department is to sponsor the new agency.)

  The scrutiny team was also asked to look specifically at the management of historic buildings on the civil estate and
  226
  extended its review to include historic building issues on the defence estate. The team concluded that the arrangements introduced in 1992 for regular audit and monitoring of the condition of the historic estate had started well and should be given further time to work. New guidance should be provided to Departments on procedures for the disposal of surplus historic property. This would ensure that the special considerations which may arise in connection with heritage disposals are taken fully into account in applying normal disposal rules.

  Copies of the efficiency unit scrutiny have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the non-departmental bodies in England the conduct of which can be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The following non-departmental public bodies fall within the jurisdiction of the PCA. Those NDPBs with a remit specific to Wales or Scotland only have been omitted from the list.

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS)

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  Arts Council of Great Britain

  British Council

  British Film Institute

  British Library

  Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond (only in respect of functions as a general lighthouse authority)

  Countryside Commission

  Crafts Council

  Data Protection Registrar

  UK Ecolabelling Board

  Education Assets Board

  Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges

  English Heritage (Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England)

  English Nature (Nature Conservancy Council for England)

  English Tourist Board

  Equal Opportunities Commission

  Health and Safety Commission

  Health and Safety Executive

  Horserace Betting Levy Board

  The Housing Corporation

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  Legal Aid Board

  Local Government Commission for England

  Medical Practices Committee

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  National Rivers Authority (except for flood defence functions)

  Commission for the New Towns (except for housing functions)

  Development Corporations for the New Towns (except for housing functions)

  Commission for Protection against Unlawful Industrial Action

  Registrar of Public Lending Right

  Commission for Racial Equality

  Research Councils:

  Economic and Social

  Medical

  227

  Natural Environment

  Residuary Bodies

  Office of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members

  Rural Development Commission

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work

  Sports Council

  Traffic Director for London

  Industry Training Boards:

  Agricultural Training Board

  Construction Industry Training Board

  Engineering Construction Industry Training Board

  Urban Development Corporations (except for town and country planning functions).

  Urban Regeneration Agency (except for town and country planning functions)

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

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Parliamentary Counsel draft not on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. No amendments were drafted since April 1992 by parliamentary counsel on instructions from my Department. However, some of the amendments tabled during the Committee and Report stages of the Right to Know Bill were prepared by my officials with advice from Parliamentary Counsel.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Licence Fees
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he will have consultations within the European Community concerning the proposed directive on licence fees for television and radio.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have no knowledge of any proposed directive on this matter.

  Football Stadiums
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will grant time extensions to any of the premier league and first division football clubs in respect of the Government's 1 August all-seater deadline.

  Mr. Brooke
  The Governments policy has been that premier league and first division football clubs should eliminate standing accommodation from their grounds by 1 August 1994. The policy was first announced in January 1990, when the Government accepted the recommendations in Lord Justice Taylor's final report. This policy was reaffirmed in the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee report on policing football hooliganism 228
  in May 1991 and again in July 1992, following a review of the policy by the former Secretary of State. In recognition of the costs involved, the Government reduced pool betting duty in the 1990 budget, making available to clubs some £20 million each year since then via the Football Trust, on the understanding that these funds will be used for major projects associated with Taylor implementation.

  I am pleased to report that the majority of clubs in the top two divisions will meet or are planning to meet the deadline. I congratulate those clubs on the great strides they have made in improving the safety and comfort of spectators at their grounds. I have, however, indicated that I will consider extensions to the deadline in exceptional cases.

  The all-seater policy will be enforced by means of the licensing system operated by the Football Licensing Authority under the Football Spectators Act 1989. Under section 11(1) and (2) of the 1989 Act I am empowered to make an order directing the FLA to include certain specified conditions about seating in the licences that it issues to clubs. Before making such an order, I am required to consult the FLA, which in turn is required to consult local authorities before making recommendations to me. The FLA consulted local authorities and clubs on 17 December 1993, asking for comments by 28 February. It submitted its main recommendations in mid-April together with copies of the representations made by local authorities and clubs. It submitted further representations in relation to two late applications at the end of April.

  Of the 12 clubs that have formally applied for an extension, one—Oxford United—has been relegated to division 2, which is not subject to the 1994 deadline. I have considered the case made by the remaining 11 clubs, taking into account the recommendations made by the Football Licensing Authority.

  On the basis of the information I have before me, I have today written to the chairmen of both clubs to inform them of my preliminary view in each case, and offering them the opportunity to submit further representations.

  I have written to the chairmen of the following clubs, all of which are actively engaged in relocation to new stadiums, indicating that I am minded to agree that they have a valid case for an extension to the 1 August deadline:

  Derby County

  Grimsby Town

  Middlesbrough

  Portsmouth

  Sunderland

  I have warned, however, that although I am considering whether to grant an extension, my general policy remains, and I have in mind that any extension should be for a limited period only.

  I have also explained that any decision to allow the retention of standing accommodation for a limited period will not affect safety requirements at the ground. Clubs will still be required to observe the terms and conditions of the local authority safety certificate issued under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, and any requirement placed on the club as a result of the FLA exercising its powers under section 13 of the 1989 Act. The responsibility of each club to ensure that the ground meets the necessary safety requirements remains unchanged, irrespective of whether or not an extension is granted.

  I have also written to the chairmen of the following clubs indicating that, while I appreciate the very real

  229
  difficulties faced, I do not consider that the case presented to date is sufficiently strong to warrant an extension of the deadline beyond 1 August 1994:

  Barnsley

  Chelsea

  Manchester City

  Newcastle United

  Oldham Athletic

  Swindon Town

  In arriving at my preliminary view, I have applied the criterion adopted by the Football Licensing Authority, which were set out in the FLA's letters of 13 November 1992 and 17 December 1993 as follows:
  Clubs seeking an extension in order to relocate to a new ground are expected to produce clear evidence that such an extension would be for a strictly limited period and that the club could realistically complete its relocation within a reasonable and definite timescale.
  Clubs applying for an extension in order to redevelop their existing grounds are expected to show why their circumstances are wholly exceptional, why the reasons for the delay could not reasonably have been foreseen, and why they could not be attributed to the actions or inaction of the club.

  I must stress that I have not yet made my final decision, and before I do so I think it only right that the clubs affected should have the opportunity to comment and to make further representations to me if they feel that this would be appropriate.

  In reaching my final decision I will consider each case on its individual merits in the light of the above criteria, having regard to all material facts and to the need to be consistent where circumstances are similar and fair to all clubs in the premier league and football league, first division. I will also take into account any other relevant points which the clubs wish to make in response to my letters.

  I am acutely aware that it is important that clubs have as much time as possible to prepare for the 1994–95 football season. I therefore propose to end any uncertainty about the outcome of my deliberations within a matter of weeks rather than months. Clubs have been asked for any comments they may have on the contents of my letters, or for any further representations they may wish me to take into consideration, by Thursday 16 June at the very latest. My final decision will follow as soon as possible thereafter.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the answer from the Chairman of the Administration Committee on 17 May,Official Report, column 416, when the Commission will publish the details of the survey into child care in the parliamentary estate.

  Mr. Beith
  This matter is still under consideration by the Commission.

  Intelligence Services
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will establish the parliamentary oversight committee of the intelligence services before the summer recess.

  Mr. Newton
  The intelligence services legislation provides for members of the Intelligence and Security Committee to be appointed by the Prime Minister after 230
  consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Since commencement of the Act is still some months away, I would not expect the Committee to be appointed yet.

  Parliamentary Counsel
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) of 19 May,Official Report, column 959, if he will publish the full text of the letter on the drafting of amendments from the head of the civil service to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to which he referred.

  Mr. Newton
  I have arranged for copies of the correspondence to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council on which private Members' Bills, introduced into either House of Parliament since April 1992, Parliamentary Counsel has been involved in drafting amendments which have subsequently been tabled in the names of Members of either House, other than Ministers.

  Mr. Newton
  Parliamentary Counsel drafts amendments on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. How many of these were subsequently tabled by Members of either House is not centrally recorded.

DEFENCE

  Dartmouth Naval College
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual intake at, and graduation from, Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth; what are the annual running costs; how many(a) service and (b) civilian personnel are employed there, and in what professional and other groups.

  Mr. Hanley
  During the last training year, the intake at Britannia Royal Naval College was 861. This number includes 433 students who attended courses, including the officer new entry course, from which 401 graduated; the remaining 428 students attended courses from which there is no formal graduation.

  The annual running costs excluding sea training for Britannia Royal Naval College for the last three financial years are as follows:

  £

  FY 1991–92

  15,800,000

  FY 1992–93

  18,500,000

  FY 1993–94

  118,900,000

  1 Estimate.

  The total number of Service personnel employed at the college is 129, and is broken down as follows:

  Number

  Officers

  50

  Warrant Officers

  3

  Senior Ratings

  136

  Junior Ratings

  40

  1 Includes 4 RM.

  231
  The total number of civilian staff employed at the college is 169.5 and is broken down as follows:

  Number

  Defence Administration Group

  29.0

  Defence Engineering and Science Group

  45.5

  Other

  14.0

  Industrial

  81.0

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the known atomic test veterans listed on departmental files were contacted as part of the study on mortality and comparative health of atomic test veterans conducted for his Department by the National Radiological Protection Board, published last December; and what criteria were adopted in choosing those former service men to contact as part of the study.

  Mr. Hanley
  The independent study conducted by the National Radiological Protection Board was a statistical analysis of the health and service records of more than 21,000 test participants. The NRPB acquired information from a variety of independent and official sources including the British Atomic Veterans Association, the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, the Royal British Legion, the Department of Social Security, besides NRPB and MOD records. Thus there was not a requirement to contact test participants directly.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he replied to Mr. Denzil Hancock of Abertillery, Gwent, in regard to his letter on the National Radiological Protection Board study of atomic test veterans.

  Mr. Hanley
  My officials have no record of receiving the letter referred to.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to examine the
  proposals set out in the recent report by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament on a blueprint for a nuclear weapon-free world and the 1995 non-proliferation treaty conference, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Hanley
  My Department has no record of having received this document. We have arranged for a copy to be provided to us, however, and we will examine its proposals carefully.

  Matra Marconi Space
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made concerning the sale by British Aerospace of its space systems business to Matra Marconi Space; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  If such a proposal is announced, my Department will if necessary advise the regulatory authorities in the usual manner on any competition and national security implications. Such advice is, of course, confidential.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with the United States authorities regarding the disposal of hazardous wastes shipped to the United Kingdom for disposal from bases of the United States armed forces in Europe.

  Mr. Hanley
  Officials of my Department have occasionally discussed with the appropriate United States authorities the disposal of hazardous wastes imported into the United Kingdom. The handling of such waste in the United Kingdom is carried out in accordance with national and international regulations governing the movement and destruction of hazardous waste.

  RNAD, Beith
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current workload, numbers employed and future prospects at the Royal Naval armaments depot, Beith.

  Mr. Hanley
  At present some 500 personnel are employed at RNAD Beith. The depot plays an important and active role in supporting both the Navy and the RAF in the storage and processing of a wide range of armaments. By the end of 1994, the depot will have assumed further non-armament engineering tasks which have been transferred from other MOD establishments. The future of the depot, which is currently subject to a market-testing exercise, is being reviewed, along with other MOD establishments, as part of the defence costs study.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will decide whether British troops will be deployed in Bosnia this winter; and what are the crucial factors affecting that decision.

  Mr. Hanley
  The deployment of British forces in Bosnia is kept under constant review. A decision on
  whether the current deployment will continue through the winter will be taken later this year and will take account of factors such as the situation on the ground, humanitarian needs, UNPROFOR's ability to carry out its mandate without unacceptable risk to the safety of its forces, and progress towards an overall peace agreement.

  "Friendly Fire" Incident
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent communications he has received from the United States Government about the shooting down of two United Nations helicopters by aircraft of the United States air force.

  Mr. Hanley
  The two United States helicopters shot down in northern Iraq on 14 April are the subject of a United States investigation. The United Kingdom has two representatives on the inquiry and they are taking a full part in the proceedings. We have been kept regularly informed of the progress of the investigation and will make the results available as soon as possible.

  Defence Contractors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the letter of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West of 16 May, if he will list the 40 contracts held by Airwork Ltd. for the Ministry of Defence; and if he will list those which are in the majority that have been rated as satisfactory.

  Mr. Aitken
  Airwork Ltd. is contracted by my Department to carry out a wide variety of support activities, including:

  Provision of Simulator Instructor and maintenance of simulator and supply of spares

  Provision of aircraft Maintenance Services

  Post Design Work

  Maintenance of Communications Equipment at various locations

  Provision of Helicopter Support and On Call Maintenance

  Servicing of maintenance of Range Safety Radars and Ground Radio

  Provision of Flying Instruction

  Servicing of Aircraft

  Repair and Reconditioning of Spares

  As stated in my letter dated 16 May 1994 to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, in general these contracts are being performed satisfactorily.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the letter from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, dated 16 May, if he will list the names of all the contractors placed on the Ministry of Defence list of contractors requiring special attention; on what date they were placed on that list; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  The list is maintained for internal use only, as part of my Departments risk management technique. It is treated as commercial in confidence and therefore I am not prepared to identify the contractors currently on it.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the letter of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, dated 16 May, on what date Airwork Ltd. was placed on the Ministry of Defence list of contractors requiring special attention.

  Mr. Aitken
  On 21 May 1993.

  Royal Navy Exercises
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now give further details regarding the introduction of a system for broadcasting details of firing intentions in local sea areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hanley
  I am pleased to announce, as foreshadowed in my answer to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 3 March,Official Report, columns 871–72 that from Wednesday 1 June 1994 the Royal Navy is to introduce a new information service for advising fishermen and other mariners of gun and missile firings in designated exercise areas around the United Kingdom. The time and approximate geographic locations of all planned live firings—other than with small arms—and underwater explosions will be broadcast twice a day by the Royal Navy: where appropriate this will also include the times of firing flares, other illuminants, and naval gunfire support firings using sea ranges and inert ammunition. This new broadcasting of information is to be known colloquially as GUNFACTS,
  234
  A broadcast scheme for transmitting information of this nature has been operating in the heavily used Portland exercise area for almost two years, and has proved successful in ensuring that civil craft using these waters are aware of Royal Navy firing activity. The aim now is to extend the arrangements operating in the Portland areas to cover all exercise areas around the United Kingdom in which gunnery and missile firings and underwater explosions take place.

  The introduction of the United Kingdom-wide broadcasting arrangements for GUNFACTS does not reflect any shortcomings in the Royal Navys existing range safety procedures, which are already rigorous and comprehensive: the intention is, rather, to complement the existing measures. As such, the introduction of this scheme represents a further step forward in maritime safety and underlines our continuing commitment to ensure safe operations by the Royal Navy at sea.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when the first test firing of a United Kingdom Trident II D5 missile is expected to take place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Aitken
  HMS Vanguard is scheduled today to launch an unarmed Trident II D5 ballistic missile off the coast of Florida as part of her demonstration and shakedown operation. I shall inform the House of the outcome of the firing in due course.

  Adventurous Training Facilities
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the single service and joint service adventurous training facilities maintained by funds from his Department, showing the costs, staffing and principal equipment of each.

  Mr. Hanley
  Adventurous training is, and will continue to be, an essential part of armed forces training, developing the qualities of fitness, courage, initiative, powers of endurance, leadership and interdependence which are essential to each service. The information requested, with costs for financial year 1993–94, will be placed in the Library.

WALES

  Interreg
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he met representatives of West Glamorgan to discuss its inclusion in Interreg; when he met his Irish counterpart to discuss adding south-east Eire and south-west Wales to the United Kingdom submission; when subsequently he made written representations on behalf of West Glamorgan and to whom; and what was the reason for the time lag between his meeting with the Irish Minister and his written submission.

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

  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement regarding the future of ADAS in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
  235
  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture announced the 1994–95 cost recovery targets and the associated restructuring of ADAS in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Birrningham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) on 25 February 1994,Official Report, columns 492–93. The agencys activities in Wales are being carried forward and its organisation adjusted in line with that. Detailed operational matters are the responsibility of the chief executive.

  My right hon. Friend and I also announced on 22 September 1993 that a study of the future corporate status of ADAS is being undertaken. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Agriculture One-stop Shops
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to introduce agriculture one-stop shops in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  In my speech at the annual general meeting of the Farmers Union of Wales on 11 May, I announced plans to provide the opportunity for all farmers in Wales to receive free agri-environmental advice through a streamlined system, which will be both simple and effective. Farmers will gain access to advice through a single clearing-house which will direct both telephone and written inquiries to an adviser who will be the single point of contact for the farmer. The adviser will provide the farmer with impartial sound advice on all the environmental aspects of farming and the support schemes available. Further details will be announced soon.

  Local Government (Wales) Bill (Amendments)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his oral statement of 15 March,Official Report, column 758, on what date he requested parliamentary draftsmen to prepare the amendments for clause 44 of the Local Government (Wales) Bill [Lords].

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not the practice to provide details of internal decisions of this kind.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received regarding pollution of water supplies resulting in inconvenience to consumers for each year since 1986.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not readily available and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many areas have been designated as areas of protection under the Water Resources Act 1991; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what plans he has for changes to legislation to deter polluters of water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  It is for the National Rivers Authority to apply for the making of an order under section 93 of the Water Resources Act 1991 for the designation of a water protection zone. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are currently considering the first such application by the NRA, in respect of the River Dee.
  236
  Regardless of any specific protective measures. it is in general an offence, punishable by an unlimited fine or a prison sentence or both, to pollute watercourses or water supplies.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current level of debt for each local authority in the west midlands county.

  Mr. Curry
  At 31 March 1993, the total outstanding debt for each local authority in the area of the former west midlands county council was as follows:

  £ million

  Birmingham

  1,233

  Coventry

  385

  Dudley

  277

  Sandwell

  284

  Solihull

  71

  Walsall

  301

  Wolverhampton

  309

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the topics to be included in the 1994 review of standard spending assessment; and what resources his Department will be devoting to the 1994 review of standard spending assessments, in terms of(a) the number of full-time equivalent posts and the estimated staff costs and (b) the cost of externally commissioned research.

  Mr. Curry
  A wide-ranging review of standard spending assessments was carried out in 1993. The Government do not propose to carry out a similar review this year. Their policy on further changes in SSAs was set out in its response to the first report from the Select Committee on the Environment, Cm 2494, and in paragraphs 32 and 33 in particular. Possible topics relating to SSAs which may be discussed with the local authority associations this year were set out in a paper for the SSA sub-group. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The division primarily concerned with SSAs has a complement of 12.8 full-time equivalent posts, the cost of which is some £420,000 per year. The Department expects to commission external research relating to SSAs, the cost of which will be met from the budget for local government research as a whole of £534,000 in 1994–95. Actual expenditure in 1994–95 will depend on the prices offered by contractors and the timing of the work but is not expected to exceed £50,000.

  Flood Prevention
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent local authorities that are allocated money for flood prevention by his Department are able to vire the money to other purposes.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department does not allocate money to local authorities specifically for flood prevention. However the standard spending assessment methodology used to distribute revenue support grant includes an element for flood defence which is based on the previous years expenditure. Since RSG in unhypothecated, where this element exceeds the amount levied by the National Rivers
  237
  Authority for flood defence in any year, authorities themselves decide how best to use any additional resources in the light of local needs and priorities. This principle applies equally to all services included in the SSA system.

  Tenants Ombudsman
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many complaints have been received by the housing association tenants ombudsmen in England and Scotland from the date that the respective services became operational in December 1993.

  Sir George Young
  The housing association tenants ombudsman service, which covers the activities of registered housing associations in England, has received 412 complaints in its first six months of operation—from November 1993 to April 1994. In the case of Scotland, for which the arrangements are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I am advised that in its first full month of operation—April 1994 —the service there received 12 complaints.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the services of the housing association tenants ombudsmen are advertised to housing association tenants.

  Sir George Young
  The Housing Corporation has distributed posters and leaflets about the housing
  association tenants ombudsman service to all registered housing associations in England, as well as to citizens advice bureaux, local libraries, law centres and housing advice centres.

  Council Houses, Harrogate
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total number of council houses owned by Harrogate borough council.

  Sir George Young
  Harrogate borough council reported a total of 5,234 council dwellings in its April 1993 housing investment programme return, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Energy Saving
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the United Nations conference on environment and development at Rio de Janerio obligations in so far as they concern energy saving in the domestic market.

  Mr. Atkins
  The framework convention on climate change, which was signed by 153 countries at the Rio Earth summit in June 1992 and came into force in March this

  Privately rented dwellings and households 1981 to 1993 England

  Year

  Dwellings

  Households

  Number thousands

  Proportion of all dwellings percent

  Number thousands

  Proportion of all households percent

  1981

  2,050

  11.4

  1,910

  11.0

  1982

  2,040

  11.2

  —

  —

  1983

  2,030

  11.1

  1,880

  10.6

  1984

  2,030

  10.9

  1,920

  10.7

  1985

  2,000

  10.7

  1,900

  10.6

  238
  year commits developed countries to take measures aimed at returning emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000. The United Kingdom climate change United Kingdom programme, which was published in January, sets out in full the measures aimed at meeting the convention commitment. These include measures affecting the domestic energy sector, which are expected to reduce emissions by 4 million tonnes of carbon—MtC—against projected CO2 emissions by 2000.

  Residential Property, Hull
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what percentage each year the rebuilding costs per square foot have increased between 1964 and 1990 for residential property built before 1920 in Hull.

  Sir George Young
  Figures for Hull are not available, but there is no reason to suppose that these differ significantly from increases in rebuilding costs for residential property nationally which were as follows:

  Year

  Percentage increase

  1964

  0

  1965

  5

  1966

  7

  1967

  0

  1968

  5

  1969

  6

  1970

  10

  1971

  9

  1972

  25

  1973

  37

  1974

  17

  1975

  6

  1976

  6

  1977

  13

  1978

  13

  1979

  17

  1980

  24

  1981

  0

  1982

  3

  1983

  7

  1984

  4

  1985

  4

  1986

  4

  1987

  9

  1988

  11

  1989

  9

  1990

  1

  Private Rented Housing
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the change in size of the private rented sector over the period 1981 to 1993.

  Sir George Young
  The information for England is as follows:
  239

  Year

  Dwellings

  Households

  Number thousands

  Proportion of all dwellings percent

  Number thousands

  Proportion of all households percent

  1986

  1,940

  10.3

  1,690

  9.2

  1987

  1,880

  9.9

  1,670

  9.1

  1988

  1,800

  9.3

  1,700

  9.1

  1989

  1,900

  9.3

  1,610

  8.6

  1990

  1,910

  9.7

  1,690

  8.9

  1991 April

  1,920

  9.8

  1,760

  9.3

  1991 December

  1,970

  10.0

  —

  —

  1992

  2,030

  10.2

  1,790

  9.2

  1993

  2,050

  10.2

  1,950

  9.9

  Notes:

  1. Dwellings figures are at the end of December except for 1981, when they are for April, and 1991 when figures are shown for both April and December.

  2. Household figures are estimates from the Labour Force Survey and are subject to sampling error. They are for the period March to May each year.

  A statistical paper explaining the derivation of these figures is to be included in the May issue of Housing Finance. I will place a copy in the Library as soon as it is available.

  Habitats Directive
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to implement the EC habitats directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government are firmly committed to the transposition of the directive into United Kingdom law. We expect to lay draft regulations for this purpose before Parliament soon after the Whitsun recess. The regulations will be made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and will require the approval of Parliament before they can come into effect. The directive requires the necessary laws, regulations and administrative provisions to be brought into force within two years of its notification on 5 June 1992. Although this target will not quite be achieved, our first priority must be to ensure that the draft regulations, which are very complex, fulfil the directive's requirements.

  The Government issued a public consultation paper in October 1993 indicating what provisions were considered necessary to implement the directive. The responses to this consultation, and that undertaken in March 1993 concerning proposed changes to permitted development rights to comply with the directive, have been considered during the process of framing the draft regulations.

  Subject to parliamentary approval, the regulations will establish mechanisms for the designation and protection of sites qualifying under the EC habitats and birds directives. They will also cover species protection aspects of the habitats directive. These measures will provide a self-contained body of legislation to give effect to the directive's requirements and will build on the already comprehensive provisions for habitats and species conservation in existing law and policy.

  Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet considered the response by Calderdale metropolitan borough council to the notice 240
  served on the authority on 23 December 1993 under section 13 of the Local Government Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend, after carefully considering the response which Calderdale metropolitan borough made to the notice served on the authority, has decided to give the authority a direction under section 14 of the Local Government Act 1988. The effect of the direction is to require the authority to re-tender the ground maintenance work which was the subject of the notice by 1 June 1995. The direction also requires the authority, when re-tendering the work, to draw up a contingency plan to cover the remedying of defects in the contractors performance and/or procuring the service of another contractor in the event of contractor failure, to which any performance bond requirement would be related. The authority must agree the contingency plan, and the terms of any performance bond requirement, with an independent arbitrator appointed by the Institute of Leisure and Amenity Management.

  Farm Shops
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Governments planning policy towards applications for farm shops.

  Mr. Baldry
  Farm shops help meet demand from consumers who want fresh produce at the point of production and can provide new sources of jobs and services in rural area and outlets for producers of regional and speciality foods. Advice on the circumstances in which planning applications are needed for farm shops is provided in planning policy guidance note 7, paragraph B2. When planning applications are needed, local planning authorities should take account of:(i) the desirability for the fanner to provide a service throughout the year, which may require him to bring in non-local1 produce to overcome the problems of seasonality and provide continuity of employment and to ensure that a sufficiently wide selection of produce can be offered;
  (ii) the potential impact on nearby village shops; and
  (iii) the transport effects in terms of the traffic likely to be generated and the highways, access and parking arrangements.

  1 In this context non-local means produce originating from beyond the farm holding and its environs. Local planning

  241
  authorities should not discriminate against produce orginating outside the United Kingdom. This applies equally to produce which is packed on the farm but which originates from outside it.

  In individual cases where the development of an unrestricted retail use on a farm shop would be likely to result in a significant adverse effect on a nearby village shop, the local authority may wish to consider the scope for using planning conditions to limit the broad types of produce sold in the farm shop so as to enable permission to be given. Guidance on the use of conditions is contained in the DOE circular 1/85.

  Travellers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date in April the Minister for Local Government met in Bradford Mr. Graham Ablewhite, managing director of Sparks confectioners, with head offices in Hockney road, Bradford; what undertakings the Minister gave regarding action concerning the use of unofficial sites by travellers within Bradford metropolitan district; what specific action he has taken in this matter since meeting Mr. Ablewhite; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 23 May 1994]: I met Graham Ablewhite during a non-departmental visit to Bradford on 29 April. While there, I promised to seek advice on the background from officials in my Department; I plan to write.

SCOTLAND

  Mental Health Services
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific instructions he has provided to the purchasers of mental health services in respect of the seriously mentally ill.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has issued no such instructions. The organisation of mental health services is determined by clinical assessment and local need. It is for individual health boards to assess the needs for their population and to purchase mental health services accordingly. In so doing they are expected to have due regard for the Governments community care objectives and what is best for individuals.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific instructions he has issued, and to whom, on good practice on hospital discharge for mentally disordered people and on continuing care for mentally disordered people.

  Mr. Stewart
  Three circulars on this matter have been made available. Discharge of Patients from Mental Illness and Mental Handicap Hospitals, SW10/1988 was sent to directors of social work and copied to general managers of health boards on 1 June 1988, and dealt with the management issues. Assessment and Care Management, SW11/1991 HHD/DGM, (1191)40 was issued on 17 June 1991, and "Guidance on Care Programmes for People with a Mental Illness including Dementia", SOHHD DGM 1992/9 SW 1992/1 was issued on 7 February 1992. These were sent to general managers of health boards, the Common Services Agency, the state hospital and the Health Education Board for Scotland, and to chief 242
  executives of district councils, appropriate professional and voluntary bodies, directors of social work and directors of housing. Local bodies have developed discharge protocols based on this guidance.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to issue instructions within one year on the minimum acceptable provisions for mental health services by way of(a) 24-hour staffed community houses, (b) day-staffed residential care, (c) day centres and hospital places and (d) provision of community-based multi-discipline teams; and if he will bring forward proposals to require the inspection of such establishments every three years.

  Mr. Stewart
  These are not matters on which central guidance on standards would be practical. The frequency of inspections is a matter for determination in the light of local circumstances but some guidance has been offered on the frequency of inspection which would be appropriate for residential accommodation.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the use of discharge contracts by health boards in respect of the mentally ill.

  Mr. Stewart
  Health boards do not use discharge contracts. Patients assessed as requiring continuing
  specialist medical and nursing care are the responsibility of
  health boards. Those patients who are discharged and do not require such care have their needs assessed by the local authority taking account of the views of health care professionals. An individual care programme should then be drawn up.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made as to the nature of the staff most likely to be made redundant following local government reorganisation; in which councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government have estimated that following local government reorganisation, a structure of 32 single-tier authorities will require between 220 and 1,800 fewer staff posts across Scotland. Sensible manpower planning by local authorities in the run-up to reorganisation should ensure that staff numbers are controlled largely by natural wastage and early retirement measures. It will be for the new authorities themselves to determine the number and nature of staff that they require to carry out their functions.

  Public Service Vehicles (Missiles)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many reported cases of missiles being thrown at public service vehicles there have been in each of the last five years in each police authority area in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of how morale in NHS trust hospitals has been affected by changes in the numbers of staff on short-term contracts; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The numbers of staff on short-term contracts is determined by the employing authority, whether NHS trust or health board. Any assessment of a relationship between morale and changes in the numbers of staff on such contracts in an NHS trust hospital is a matter for the trust hospital itself.

  The NHS in Scotland management executive is concerned to improve morale in the NHS in Scotland and, following a survey on the impact of the 1991 document Framework for Action, has asked employing authorities to develop action plans to tackle those issues which are identified as requiring action locally. The outcome of these action plans will be reported to the management executive in February 1995.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to ensure that clinical directors in NHS trust hospitals have greater access to finance and information management training to help them participate in contract negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  National training provision is made through short courses available from the management development group at the Scottish health service centre and by the management education for clinicians project which receive funds from the Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education for this purpose.

  A focused mailing to clinical directors in Scotland took place in January 1994 to draw attention to existing courses

  Performance measures

  Key targets

  The number of prisoners unlawfully at large.

  No 'A' category prisoners should escape.

  The number of escapes by B category prisoners should not exceed 2.5 per 1,000 prisoners.

  The number of significant incidents.

  The number of significant incidents should not exceed 11.

  The number of serious assaults on staff and prisoners

  The number of serious assaults on staff should not exceed 5 per 1,000 staff.

  The number of serious assaults on other prisoners should not exceed 10 per 1,000 prisoners.

  Basic quality of life for prisoners.

  By April 1995 60 per cent, of available prisoner places will have access to forms of night sanitation.

  The amount of available opportunities for prisoners' self development.

  80 per cent. of convicted prisoners should have the opportunity of at least 7 hours per working day of programmed activities.

  Time out of cell for unconvicted prisoners.

  On average 25 per cent. of unconvicted prisoner hours should be available for out of cell activities.

  Average annual cost per prisoner place.

  To keep costs within £26,624 per place available for use.

  244
  on NHS information and financial management. Another mailing is planned for summer 1994. MEC has been involved in providing trust-based programmes for clinical directors for eight NHS trusts to date; all those programmes include sessions on finance, contracting and NHS information.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to increase the participation of clinical directors in negotiating contracts within NHS trust hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Health boards and NHS trusts are responsible for deciding the make-up of their contracting negotiating teams. However, guidance issued by the management executive has always sought to encourage and emphasise the role of clinicians and other health professionals in the contracting process.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the KPMG consultants report on the Scottish ferry services will be published.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) yesterday,Official Report, 25 May 1994, column 208.

  Scottish Prison Service
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he has set the Scottish Prison Service agency for 1994–95.

  Mr. Lang
  I have set the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service the following targets:
  245

  Performance measures

  Key targets

  The level of absence through staff sickness.

  To reduce the average number of days lost per person per year through staff sickness to 18.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines or instructions he has given about the statistics or information that a hospital trust must keep.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 20 May 1994]: Guidance was issued on 27 April on the central requirements for work force information. Trusts are also expected to keep the same information and statistics which hospitals and health boards would have kept when the units were directly managed. In addition trusts are required to provide monthly returns to the management executive on their finances and activity.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Parliamentary Counsel
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 13 May,Official Report, columns 262–63, on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have authorised officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.

  Mr. Lilley
  On one occasion, 20 April 1994.

  Jurors
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to pay expenses and national insurance contributions for those on jury service who are unemployed on the same basis as for those in employment.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply. Members of the public performing jury service are subject to the same regulations in respect of allowances for expenses, whether unemployed or in emloyment. These regulations came into operation on 1 January 1979. Additionally, in April 1988 the Department of Social Security introduced a system to ensure that unemployed people on jury service could maintain a full national insurance contribution record in the same way as those in employment.

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals in each region have claimed industrial injuries disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis or emphysema under stage one of the approval scheme; and how many claims have been approved.

  Mr. Scott
  The table shows the number of valid claims received and the number successful as at 6 February 1994. Not all the claims received by 6 February would have been processed by that date.
  246

  Area

  Claims received

  Assessed at 14 per cent. or over disabled

  (South)

  Anglia

  9

  2

  Chilterns

  11

  0

  South East

  199

  20

  West Country

  59

  1

  Wales and Central England

  East Midlands

  2,665

  175

  Greater Manchester

  150

  19

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  1,113

  64

  Merseyside

  249

  19

  Midlands South West

  361

  30

  Wales

  5,197

  669

  West Mercia

  1,780

  181

  Scotland and North

  East Scotland

  1,391

  46

  Glasgow

  137

  1

  North and West Yorkshire

  1,317

  180

  North, Central and West Scotland

  1,101

  20

  South Yorkshire

  3,455

  347

  Tyne Tees

  4,023

  324

  TOTAL

  23,217

  2,098

  Note:

  Figures are based on a 100 per cent. count and subject to amendment.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether a student who is a parent without custody will have his or her income taken into account if earning money for more than five weeks and if the parent with custody applies for a maintenance assessment;

  (2) if he will make a statement about the operation of the Child Support Act 1991 in respect of students who are parents without custody;

  (3) whether a parent without custody who is a student will have earnings assessed for maintenance only if the parent with custody applies after the student has worked more than five weeks;

  (4) what are the rules governing the treatment of temporary earnings by students who are parents without custody;

  (5) whether income earned for more than five weeks by a student, who is a parent without custody, will be averaged and dealt with as the person's average income for the entire year whether or not the earnings continue; and whether that estimated annual income is added to grants or loans received by the student in calculating the amount of maintenance to be paid.

  Mr. Burt
  A maintenance assessment made by the Child Support Agency applies from the date that the maintenance inquiry form is issued to an absent parent or, where there was previously a court order, from two days after the assessment is made.

  There are special provisions for assessing maintenance where the absent parent is a student. He is not required to

  247
  make payments unless he has income other than from a grant, grant contribution or student loan. Where he does have other income and a maintenance assessment is made, the grant and loan elements are averaged to give a weekly income figure for the weeks for which they are paid. Any element in respect of the costs of his studies—such as examination fees or books—is ignored, as is £10 of the weekly value of a student loan.

  The absent parent's average weekly earnings are calculated over the year preceding the issue of the maintenance inquiry form. If he has been a student for a period of less than a year, the calculation is made for the period of studentship. Where child support officers, who make the assessments, consider that the calculation does not produce a representative figure, they have discretion to calculate earnings over a different period. In the vast majority of cases, students would not be liable for maintenance.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all those organisations which made submissions on the child support proposals following the publication in 1990 of "Children Come First", Cm 1264.

  Mr. Burt
  The following organisations responded to the White Paper "Children Come First", In addition, comments were received from some 100 private individuals and 85 hon. Members.

  ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ORGANISATIONS COMMENTING ON GOVERNMENT'S WHITE PAPER 'CHILDREN COME FIRST'
  Association of County Court and District Registrars

  Association of Metropolitan Authorities

  Barnado's

  Basildon Council

  Building Societies Association

  British Bankers Association

  British Agencies/Adoption and Fostering

  Bradford University (Department of Applied Social Studies)

  Bristol University

  British Computer Society

  Campaign for Justice in Divorce

  Campaign for Work

  Catholic Family Care Society (Northern Ireland)

  Chelmsford Women's Aid

  Chief Adjudication Officer:

  Social Security Legislation

  Child Poverty Action Group

  Children's Legal Centre

  Children & Lone Parent Centre (Plymouth)

  Church Action on Poverty

  Citizens Advice Bureau (Scotland)

  Confederation of British Industry (Northern Ireland)

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges

  County Councils Women's Forum

  Department of Economic Development (Northern Ireland) Disability Alliance

  Dudley Law Centre

  Gingerbread

  Gingerbread (Scotland)

  Families Need Fathers

  Family Charter Campaign

  Family Law Bar Association

  Family Welfare Association

  Forum of Private Businesses

  Hammersmith Unemployed Workers Group

  Hillingdon Women's Centre

  Justices' Clerks' Society

  Lambeth TUC Unemployed Branch

  Law Society

  Legal Action Group

  London Boroughs Association

  Magistrates Association

  248

  Mencap

  Moorpark Lone Parent Group

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  National Association of Welsh Medium Nursery Schools and Playgroups

  National Children's Home

  National Commission of Women in Great Britain

  National Council For One Parent Families

  National Council of Women of GB

  Newcastle University

  North East Money Advice Centre

  Northern Ireland Resident Magistrates Association

  Northern Ireland Family Law Association

  North Yorkshire Welfare Benefits Unit

  Norwich City Council

  One Plus One Parent Families Strathclyde

  One Parent Families York

  Oxfordshire Welfare Rights

  Pay Day

  Payroll Alliance

  Portsmouth Women's Aid Support Group

  Principal Registry of Family Division

  Save the Children

  Scottish Council for Single Parents

  Scottish Family Conciliation Service

  Scottish Law Commission

  Scottish Women's Aid

  Sheffield University

  Social Security Advisory Committee

  Social Security Medical Appeal Tribunals N.I.

  Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen Family Association

  Solicitors Family Law Association

  Spastics Society

  Stepfamily

  The Children's Society

  Thamesdown Law Centre

  TUC

  University College London

  Wages For Housework Campaign

  Wandsworth Social Services Department/Welfare Rights Unit

  Welsh Womens Aid Trust

  West Yorkshire Probation Service

  Womens National Commission

  Women's Aid Federation

  Wythenshawe Law Centre

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the response rates to all telephone inquiries to the inquiry line and Child Support Agency centres serving the west midlands within the last 12 months.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Ms Joan Walley, dated 26 May 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about telephone enquiries to the Child Support Agency.
  I am afraid that the Agency does not keep statistics in the form that you have requested. However, I can tell you that between 12 April 1993 and 8 April 1994, the Agency received a total of 676,018 calls on the National Enquiry Line, 97,887 of which were dealt with at the Agency's Centre in Dudley. On average, Dudley Centre also dealt with approximately 140,000 calls a month which were dialled to the Centre switchboard.
  The first year of the Agency's operations has stimulated a great deal of activity and I am aware of the difficulties experienced by some clients in contacting the Agency by telephone. We have already examined ways in which this service can be improved, and are now making some changes.
  From the end of June, new National Enquiry Line arrangements will be put into effect involving some 60-80 staff the majority of whom will already be experienced in dealing with telephone enquiries and who will be suitably trained in Agency business. These staff will be centrally located, rather than as now

  249
  spread throughout the Agency's Centres, with the aim of providing a more dedicated core service. Additionally, from the end of June the Agency will begin implementing a new system whereby each Centre will centralise its handling of telephone enquiries.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much extra money has gone to the Treasury since the Child Support Agency started operations;

  (2) how much extra money has gone to the children of families with an absent parent since the Child Support Agency started operations.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 26 May 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the amount of money which has gone to the Treasury and the amount to the children of families with an absent parent since the Child Support Agency started operations.
  At the end of March the Agency had recorded £335 million in benefit savings in 1993–94. This does not represent the total savings as some will be recorded retrospectively.
  Where maintenance is paid direct from one parent to the other, and the collection service provided by the Agency is not used, the Agency would not as a matter of course receive information on the amount or frequency of maintenance payments made. Records are therefore not available of the total sums paid.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 353 if he will explain the method used by his Department to calculate the number of cases taken on by the Child Support Agency where people were not already paying maintenance; and for what reason these figures are given as an estimate.

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

  Letter from Ros Hepplewhite to Mr. Geoffrey Hoon, dated 26 May 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about cases taken on by the Child Support Agency.
  The number of cases taken on by the Child Support Agency where people were not already paying maintenance is calculated from the number of cases of different types taken on by the Agency and the proportion of cases of each type in which maintenance was not already in payment.
  Whilst information is available on the number of cases of each type taken on, actual data on the proportions in which maintenance was not already in payment is not collected for all case types. These figures are therefore based on estimates which, for new and repeat income support cases, represent the proportion of cases with maintenance already in payment prior to Agency involvement and are derived from the Department's Annual Statistical Enquiry. For Family Credit cases a similar estimate is derived from the Departmental Family Credit Statistics.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the results of the consultation exercise on the possible introduction of a minimum solvency requirement for pension schemes.
  250
  Mr. Hague
  We received completed questionnaires on nearly 500 schemes showing their on-going funding level and solvency level calculated using a valuation method on the lines of that proposed by the Pension Law Review Committee. Those figures were compared with those obtained using a modified valuation method developed in the light of concerns expressed about the working of the original proposal. The findings will be of great help in the further development of an appropriate minimum solvency requirement and I am grateful to all who participated in the exercise. Results of the exercise are published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the social fund budget for his Department's offices within the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years; and what was the amount of loans made in each of those years.

  Mr. Scott
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Social Fund budgets for offices within the London Borough of Wandsworth.
  Statistical information is recorded by Benefits Agency District, the boundaries of which are not necessarily the same as Borough or constituency boundaries. I have, therefore, provided information for the South West Thames District which deals with the Borough of Wandsworth in addition to other Boroughs.
  Details of Social Fund budget allocations (grants and loans), and loan expenditure for the South West Thames District for the years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 are shown in the table at Annex A.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A Social Fund budgets and loan expenditure for the south west thames district for each of the last three financial years

  Grant allocation £

  Loan allocation £

  Loan expenditure £

  1991–92

  819,740

  1,877,056

  1,877,055

  1992–93

  998,614

  2,239,296

  2,239,298

  1993–94

  1,046,985

  2,551,123

  2,551,120

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Jury Service
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to equalise the treatment of unemployed people or jury service with those who are in employment with regard to payment of expenses and national insurance contributions.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  The regulations governing allowances for jurors' expenses, including national insurance contributions, have applied to those on jury service who are unemployed on the same basis as those in employment since they came into operation on 1 January 1979.

  Police Dogs
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has for the use of police dogs to aid in the identification of suspects on parades; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will commission research into the use of dogs in other countries for the purposes of identifying criminals at identification parades; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Any results obtained from using police dogs to identify suspects at identification parades would be of doubtful evidential value and I have no plans to encourage further work in this area.

  Prisoners (Transfer)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the extent to which the recommendations and undertakings made in the then Minister of State's statement of 23 November 1992,Official Report, columns 481–82, regarding temporary transfers of Irish prisoners to prisons in Northern Ireland have not yet been implemented, and the reasons for this;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons why prisoners' requests lodged with the Home Office since November 1992 for transfer to prison establishments in Northern Ireland have yet to be decided;

  (3) how many requests for transfers to prisons in Northern Ireland have been lodged with the Home Office in each of the last five years; and how many have been granted, refused or are undecided.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 23 November 1992, the Government accepted the recommendation made by an interdepartmental working group on the transfer of prisoners that prisoners refused a permanent transfer to another United Kingdom jurisdiction should be considered for a extended temporary transfer. Implementation of this recommendation has been delayed because of subsequent concerns about the legal position.

  The information requested on the number of requests made by prisoners to transfer to Northern Ireland and the outcome of these is given in the table.

  Requests made by prisoners to transfer to Northern Ireland

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  11993

  Requests received

  55

  59

  80

  68

  33

  Granted

  15

  3

  18

  13

  5

  Refused

  40

  36

  30

  24

  9

  Withdrawn

  3

  6

  14

  11

  5

  Note:

  Requests made in any given year may have been decided in a later year. 1Total number of requests undetermined at the end of 1993=69.

  Prison Births
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male foreign nationals and (b) female foreign nationals were born in prison in England and Wales at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  252
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 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 numbers of (a) male foreign nationals and (b) female foreign nationals born in prison in England at the latest available date.
  As you will know from the Director General's letter to you of 4 May, it is not usual for women serving a sentence of imprisonment to give birth in prison. Of 691 births to women who were serving a prison sentence in the last ten years only six were born in prison.
  I am afraid that we do not keep records of the nationality of children born to imprisoned mothers. I understand that those born before 1 January 1983 in this country would have been British by their birth here but after that time their nationality would depend on the nationality of their mother or father and/or their parents' immigration status at the time of the birth.

  Prison Visits
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the average distance travelled by relatives visiting inmates in training prisons at the latest available date;

  (2) what is the average distance travelled by relatives visiting inmates in womens prisons at the latest available date for which figures are available;

  (3) what is the average distance travelled by relatives visiting inmates in closed young offender institutions at the latest available date.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the average distances travelled by relatives visiting inmates in closed young offender institutions; women's prisons; and training prisons.
  No information is held centrally on the distances travelled by relatives visiting inmates in these establishments. However, the National Prison Survey conducted in January and February 1991, asked prisoners who had received a visit from family or friends in the three months before interview, how far their most important visitor had had to travel to visit them. The average distance travelled by all most important visitors who were relatives visiting inmates in:

  Miles

  Closed young offender institutions1

  75

  Womens prisons

  62

  Training prisons1

  82

  1 Includes visitors to both male and female prisoners.

  Drug Offences
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) male foreign nationals and (b) female foreign nationals in prison were convicted of drug offences at the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  253
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what percentage of male foreign nationals and female foreign nationals in prison were convicted of drug offences at the latest available date.
  On 31 March 1994 in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales 30 per cent. of sentenced male foreign nationals (excluding fine defaulters) were recorded centrally as being under sentence for drugs offences. The equivalent female percentage was 69 per cent.

  Immigration
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Raja, IMP A3 6383 4/6, PO 24915/93, currently in Germany, has been told by a letter from Her Majestys consulate general in Düsseldorf that no decision on his application to join his wife, Mrs. Carde Raja, a British citizen, of 145 High street, Linlithgow, can be made before a period of six to 12 months has elapsed.

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

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department will assess whether the marriage of an European economic area national is one of convenience; and how an European economic area national whose marriage is alleged to be one of convenience will be able to challenge or appeal against that assessment.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a marriage between a European Economic Area national and a non-EEA national is one of convenience for immigration purposes, further inquiries will be made before deciding the application. The determining factor will be the intention of the couple to live permanently together as man and wife in a settled and genuine relationship.

  An EEA national has a right of appeal against refusal of a residence permit.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications either for entry clearance or for leave to remain have been received in respect of the third country national family members of British citizens who have exercised rights under articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC treaty in another EU member state in each year since the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of Surinder Singh.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Since the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the case of Surinder Singh (C370/90) in July 1992, a total of 29 entry clearance applications have been made, at British diplomatic posts abroad, by persons who are not European Economic Area nationals and who have sought entry as family members of British citizens who have exercised treaty rights in another member state.

  Of these applications, eight were made in 1992; 19 were made in 1993; and two have been made so far in 1994.

  Information is not available on the number of applications made for leave to remain by such persons.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances he departs from 254
  recommendations from immigration adjudicators; whether there is any variation in practice in relation to recommendations from appeals against deportation with a restricted appeal right; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  It is the normal policy to accept adjudicators recommendations unless to do so would be unreasonable or inconsistent, or would undermine general policy. There is no variation in the application of this policy as between one type of appeal and another.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether non-visa, non-European Economic Area national family members of European economic area nationals established in the United Kingdom will be required to hold European Economic Area family permits to be granted entry.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, family members of a European Economic Area national who are not themselves EEA nationals and who seek admission to install themselves in the United Kingdom on a permanent or semi-permanent basis with the EEA national will need to hold an EEA family permit.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the Union have exercised their rights under articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC treaty in each of the last five years to apply for entry clearance or leave to remain for their third country national spouses and other family members to join or remain with them in the United Kingdom; and how many of these applicants have been interviewed about the circumstances of their marriage or other family relationship in each year.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, since March 1993 a total of 1,965 after entry applications were received—1,275 in 1993, 690 so far in 1994—from non-European Economic Area nationals for residence documents of both limited and unlimited validity as the spouse, or other family member, of an EEA national exercising a treaty right in the United Kingdom. In 39 applications involving marriage—23 in 1993, 16 so far in 1994—an interview was carried out.

  Yemen
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what plans Her Majestys Government has to offer sanctuary to non-Yemeni nationals resident in the Yemen who are forced to flee due to the civil war but whose travel documents do not confer a right of settlement elsewhere.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  None, but we are keeping the situation in the Yemen under review.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of applications for leave to remain or entry clearance have been refused to the third country national family members of citizens of the Union exercising free movement rights in the United Kingdom in accordance with the treaties in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Information is not available in the form requested. However of 1,251 applications received since March 1993 from non-European Economic Area nationals for residence documents of limited validity as the family member of an EEA national, 44 have been refused.
  255
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what measures have been put in place or are being put in place to give effect to the right under article 52 of the European. Community treaty of companies and other legal persons to establish themselves in business in the United Kingdom deploying such staff as the company considers best able to fulfil its requirements irrespective of the nationality of the staff;

  (2) how the Government have discharged their obligations under article 54(3)(f) of the EC treaty and the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment both as regards the conditions for setting up agencies, branches or subsidiaries in the United Kingdom and as regards the conditions governing the entry of personnel, including personnel not holding the citizenship of a member state or an European economic area state, belonging to the main establishment into managerial or supervisory posts in such agencies, branches or subsidiaries.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Following completion of the single market and implementation of the European Economic Area agreement, EEA nationals or companies may establish themselves here for business purposes including setting up agencies, branches or subsidiaries, under the same terms as United Kingdom businesses. EEA nationals have the right to enter the United Kingdom simply on production of a valid EEA passport or identity card and to work here in any capacity. Non-EEA nationals who wish to take up employment in the United Kingdom must satisfy the requirements of the immigration rules.

  Prisoners (Mental Health)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales received some form of mental health care in each of the last five years.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners in England and Wales received some form of mental health care in each of the last five years.
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, Prison Service medical officers carry out medical monitoring at regular intervals within their establishments. The most up to date information held centrally is for February 1994 and is set out in the table below with comparative figures for the two previous years.

  February 1994

  February 1993

  February 1992

  Mentally disordered prisoners awaiting transfer to hospital

  136

  123

  92

  Mentally disordered prisoners being treated in prison health care centres

  802

  415

  671

  Other prisoners requiring mental health care

  1,766

  2,343

  1,515

  Electoral Procedures
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from electoral administrators about the rules requiring verification of unused ballot papers at a count; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My officials have received two representations from electoral administrators on this matter since June 1990. But my right hon. and learned Friend has at present no plans to propose a change to the rules.

  Prisons (Listener Schemes)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons in England and Wales listener schemes are in operation.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking in which prisons in England and Wales listener schemes are in operation.
  There are fifty prisons in which such schemes are in operation, as follows:

  Albany

  Ashwell

  Aylesbury

  Belmarsh

  Blantyre House

  Bristol

  Brixton

  Bullingdon

  Cardiff

  Castington

  Chelmsford

  Dartmoor

  Deerbolt

  Dorchester

  Downview

  Durham

  Elmley

  Exeter

  Ford

  Gartree

  Gloucester

  High Down

  Holloway

  Hull

  Lancaster Farms

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Leyhill

  Lincoln

  Lindholme

  Long Lartin

  Morton Hall

  The Mount

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Pentonville

  Portland

  Prescoed

  Ranby

  Rudgate

  Send

  Shepton Mallet

  Stocken

  Styal

  Swaleside

  Swansea

  257

  Usk

  The Verne

  Wandsworth

  Winchester.

  In addition, there are 14 other prisons where the listener scheme is scheduled to begin by the end of this year.

  Acklington

  Birmingham

  Drake Hall

  Garth

  Grendon

  Guys Marsh

  Hadfield

  Kirkham

  Lewes

  Manchester

  Northallerton

  Parkhurst

  Stafford

  Whatton

  Prisons (Substance Abuse)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in which prisons in England and Wales drug abuse programmes are available to prisoners; and how many prisoners(a) commenced and (b) completed the programme in each prison in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94;

  (2) in which prisons in England and Wales alcohol abuse programmes are available to prisoners; and how many prisoners (a) commenced and (b) completed the programme in each prison in (i) 1992–92 and (ii) 1993–94.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about drug abuse programmes in prisons in England and Wales.
  The Prison Service does not collate statistics on drugs abuse programmes centrally. A wide range of drug treatments are available across the prison system carried out by a variety of prison staff, including medical officers, psychologists, probation officers and health care officers, and using a number of different approaches such as detoxification, behavioural treatment and counselling. The Prison Service is currently developing a strategy on drugs with the aim of bringing together the reduction of supply and reduction of demand for drugs in prison. As part of this developing strategy a survey of drug abuse programmes is currently being carried out. Of the 75 prisons so far surveyed 98.7 per cent. (74) of establishments provided some form of treatment or education programmes for prisoners with drug misuse

  Table A: Persons sentenced at magistrates courts for all offences by month, type of offence and type of sentence England and Wales 1992

  Total sentenced

  Indictable offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  23,544

  100

  1,341

  6

  22,203

  94

  February

  20,673

  100

  1,172

  6

  19,501

  94

  March

  22,047

  100

  1,255

  6

  20,792

  94

  April

  20,117

  100

  1,157

  6

  18,960

  94

  May

  17,867

  100

  975

  5

  16,892

  95

  June

  20,402

  100

  1,040

  5

  19,362

  95

  July

  20,295

  100

  1,067

  5

  19,228

  95

  August

  18,301

  100

  1,017

  6

  17,284

  94

  September

  20,454

  100

  1,035

  5

  19,419

  95

  October

  20,699

  100

  483

  2

  20,216

  98

  258
  problems and 96 per cent. (72) of establishments provided some form of treatment or education for prisoners with alcohol problems. The statistics showing the type of treatment programmes available to individual and groups of prisoners for drug treatment and alcohol treatment are provided in annex 1.

  Percentage of establishments providing this service for prisoners

  Drug Treatment Programmes for Individual Prisoners

  Detoxification

  34.7

  Maintenance prescribing

  16.0

  Counselling

  84.0

  Drug awareness training

  62.7

  Tackling offending behaviour

  65.3

  Instruction in harm minimisation

  52.0

  Narcotics anonymous

  17.3

  Drugs use and HIV infection

  74.7

  Drug Treatment Programmes for Groups of Prisoners

  Counselling

  56.0

  Drug awareness training

  74.7

  Tackling offending behaviour

  66.7

  Instruction in harm minimisation

  52.0

  Support groups for families

  4.0

  Narcotics anonymous

  17.3

  Drugs use and HIV infection

  76.0

  Alcohol Treatment Programmes for Individual Prisoners

  Detoxification

  28.0

  Counselling

  72.0

  Alcohol awareness training

  61.3

  Tackling offending behaviour

  54.7

  Alcoholics anonymous

  40.0

  Alcohol Treatment Programmes for Groups of Prisoners

  Counselling

  42.7

  Tackling offending behaviour

  65.3

  Support groups for families

  4.0

  Alcoholics anonymous

  46.7

  Sentencing
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of people sentenced in the courts received(a) a custodial sentence and (b) a non-custodial sentence each month from January 1992 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on sentencing for both the magistrates court and the Crown Court for 1992 is given in tables A to C. 1993 data will not be available until the autumn. Data provided by the Lord Chancellors Department for committals for trial at the Crown court are given in table D.
  259

  Total sentenced

  Indictable offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  November

  19,886

  100

  609

  3

  19,277

  97

  December

  17,131

  100

  645

  4

  16,486

  96

  Total

  241,416

  100

  11,796

  5

  229,620

  95

  Total sentenced

  Summary non-motoring offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  41,146

  100

  438

  1

  40,708

  99

  February

  35,672

  100

  359

  1

  35,313

  99

  March

  40,817

  100

  380

  1

  40,437

  99

  April

  37,268

  100

  314

  1

  36,954

  99

  May

  36,018

  100

  266

  1

  35,752

  99

  June

  42,138

  100

  336

  1

  41,802

  99

  July

  41,937

  100

  322

  1

  41,615

  99

  August

  36,881

  100

  300

  1

  36,581

  99

  September

  41,214

  100

  277

  1

  40,937

  99

  October

  39,647

  100

  143

  0

  39,504

  100

  November

  39,799

  100

  187

  0

  39,612

  100

  December

  32,540

  100

  164

  1

  32,376

  99

  Total

  465,077

  100

  3,486

  1

  461,591

  99

  Total sentenced

  Summary motoring offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  61,977

  100

  612

  1

  61,365

  99

  February

  54,875

  100

  536

  1

  54,339

  99

  March

  61,195

  100

  593

  1

  60,602

  99

  April

  57,310

  100

  496

  1

  56,814

  99

  May

  52,930

  100

  436

  1

  52,494

  99

  June

  62,771

  100

  494

  1

  62,277

  99

  July

  64,265

  100

  545

  1

  63,720

  99

  August

  58,781

  100

  507

  1

  58,274

  99

  September

  63,925

  100

  450

  1

  63,475

  99

  October

  61,495

  100

  306

  0

  61,189

  100

  November

  59,806

  100

  368

  1

  59,438

  99

  December

  50,443

  100

  355

  1

  50,088

  99

  Total

  709,773

  100

  5,698

  1

  704,075

  99

  Total sentenced

  All offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  126,667

  100

  2,391

  2

  124,276

  98

  February

  111,220

  100

  2,067

  2

  109,153

  98

  March

  124,059

  100

  2,228

  2

  121,831

  98

  April

  114,695

  100

  1,967

  2

  112,728

  98

  May

  106,815

  100

  1,677

  2

  105,138

  98

  June

  125,311

  100

  1,870

  1

  123,441

  99

  July

  126,497

  100

  1,934

  2

  124,563

  98

  August

  113,963

  100

  1,824

  2

  112,139

  98

  September

  125,593

  100

  1,762

  1

  123,831

  99

  October

  121,841

  100

  932

  1

  120,909

  99

  November

  119,491

  100

  1,164

  1

  118,327

  99

  December

  100,114

  100

  1,164

  1

  98,950

  99

  Total

  1,416,266

  100

  20,980

  1

  1,395,286

  99

  260 261

  Table B: Persons sentenced at the Crown Court for all offences by month, type of offence and type of sentence England and Wales 1992

  Total sentenced

  Indictable offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  7,990

  100

  3,622

  45

  4,368

  55

  February

  7,623

  100

  3,412

  45

  4,211

  55

  March

  8,094

  100

  3,742

  46

  4,352

  54

  April

  6,490

  100

  3,000

  46

  3,490

  54

  May

  6,554

  100

  2,960

  45

  3,594

  55

  June

  7,035

  100

  3,202

  46

  3,833

  54

  July

  7,919

  100

  3,637

  46

  4,282

  54

  August

  5,495

  100

  2,468

  45

  3,027

  55

  September

  6,496

  100

  2,889

  44

  3,607

  56

  October

  5,802

  100

  2,273

  39

  3,529

  61

  November

  6,268

  100

  2,538

  40

  3,730

  60

  December

  5,351

  100

  2,210

  41

  3,141

  59

  Total

  81,117

  100

  35,953

  44

  45,164

  56

  Total sentenced

  Summary non-motoring offences— Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  315

  100

  79

  25

  236

  75

  February

  273

  100

  54

  20

  219

  80

  March

  300

  100

  68

  23

  232

  77

  April

  240

  100

  52

  22

  188

  78

  May

  190

  100

  41

  22

  149

  78

  June

  266

  100

  52

  20

  214

  80

  July

  294

  100

  68

  23

  226

  77

  August

  176

  100

  43

  24

  133

  76

  September

  221

  100

  50

  23

  171

  77

  October

  218

  100

  36

  17

  182

  83

  November

  197

  100

  30

  15

  167

  85

  December

  161

  100

  34

  21

  127

  79

  Total

  2,851

  100

  607

  21

  2,244

  79

  Total sentenced

  Summary non-motoring offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  141

  100

  43

  30

  98

  70

  February

  117

  100

  43

  37

  74

  63

  March

  142

  100

  49

  35

  93

  65

  April

  91

  100

  36

  40

  55

  60

  May

  123

  100

  52

  42

  71

  58

  June

  112

  100

  38

  34

  74

  66

  July

  131

  100

  50

  38

  81

  62

  August

  105

  100

  36

  34

  69

  66

  September

  127

  100

  40

  31

  87

  69

  October

  104

  100

  18

  17

  86

  83

  November

  111

  100

  25

  23

  86

  77

  December

  83

  100

  18

  22

  65

  78

  Total

  1,387

  100

  448

  32

  939

  68

  Total sentenced

  All offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  8,446

  100

  3,744

  44

  4,702

  56

  February

  8,013

  100

  3,509

  44

  4,504

  56

  March

  8,536

  100

  3,859

  45

  4,677

  55

  April

  6,821

  100

  3,088

  45

  3,733

  55

  May

  6,867

  100

  3,053

  44

  3,814

  56

  June

  7,413

  100

  3,292

  44

  4,121

  56

  July

  8,344

  100

  3,755

  45

  4,589

  55

  August

  5,776

  100

  2,547

  44

  3,229

  56

  September

  6,844

  100

  2,979

  44

  3,865

  56

  October

  6,124

  100

  2,327

  38

  3,797

  62

  November

  6,576

  100

  2,593

  39

  3,983

  61

  262 263

  Total sentenced

  All offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  December

  5,595

  100

  2,262

  40

  3,333

  60

  Total

  85,355

  100

  37,008

  43

  48,347

  57

  Table C: Persons sentenced at all tours for all offences by month, type of offence and type of sentence England and Wales 1992

  Total sentenced

  Indictable offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  31,534

  100

  4,963

  16

  26,571

  84

  February

  28,296

  100

  4,584

  16

  23,712

  84

  March

  30,141

  100

  4,997

  17

  25,144

  83

  April

  26,607

  100

  4,157

  16

  22,450

  84

  May

  24,421

  100

  3,935

  16

  20,486

  84

  June

  27,437

  100

  4,242

  15

  23,195

  85

  July

  28,214

  100

  4,704

  17

  23,510

  83

  August

  23,796

  100

  3,485

  15

  20,311

  85

  September

  26,950

  100

  3,924

  15

  23,026

  85

  October

  26,501

  100

  2,756

  10

  23,745

  90

  November

  26,154

  100

  3,147

  12

  23,007

  88

  December

  22,482

  100

  2,855

  13

  19,627

  87

  Total

  322,533

  100

  47,749

  15

  274,784

  85

  Summary non-motoring offences Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  41,461

  100

  517

  1

  40,944

  99

  February

  35,945

  100

  413

  1

  35,532

  99

  March

  41,117

  100

  448

  1

  40,669

  99

  April

  37,508

  100

  366

  1

  37,142

  99

  May

  36,208

  100

  307

  1

  35,901

  99

  June

  42,404

  100

  388

  1

  42,016

  99

  July

  42,231

  100

  390

  1

  41,841

  99

  August

  37,057

  100

  343

  1

  36,714

  99

  September

  41,435

  100

  327

  1

  41,108

  99

  October

  39,865

  100

  179

  0

  39,686

  100

  November

  39,996

  100

  217

  1

  39,779

  99

  December

  32,701

  100

  198

  1

  32,503

  99

  Total

  467,928

  100

  4,093

  1

  463,835

  99

  Total sentenced

  Summary non-motoring offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  62,118

  100

  655

  1

  61,463

  99

  February

  54,992

  100

  579

  1

  54,413

  99

  March

  61,337

  100

  642

  1

  60,695

  99

  April

  57,401

  100

  532

  1

  56,869

  99

  May

  53,053

  100

  488

  1

  52,565

  99

  June

  62,883

  100

  532

  1

  62,351

  99

  July

  64,396

  100

  595

  1

  63,801

  99

  August

  58,886

  100

  543

  1

  58,343

  99

  September

  64,052

  100

  490

  1

  63,562

  99

  October

  61,599

  100

  324

  1

  61,275

  99

  November

  59,917

  100

  393

  1

  59,524

  99

  December

  50,526

  100

  373

  1

  50,153

  99

  Total

  711,160

  100

  6,146

  1

  705,014

  99

  Total sentenced

  All offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  135,113

  100

  6,135

  5

  128,978

  95

  February

  119,233

  100

  5,576

  5

  113,657

  95

  March

  132,595

  100

  6,087

  5

  126,508

  95

  264 265

  Total sentenced

  All offences Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  April

  121,516

  100

  5,055

  4

  116,461

  96

  May

  113,682

  100

  4,730

  4

  108,952

  96

  June

  132,724

  100

  5,162

  4

  127,562

  96

  July

  134,841

  100

  5,689

  4

  129,152

  96

  August

  119,739

  100

  4,371

  4

  115,368

  96

  September

  132,437

  100

  4,741

  4

  127,696

  96

  October

  127,965

  100

  3,259

  3

  124,706

  97

  November

  126,067

  100

  3,757

  3

  122,310

  97

  December

  105,709

  100

  3,426

  3

  102,283

  97

  Total

  1,501,621

  100

  57,988

  4

  1,443,633

  96

  Table D: Proportionate use of immediate custody for defendants sentenced at the Crown court following committal for trial. England and Wales 1992–94

  Month

  1992

  1993

  1994

  January

  48

  42

  52

  February

  48

  46

  54

  March

  49

  47

  52

  April

  50

  49

  —

  May

  49

  50

  —

  June

  49

  51

  —

  July

  48

  52

  —

  August

  48

  54

  —

  September

  48

  54

  —

  October

  42

  52

  —

  November

  42

  52

  —

  December

  43

  54

  —

  Prisons (Drug Testing)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of the introduction of drug testing in prisons for the year 1994–95 and for each of the next four years.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 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 estimated cost of drug testing in prisons.
  It is not possible at this stage to estimate the cost of drug testing over the next four or five years. This will depend on a number of factors, such as the number and frequency of tests, which will be addressed in pilot schemes which we plan to conduct later this year.

  Obscene Publications Branch
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department , pursuant to his oral answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 941, (1) on what date he expects the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to complete his review of the structure of the obscene publications branch; and why reference to the existence of the obscene publications branch has been deleted from the 1994 edition of the Police and Constabulary Almanac official register;
  266
  (2) who took the decision to delete from the 1994 edition of the Police and Constabulary Almanac official register all mention of the obscene publications branch of the Metropolitan police;

  (3) whether he was consulted about and informed of the decision to delete from the 1994 edition of the Police and Constabulary Almanac official register all mention of the obscene publications branch of the Metropolitan police; and whether this decision is consistent with his policy on the future of the branch.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Commissioner that he expects to receive the final report of the restructuring review of specialist operations, which includes the obscene publications branch, in August.

  The lack of a specific reference to the obscene publications branch in the 1994 edition of the Police and Constabulary Almanac is the result of an administrative oversight within the Metropolitan police. The error has been noted for correction.

  Police Cells
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held in police cells.

  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 Mrs. Roche, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many prisoners are currently held in police cells.
  On Monday 23 May, the latest date for which complete information is available, 130 prisoners were held in police cells.

  Prisons (Anger Management Programmes)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons in England and Wales anger management programmes are available to prisoners; and how many prisoners(a) commenced and (b) completed the programme in each prison in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  267
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question to the Secretary of State for the Home Department about which prisons in England and Wales provide anger management programmes and the numbers of prisoners commencing and completing the programme in each prison.
  Teams of tutors from the following establishments were trained to run the anger management programme as follows:

  1. Between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 1993:

  HMP Elmley

  HMP Featherstone

  HMP Frankland

  HMP Highdown

  HMP Leeds

  HMP Long Lartin

  HMP Manchester

  HMP Risley

  HMYOI Brinsford

  HMYOI Bullwood Hall

  HMYOI Dover

  HMYOI Feltham

  HMYOI Hollesley Bay

  HMYOI Huntercombe

  HMYOI Lancaster Farms

  HMYOI Moorland

  HMYOI Onley

  2. Between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1994:

  HMP Albany

  HMP Ashwell

  HMP Belmarsh

  HMP Birmingham

  HMP Bullingdon

  HMP Camp Hill

  HMP Canterbury

  HMP Coldingley

  HMP Full Sutton

  HMP Highpoint

  HMP Lincoln

  HMP Lindholme

  HMP The Mount

  HMP Nottingham

  HMP Parkhurst

  HMP Ranby

  HMP Stocken

  HMP Wakefield

  HMP Wayland

  HMP Wandsworth

  HMP Whatton

  HMP Woodhill

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  HMRC Reading

  HMYOI Aylesbury

  HMYOI Erlestoke

  HMYOI Stoke Heath

  HMYOI Swinfen Hall

  The frequency of anger management programmes and numbers of prisoners attending in any given year are not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Fine Defaulters
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners in England and Wales were serving sentences for fine defaults at the latest available date, given(a) as an absolute number and (b) as a percentage of the prison population, and broken down by gender.
  268
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many prisoners in England and Wales were serving sentences for fine defaults at the latest available date, given (a) as an absolute number and (b) as a percentage of the prison population, and broken down by gender.
  On 31 March 1994 there were 585 fine defaulters (557 Males and 28 Females) held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. They accounted for 1.2 per cent. of the total prison population (including prisoners held in police cells). Male fine defaulters accounted for 1.2 per cent. of the male prison population; the equivalent female percentage was 1.6 per cent.

  Murder Cases
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the matters referred to him by the hon. Member for Woolwich in respect of the Rolan Adams and Stephen Lawrence murder cases;

  (2) what evidence he has seen to suggest that a police officer was involved in discrediting the evidence of an eye witness to the murder of Stephen Lawrence;

  (3) what was the involvement with key witnesses in the Stephen Lawrence and Rolan Adams murder cases of the police officer whose name has been supplied to him; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that he is considering information which has been supplied to him in connection with the matter referred to by the hon. Member.

  Deportation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to publish reports of investigating officers into complaints about excessive force by the employees of private security firms during deportations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  No. It is not normal practice to publish investigating officers reports.

  Prisoners Compacts
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons in England and Wales prisoners compacts are in operation; what is the, procedure by which the content of the individual compact is decided; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question

  269
  asking which prisons in England and Wales prisoners compacts are in operation; what is the procedure by which the content of the individual compact is decided; and if he will make a statement.
  Listed below are those establishments which, in June 1993, the latest date for which the information is available, were operating prisoners compacts:

  Blantyre House

  Brinsford

  Bristol (Pilot scheme in one wing)

  Canterbury (Unconvicted wing and Resettlement wing)

  Cardiff (Remand wing)

  Deerbolt (Pilot scheme)

  Drake Hall

  Erlestoke (Education Department)

  Haslar

  Kirklevington Grange

  Leyhill

  Lindholme (One wing)

  Low Newton

  Manchester (Education Department)

  Moorland

  Swinfen Hall

  Thorn Cross

  Thorpe Arch

  Werrington

  Wetherby

  Compacts were also being experimented with at the following establishments:

  Bullwood Hall

  Downview

  Frankland

  Hull

  Latchmere House

  Morton Hall

  North Sea Camp

  Norwich

  Rudgate

  Swaleside

  Usk/Prescoed

  Wakefield

  Whitemoor

  Wolds

  The procedure by which the content of the individual compact is decided is a matter for the governor of the establishment concerned, taking account of advice which was issued in December 1993. This set out a model prisoner compact and advice on developing a compact locally.

  Prison Suicides
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female suicides there were in prisons in 1993–94.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many (a) male and (b) female suicides there were in prisons in 1993–94.

  The information is shown in the table below:

  Year

  Male

  female

  1993

  46

  1

  1994

  16

  0

  Prisons (Cognitive Skills Programmes)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons in England and Wales cognitive skills programmes are available to prisoners; and how many prisoners(a) commenced and (b) completed the programme in each prison in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about which prisons in England and Wales provide cognitive skills programmes and the numbers of prisoners commencing and completing the programme in each prison.
  The centrally managed cognitive skills programme was introduced in the financial year 1993–94. Pilot programmes were introduced in 11 establishments.

  1. Piloting Reasoning and Rehabilitation cognitive skills programme:

  HMYOI Aylesbury

  HMYOI Brinsford

  HMYOI Full Sutton

  HMYOI Glen Parva

  HMYOI Grendon

  HMP Holloway

  HMYOI Lancaster Farms

  HMP Leyhill

  HMYOI Swinfen Hall

  2. Piloting In-house cognitive skills programme:

  HMYOI Lancaster Farms

  HMP Wakefield

  HMP Wandsworth

  3. Prisoners completing the programme 1993–94 are as follows:

  Establishment

  Started

  Completed

  Reasoning and Rehabilitation Cognitive Skills Programme

  HMYOI Aylesbury

  8

  6

  HMYOI Brinsford

  22

  11

  HMP Full Sutton

  17

  17

  HMYOI Glen Parva

  7

  3

  HMYOI Grendon

  10

  8

  HMP Holloway

  17

  13

  HMYOI Lancaster Farms

  8

  4

  HMP Leyhill

  8

  6

  HMYOI Swinfen Hall

  7

  5

  In-house Cognitive Skills Programme

  HMYOI Lancaster Farms

  10

  8

  HMP Wakefield

  36

  31

  HMP Wandsworth

  9

  7

  TOTAL

  159

  109

  Prisoners (AIDS)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for, the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 161, to what extent doctors in the prison service are expected to take into account the risk of the AIDS virus being spread by the sharing of heroin needles when deciding whether to prescribe methadone.

  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.
  271
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to what extent doctors in the prison service are expected to take into account the risk of the AIDS virus being spread by the sharing of heroin needles when deciding whether to prescribe methadone.
  The decision on whether to prescribe methadone to prisoners is a clinical judgment at which prison medical officers are expected to arrive in the same way as medical practitioners do in the community outside prison. This means that they would take into account all the relevant factors including HIV and AIDS. Prison medical officers have the clinical freedom to prescribe pharmaceutically or otherwise to protect the health of individual prisoners. This has been made clear in all HIV/AIDS training in prisons and was recently reinforced by a letter from the Director of Health Care in the Prison Service in a letter to all prison doctors on the 18 May 1994. A copy of this letter is enclosed.

  Following is the letter referred to in Mr. Butlers communication:

  Dear Doctor

  TRANSMISSION OF HIV WITHIN THE PRISON CONTEXT
  The first recorded case of HIV transmission within the English Prison Service has been reported and confirmed. The transmission was by sexual contact. Cases of transmission reported from Glenochil Young Offender Centre in Scotland last year were caused by injecting with contaminated needles.
  I draw this case to your attention to remind you of the need to continue to give high priority to HIV/AIDS awareness, and to have in place a strategy for the management of HIV/AIDS in your prison. All prisons should have HIV multi-disciplinary teams as outlined in Circular Instruction 30/1991. Following the completion of the 1993 Training Programme prisons should also have trained HIV counsellors and trained HIV care and support officers who are available to develop education programmes and offer advice to staff and prisoners. The multi-disciplinary teams need to consider contingency plans for HIV emergencies including outbreaks of HIV, hepatitis B or other infectious diseases related to HIV. The medical officers, trained counsellors and care and support officers must be able to provide support and advice if such an incident occurs in each prison.
  Doctors have particular responsibility to communicate relavant medical information promptly to their medical colleagues both inside and outside of the Service. Where transmission of HIV occurring within the prison context is documented, it is important that this information is provided to the health care adviser and the Directorate of Health Care. The names of the infected individuals need not be divulged.
  It is important that liaison between the doctor in the prison, the health care adviser and the Directorate is achieved in order that the most appropriate action is taken, and that any relevant questions which may be raised in the media or in Parliament can be dealt with appropriately.
  Doctors have a responsibility to ensure that any person known to have HIV infection has access to regular medical monitoring (both clinical and laboratory). This is outlined in the Circular Instruction. Regular medical monitoring must include counselling on safer sexual behaviour and safer drugs use to minimise the risk of spread of HIV infection.
  Doctors have the clinical freedom to prescribe pharmaceutically or otherwise to protect the health of individual prisoners. Legal advice is that doctors who so prescribe for their patients with appropriate advice, in the exercise of their clinical judgment, could expect protection in law for doing so.
  Any queries about this DDL should be addressed to Dr. Robin Ilbert or Mr. L. Curran.

  Sentences (Cost)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost per month of(a) keeping someone in prison and (b) sentencing someone to community-based penalties in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In 1992–93 the average monthly net operating cost per prisoner place was £2,019 and the cost of community sentences between £104 and £108.

  In 1993–94 the average monthly cost of community sentences was between £106 and £110. Figures for the monthly net operating cost per prisoner place for 1993–94 are not yet available.

  Restraint Use
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ethnic origin of those(a) prison inmates and (b) persons in police custody on whom restraints were used during 1993.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what was the ethnic origin of those (a) prison inmates and (b) persons in police custody on whom restraints were used during 1993.
  I am afraid that the information is not available centrally.

  Pre-sentence Reports
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations his Department has received regarding the proposal in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to abolish the requirement for a pre-sentence report before imposing custody or a community sentence; and how many of those representations were in favour of abolition.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since this proposal was brought forward in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, the Home Office has received 22 representations, all opposing it.

  Prison Sanitation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison cells currently have access to sanitation; and what proportion this is of all prison cells.

  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 Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 26 May 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 number of prison cells which have access to sanitation.
  A significant number of prisoners are held in non cellular
  accommodation, in units which we describe as cubicular. A small

  273
  number are held in dormitories, although this type of accommodation is being phased out. Our data, therefore, about work to achieve 100 per cent. access to sanitation is provided solely on the basis of prison places, without differentiating between cellular and non-cellular accommodation. Also, the programme is monitored in terms of work to be done.
  At the end of April there were still just over 4,000 cells in use without access to sanitation. Some 700 of these are being modernised in the course of projects which are already underway and the remainder in projects which are scheduled to start between now and February 1996. 91 per cent. of prison places in use now have full time access to sanitation.
  The Prison Service continues to give very high priority to the sanitation programme. Our aim is to ensure that at least 95 per cent. of prisoners have access to sanitation by the end of 1994/95 and that 100 per cent. is achieved by February 1996, in line with the recommendations of the Woolf report.

  Sex Offenders (Treatment)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which prisons in England and Wales sex offender treatment programmes are available to prisoners; and how many prisoners(a) commenced and (b) completed the programme in each prison in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Prison

  Number Assessed

  Number completed Core Programme

  Number Assessed

  Number completed Core Programme

  Acklington1

  —

  —

  27

  —

  Albany

  27

  16

  40

  35

  Channings Wood

  24

  16

  44

  34

  Dartmoor

  97

  43

  54

  20

  Full Sutton

  33

  10

  70

  19

  Leyhill2

  —

  —

  14

  7

  Littlehey

  28

  12

  98

  24

  Maidstone

  40

  13

  45

  14

  Risley

  24

  22

  58

  28

  Swinfen Hall3

  22

  14

  19

  14

  Usk

  33

  25

  50

  41

  Wakefield

  69

  14

  103

  40

  Wandsworth

  21

  16

  48

  19

  Wayland

  56

  38

  60

  35

  Whatton

  40

  40

  50

  48

  Whitemoor

  30

  5

  79

  28

  Woodhill

  8

  —

  33

  33

  Wymott4

  —

  —

  12

  —

  TOTALS

  552

  284

  904

  439

  1 HMP Acklington has offered the Core Programme 1993–94 only.

  2 HMP Leyhill has offered the Core Programme 1993–94 only.

  3 HMYOI Swinfen Hall is currently the only young offender institution which offers the Core Programme.

  4 HMP Wymott has offered the Core Programme 1993–94 only.

  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to deal with overcrowding in prisons; what assessment he has made of the effect of overcrowding on the safety of prison staff and prisoners; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what measures he is taking to deal with prison overcrowding; and what are his plans regarding the use of (a) police cells, (b) temporary buildings or portakabins and (c) prison ships or barges.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  274
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 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 availability of sex offender treatment programmes in prisons in England and Wales and the numbers of prisoners commencing and completing the programme in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.
  The centrally managed sex offender treatment programme is now available in 17 adult male and one young offender male establishments.
  Other prisons where locally managed programmes are in operation include HMP Grendon and HMP Wormwood Scrubs.
  The number of prisoners having their treatment needs assessed and those completing treatment on the centrally managed programme is as shown in the attached table.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 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 measures being taken to deal with prison overcrowding and the use of police cells, temporary buildings and prison ships or barges; and also about the effect of overcrowding on staff and prisoner safety.
  The majority of Prison Service establishments are not overcrowded. Despite the rise in the prison population, overcrowding has reduced markedly from the high levels of the late 1980s. In 1987–88, an average of over 5,000 prisoners shared three to a cell designed for one. By the end of March 1994, no prisoners were sharing in this way. In 1987–88, an average of nearly 13,400 prisoners shared two to a cell designed for one. By the end of March 1994 there were only 8,500.
  To reduce overcrowding and maximise the use of available accommodation, sentenced prisoners are transferred as quickly as possible from local prisons and remand centres, where the population pressures are most acute, to training prisons and young offender institutions. In addition, some establishments

  275
  have changed the type of prisoner they take to fit better with current needs and the court catchment areas of some local prisons and remand centres have been adjusted to equalise population pressures as far as possible. Further progress in reducing overcrowding will be made as additional accommodation at existing prisons and new places at new prisons come on stream.
  Some use of police cells has been necessary in the North of England since the beginning of 1994. The number of prisoners held in police cells peaked at 540 in mid-March but had reduced to 130 on 23 May. If there is no unplanned loss of accommodation or exceptional surge in the prison population, the current use of police cells should end during June. Every effort will be made to avoid future use of police cells.
  There are no present plans to use accommodation such as military camps or floating facilities, but some use of temporary buildings within prison establishments will continue to to made to enable progress with the building and refurbishment programme to continue.
  Each establishment has an operational capacity which is set at the number of prisoners who can be held without serious risk to good order—including the safety of staff and prisoners—or to security and the proper running of the planned regime. It remains a top priority of the Prison Serice to ensure that the number of prisoners held in an establishment is kept within the establishment's operational capacity.

  24 May 1994

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation in use

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Acklington

  658

  658

  606

  Albany

  436

  436

  391

  Aldington

  127

  127

  118

  Ashwell

  404

  404

  383

  Askham Grange

  126

  127

  101

  Aylesbury

  241

  246

  213

  Bedford

  303

  329

  308

  Belmarsh

  841

  841

  736

  Birmingham

  558

  869

  786

  Blakenhurst

  649

  649

  615

  Blantyre House

  95

  95

  95

  Blundeston

  408

  408

  385

  Brinsford

  446

  446

  465

  Bristol

  423

  473

  430

  Brixton

  483

  656

  630

  Brockhill

  135

  135

  132

  Bullingdon

  635

  635

  607

  Bullwood Hall

  125

  125

  121

  Camp Hill

  378

  441

  365

  Canterbury

  184

  275

  263

  Cardiff

  334

  450

  431

  Castington

  300

  300

  296

  Channings Wood

  594

  594

  560

  Chelmsford

  230

  393

  353

  Coldingley

  292

  292

  284

  Cookham Wood

  120

  120

  115

  Dartmoor

  538

  538

  515

  Deerbolt

  450

  450

  383

  Dorchester

  138

  200

  205

  Dover

  316

  316

  228

  Downview

  287

  291

  270

  Drake Hall

  255

  255

  200

  Durham

  399

  577

  611

  East Sutton Park

  94

  94

  84

  Elmley

  627

  627

  621

  Erlestoke

  250

  250

  234

  Everthorpe

  228

  228

  223

  Exeter

  274

  473

  383

  Featherstone

  599

  599

  580

  Feltham

  842

  842

  776

  Finnamore Wood

  106

  106

  50

  Ford

  536

  536

  455

  Frankland

  447

  432

  425

  Full Sutton

  604

  576

  542

  Garth

  512

  512

  496

  Gartree

  277

  277

  271

  Glen Parva

  767

  788

  757

  Gloucester

  215

  271

  238

  Grendon

  190

  186

  177

  Prison Statistics
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) certified normal accommodation, (b) operational activity and (c) actual population at each prison in England and Wales at the latest available date.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service accommodation and population.
  The attached table shows the certified normal accommodation (CNA), operational capacity and actual population in each establishment in England and Wales on 24 May 1994. A copy of the table has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  277

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation in use

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Guys Marsh

  240

  180

  182

  Hollesley Bay

  365

  365

  316

  Haslar

  131

  131

  130

  Hatfield

  180

  180

  155

  Haverigg

  381

  381

  351

  Hewell Grange

  156

  174

  161

  Highdown

  549

  549

  519

  Highpoint

  679

  679

  589

  Hindley

  280

  319

  292

  Holloway

  517

  532

  489

  Holme House

  649

  649

  617

  Hull

  328

  430

  428

  Huntercombe

  226

  225

  201

  Kingston

  154

  154

  137

  Kirkham

  644

  620

  598

  Kirklevington

  74

  74

  72

  Lancaster farms

  364

  364

  359

  Lancaster

  260

  246

  259

  Latchmere House

  145

  145

  140

  Leeds

  814

  1,168

  1,093

  Leicester

  192

  348

  341

  Lewes

  282

  377

  319

  Leyhill

  410

  410

  392

  Lincoln

  444

  628

  617

  Lindholme

  567

  567

  533

  Littlehey

  593

  583

  547

  Liverpool

  931

  1,267

  1,228

  Long Lartin

  362

  362

  347

  Low Newton

  198

  343

  252

  Maidstone

  485

  485

  463

  Manchester

  620

  632

  682

  Moorland

  635

  635

  640

  Morton Hall

  168

  168

  169

  New Hall

  169

  169

  175

  North Sea Camp

  201

  201

  203

  Northallerton

  150

  219

  119

  Norwich

  327

  476

  405

  Nottingham

  222

  222

  209

  Onley

  540

  540

  469

  Oxford

  107

  120

  27

  Parkhurst

  286

  258

  235

  Pentonville

  559

  765

  713

  Portland

  420

  420

  347

  Preston

  382

  545

  498

  Pucklechurch

  56

  81

  58

  Ranby

  347

  347

  338

  Reading

  182

  205

  150

  Risley

  751

  716

  702

  Rochester

  294

  330

  220

  Rudgate

  287

  300

  269

  Send

  113

  113

  106

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  211

  173

  Shrewsbury

  168

  307

  279

  Spring Hill

  210

  210

  205

  Stafford

  362

  534

  521

  Standford Hill

  384

  384

  345

  Stocken

  396

  396

  391

  Stoke Heath

  300

  300

  281

  Styal

  180

  209

  223

  Sudbury

  413

  348

  341

  Sudbury Foston

  96

  96

  92

  Swaleside

  512

  512

  503

  Swansea

  155

  220

  227

  Swinfen Hall

  182

  182

  181

  Thorn Cross

  209

  209

  195

  The Mount

  484

  484

  494

  The Verne

  552

  538

  529

  The Wolds

  320

  368

  371

  Thorp Arch

  166

  166

  165

  Usk

  241

  241

  217

  Wormwood Scrubs

  714

  1,050

  910

  Wakefield

  718

  718

  686

  Wandsworth

  821

  1,033

  866

  Wayland

  580

  580

  542

  Wellingborough

  344

  314

  306

  Werrington

  110

  110

  105

  278 279

  Establishment

  Certified normal accommodation in use

  Operational capacity

  Population

  Wetherby

  196

  196

  150

  Whatton

  216

  216

  211

  Whitemoor

  534

  524

  476

  Winchester

  368

  492

  391

  Woodhill

  566

  566

  509

  Wymott

  432

  384

  327

  Total

  47,979

  52,443

  48,586

  "Forbidden Knowledge"
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter dated 24 March from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North regarding the computer disc entitled "Forbidden Knowledge".

  Mr. Maclean
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 25 May 1994.

  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the redistribution of parliamentary boundaries within the Greater London area.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received no representations concerning the boundary commissions specific proposals for the Greater London area.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce the penalties for young offenders that are contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  The timetable for implementation will be substantially dependent on the progress of the Bill in Parliament and is likely to be different in respect of the Bills provisions relating to different sentences. For example, the timing of the introduction of the new secure training order for 12 to 14-year-old persistent offenders will be dependent also on the availability of the new secure accommodation for which the Bill makes provision. It is the Governments firm intention that all the Bills provisions on sentencing young offenders should be in force as soon as possible after Royal Assent, but at this stage, it would be premature to set firm implementation dates.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the final report of the fire safety scrutiny team.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to receive the report from the scrutiny team very shortly. Thereafter he will be considering along with my right hon. Friends, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for the Environment, how best to take things forward.
  280
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations have taken place between his officials and the construction industry task force on fire legislation and enforcement; which officials were involved in the consultations; and what specific reference has been made to these consultations in documents published or placed in the Library.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  There were no formal consultations between my officials and the construction industry task force on fire legislation and enforcement. However, Mr. R. J. Miles and Mr. A. N. Pickersgill of the fire safety division did meet two members of the task force and officials from the Department of Trade and Industry on 5 July 1993 when preliminary deregulatory ideas were raised.

  There were no further meetings between members of the fire safety division and the task force; and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade published the latters proposals in January 1994. No reference to meetings with officials were made in that document or in the task forces working papers which were placed in the Library on 30 March 1994.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he published his departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and to whom it has been made available.

  Mr. Howard
  Copies of the guidance notes on the arrangements to implement the code of practice on government information in the Home Office were placed in the Library of the House on 16 May. The campaign for freedom of information has been sent a copy, at its request. Copies are available to the general public from the publications unit of the Home Office information and library services on request.

  Pet Identification
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what analysis the Government have undertaken into forms of identification for pets.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Government considered different forms of identification for dogs, prior to the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

  Prisoners (Cost)
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost per week of maintaining a prisoner in gaol.
  281
  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 reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Paul Marland, dated 26 May 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average cost per week of maintaining a prisoner in jail.
  In 1992–93 the average weekly net operating cost per prisoner place in England and Wales was £466.

  Police Management Reorganisation
  Mr. Mike OBrien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what management reorganisation plans are being considered by police authorities and constabularies; and if he will list the constabularies, the nature of the plans involved and the effect on police establishments, plus supernumeraries, in each case.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  Some two thirds of forces are understood to have reorganised into locally managed, basic command units based on a single-tier management structure. Most other forces have completed, or are undertaking, reviews of their structure and organisation. Details of the nature of individual force restructuring plans and the effects on establishment levels are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Police Protection
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds he refused the Gloucestershire police force request for additional resources to protect(a) the Prince of Waless Highgrove house, (b) the Princess Royals Gatcombe Park and (c) the home of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Pornography
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the importance of the work of the obscene publications squad in combating(a) computer pornography, (b) child pornography and (c) sadistic pornography.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government fully acknowledge the important work that the obscene publications squad does in combating all kinds of pornography. We have been assured by the Commissioner that the Metropolitan police will continue this work, whatever the outcome of his current restructuring exercise.

  Parliamentary Counsel
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have(a) requested Parliamentary Counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to prepare amendments which were subsequently passed to private Members.
  282
  Mr. Howard
  Parliamentary Counsel does not draft on behalf of private Members, but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. With the authority of Ministers, amendments were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel on instructions from Departments and subsequently passed to private Members in 1993 in respect of the Local Government (Amendment) and the Bail (Amendment) Bills.

  Registrars of Births, Deaths and Marriages
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors led to the imposition of the age limit for the appointment of registrars of births, deaths and marriages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  Generally, the statutory age restrictions for appointment as registrar of births, deaths and marriages are 21 years minimum and 65 years maximum. The minimum age restriction was set to reflect the special personal responsibilities and liabilities which accompany statutory office of registrar and the sensitivity of the duties. The upper limit is related to the normal retirement age for men but may be waived if there is no other suitable candidate for appointment.

  British Passport (Mr. A. Jordan)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current status of a British passport in the name of Mr. A. Jordan, born in Reading on 1 November 1963.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  [holding answer 23 May 1994]: There is no record of a British passport being issued to a Mr. A. Jordan, born in Reading on 1 November 1963.

TRANSPORT

  A19 (Emergency Telephones)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects work to commence on providing emergency telephones on that stretch of the A19 from Teesside to the Tyne tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Subject to the availability of funds, work is expected to commence on providing emergency telephones on the A19 between Stockton-on-Tees and the Tyne tunnel during the 1995–96 financial year.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress since 1 January 1993 of measures to encourage and facilitate more freight to be transported by rail.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have liberalised access to the rail network, facilitated the restructuring of BRs freight businesses as a prelude to privatisation, improved the freight facilities grants scheme, introduced a new track access grant for marginal freight flows and raised the maximum gross vehicle weight limit to 44 tonnes for suitably configured six-axle lorries engaged in combined road/rail transport.

  Diesel-powered Vehicles
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many diesel-powered vehicles are currently licensed by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Mr. Key
  The latest available figures, for end December 1993, estimate total licensed stock to be 24.8 million vehicles, of which 3.2 million are recorded as being diesel powered.

  London Transport
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has set quality of service objectives for London Underground Ltd. and London Transport bus services.

  Mr. Norris
  I have today written to the chairman of London Transport setting quality of service objectives for London Underground Ltd. and London Transport bus services. Copies of my letters have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Roads
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will arrange for the reprinting of the report by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, on "Assessing the Environmental Impact of Road Schemes";

  (2) when the findings of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment concerning the traffic-generating potential of road building will be published.

  Mr. Key
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 20 May 1994,Official Report, columns 596 and 599.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the report to the inspector of the 1988 public inquiry into the Birmingham northern relief road was made available to which bidders for the concession to build a privately financed motorway.

  Mr. Key
  No, the inspectors report was not made available to any of the bidders for this concession.

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 May,Official Report, column 600, if he will provide separate dates and participants for each future meeting to be held, for all dates which have been booked, between Shandwick Consultants and (a) the franchising director, (b) officials from Opraf and (c) officials from his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  Both the Franchising Director and officials from Opraf, and the Department will meet from time to time with Shandwick to discuss and review their work programme.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answers of 20 May,Official
  284
  Report, column 600, and his answer to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), what is his estimate of the total amount, inclusive of value-added tax, which his Department will have paid to Dewe Rogerson for advice on his Departments marketing strategy for rail privatisation by the time Dewe Rogersons contract has been completed; what element of this total arises from his Departments decision to terminate the contract between his Department and Dewe Rogerson; on what date Dewe Rogerson was informed of his Departments decision to terminate the contract; and what length of notice was stipulated for either party under the contract.

  Mr. Freeman
  The answers are:

  (a) It is not possible to provide a figure for the total amount until Dewe Rogersons work is finally completed and their final invoice submitted for payment.

  (b) None.

  (c) 12 May 1994.

  (d) The contract provided for termination by the Department giving three months notice in writing.

  Trans-European Road Network
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the trans-European road routes from the island of Ireland to Europe.

  Mr. Key
  The trans-European road network was agreed by the Council of the European Communities on 29 October 1993—council decision 93/629/EEC. I have placed in the Library a copy of the map showing the currently agreed network in the United Kingdom, which includes the routes to Ireland. Amendments to the network are under consideration, including the removal of the east-west route from Stansted to Oxford following its withdrawal from the national road programme.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions he has made under the trans-European road network programme; and what consultations he has carried out.

  Mr. Key
  Revisions to the trans-European road network are being progressed as part of the new rules for trans-European transport networks that are required to be in place by 1 July 1995. As part of our consideration of the network in England we have consulted local highway authorities and other interested bodies. Similar consultations have taken place in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. We have already asked that the following additions be made to the network in the United Kingdom:

  —the M25 between junctions 3 and 5

  —the M27 between Southampton and Portsmouth

  —the M62 between the M6 and Liverpool

  —the A465/A40 Heads of the Valleys route from the M4 near Swansea to Raglan

  —the M8/A8 from Glasgow to Greenock

  —the M77/A77 from Glasgow to Ayr.

  The Commission has included those additions in its proposal on the trans-European transport networks of 28 March 1994. We are at present considering other suggested amendments to our part of the road network, and shall reach a decision soon on whether we shall pursue these.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what submissions he has made under(a) the trans-European conventional rail network programme and (b) the trans-European high-speed network programme; and what consultations he has carried out.
  285
  Mr. Freeman
  The European Commission is shortly expected to bring forward proposals for the establishment of networks for high-speed passenger and conventional rail services. In assisting the Commission with the formulation of its proposals, we have consulted both British Rail and Railtrack, and will continue to do so as discussions proceed. Formal adoption of these and other EC network guidelines is not expected before the middle of next year.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will give a list of all new research commissioned by his Department for use in his review into the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to both minibuses and coaches; on what date and from which organisation such research was commissioned; if he will place copies of each separate piece of research in the Library; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will publish the full terms of reference given to those individuals and/or organisations invited to carry out his review into the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to both minibuses and coaches;

  (3) on what date his review was established into the technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to both minibuses and coaches; on what date a press notice or formal announcement was made of the establishment of this review; which outside individuals and organisations have been appointed to the body carrying out the review; how many meetings have been held by the body set up to carry out the review; and what is his estimate of the cost to date of carrying out the review.

  Mr. Key
  Officials were asked to review the full technical and cost implications of fitting seat belts to all seats in minibuses and coaches following the M2 accident, which occurred on 10 November.

  I first announced to the House that the review was being undertaken in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring), on 29 November 1993, Official Report, column 346. The review made use of existing research and accident data and other industry information.

  I have now received the report and hope to be able to announce the conclusions shortly.

EMPLOYMENT

  Young Workers Directive
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the purpose of the young workers directive; under what clause of what treaty it is being introduced; and whether it is subject to unanimity or majority vote in the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The draft directive seeks to regulate the working hours and other conditions of employment of young people aged under 18. It has been brought forward as a health and safety measure under article 118a of the treaty of Rome and is subject to qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the object of the four-year renewable opt-out to the provisions of the young workers 286
  directive initially secured by the United Kingdom; when this opt-out was removed by the European Parliament; and what was the vote in Parliament;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the proposed young workers directive, as amended by the European Parliament, on the freedom to employ newspaper boys in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The opt-out, which can be renewed six years after the directive is adopted, means that the United Kingdom can continue to follow our existing controls on the hours of work of young people. Newspaper boys and girls will be free to continue to work as they do now. On 9 March 1994 the European Parliament voted by a majority of 275 to delete our opt-out, but it has not been removed because the Parliament can only suggest amendments for directives—such as this—introduced under article 118a of the treaty of Rome. The Council of Ministers will decide the final form of the directive.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if the removal of the British opt-out from provisions of the young workers directive is subject to the Maastricht treaty provisions in relation to the power of the Council to remove amendments made by the European Parliament; and what will be the effect of these Maastricht provisions.

  (2) if he will take steps to inform (a) newspaper boys and (b) other young people about the effect of the
  Maastricht treaty provisions on their employment prospects.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The United Kingdom renewable opt-out has not been removed from the draft young workers directive which is not, in any event, affected by the treaty on European Union negotiated at Maastricht.

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

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

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled(a) men and (b) women living in the Greater London area were registered as unemployed at the most convenient date.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The labour force survey asks people of working age if they currently have a health problem or disability which limits the kind of paid work that they can do. Estimates based on answers to this question will include people with short-term health problems and disabilities as well as those registered as disabled.
  287
  The latest labour force survey estimates for summer 1993 show that there were 40,000 such men and 17,000 such women who were International Labour Organisation unemployed and living in Greater London.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many married women in employment have children of school age.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Estimates from the labour force survey show there were 2,178,000 married women with children aged 5 to 15 in employment in Great Britain at autumn 1993.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of claimants unemployed who have been unemployed for at least 12 months in(a) the 20 electoral wards with the highest claimant unemployment rate in the United Kingdom and (b) the 20 electoral wards with the lowest claimant unemployment rate in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The smallest areas for which official unemployment rates are calculated are self-contained labour markets known as travel-to-work areas. Information at ward level relates only to the level of claimant unemployment and an analysis by duration is available for the months of January, April, July and October. Data are on the unadjusted basis and can be obtained from the NOMIS database in the Library.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his estimate of the number of people employed in the United Kingdom aerospace industry.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The latest reliable information is from the 1991 census of employment. In September 1991, there were 147,400 jobs in Great Britain in the aerospace equipment manufacturing and repairing industry—activity heading 3640 of the 1980 standard industrial classification.

  Animal Transport and Slaughter
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to make compulsory the
  formal training of transporter drivers and slaughtermen in the United Kingdom.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are no plans to make the formal training of transporter drivers compulsory. Requirements for the training of slaughtermen are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are already requirements for the training of poultry slaughtermen in the Slaughter of Poultry (Licenses and Specified Qualifications) Regulations 1991. A consultation document on the training of red meat slaughtermen was issued in December 1993; responses are being considered.

  Modern Apprentices
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will allow 18-year-olds to enter the modern apprenticeship scheme.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 24 May,288
  Official Report, columns 197–267, 18-year-olds will be able, from 1995, to enter accelerated modern apprenticeships as described in the White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win", Cm. 2563.

  In addition, 18-year-olds will be eligible for the mainstream modern apprenticeship initiative if their entry to training has been delayed and the training provided is more appropriate to their needs.

  ACAS
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to receive the annual report of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service report for 1993, which will be laid before both Houses of Parliament on Wednesday 1 June. Copies will then be available from the Vote Office. The report will be released to the public on Thursday 2 June.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers of days lost through absenteeism in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: Figures for the number of days lost through unauthorised absence from work are not available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Wena Hotels, Egypt
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make representations to President Mubarak, requesting the full and immediate implementation of the verdict of the Egyptian arbitration authorities in favour of the United Kingdom company Wena Hotels in respect of its dispute with the Egyptian hotel company.

  The Prime Minister
  There are two hotels involved in this dispute. The Egyptian arbitration committee last month awarded Wena Hotels compensation in respect of
  one hotel, but judgment is awaited for the second. The company remains in touch with the Egyptian authorities, with support from our embassy in Cairo.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 May.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

  EC (Legislation)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the volume of legislation being proposed by the Commission.

  The Prime Minister
  We are still discussing the agenda for the Corfu European Council with our European Union
  289
  partners. We will bear my hon. Friends suggestion in mind. We welcome the continued downward trend in the number of proposals for principal legislation brought forward annually by the Commission, a trend which owes much to the efforts of the Government.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 185, when he expects the British Red Cross to have clarified the issues in respect of the health of the Iraqi people, with particular reference to water filters and water pumps.

  The Prime Minister
  The British Red Cross has, with its Dutch and German colleagues, been discussing with the European Community the possibility of a significant contribution to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies appeal. Once the amount of this contribution has been resolved, and the British Red Cross has clarified how successful the appeal has been, they expect to put a proposal to Her Majesty's Government. The timing of such a proposal is a matter for the British Red Cross.

  Fascists
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will put a proposal before other heads of Governments of the European Union that a member country which has fascists in its Government be suspended from the Union.

  The Prime Minister
  No. All member states of the European Union have democratically elected Governments, and we work with them on that basis.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 404, on what day in June 1988 the Malaysian Government were informed of his predecessor's wish to visit Malaysia.

  The Prime Minister
  On 29 June 1988.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 153, what estimate he has made of the cost of the proposed consultation exercise to investigate discrimination against disabled people; and if he will list those persons and organisations he intends to consult.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will consult within six months on proposals to combat, not investigate, discrimination against disabled people. A wide range of organisations will be consulted, including those involving disabled people, employers and business more generally. The exact extent and cost of the consultation exercise will not be known until the proposals have been finalised.

  Australia and Thailand
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers travelled with his predecessor when she visited Australia and Thailand in August 1988.

  The Prime Minister
  During her visit to Australia and Thailand in August 1988, my right hon. and noble Friend was not accompanied by any Ministers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Licensing Legislation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) on what date he expects to respond to the review of licensing legislation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what form his response to the review of licensing legislation in Northern Ireland will take; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what organisations have made representations on the review of licensing legislation in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Representations on those aspects of Northern Ireland's liquor licensing law which they wish to see changed have been received from the following:

  North Down Petty Sessions

  Philip Russell Ltd.

  Banbridge District Council

  Hamilton and Kirk Ltd.

  Bass Ireland Ltd.

  Stewarts

  Wine and Spririt Association of Northern Ireland

  Hastings Hotels Group Ltd.

  Lisburn Borough Council

  Royal Ulster Agricultural Society

  Marks and Spencer

  South Belfast Labour Party

  North Down Borough Council

  Strabane District Council

  Ballymoney Borough Council

  Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade Northern Ireland

  Winemark

  Hospitality Association of Northern Ireland

  Down District Council

  Guinness

  Craigavon Borough Council

  Deny City Council

  Northern Ireland Tourist Board

  Coleraine Borough Council

  Cookstown District Council

  Restauranteurs Association of Northern Ireland

  Ards Borough Council

  Northern Ireland Off-licensed Traders Association

  The British Field Sports Society

  The Queen's University of Belfast

  The Law Society

  The Lord's Day Observance Society

  In addition, submissions were received from two individuals.

  The requests for change, and their implications for the related review of the law on registered clubs, are being considered. Proposals for amending both the law on liquor licensing and on registered clubs will be contained in draft Orders in Counicl which will be published for consultation when both reviews have been completed.

  Bone Cancer
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many cases of bone cancer per 100,000 population there have been in Northern Ireland in each year since 1970;

  (2) how many cases of cancers of all types per 100,000 population there have been in Northern Ireland in each year since 1970.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is taken from the Cancer Registry for Northern Ireland and is set out in the table:
  291

  New notification of cancer per 100,000 population

  Year

  Bone cancers per 100,000 population

  All cancers per 100,000 population

  1970

  1.78

  285

  1971

  1.49

  287

  1972

  1.17

  272

  1973

  1.44

  290

  1974

  1.44

  288

  1975

  1.64

  308

  1976

  1.77

  307

  1977

  1.05

  301

  1978

  1.71

  296

  1979

  0.52

  296

  1980

  1.44

  306

  1981

  0.46

  300

  1982

  0.78

  317

  1983

  0.52

  337

  1984

  0.90

  321

  1985

  0.77

  323

  1986

  0.77

  335

  1987

  0.83

  340

  1988

  1.14

  372

  1989

  0.82

  365

  1990

  1.07

  380

  1991

  0.82

  368

  Notes

  The Cancer Registry is estimated to hold notifications for about 60 per cent. of all new cancer cases.

  1991 is the latest year for which information is currently available.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest estimate of the number of people claiming benefit fraudulently.

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1992–93, there were 3,967 cases of social security fraud detected involving savings of some £10.6 million which is 0.5 per cent., of the total amount of benefit paid. There is, however, no reliable estimate Of the number of fraudulent claims not detected.

  Unemployment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the change in the level of unemployment since January 1993.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Seasonally adjusted figures show that the level of unemployment has fallen by 6,600 since January 1993.

  Inter-party Talks
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress made towards a resumption of the inter-party talks on the future of Northern Ireland.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with the parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government relating to the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Bilateral discussions are continuing with three of the four Northern Ireland parties on the same basis as previously. The two Governments are also working intensively on a framework to carry the process forward. Our aim is to return to multilateral talks involving the two Governments and all the parties at the earliest appropriate moment.
  292
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will arrange discussions with political leaders to facilitate the peace process.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will continue to invite discussion on the prospects for a peaceful political settlement in Northern Ireland with leaders of the main constitutional parties. The Government believe that the three-stranded talks process provides the framework within which agreement is most likely to be reached.

  Security
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in the Province.

  Mr. Cyil D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  As at 25 May, 32 people have died this year as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland, 13 in the last four weeks.

  The security forces continue to oppose terrorism with unrelenting determination. So far this year, 171 people have been charged with terrorist-related offences, including 43 with murder or attempted murder.

  Exclusion Orders
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to review the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the use of exclusion orders.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  The operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, including the use of exclusion orders, is the responsibilty of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures for crime in Northern Ireland.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will shortly publish his annual report for 1993, which will show that there was a decrease of 1.9 per cent. in notifiable crimes recorded in 1993 when compared to 1992.

  Family Planning
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on family planning services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  Comprehensive family planning services are available free of charge throughout Northern Ireland.

  Cross-border Co-operation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of co-operation between United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland security forces.
  293
  Sir John Wheeler
  Excellent co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda is achieving vital successes against the terrorists. The two Governments support them by continuing to review and refine security co-operation measures in response to the threat from terrorism.

  News Reporting
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet represen-tatives of the broadcasting industry in Northern Ireland to discuss their news reporting.

  Sir John Wheeler
  I frequently meet representatives of the broadcasting industry in Northern Ireland, as do my ministerial colleagues and officials; our discussions cover a range of issues of common interest. There is at present no fixed date for my next such meeting.

  Activity Centres
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures his Department is taking to ensure the safety of children participating in activities at outdoor activity centres in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  All schools were circulated with detailed guidance on "Safety in Outdoor Education" in November 1989.

  Northern Ireland is represented on the steering group, set up following the announcement on 11 November 1993 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. This group will shortly be publishing further guidance in respect of safety in outdoor activity centres.

  Child Care Training
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on future funding of the Northern Ireland Pre-School Playgroups Association training projects for women wishing to pursue a career in child care.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Funding for Northern Ireland Pre-School Playgroups Association training projects includes a contribution from the European social fund. The negotiations with the European Commmission on the 1994–1999 Northern Ireland structural funds package, which includes European social fund measures, will not be completed for some weeks yet. The future of individual applications cannot be decided until the new programmes have been agreed.

  Fair Employment Legislation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the working of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  Since the coming into operation of Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, my predecessors and I have regularly met the chairman of the Fair Employment Commission to assess the implementa-tion of the Act.

  In addition, officials meet formally with the chief executive of the FEC every three months to review the full range of work being carried out by the Commission.

  I am satisfied with the way the Act has been operating and am encouraged by the progress that has been made to date.

  Job Creation
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new jobs were created in the last financial year by(a) inward investment and (b) local expansion; and what is the forecast for 1994–95.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  During the financial year 1993–94, 3,289 new jobs were created with assistance from the Industrial Development Board. Some 1,548 of these jobs were in foreign-owned and 1,741 in indigenous companies. Additionally, companies assisted by the Local Enterprise Development Unit created 5,890 new jobs during the calendar year 1993. I anticipate a similarly encouraging employment performance in 1994–95.

  Bill of Rights
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received concerning the introduction and implementation of a Bill of Rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Over the past six months my Department has received representations about the introduction of a Bill of rights from the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the Workers Party, the National Peace Council and the Committee for the Administration of Justice. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the organisers of Initiative 92 have also expressed their continuing support for the idea.

  The Government are ready in the context of the political talks involving the Irish Government and the main constitu-tional parties to consider the case for further enhancing the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland, including some form of entrenchment to provide additional, built-in safeguards against discrimination and disadvantage.

HEALTH

  Direct Care Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many direct care staff aged over 70 years are employed in each regional health authority.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Pursuant to my reply to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton),Official Report, 24 March, column 415, a recent further check on the data about employees in this age band has shown it to be unreliable. The information requested is therefore not available.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is spent per capita on health services for residents in the(a) Doncaster, (b) Barnsley, (c) Rotherham, (d) Sheffield and (e) England as a whole; and what proportion is spent on treatment (i) in hospital and (ii) by community services, excluding the element cost which is attributable to medical education and research for the latest date she has figures available; and what were the figures (1) five and (2) 10 years ago.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure per head of population on hospital and community health service by district health authority in the last available year.
  295
  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) today, which gave the latest available figures for all district health authorities and family health services authorities in England. It is not possible to break those figure; down further into spend on hospital and community services, or to remove the cost element of medical education and research from the figures.

  It is not possible to give per capita figures for earlier years on a comparable basis.

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

  Mr. Sackville
  Parliamentary Counsel does not draft on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. With the authority of Ministers, amendments were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel on instructions from Departments and subsequently passed to private Members in respect of the Osteopaths Bill, the Medicines Information Bill and the Chiropractors Bill.

  Cancer
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects the level of cancer specialists per head of population to attain that achieved by Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, France and Norway.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Comparisons with any international rates of cancer specialists per head of population are not appropriate since data may not always be recorded on the same basis. Neither is it appropriate to identify precise needs for numbers of consultants by specialty, because organisation of medical services varies between countries, and not all consultants in the relevant specialties treat cancer patients exclusively.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington of 16 May,Official Report, column 318, if she will itemise the trusts in the Northern and Yorkshire region in 1991–92 and 1992–93 and state their contribution to the total regional surplus.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 318, if she will provide details of retained surpluses and deficits by individual trusts.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Aborted Foetuses
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines her Department issues regarding the use of live aborted foetuses in scientific experiments;
  296
  (2) how many experiments on live aborted foetuses have been sanctioned by ethics committees since 1968.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware of any experiments on live foetuses ex utero. Any research carried out on a foetus—that is, after termination under the Abortion Act 1967—is subject to the principles set out in the report "Review of the Guidance on the Research Use of Fetuses and Fetal Material" (Cm. 762), known as the Polkinghorne report. The report's code of practice is reproduced in the guidance issued to local research ethics committees. It stresses that issues relating to research or other use of the live whole foetus must be considered in a manner broadly similar to the way such issues are considered for children and adults.

  Deoxyribonucleic Acid
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation of the health implications of the location of the first European bank for deoxyribonucleic acid at Whitehaven has been conducted by her Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no plans to evaluate the health implications of the location of the proposed bank for deoxyribonucleic acid at the Westlakes Research Institute at Whitehaven. Research undertaken following the establishment and subsequent use of this gene bank will be published in medical journals for peer review and comment.

  Foetal Abnormality Survey
  Mr. Mandelson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to ensure that, following the restructuring of health authority regions, the work of the Northern regional health authority regional foetal abnormality survey office is replicated in all areas of the country in support of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the regional health authorities concerned.

  Health Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has had over local authorities taking over responsibility for commissioning health
  services.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 11 January,Official Report, column 119.

  Surcharging
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider introducing provisions to enable the surcharging of health authority members.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Public Bodies
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of members of(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) family health service authorities and (d) trust boards are known to be members of patients' organisations;

  (2) what proportion of members of (a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) family health service authorities and (d) trust boards are also members of local authorities.
  297
  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of members of(a) regional health authorities, (b) district health authorities, (c) family health service authorities and (d) trust boards are doctors, nurses or members of other health professions.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  This information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Patient Participating Groups
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patient participation groups are currently operating.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information on patient participation groups is not available centrally.

  Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 322–23, what assessment has been made of evidence from Australia in respect of the transmission of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease through blood tranfusions.

  Mr. Sackville
  We understand that no evidence has been provided to the Australian authorities, despite several requests to support the claim associating Creutzfeldt Jakob disease and blood tranfusions.

  Patient Co-operatives
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if her Department has evaluated overseas experience of patient co-operatives.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No.

  Vulvectomy and Lymph Node Removal
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if existing guidance to hospitals or clinicians allows for vulvectomy and lymph node removal to be carried out in the absence of biopsy reports.

  Mr. Sackville
  Clinical guidance is primarily the responsibility of the relevant professional bodies.

  Patient Participation
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information her Department has on the experience of other countries in relation to patient participation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Departmental officials maintain awareness of initiatives involving patient participation in the United Kingdom and overseas to feed into policy development.

  Nottinghamshire FHSA
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total funding for general medical services to Nottinghamshire family health services authority in 1993–94.

  Mr. Sackville
  Audited 1993–94 outturn data are not yet available.

  AIDS Support Grant
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each local authority has bid for AIDS support grant for 1994–95; and how much they were awarded.

  Mr. SAckville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 26 April,Official Report, column 159. Details of the indicative and final allocations will be placed in the Library.

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

  Mr. Sackville
  For reasons of confidentiality, and in order to obtain value for money in the future, we are unable to list the specific costs of the consultancies concerned and the amounts paid as this would breach contractual agreements and jeopardise future value for money. The Department however, has spent the following amounts from running costs on consultancy since its establishment as a separate Department.

  1990–91 £18,398,000

  1991–92 £24,258,000

  1992–93 £18,399,000

  1993–94 £15,933,037

  Information on national health service consultancy expenditure is not available centrally.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who determines where responsibility for funding continuing care arrangements for specific individuals lies; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Under the new community care arrange-ments local and health authorities are required to agree their respective responsibilities for long-term care.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will issue new guidance on the provision of continuing care to clarify under what specific circumstan-ces health authorities are expected to fund continuing care; and if she will make a statement.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to issue comprehensive guidance to health authorities and providers on the responsibility of the NHS to pay for continuing care.

  Mr. Bowis
  Under the community care arrangements local and health authorities were required to agree their respective resonsibilities for long-term care. The implementation of the community care arrangements has been carefully monitored. The need for any clarification of health and local authority responsibilities is being kept under review.
  299
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the responsibility of health authorities and local authorities when responsibility for funding continuing care is based upon reasons of ill health.

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service is responsible for meeting needs for long-term healthcare. It is for local health purchasers to determine the level and type of services provided in the light of local needs, resources and clinical practice.

  Government Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she published her departmental guidance on the implementation of the code of practice on access to Government information, as promised at paragraph 3(ii) of the code issued on 4 April; and to whom it has been made available.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 29 April,Official Report, column 372.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on informing young people about their rights concerning immunisation; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Consent has to be obtained before any immunisation can be given.

  The patients charter requires information to be given when treatment is proposed. In line with this, information prepared by the Health Education Authority, which is used by medical staff and provided to parents and teenagers, now contains more details about issues relevant to immunisation. The Health Education Authority produce a leaflet about rubella immunisation for distribution to teenage girls, copies of which will be placed in the Library. They are also developing leaflets for BCG immunisation and the soon to be introduced diphtheria/tetanus booster dose; this latter leaflet will also contain information about the school leavers polio booster dose.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she plans to take on the report of the Royal College of Physicians, "Ensuring Equity and Quality of Care for Elderly People", a copy of which has been sent to her.

  Mr. Bowis
  This report is aimed primarily at professional national health service staff and managers. We welcome its publication as a further encouragement to high quality services for elderly people.

  NHS Charters
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific form of compensation or redress is available under the provisions of the patients charter to(a) out-patients who have not been seen within specific appointment times and (b) patients for whom an operation is postponed twice, and yet are still not admitted within one month of the date of the second cancelled operation.
  300
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Patients should be kept informed about the reasons for any delays or postponements in their treatment. A suitable apology should be offered in appropriate cases.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which hospitals have adopted a policy of admitting a patient(a) within one month of the cancellation of an operation and (b) within two months of a second cancelled operation.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  All hospitals are implementing the policy reflected in the improved patients charter national standard which came into effect on 1 April 1994.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many FHSA and general practitioner charters have now been issued; and if she will list them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Every family health services authority has issued a charter and information from purchasers indicates that 38 per cent. of general practitioners practices have issued or are planning to issue a charter. The names of the individual general practices with charters are not available centrally.

  Free Prescriptions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what situations patients on NHS treatment receive free from NHS hospitals(a) prescriptions including contact lenses and (b) use of equipment including nebulisers; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Contact lenses may be prescribed through the hospital eye service if the patient has a clinical need for them. Many patients are entitled to a hospital eye service voucher to cover the cost of lenses.

  Where a consultant decides—taking account of resources, needs and clinical priorities locally—that a piece of equipment should be provided as part of the national health service treatment, it should be provided free of charge.

  Clinical Psychology Services
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data are collected to inform the costing of general practice fundholders' contracts for clinical psychology services.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  General practitioner fundholders' budgets are based on previous treatment patterns in the practice, informed by local average treatment rates and local hospital prices. General practitioner fundholders are responsible for using their budget to purchase appropriate services to meet their patients' needs, including clinical psychology outpatient services.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many district health authorities and family health services authorities currently share the same chief executive; and if she will list them.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The list of district health authorities and family health services authorities with a joint chief executive has been placed in the Library.

  Information Service
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls have been logged since the establishment of the national health freephone information service; and if she will give details of the guidelines issued to staff governing advice given to callers seeking to complain about national health service services.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health information service freephone telephone number, 0800 665544, has received 201,128 calls in the period between launch in January 1993 to the end of April 1994. Each health information service has a copy of the National Health Service (Service Committees and Tribunal) Regulations 1992 and HSG(92)21, copies of which are available in the Library. These documents, along with information about local procedures, contain the essential information to enable health information service personnel to advise callers how to make a complaint.

  Mr. Richard Hughes
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received about the case of Mr. Richard Hughes of 3 Erylmore road, Mossley Hill, Liverpool 18, concerning his removal from the practice list of his GP; what information will be disclosed to him as to the reasons for his removal; and what assessment she has made of the consistency of his treatment with her policy on the priority to be accorded to ex-service men with disabilities.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The hon. Member wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 20 May 1994 about his constituent. He will receive a reply shortly.

  Health Information
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health shops are currently under consideration; where they will be situated; and what are the projected costs.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service provides information to the public in many ways—nationally, through the national health information service, community health councils, family health services authorities and district health authorities. Decisions about drop-in health information centres are taken at a local level to address local need.

  Smoking
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister for Health of 11 February,Official Report, column 607, what is the timetable for launching the £12 million three-year anti-smoking advertising programme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Later this year.

  Dental Practices
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dental service practices there are in each health authority area at the latest date for which figures were available; and what were the comparative figures in(a) April 1992 and (b) June 1987.
  302
  Dr. Mawhinney
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Adoption
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's policy on whether children who cannot live with their own family should have a choice about the language and culture of the family who adopt them.

  Mr. Bowis
  Under legislation, courts and adoption agencies are required so far as practicable to ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child and give due consideration to them, having regard to the child's age and understanding. This would include the language and culture of his proposed adoptive family.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, when the second report to Parliament on the Children Act 1989 will be published.

  Mr. Bowis
  I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Wales have laid before Parliament the second joint report to Parliament on the Children Act operation in England and Wales. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report gives an overview of the progress made and focuses on a wide range of issues. It is an encouraging picture confirming that the numbers of children looked after by local authorities, and on a child protection register continue to decline as local authorities respond positively to the intention of the Act that wherever possible children should remain at home with their families.

  Rural Stress
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specific measures she plans to take to aid in drawing farmers' attention to the help networks currently available to deal with rural stress and suicide; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Over the last year, this Department has helped to finance initiatives in rural areas to increase awareness of suicide and the sources of help that are available. The Department has made a grant of £50,000 per annum over three years from 1994–95 to help support the Samaritans' outreach programme, part of which will be focused on rural areas and agriculture. The Department also supported a conference on rural stress, entitled "Rural Stress—Positive Action in Partnership", which took place earlier this year.

  Children at Risk
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances local authority social services departments may leave children on the at risk register without an assigned social worker.

  Mr. Bowis
  A named key worker shall be appointed for every child who is placed on the child protection register and for whom there is an inter-agency protection plan. Where there is no current named key worker for a child on the register, it is for the local authority to ensure that arrangements are made for the protection plan to be implemented and a key worker appointed.

  Women-only Wards
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of her Department in respect of allowing women when in an NHS hospital to be treated in a women-only ward if that is their wish.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  District health authorities and general practitioner fundholders are expected to assess the needs of the populations they serve in reaching purchasing decisions, and to reflect these in their contracts with hospitals. The privacy and dignity of all patients is assured through the patients charter, and hospitals should take account of patients' wishes wherever it is practicable to do so.

  Eye and Dental Tests
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the cost to public funds of reintroducing(a) free eye tests and (b) free dental check-ups.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Assuming that these changes led to no increase in the number of sight tests or dental examinations, each would cost some £60 million in a full year.

  Foreign Patients
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fee-paying patients from outside the United Kingdom received treatment in NHS hospitals in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for individual trusts and health authorities.

  Private Hospital Beds
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS beds have been converted to use by private patients in each of the last three years;

  (2) how many NHS hospital trusts have had private patient units or wings in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Sackville
  These are local matters about which the Department does not collect information.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's latest estimate of the number of places for under five-year-olds provided by(a) local authority day nurseries, (b) private day nurseries, (c) pre-school play groups and (d) child minders.

  Mr. Bowis
  I announced yesterday that it is estimated that, at 31 March 1993, there were 21,400 places in local authority day nurseries; 111,000 places in registered day nurseries; 396,900 places in pre-school play groups and 283,000 registered child minder places available1 for use by the under fives.
  1Following implementation of the Children Act 1989, information about places with childminders has been collected for children aged under eight.

  Maternity Units
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all the maternity units in England; and what were the total numbers of deliveries in each case, for each of the last three years for which figures are available.
  304
  Mr. Sackville
  A list of national health service trusts, directly managed units and special health authorities in England with maternity facilities, with the number of maternity beds in each, will be placed in the Library. Information on the number of deliveries in each could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Health Visitors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to health authorities with regard to ensuring health visitor coverage in areas where local authorities fail to provide social work cover for all children on the at risk register.

  Mr. Bowis
  Government guidance requires each health authority to identify a senior nurse with a health visiting qualification to act as the co-ordinator of all aspects of child protection work in their district. Among their key activities is the setting up of an effective communication system with managers and practitioners in other disciplines and agencies, to ensure a regular update about work load, staffing, emergencies and individual cases.

  Clinical Services
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to which clinical services are not suitable to be contracted out of the NHS.

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for trusts, general practitioner fundholders and health authorities to determine the most appropriate options for the provision of services, including clinical services. Decisions are made on the basis of which source of provision, be it national health service, non-NHS or a combination of both, will provide the best quality of service for patients and cost effective use of NHS resources.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has concerning the number of employees aged over 70 years who are currently allowed to continue to work within the national health service.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 24 March 1994, c. 415]: I regret that misleading information was given in my previous reply. Information submitted to the Department on the age of national health service staff under 20 and over 65 has been found to be inaccurate. The Department does not therefore hold reliable information about employees aged over 70 years.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) of 12 April,Official Report, column 72, if she will give the figures for expenditure per capita for London for (a) district health authorities and (b) family health services authorities, including expenditure by the London postgraduate hospitals and special health authorities.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is spent per capita by London district health authorities on health services and special health authorities for residents of (i) inner London and (ii) outer London and what is the national average expenditure per capita by district health authorities.
  305
  Dr. Mawhinney
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 April 1994, c. 664–65]: I regret that, because of typographical errors, my previous reply needs to be amended. The following table gives the correct figures:

  District health authority spend

  DHA spend including special health authorities

  Expenditure per capita £

  Percentage above national average

  Expenditure per capita £

  Percentage above national average

  Inner

  553

  47

  603

  57

  Outer

  398

  6

  415

  8

  Total London

  460

  22

  490

  28

  Total England

  376

  —

  384

  —

  Notes:

  1. Inner London defined as in the report of the Enquiry into Londons Health Services, Medical Education and Research (Tomlinson report).

  2. SHA 1992–93 expenditure apportioned to DHAs based on analysis of district of residence of 1993–94 referrals.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the size of surpluses generated by trusts in each year since 1990–91, by region.

  Mr. Sackville
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 May 1994, cols. 317–18]: I regret that there were errors in my previous reply. An amended table follows.

  Region

  Retained Surplus/(Deficit)

  Northern

  2,896

  5,427

  Yorkshire

  3,100

  2,962

  Trent

  153

  4,622

  East Anglian

  1,075

  533

  North West Thames

  6,145

  17,220

  North East Thames

  7,249

  13,165

  South East Thames

  1,082

  9,597

  South West Thames

  5,303

  4,001

  Wessex

  1,342

  3,903

  South Western

  14,531

  11,436

  Oxford

  104

  4,356

  West Midlands

  2,932

  4,177

  Mersey

  2,194

  (749)

  North Western

  50

  6,952

  Notes to table:

  Source: Audited accounts of NHS Trusts 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  2. The figures for 1992–93 are provisional, being subject to National Audit Office review.

  3. Surplus/(Deficit) is after interest, dividend payable on public dividend capital, extraordinary and exceptional items.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) of 12 April,Official Report, column 72, if she will provide comparable per capita spending figures for each (a) district health authority and (b) family health services authority in England.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The per capita spend (by crude population) in 1992–93 for district health authorities and family health services authorities in England will be placed in the Library. Comparisons of these per capita spend figures need to be treated with caution. First, not all the expenditure covered arises from population related activities. Secondly, crude populations do not reflect differences in age structure or relative health care need. These differences feature in the formulae used to inform the main allocations made to DHAs.

TREASURY

  Parliamentary Counsel
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what occasions since April 1992 Ministers from his Department have(a) requested Parliamentary Counsel to assist in preparing amendments to private Members Bills on behalf of other private Members and (b) authorised officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to prepare
  amendments which were subsequently passed to private
  Members.

  Sir John Cope
  Parliamentary Counsel drafts not on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. No amendments to private Members Bills were drafted by Parliamentary Counsel on instructions from Treasury Ministers and subsequently passed to private Members.

  Diesel Fuel Excise Duty
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to enforce compliance with excise duties on diesel fuel in respect of diesel-powered vehicles on public roads.

  Sir John Cope
  Responsibility for the control of the illegal use of hydrocarbon oil which has not borne the full rate of excise duty is assigned to Customs and Excise. Control is carried out by 17 regional road fuel testing units, using mobile testing vehicles. Customs officers have the power to test the fuel of stationary diesel vehicles and by a series of simple visual and chemical tests can detect the presence of rebated diesel in the fuel tank of a vehicle.

  Beer
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent annual figures available for net(a) value added tax receipts and (b) excise receipts from beer.

  Sir John Cope
  In the calendar year 1993(a) net VAT receipts from beer were around £1,600 million and (b) net excise receipts from beer were £2,230 million.

  Paymaster General (Targets)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what key targets have been set for the office of Her Majestys Paymaster General in 1994–95.
  307
  Sir John Cope
  I have set demanding targets for the office of HM Paymaster General in 1994–95, but some details are commercially sensitive, The main features are:

  Recovering Full Costs
  1. recover through charges the full cost of running the Agency.

  Reduction in Unit Costs
  2. achieve at least a 3 per cent. reduction in real terms in the unit cost of paying a pension.
  3. achieve a 3 per cent. improvement in the average unit cost index for banking transactions1.

  MEETING CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS

  Pensions
  4. meet various targets for responding to correspondence and processing instructions in accordance with Service Level Agreements with individual customers.
  5. meet quality targets in accordance with Service Level Agreements with individual customers.

  Banking
  6. meet transaction timetables in accordance with Service Level Agreements with individual customers.
  7. meet quality targets for processing transactions in accordance with Service Level Agreements with individual customers.

  Apex
  8. meet the agreed timetable for sending financial information to the Treasury 95 per cent. of the time, and never exceed the timetable by more than 1 day.

  1Banking transactions will be weighted as appropriate.

  ESA

  Eligible Area (ha)

  Percentage of eligible area under agreement or applied for as at 30 April 1994

  Average payment per agreement £

  Stage I

  Broads1

  24,000

  63

  3,430

  Pennine Dales

  39,100

  68

  3,990

  Somerset levels and moors

  25,900

  51

  2,240

  South Downs1

  51,700

  21

  6,830

  West Penwith

  6,900

  89

  2,290

  Stage II

  Breckland1

  51,600

  9

  5,630

  Clun1

  18,900

  72

  3,500

  North Peak

  50,500

  86

  15,940

  Suffolk River Valleys1

  32,600

  27

  2,900

  Test Valley1

  3,300

  30

  3,050

  Stage III

  Avon Valley1

  3,800

  19

  1,960

  Exmoor

  67,700

  55

  2,300

  Lake District

  219,300

  50

  4,040

  North Kent Marshes1

  11,600

  36

  10,460

  South Wessex Downs1

  38,300

  48

  3,840

  South West Peak

  27,000

  54

  2,030

  Stage IV2

  Blackdown Hills

  32,200

  0.10

  330

  Cotswold Hills1

  66,100

  4

  3,280

  Dartmoor

  89,000

  0.02

  610

  Essex Coast1

  23,000

  1

  3,560

  Shropshire Hills

  34,900

  10

  1,600

  Upper Thames Tributaries1

  18,000

  2

  5,070

  1 The figures for eligible area in these ESAs contain arable land which is eligible to enter the scheme if reverted to grass. It is not expected that a high proportion of such land will enter the scheme.

  2 The figures for uptake in these ESAs cover only the first six weeks of the initial application period.

  Building Societies Commission
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the outcome of the court case involving the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society and the Building Societies Commission.

  Mr. Nelson
  The High Court is currently considering whether the details of Lloyds bank's scheme to take over the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society—including the payment of cash to Cheltenham and Gloucester members of less than two years standing—are in conformity with the Building Societies Act 1986. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further on those issues until the Court has reached a decision.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Environmentally Sensitive Area Grants
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest uptake figures of the option to farmers to take the environmentally sensitive area grants in each area concerned, with the percentage of those eligible, together with the likely average payment to each farmer.

  Mr. Jack
  The percentages of eligible land under agreement or application and the average cost per agreement for the 22 English ESAs are given in the table. The number of farmers eligible for participation in each ESA scheme is not available.

  Portable Telephones
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to her answer of 12 May,Official Report, column 201, what was the expenditure on (a) service rental and (b) call charges for portable telephones.

  Mr. Jack
  The expenditure, excluding VAT, incurred on 1,200 portable telephones for 1993–94 by the Ministry and its associated executive agencies, was as follows:

  £

  (a) on Service Rental

  228,348

  (b) on Call Charges

  110,507

  Beef Special Premium Scheme
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking within the Council of Ministers to resolve beef special premium scheme distortions for 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  In March 1994 we were able to secure the European Commissions agreement to a technical adjustment .to the scaling back of 1993 beef special premium claims necessary because the number of claims in 1993 exceeded our regional ceiling. In England and Wales, this adjustment added about £2.50 to the average payment per 1993 beef special premium claimed and about £1.25 to the average payment per extensification premium. Given the increase in total payments under the 1993 scheme compared with previous years, and the very good market prices for beef in 1993, there is no justification for any further adjustments to the scaling back for 1993.

  Cattle and Pigs
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she is taking to resist changes to EC directive 64/432 on trade in cattle and pigs.

  Mr. Soames
  The Government support the principle of removing unnecessary barriers to trade and support the initiative taken by the Commission in drafting a proposal to consolidate and amend directive 64/432/EEC with a view to facilitating trade. During negotiations on the proposed amendments to the directive, the Government will aim to ensure that the individual provisions are carefully assessed, do not increase the risk of disease being spread between member states and are not unnecessarily onerous on industry.

  Channel Tunnel (Livestock)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures are planned to monitor the movement of livestock through the channel tunnel; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The channel tunnel operator, Eurotunnel, has informed the Ministry that its policy remains one of not carrying live animals, including farm livestock and horses, through the tunnel. The state veterinary service will monitor the tunnel in the same way as other south coast ports.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE have been confirmed in the United Kingdom since November 1986.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since November 1986 and up to 13 May 1994, 128,879 cases of BSE have been confirmed in the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total of confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom in animals born after the ruminant feed ban.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As at 10 May 1994, 9,928 cases of BSE have been confirmed in Great Britain in animals born after the ruminant feed ban which came into operation on 18 July 1988. Some 39 cases have been confirmed in Northern Ireland in animals born after the ruminant feed ban which came into operation on 11 January 1989.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many United Kingdom farms have had at least one confirmed case of BSE, since November 1986.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since November 1986 and up to 13 May 1994, 31,395 farms in the United Kingdom have had at least one confirmed case of BSE.

  Farming
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the adequacy of the current arrangements for funding direct support payments to new entrants to farming; what consideration she is giving to introduce greater flexibility; and if she has raised these matters with her European counterparts.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: Current arrangements for funding direct support payments to new entrants to farming are, in the main, adequate given the complexity of the schemes concerned and the need to maintain the integrity of the integrated administration and control systems as an anti-fraud measure. However, I recognise that there are anomalies in the case of livestock farmers acquiring land after the IACS deadline because they cannot benefit from the IACS related livestock subsidies in that year. Officials are currently discussing with the European Commission whether it might be possible to allow transfer to take place in some clearly defined circumstances, provided proper controls were in place to prevent fraud.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what measures are presently in place to ensure that new entrants coming to farming after the deadline for the submission of IACS forms are not deprived of payments for the period up to the deadline in the following year; and what is the reason for these measures;

  (2) what scope there is to provide new entrants coming to farming after 15 May with direct headage payments in respect of the period before the IACS year beginning May 1995.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: An IACS form is not required from farmers wishing to

  311
  claim under the Sheep Annual Premium Scheme, or up to 15 livestock units under the beef special premium and suckler cow premium schemes provided they do not wish to receive the extensification premium. We are considering what arrangements should be made for hill livestock compensatory allowances in 1995 and will shortly be consulting the industry on proposals. The Council regulation establishing the arable area payments scheme specifically requires applications for payment to be submitted by 15 May and it is not possible for a new entrant to claim such payments retrospectively.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances it is a condition for direct support payments that a new entrant takes up occupancy of the farm on which the claim is to be based before the deadline for submission of IACS forms.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: In order to be eligible for arable area payments, beef special premium, suckler cow premium or hill livestock compensatory allowances, each farmer must submit annually an IACS form, including all of the land farmed, by the deadline. EC rules provide limited exemptions from this requirement for livestock farmers who wish to claim no more than 15 livestock units under the beef special premium or suckler cow premium schemes and do not wish to claim the extensification premium.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provision exists for new entrants to give forewarning of the intention to assume occupancy of a farm after the annual closing date for submission of IACS forms in order to secure annual payments adjusted to reflect the period when the farmer is in actual occupation.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: There are no specific provisions dealing with these circumstances.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what flexibility EC laws allow with regard to setting the date for submission of IACS forms to give entitlement to new entrants coming to farming after the last date for submitting claims.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: The EC rules require IACS forms to be submitted by 31 March. The Commission may allow a member state to set a later date, up to 15 May, if it is satisfied that this still allows proper checks to be carried out. In the United Kingdom, we have applied the latest possible date of 15 May. In circumstances where the IACS form relates only to permanent pasture, a member state may decide that it can be submitted at the same time as the first livestock application, but not later than 1 July.

EDUCATION

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the schools, by local education authority, that had not had their budgets delegated under local management of schools schemes by(a) 1 January and (b) 1 April; and if he will express the number of such schools as a percentage of all schools.

  Mr. Forth
  The precise information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We estimate that 312
  something over 1,000 county and voluntary schools did not have delegated budgets on 1 January 1994. All primary and secondary schools have had delegated budgets from 1 April 1994 except in a few cases where delegation has been withdrawn or deferred by the LEA. All special schools are due to have delegated budgets by 1 April 1996 although many will have them at an earlier date.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education with whom the responsibility lies for deciding whether to(a) hire a teacher, (b) carry out a repair and (c) replace items of furniture in schools with delegated budgets under the local management of schools.

  Mr. Forth
  Within the resources available to it, the governing body of a school with a delegated budget is responsible for determining the schools staff complement and selecting teachers for appointment. The local education authority, except in the case of aided schools, whose staff are normally employed by the governors, must appoint the persons selected unless they fail to fulfil any of the statutory requirements relating to qualifications, health and physical capacity or conduct. The respective responsibilties of governing bodies and LEA for building repairs and maintenance will depend on the terms of the LEAs LMS scheme, although governors will normally be responsible at least for internal decoration and other work of a non-structural kind. In the particular case of voluntary-aided and special agreement schools, repairs to the exterior of the buildings are the statutory responsibility of governors, who may apply for grant aid from the Secretary of State. Furniture for an LEAs schools will in general be provided by the LEA through its capital programme, but governing bodies are free to make purchases with funds from their delegated budgets if they so wish.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children under the age of five years were attending on(a) a full-time basis and (b) a part-time basis (i) nursery classes, (ii) nursery schools or (iii) reception classes in primary school on the latest date for which information is available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The number of full-time and part-time pupils under five in maintained nursery and primary schools in England in January 1993 is shown in the table.

  Pupils under five being attending maintained nursery and primary school in England—January 1993

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Nursery Schools

  9,461

  43,527

  Primary Schools

  Nursery Classes

  27,307

  259,619

  Infant Classes

  289,481

  26,798

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the local education authoritys central costs percentage for a primary grant-maintained school in Solihull in 1993–94; what is the equivalent figure for 1994–95; and in how many local education authorities the proportionate change from 1993–94 to 1994–95 has been(a) greater and (b) smaller than in Solihull.
  313
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The central percentage addition applying in 1993–94 for a primary grant-maintained school formerly maintained by Solihull local education authority was 15.6 per cent. The comparable figure applying to a grant-maintained primary school in Solihull in 1994–95 is 7.0 per cent. The proportionate change between 1993–94 and 1994–95 was greater than that applying in Solihull in two local education authorities, and smaller in 105 local education authorities.

  The Funding Agency for Schools is recalculating the relevant percentages for 1994–95 on the basis of LEAs expenditure plans for the current financial year. As a result of their consideration, the percentages applying in some local education authorities this year may increase.

  School Statistics
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 19 May,Official Report, column 547, if he will give (a) the provisional full-time equivalent teacher numbers for (i) nursery and primary schools and (ii) secondary schools as at January 1994 and (b) the provisional pupil numbers in (i) nursery and primary schools and (ii) secondary schools as at January 1994 giving the figures both for local education authorities and grant-maintained schools.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information is as follows:

  Parental ballots on grant maintained status

  Number of schools balloting

  Number of Yes ballots

  Total percentage of parents voting Yes

  Total percentage of parents voting No

  October 1993

  16

  13

  67

  33

  November 1993

  36

  22

  59

  41

  December 1993

  40

  28

  56

  44

  January 1994

  18

  16

  68

  32

  February 1994

  30

  16

  48

  52

  March 1994

  39

  23

  52

  48

  April 1994

  26

  12

  49

  51

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to offer financial assistance to those people or organisations who wish to promote new grant-maintained schools under section 49 of the Education Act 1993.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has no plans to offer financial assistance to promoters of new grant-maintained schools proposed under section 49 of the Education Act 1993.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people requested further information, in response to his Departments advertising campaign for grant-maintained status during January and February, by(a) phoning the number given on the coupon in the advertisements and (b) returning the coupon.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Departments GM publications centre received 3,913 requests for information between Janaury and the end of April. Of these, 996 calls to the freephone number are known to be attributable to the advertisements, as are the 1,177 coupons returned.
  314

  An estimated breakdown between primary and secondary of the provisional full-time equivalent numbers of teachers employed in the maintained sector, including self-governing (GM) schools. England—January 1994

  Thousands

  Nursery and primary

  197.6

  Secondary

  193.3

  TOTAL

  390.9

  Projected full-time equivalent numbers of pupils in maintained schools, including self-governing (GM) schools. England—January 1994

  Thousands

  Nursery and primary

  4,120.7

  Secondary

  2,932.3

  TOTAL

  7,053.0

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the number of schools holding opt-out ballots, the number of yes votes and the total percentage of parents voting yes and total percentage voting no in(a) October 1993, (b) November 1993, (c) December 1993, (d) February 1994, (e) March 1994 and (f) April 1994.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the criteria set by his Department for placing advertisements in national newspapers to promote the availability of information on grant-maintained status; and what was the estimated readership of the advertisements.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The advertising campaign was designed to alert schools, governors and parents to the availability of factual information on grant-maintained status. It was timed to coincide with the introduction of the new statutory requirement that the governing bodies of schools should consider each year whether to ballot parents on applying for grant-maintained status. The newspapers where advertisements were placed were chosen because they enjoy a high level of readership among those likely to have an active interest in education.

  It is not possible to estimate the readership of the advertisements themselves. However, the official Audit Bureau of Circulation estimated daily readership figures for the titles used during the campaign as follows:
  315

  Number

  Guardian

  1,457,000

  Independent

  1,148,000

  Mail on Sunday

  5,999,000

  Observer

  1,619,000

  Radio Times

  5,433,000

  Sunday Times

  3,538,000

  Times Educational Supplement

  530,000

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

  Mr. Forth
  Parliamentary Counsel drafts not on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. On one occasion, in respect of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, Department for Education Ministers agreed that instructions should go to Parliamentary Counsel for an amendment to a private Members Bill, with the intention that this should be tabled by the Government. That amendment was subsequently passed to a private Member.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Copyright Tribunal
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many references or applications have been heard by the Copyright Tribunal under its present rules of procedure.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Eight references or applications have been heard by the tribunal under its present rules of procedure introduced in 1989 and amended in 1991 to take account of extension of the jurisdiction of the tribunal by the Broadcasting Act 1990. These cases have been of differing complexity and, in consequence, the length of hearings has varied from one day to several weeks, in two cases involving multiple applications and relating respectively to the use of TV listings information by newspapers and magazines and to the broadcasting of sound recordings by independent radio stations. Five further cases were resolved before reaching a hearing, although the tribunal made orders with the consent of the parties in two of these, and five cases are pending.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many questionnaires were sent out, and how many completed questionnaires were received by the Patent Office in respect of the consultation into the functioning of the Copyright Tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Some 98 questionnaires seeking views on the functioning of the tribunal were sent out to those who have been involved in tribunal proceedings, including both users of copyright works and copyright owners, and other interested parties, and 30 replies were 316
  received. My Department is in the process of analysing these responses, and I will consider in the light of this analysis whether any changes in tribunal procedures are desirable.

  British Aerospace (Sales)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made concerning the sale by British Aerospace of its space systems business to Matra Marconi Space; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Officials from the British National Space Centre regularly discuss current issues with companies in the space sector, including Matra Marconi Space and British Aerospace (Space Systems). Many of these discussions are of a commercially confidential nature.

  Motor Vehicle Sales
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review consumer protection legislation relating to the sale of used motor vehicles.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department has issued a consultation document on possible amendments to the law relating to transfer of title on the sale of goods, including the provisions in the Hire Purchase Act 1964 concerned with the sale of motor vehicles subject to a hire purchase or conditional sale agreement.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to strengthen consumer protection legislation regarding warranty offers on used motor vehicles.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  None. It is for the seller to decide what warranty, if any, he offers on the goods he sells.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he last met representatives of the motor vehicle industry to discuss motor vehicle warranty deals and the protection of consumer rights in motor vehicle sales.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Representatives of the industry have not had formal discussions with me on this subject. My last official meeting with the Retail Motor Industry Federation
  was in January 1993. A number of subsequent meetings
  with other Ministers and senior officials have taken place, on a range of issues, as part of the Governments continuing dialogue with leading representatives of the motor vehicle sector.

  Competition
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his departmental officials last met representatives of the European Commissioner responsible for competition to discuss the application by Pallion Engineering Ltd., Sunderland, to accept an in-house ship repair contract from its majority shareholder.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My officials last met representatives of the European Commission about Pallion on 9 February 1994.

  Insolvency Acts
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to seek to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 so as to make it possible for creditors
  317
  who do not have substantial funds to raise court action through the liquidator in cases of alleged fraudulent trading or wrongful trading.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have no plans to do so. It is a matter for those who stand to benefit in individual cases to provide the funds to take such actions.

  Mr. Deva
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take following the enactment of the Insolvency Act 1994, regarding the position of receivers or managers who are not administrative receivers and their liability under contracts of employment they may adopt.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  The Government wish to learn the views of interested parties on whether it would be appropriate to extend the restrictions that the Insolvency Act 1994 introduced in relation to liability under contracts of employment adopted by administrators and administrative receivers and receivers in Scotland, to other receivers or managers.

  During the passage of the Bill I indicated that extending its provisions to other receivers or managers would go beyond the Bills narrow purpose and that such a step would need careful consideration. Interested parties are therefore invited to submit their views on this issue to The Insolvency Service (Policy Unit) at PO Box 203, 21 Bloomsbury street, London WC1B 3QW, by 15 August 1994.

  Toxic Waste and CFCs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the implications of the latest general agreement on tariffs and trade agreement for restrictions in the trade in(a) toxic waste or (b) chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mr. Needham
  The GATT Uruguay round agreement has no implications for restrictions on trade in toxic waste or CFCs.

  Coal Research Establishment
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each year since 1986 the amount of investment made by the Government into the Coal Research Establishment.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The annual investment by the Government into the Coal Research Establishment is as follows:

  Government funding of CRE related activities—£ million (1994 prices)

  Year

  £ million

  1986–87

  1.7

  1987–88

  0.6

  1988–89

  0.2

  1989–90

  3.4

  1990–91

  11.7

  1991–92

  4.9

  1992–93

  1.7

  1993–94

  5.2

  Note:

  The monies shown represent Government contributions to:

  The Grimthorpe research and development project.

  The Point of Ayr coal liquefaction research and development project.

  Contracted research and development in the fields of generic science and advanced power generation.

  Projects paid for by the know-how fund.

  Other ad hoc income from Government.
  318
  Investment for subsequent years up to 1997 totals £7.6 million for contracts already in place between CRE and DTI.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what research his Department is currently taking in respect of the production and manufacturing of cigarettes that are less of a fire hazard; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list the current documents and research material his Department holds on the production and manufacture of cigarettes that are less of a fire hazard; what has been the result of his talks with the tobacco trade on producing safer cigarettes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My Department is in liaison with other Government Departments with an interest in the production of fire-safe cigarettes in order to assemble a body of research material. A list of documents has been placed in the Library of the House.

  I have not held talks with the tobacco industry on this matter. I am currently monitoring events relating to proposed legislation concerning fire-safe cigarettes which is under discussion in the United States.

  Energy-saving Initiatives
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his current policy in respect of gas consumers paying a levy to fund energy-saving initiatives; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Government regard recent changes in the price control formulae of gas and electricity as welcome steps in promoting energy efficiency.

  Chapter 8 of the joint DTI/Ofgas consultation document "Competition and Choice in the Gas Market" sets out proposals and options for further steps to promote the efficient use of gas in the new competitive gas market.

  Defence Industry Exports
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of exports from defence industries are currently sent to developing countries; what is their value; and how the position has changed in cash and percentage terms in the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is provided in the table.

  United Kingdom Exports of Defence Equipment to Developing Countries1

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Value (£ million)

  957

  1,938

  1,584

  1,440

  1,156

  Per cent. of total exports

  70

  80

  80

  77

  77

  Note:

  1 All countries excluding NATO and Western Europe.

  Source: United Kingdom Defence Statistics, (HMSO).

  Sandwell Borough Council
  Dame Angela Rumbold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about pre-stamping plastic capacity measures by Sandwell borough council; what steps he is taking to correct this anomaly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I have received representations from two plastic capacity measure manufacturers about the stamping of measures before they have been tested, a practice which appears to be acceptable to Sandwell metropolitan borough council.

  I have it in mind to make use of the powers proposed by clauses 1–4 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, once enacted, to amend the Weights and Measures Act 1985, so as to make pre-stamping lawful in defined circumstances and subject to prescribed conditions.

  Nuclear Co-operation Agreement
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has regarding the current negotiations between the European Commission and the United States Government in regard to the extension and revision of the United States—Euratom nuclear cooperation agreement.

  Mr. Needham
  Negotiations are continuing on a new nuclear co-operation agreement to replace the existing agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the United States. The European Commission is responsible for the conduct of the negotiations. I am advised that the next negotiating meeting is scheduled to take place in June.

  Manufacturing Statistics
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the percentage change in(a) manufacturing output and (b) manufacturing productivity in Britain and each of the European Union countries., Japan and the United States since 1979.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The information available is given in the table:

  Growth in manufacturing output and manufacturing productivity (output per head) between 1979 and 1993

  Percentage change

  Output

  Productivity

  Belgium

  17

  n/a

  Denmark

  n/a

  n/a

  France

  1

  30

  West Germany

  14

  15

  Greece

  -1

  n/a

  Ireland

  n/a

  n/a

  Italy

  12

  32

  Luxembourg

  34

  n/a

  Netherlands

  27

  n/a

  Portugal

  41

  n/a

  Spain

  n/a

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  5

  66

  Japan

  43

  26

  United States

  38

  63

  Sources: CSO/OECD.

  Notes:

  n/a=Not available on a comparable basis.

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 16 May,Official Report, columns 302–4, if he will distinguish in the case of the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the National Physical Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory and the National Weights and Measures Laboratory between consultancy used for management advice, consultancy used for marketing advice, and consultancy used for technical advice.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have asked the chief executive of the agencies concerned to reply to this question, as it falls into the category of day-to-day operational matters.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 26 May 1994:
  I have been asked to answer with respect to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist your question to the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his Answer to the honourable Member for Darlington of 16 May, Official Report, columns 302–4, requesting that he distinguish between consultancy used for management, marketing and technical advice.
  Over the last five years (up to and including 1993–94) the Laboratory of the Government Chemist has let two consultancy contracts for management advice at a cost of £32,000; two for marketing advice at a cost of £44,000 and 9 for technical advice at a cost of £366,000.

  Letter from W. Edgar to Mr. Jim Cousins dated 26 May 1994:
  I would refer to your question to the President of the Board of Trade, requesting that he distinguish in the case of the DTI Research Establishments between consultancy used for management advice, marketing advice and technical advice.
  The split of consultancy costs over the past five years for the National Engineering Laboratory is:

  £

  Marketing

  222,582

  Management

  119,541

  Technical

  18,324

  TOTAL

  360,447

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 26 May 1994:
  I have been asked to reply in respect of this Agency, to your recent question to the President of the Board of Trade concerning the nature of consultancy contracts let in the last five years.
  All of the consultancy contracts let by the National Weights and Measures Laboratory between April 1989 and March 1994 were for management advice.

  Letter from P. B. Clapham to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 26 May 1994:
  I am writing in respect of the National Physical Laboratory in response to your question to the President of the Board of Trade asking for a breakdown of consultancy contracts let by the DTI Laboratories.
  Of the 82 consultancies referred to in my letter of 16 May 1994 to Mr. Alan Milburn MP, 7 were for consultancy used for marketing advice, at a total cost of £151,267 excluding VAT. The other 75, at a total cost of £1,321,058 excluding VAT, related to management advice in the widest sense. (This goes considerably

  321
  wider than "management consultancy" as generally understood and includes, for example, software development in connection with new financial management information systems.)
  Technical consultancy is not included in these figures, but is subsumed within the wide range of extra-mural research, technical and other assistance which NPL commissions in connection with its scientific programmes.

  Pyramid Selling
  Ms Harman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the adequacy of Government measures on pyramid selling.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The legislation controlling pyramid selling and similar trading schemes has been criticised on a number of grounds. We intend to consult soon on specific proposals to amend both the primary legislation and the current regulations.

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the procedure by which the GATT council adopts reports produced by the dispute settlement panel.

  Mr. Needham
  The process by which panel reports are adopted will change under the World Trade Organisation, when responsibility for adoption will move from the council to the dispute settlement body. To allow members of the World Trade Organisation dispute settlement body time in which to consider panel reports, reports will not be considered by the body until 20 days after issue to members. Reports will be adopted by a meeting of the body within 60 days of issue, unless one of the parties to the dispute notifies its intention to appeal or unless all members of the body agree not to adopt.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the criteria for selecting members of the panel of experts who will comprise the dispute settlement body of the World Trade Organisation.

  Mr. Needham
  The dispute settlement body will consist of representatives of the members of the World Trade Organisation.

  Panelists shall be well-qualified individuals who have served on or presented a case to a panel; served as a representative of a World Trade Organisation member or of a contracting party to GATT or as a representative to a council or committee of any covered agreement or its predecessor agreement, or in the World Trade Organisation secretariat; taught or published on international trade law or policy; or served as a senior trade policy official of a member. They shall be selected with a view to ensuring that the panel has independence, a sufficiently diverse background and a wide spectrum of experience. Citizens of members of the World Trade Organisation whose Governments are parties to the dispute or third parties shall not serve on a panel connected with that dispute, unless the parties to the dispute agree otherwise.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the selection criteria for members of the appeal board of the dispute settlement body.

  Mr. Needham
  The understanding on dispute settlement stipulates that members of the appellate body of the dispute settlement body shall be persons of recognized 322
  authority, with demonstrated expertise in law, international trade and the subject matter of the covered agreements. They shall be unaffiliated with any Government, although the bodys membership shall be broadly representative of the WTOs membership. They shall be available at all times and at short notice, and shall stay abreast of dispute settlement and other relevant WTO activities. They shall not participate in consideration of disputes that would create a direct or indirect conflict of interest.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what special assistance will be available from the GATT secretariat for developing countries in mounting or defending dispute settlement cases.

  Mr. Needham
  Under the present GATT, the secretariat may make available a qualified legal expert from its technical co-operation services at the request of any developing country involved in a dispute settlement panel. This will continue under the World Trade Organisation.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the relationship between a collective view adopted by the GATT council on a trade issue and(a) domestic or (b) EU legislation pertinent to that trade issue.

  Mr. Needham
  There is no direct relationship between the collective view of the GATT council and the legislation of the United Kingdom or the European Union. With the exception of notification requirements, GATT rules do not lay down what governments must do. Although it is possible for the GATT council to take decisions to change GATT rules, contracting parties which do not accept such changes cannot be obliged to accept them.

  Where GATT dispute settlement panels find that a measure of an individual contracting party breaches GATT obligations, that contracting party may bring its measure into conformity with GATT rules; offer compensatory market access; or accept retaliatory withdrawal of market access. This position will be unchanged under the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how signatories of the GATT agreement will be able to bring about changes in(a) the membership of the dispute settlement body or (b) the panel of experts of the dispute settlement body of the World Trade Organisation.

  Mr. Needham
  The dispute settlement body shall be convened by the general council of the World Trade Organisation and will have the same membership as the general council, that is, representatives of all members of the World Trade Organisation. It will be for individual members to determine who their representatives shall be.

  Members of the World Trade Organisation may periodically suggest names of individuals for inclusion on the World Trade Organisation secretariats list of potential panelists, and their names shall be added to the list upon approval by the dispute settlement body.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the time limits under which the dispute settlement process under the World Trade Organisation will operate.

  Mr. Needham
  The understanding on dispute settlement envisages a number of stages in the dispute settlement process, most of which are time-limited and
  323
  some of which are optional. However, after the initial period of consultations, unless otherwise agreed by the parties to the dispute, the period from establishment of a panel by the dispute settlement body until the body considers the panel or appellate report for adoption shall not exceed nine months where the report is not appealed or 12 months where the report is appealed.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the British contributions to the GATT for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Needham
  The United Kingdoms contributions to the GATT have been, in Swiss francs:

  Swiss francs

  1994

  5,748,978

  1993

  5,575,393

  1992

  5,454,835

  1991

  4,939,530

  1990

  4,761,920

  1989

  4,057,044

  1988

  3,587,324

  1987

  3,599,990

  1986

  3,842,740

  1985

  4,333,550

  1984

  3,944,460

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will outline the appeals procedure by which a contracting party to the GATT agreement may appeal against a collective view adopted by the GATT Council arising from a dispute settlement panel report.

  Mr. Needham
  There is no appeals procedure under the existing GATT. Under the World Trade Organisation, within 60 days of issuance of a dispute settlement panel report, the dispute settlement body shall adopt the report unless it agrees by consensus not to do so, or if a party has notified its intention to appeal. Appeals shall be limited to issues of law covered in the panels report and legal interpretation developed by the panel. Three members of the appellate body shall hear each case. In general, the appellate body should issue its decision no more than 60 days after a party to a dispute notifies its intention to appeal. In no case shall proceedings exceed 90 days.

  The appellate bodys report shall be adopted by the dispute settlement body and unconditionally accepted by the parties to the dispute within 30 days of the issuance of the report to dispute settlement body members, unless the body decides by consensus not to do so.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  to ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date(a) he or (b) his officials were first made aware of interest being expressed by citizens of Russia or other east European states in the purchase of operations of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Heseltine
  My officials and I are unaware of any such interest.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date a summary of the Stoy Hayward report on the Insolvency Service was made available to(a) the trade unions, (b) Insolvency Service staff, (c) the DTI Library and (d) the Library of both Houses.
  324
  Mr. Heseltine
  A summary of the Stoy Hayward report on the Insolvency Service was made available to the Library of both Houses on 7 February 1994, to Insolvency Service staff and the trade unions on 8 February and to the DTI Library on 9 February.

  Official Receivers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates representatives of his Department met representatives of Stoy Hayward to discuss matters relating to official receivers.

  Mr. Heseltine
  In the course of both the first study carried out by them and the current feasibility study, Stoy Hayward will have been in almost daily contact with representatives of my Department, principally with officials in the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, columns 74–75, on what dates representatives of his Department met representatives of Ian Greer Associates and discussed the subject of private sector involvement in the work of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No such meetings have taken place.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the remit given by his Department to the Stoy Hayward options consultancy currently being undertaken into the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: The first study undertaken by Stoy Hayward considered the ways in which official receivers could concentrate more on their investigatory role by involving the private sector more in the mechanical processing work in insolvencies. A summary of Stoy Haywards report was placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The remit for the feasibility study now in progress was to carry out a more detailed analysis of the costs, benefits and value for money of options identified in the earlier work.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has decided to privatise the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: No. We are examining ways in which the private sector can play a larger part than it already does in delivering the services of the Insolvency Service.

  Ecocon Ventures
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 74, on what dates representatives of his Department met representatives of Ecocon Ventures.

  Mr. Heseltine
  No such meetings have taken place.

  Post Office
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state his reasons for refusing each of the requests made by the Post Office for permission to pursue commercial initiatives listed in its supplementary memoranda to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which were published on pages 31–2 of its first report on the future of the Post Office, HC 207, 1993–94.
  325
  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: The Post Offices requests, some of which date back many years, were to expand its activities, often into areas already served by the private sector. As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade explained in his evidence to the Select Committee reproduced in the same report as that cited by the hon. Member, the Government need to consider the effect that greater commercial freedom for a publicly owned business would have on other firms. A number of businesses made clear to the Select Committee their concerns about the fairness of competition, as the Committee recognised at paragraph 20 of its unanimous report.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade where and by what means he has given his reasons for not choosing the option of maintaining the Royal Mail in public ownership but with enhanced commercial freedom.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: The Government have reached no decisions on the Post Office review. The hon. Members question does not therefore arise. A Green Paper will be published shortly setting out the issues in full and outlining the options for change.

  Coalfield Communities
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure that British Coal land which is leased to miners welfares for sports and
  recreational facilities in coalfield communities is preserved for the future of those communities.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 25 May 1994]: As part of the wider process of deciding on the disposal of the corporations assets, I have asked British Coal to identify land which it owns and which is currently used for coal industry social welfare purposes, including recreation.

  I will take into account local needs when taking decisions on the disposal of the land so identified, on who should receive the benefit of the use of that land and on the safeguards which might be required.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Stephen Lawrence
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Crown Prosecution Service the reports of activities of a police officer, details of which have been sent to him.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received about the involvement of a police officer, whose name has been supplied to him, in the Stephen Lawrence murder case.

  The Attorney-General
  It is for the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis to consider whether the activities of any individual require investigation. Where allegations and complaints are made about the activities of a police officer the chief officer of the relevant force will have regard to the procedures established under part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Attorney-General if he intends to review the decision of the CPS not to proceed with a prosecution in the case of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
  326
  The Attorney-General
  The proceedings arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence were discontinued because the Crown Prosecution Service concluded, after a careful and detailed examination of the evidence, that there was no realistic prospect of conviction. Reconsideration of that decision would not be justified unless significant fresh evidence were to become available.

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the present number of civil servants taking legal action against his Department as a result of work-related upper limb disorders.

  The Attorney-General
  Two civil servants in the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Treasury Solicitor Act 1876
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General how often the powers of the Treasury Solicitor Act 1876 have been used to create offshore bank accounts or conduct share transactions in the United Kingdom and overseas in the name of Government Departments and agencies; and in what form the use of these powers is reported to Parliament.

  The Attorney-General
  Currently there are no offshore accounts which have been created under the powers in the Treasury Solicitor Act 1876. Information about such
  accounts which may previousy have been created since
  1876 is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Treasury Solicitor has conducted share transactions as nominee of Government Departments or their agencies but principally on behalf of the Treasury for purposes connected with privatisations. Information identifying the number of such share transactions could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Any reporting to Parliament of share transactions by the Treasury Solicitor as nominee for another Government Department will be the responsibility of that other Department.

  Rolan Adams and Stephen Lawrence
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the matters referred to him by the hon. Member for Woolwich in respect of the Rolan Adams and Stephen Lawrence murder cases.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible in response to his letter of 23 May.

  International Military Services Ltd.
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General whether it was the practice of the Treasury Solicitors to attend the annual general meetings of International Military Services Ltd. as shareholders.

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General on which occasions the Treasury solicitors offered advice to International Military Services Ltd.

  The Attorney-General
  I am not aware of any such occasion.

  DeLorean
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General whether Treasury solicitors have offered advice in the Government's actions over the DeLorean company.

  The Attorney-General
  The Treasury Solicitors department has, since 1985, advised on the proceedings which have been brought by the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland in connection with the accounts of the DeLorean company. Currently, the Treasury Solicitors department is liaising with the lawyers responsible for the litigation in the United States of America and is advising Government Departments in connection therewith.

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

  The Attorney-General
  In respect of the departments for which I have responsibility, the code of practice directly applies only to the Treasury Solicitors department..I have announced the intention of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office to seek voluntarily to comply with the code so far as possible, 22 March,Official Report, column 218. Internal guidance is being drawn up within the Treasury Solicitors department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office. This will be made available once it has been finalised, in accordance with the provisions in the code of practice. In the meantime, each division of the Treasury Solicitors department, all Crown Prosecution Service offices and the Serious Fraud Office have copies of the Cabinet Office guidance on interpretation of the code, which has already been placed in the House of Commons Library.

LORD CHANCELLORS DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what plans his Department has to abolish the requirement that solicitors eligible for elevation to the High Court bench should hold additional advocacy qualifications.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The statutory requirements for appointment as a High Court judge are to have a 10-year High Court qualification within the meaning of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990—that is, a right of audience in relation to all proceedings in the High Court; or to be a circuit judge who has held that office for at least two years. The Lord Chancellor has no plans to change these requirements.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what plans his Department has to improve the procedures by which appointments are made to the judiciary; and what plans he has to publish a report on such improvements.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Clwyd,328
  North-west (Mr. Richards) on 19 May, Official Report, column 529. The Lord Chancellor's proposals are set out in a consultation paper, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department how many Queens counsel refused the offer of appointment to(a) the High Court bench and (b) the circuit bench in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980 and (iii) in each of the last five years.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information relating to 1970 and 1980 is not available.

  The numbers of Queens counsel who have declined an offer to recommend their names to Her Majesty The Queen for immediate appointment to the High Court Bench and, on the basis of the information readily available, to the circuit bench in each of the last five years are as follows.

  High Court bench

  Circuit bench

  1989–90

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  1

  1991–92

  1

  —

  1992–93

  6

  —

  1993–94

  2

  1

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

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Parliamentary Counsel does not draft on behalf of private Members but on the instructions of Departments acting on the authority of Ministers. Since April 1992 neither the Lord Chancellor nor I have authorised officials to instruct Parliamentary Counsel to prepare amendments to private Members' Bills which were
  subsequently passed to private Members.

  Sex Offences
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what(a) compulsory and (b)optional training for judges in the area of cases involving sex offences has been provided by the Judicial Studies Board since July 1993.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Once every five years, all judges attend Crown court refresher seminars run by the Judicial Studies Board. Some of the sessions in the seminars are devoted to the study of sex offences. In addition, judges who hear family cases attend a special residential seminar once a year. Since July 1993 there have been four Crown court refresher seminars and one special family seminar.

  Appeal Judges
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department if he will list the names and the dates of appointment of all currently serving lords justices of appeal.
  329
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The names of the lords justices, and the dates they were appointed to the Court of Appeal are as follows:

  Name

  Sir Brian Dillon

  30 September 1982

  Sir Brian Neill

  11 January 1985

  Sir Martin Nourse

  3 June 1985

  Sir Iain Glidewell

  3 June 1985

  Sir John Balcombe

  11 June 1985

  Sir Patrick Russell

  12 January 1987

  Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

  11 January 1988

  Sir Murray Stuart-Smith

  13 January 1988

  Sir Christopher Staughton

  13 January 1988

  Sir Michael Mann

  13 January 1988

  Sir Donald Farquharson

  12 June 1989

  Sir Anthony McCowan

  3 October 1989

  Sir Roy Beldam

  3 October 1989

  Sir Andrew Leggatt

  30 January 1990

  Sir Richard Scott

  1 October 1991

  Sir Johan Steyn

  10 January 1992

  Sir Paul Kennedy

  25 June 1992

  Sir David Hirst

  1 October 1992

  Sir Simon Brown

  1 October 1992

  Sir Anthony Evans

  1 October 1992

  Sir Christopher Rose

  1 October 1992

  Sir Leonard Hoffman

  1 October 1992

  Sir John Waite

  11 January 1993

  Sir John Roch

  11 January 1993

  Sir Peter Gibson

  23 March 1993

  Sir John Hobhouse

  1 October 1993

  Sir Denis Henry

  1 October 1993

  Sir Mark Saville

  11 January 1994

  Sir Peter Millett

  12 April 1994

  Upper Limb Disorders
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what is the present number of civil servants taking legal action against his Department as a result of work-related upper limb disorders.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of civil servants at present taking legal action against my Department as a result of work-related upper limb disorders is 24.

  Courts and Legal Services
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what plans he has to publish the first results of the fundamental review of expenditure on the courts and legal services.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The fundamental review team will make its first report to the Lord Chancellor at the end of June 1994. It will not be published. Any change in policy resulting from the review will be announced in the usual way.

  Lawyers (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what research his Department has done into the effectiveness of the Bar Councils decision in October 1991 to set a quota of two representatives of the ethnic minorities in each set of chambers; what percentage of chambers in(a) London and (b) the provinces have so far achieved this target; and what plans he has to assist the Bar Council in increasing these percentages.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellors Department has not undertaken any research into the effectiveness of the Bar Council's race equality policy, adopted in October 1991, which anticipated that at least 5 per cent. of all chambers membership would be barristers from ethnic minorities. This is a matter for the Bar Council.

  Legal Aid Board
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what is the estimated cost so far to the Legal Aid Board of franchising, including the full cost of recruiting and training quality auditors; and what are the expected costs for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The cost of franchising to the Legal Aid Board in the years prior to 1993–94 is not available. At that time, the cost was relatively small and consisted largely of the time of senior officials at the board developing the policy behind franchising. In 1993–94 the board began to recruit and train staff for the implementation of franchising. The cost of franchising to the board in 1993–94 was £3.4 million. For 1994–95 expenditure of £3.9 million has been budgeted.

  Family Panels
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellors Department what research he has commissioned in to the possibility of domestic violence cases being heard by family panels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No such research has been commissioned. Some domestic violence cases are currently heard by family proceedings courts. The Lord Chancellor has given detailed consideration to the Law Commissions report on civil remedies for domestic violence and the most appropriate venue for such cases to be heard has formed an important part of that consideration.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

Newly Qualified Drivers
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are considering the introduction of new controls on newly-qualified drivers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we are considering the introduction of a scheme to require these drivers to re-take the driving test if they commit serious traffic offences.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but of course it is quite inadequate. Is he aware that although only 10 per cent. of licence holders are between the ages of 17 and 21 they are responsible for 20 per cent. of all road accidents and 25 per cent. of all road deaths? Is he not aware of the great benefits achieved in Northern Ireland and Australia where drivers carry either "R" for restricted or "P" for provisional plates for a period after they are granted their licence?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that my Answer did not totally satisfy my noble friend. She is right to point out that statistics show that drivers under 21 account for a disproportionate number of accidents on the roads. We are studying the results of the experiment in Northern Ireland in which a P-plate is carried on the car of somebody who has recently passed the test to see whether there are benefits. Obviously if there are benefits we shall consider applying the scheme more widely. In the meantime, we have to await a proper evaluation of the effect of the plate on the accident rate of drivers under 21.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the scheme in Northern Ireland is not an experiment? It has been going on for years. Surely the Department of Transport could evaluate that scheme. It is a very good idea. As you are driving you can see that the driver in front has only recently passed the test, so you are wary.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I should not have said that the scheme in Northern Ireland was an experiment. However, we are evaluating that scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, points out the obvious advantage of the scheme. It alerts other drivers to the fact that the driver in front, or perhaps even behind, is newly qualified. However, it is the effect
850
on the driver himself or herself of carrying that plate on the car that interests us most. That: is why we are continuing the evaluation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a very dangerous rule that someone can obtain a full licence without ever having driven on a motorway and then promptly go out and drive on the motorway as much as he wants? Is that not one of the main causes of the large numbers of accidents involving young drivers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand what my noble friend is saying, but the statistics show that the problem on motorways is not great. In fact, accidents occur largely on roads other than motorways. The other problem about including motorway driving in the driving test is that so many people and so many driving test centres are situated quite a distance from motorways. Therefore, the practicalities of conducting part of the test on a motorway are considerable.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in his reply the noble Lord suggested that the Government are in the process of evaluating what has happened in Northern Ireland. May we have the assurance that the Government will not have to call in yet another firm of management accountants to make up their mind for them and that the Government can make up their own mind without any extra cost being incurred?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that Ministers in the Department of Transport will make up their own minds.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the House will regard that as something of a change. Will the Minister indicate how long the consideration of re-taking the driving test when serious offences are committed— which seems to me to be an eminently sensible idea —is likely to take before the Government can come forward with specific proposals?
I fully support the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, concerning motorway driving. Does the Minister agree that driving on a motorway requires driving of a quite different quality from driving on other roads? Will he therefore not close his mind to the idea that was put forward, which I thought he tended to do in answering that question? Will he give an undertaking to the House that this is a matter to which he and his colleagues will give further consideration?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, to answer the second part of the noble Lord's question, obviously we think all the time about ways in which the driving test might be improved. However, the problem about the motorway aspect is the one that I mentioned. Approximately 50 per cent of driving test centres are a very long way from motorways. Indeed, in the constituency which I had the honour to represent in the other place it would have been impossible to impose on people taking the test in that area a section on motorway driving.

851
In relation to the first part of the question concerning re-testing, there are some problems with regard to the legal position. We are looking into the kind of situations in which re-testing would be triggered and whether secondary legislation would be required or whether primary legislation would be necessary.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister take it from me that in suggesting that motorway testing should be undertaken I am in no way advocating the idea so dear to the heart of the Government that more motorways should be built so that more driving tests can be applied?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I never gave that possibility a thought. But I shall take it away and think about it again.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when we debated the last major traffic Act in this House we had facts and figures from the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland about the great improvement due to the R-plates which even at that time seemed conclusive? Will he assure us that the use of P-plates, which statistics show have proved so successful in Australia, will be considered in any study?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, yes, of course I can assure my noble friend that we shall look carefully at the studies taking place in Northern Ireland to see whether such use reduces the accident rate among those young people. We have a number of issues in mind. We intend to impose a separate theory test in the course of the driving test as from 1st July 1996.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, courts already have the power to order someone who has been banned from driving for a short period to retake the test before he can obtain a licence again. Does the Minister agree that that power should be applied far more often than at present to drivers of all ages?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right that the courts already have the right to order someone to retake the test at the end of that person's banned period. However, the proposals that we are discussing would be of a more automatic nature, perhaps linked to the points system or the nature of the offences. The situation would be different from the current position in which it is up to the discretion of the courts to decide whether to impose re-testing.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. Is the Minister aware that in France the plating system for newly qualified drivers has been in existence for many years, together with the figure "90" placed on the back of cars, indicating a limit of 90 kilometres per hour? Does he agree that the teaching of driving in areas off the road is to be encouraged because the length of the course is less, the cost is less and congestion on the roads is removed for the general public?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure whether I can go along with the latter part
852
of my noble friend's question. The real problem is that people have to be taught to drive within the environment and situations in which they will have to take the test, and drive thereafter if successful.
On the first part of my noble friend's question, I shall draw the attention of my honourable friend Mr. Robert Key, the Minister for Roads and Traffic in the department, to the various points made by your Lordships on the question of probationary plates.

Boxley Valley: Channel Tunnel Rail Link
11.17 a.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What environmental protection they propose for the Boxley Valley in Kent in view of the proposed high-speed Channel Tunnel rail link.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, measures which will minimise the environmental impact on the new rail link in Boxley Valley are currently being studied. They include a length of cut-and-cover tunnel to the south of Boxley village and various landscaping measures.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the Government bear in mind that the Boxley Valley is an area of outstanding natural beauty which serves the great conurbation of the Medway estuary, and gives great pleasure and recreation to people? For the benefit of future generations, would it not be worth the price to put the high-speed link in the Boxley Valley under the North Downs rather than implementing the half-way measures that the Government propose? Might there not be some funding from Brussels to help pay for the transport networks and the environmental protection involved?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether there would be funding from Brussels for specific measures, although there may well be funding from Brussels for the whole project.
As regards the specific problem in the valley, we indeed appreciate the scenic beauty of the area, which is why the whole project has twice been reviewed by the Government and Union Railways. On both occasions the conclusion reached was that the extra expenditure —it is £65 million if we have to drive only one tunnel and £115 million if we have to drive two—did not seem to be worth while, set against the way in which the small portion of the cut-and-cover and other environmental improvements which can be made on the line above ground can help to ameliorate the environmental impact.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, although tunnelling is much more expensive, it protects the landscape for the rest of time? Do we not owe it to future generations so to protect whenever feasible?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate that tunnelling puts the railway, so to speak,

853
out of sight and perhaps at least out of the mind's eye. However, we have to consider the cost. If too much of a railway line is tunnelled, the whole economics of the project become impossible. I believe that there has to be a balance between the economic and the environmental sides.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that environmentalists regard Cobham Park, where the line will be raised by five metres through Repton's unique 18th century landscape, as an even greater area of concern than Boxley Valley?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not wish to become involved in a discussion about what part of the project gives rise to the greatest anxiety. I know of my noble friend's interest in Repton's work at Cobham and can assure him that Union Railways are aware of the special sites there. The firm has met representatives of the Cobham Park Trust and the National Trust to try to ensure that the new railway line, which will go as close to the roadway as possible, will cause the minimum impact on Repton's work.

South Africa: Development Programme
11.20 a.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the Commonwealth, the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank and other appropriate international institutions towards developing, togeth-er with the new South African Government, a sustained development programme for South Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the new South African Government have adopted a reconstruction and development programme. We and other donors are ready to discuss priorities for assistance.
Lord Judd: My Lords, with all our involvement in South Africa, our membership of both the Commonwealth and the European Union and our responsibilities as a Permanent Member of the Security Council, does the Minister agree that we have a special responsibility to ensure effective international co-operation with the South African Government in their plans? What are the priorities as seen by the Government? Do they include land reform and the building of a strong voluntary sector, as envisaged in the impressive European special programme of recent years? Above all, does the Minister agree that we must lead by example? As the South African people face up bravely to their future, the £100 million so far pledged is a pretty minimal start, especially when compared with the £234 million for one questionable dam in Malaysia.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the latter part of the noble Lord's question, I do not believe that the £100 million pledged by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs is a pretty minimal amount. I further add that, as
854
well as our own direct contributions through aid, both bilateral and through the Community, there is a considerable degree of United Kingdom direct private investment. I know that the noble Lord may not like to admit it, but I believe that private sector investment can often be of far greater use than anything that governments themselves can do.
As regards our objectives, they will include good government, especially public administration and police reform, education, health and small business development. We are obviously keen to discuss the priorities for aid with the new government as soon as they are ready. We will continue to work with South African non-governmental organisations where appropriate.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not the case that in regard to the African continent, South Africa is one of the richest countries in basic materials and wealth which need to be exploited? Does it not follow that in addition to money, a wide reservoir of technical advice and specialist know-how should be made available to them on how to exploit the natural riches that lie below the ground?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, quite correct. South Africa is naturally a very wealthy country. It has a per capita income of the order of 2,500 dollars, but obviously there are wide disparities between those at the top and those at the bottom. We would certainly like to see growth in the income of the less well off.
I can give an assurance that all our bilateral assistance will be in the form of technical co-operation. We believe that South Africa must look to the private sector, international financial institutions and development finance organisations for most of its financial investment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will the Government keep in mind the risk that leading by example may be interpreted in South Africa as interfering with what should be local decisions?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. That is why I was keen to stress that we are anxious to discuss the priorities for aid with the new Government of South Africa.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister agree that South Africa is not in the same category as many third world countries in Africa? It has a reasonable infrastructure as regards economic develop-ment. Can the Minister give two assurances: first, that aid, bilateral and multilateral, which is being directed to South Africa will not be at the expense of some other countries in Africa which require considerable assistance? Secondly, may I have an assurance that the DTI is alerted to the importance of private investment to raise the standard of living of the people of South Africa and to encourage economic prosperity by partnerships and other initiatives?
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the noble Lord's second point, as he will be aware, I was keen to stress the importance of direct private investment by the United Kingdom. Our record is pretty good: in the developing

855
countries, something of the order of half the total EC direct private investment comes from this country. I am sure that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will take note of what the noble Lord said about encouragement from his department.
As regards whether money should come from other funds, obviously there are only limited resources available for overseas aid. We maintain a substantial aid programme, the sixth largest in the world. However, difficult decisions have to be made as to where the resources come from and where they should be directed.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a great deal of expertise already in South Africa in all the communities, whether black, coloured, Asian or white?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct, but I believe that there are certain sectors where we can offer a great deal of assistance. That is what we have promised to do.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while ultimately the most important aid is investment in the development of employment and prosperity, the expectations of the newly enfranchised electorate are such that visible progress needs to be made? Probably the most important way in which we could help is in housing and improving the standard of housing. If we give aid to that, let it be in the form of a grant, not a loan.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear, most of our aid will be in the form of technical co-operation. As regards priorities, that is a matter for the South African Government. Their reconstruction and development programme provides a framework for their development policies in government. At the moment, it lacks detail but it envisages fairly moderate economic policies and priority for restructuring education and health. That will certainly form the basis of their discussions with donors such as ourselves.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the South African Government are enormously grateful for the Molteno project which aims to teach basic literacy to black primary school children? It is funded by the ODA.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw the House's attention to the Molteno project which helps many black primary school children, first in their indigenous language and then bridging into English. The ODA has supported the project since 1985. Phase 2 of our support began in April 1993 at a cost of £460,000 over three years.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister agree that precisely because of the relatively strong infrastructure in South Africa and the potential of that country, we can make particularly good use of an aid programme there, not only for the impoverished people of South Africa itself but because of the contribution which South Africa will be able to make in the future to the regeneration of the entire African continent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that for once there is nothing with which I could disagree in the noble Lord's remarks. I am prepared thoroughly to endorse them.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that timing is important? Will he ensure that the South African Government are encouraged to look at priorities reasonably quickly? It is important that much development takes place in South Africa before the next elections and the matter should not be allowed to drift.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that the South African Government themselves will be aware of the importance of such problems, but it must be a matter for the South African Government to decide on their own priorities for development and reconstruction.

European Elections: Sitting of the House
11.28 a.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked the Leader of the House:
Why the House is sitting on Thursday 9th June, the day of polling in the European Elections, when the House of Commons is not sitting and many Peers will be wishing to vote and campaign in the constituencies in which they live.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it has not been the practice in the past for the House to adjourn during either European or local elections. Peers are of course eligible for postal votes or indeed for proxy votes.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is not that practice a relic of the time when the only nationwide popular elections were for another place, with which traditionally we have nothing to do? The whole position has now changed because other elections affect the whole country, elections in which it is perfectly proper for us to vote and campaign. That is particularly so since a high proportion of the effective politicians of this country are in your Lordships' House. If it is too late to do anything about it this time, will the usual channels look at this matter again before 1998?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course I will take that into consideration when I am holding this job at that particular time. The noble Lord is quite right. All elections are very important; whether they are local or European makes no difference. However, the House will recall that both Houses thought it quite proper to arrange business on the last local election day, 5th May. Also of course, both Houses sat on the previous European parliamentary election days in 1989 and 1984. But I take note of what the noble Lord said.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps the House will allow me, in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, to convey to him, on behalf of the whole House, our deep regret at the sad news that his brother, John, died this morning. John was a dear friend of ours and a good servant of the people. It struck me as appropriate that in the presence of his brother I should convey those sentiments.

857
Turning to the Question, will the Government Chief Whip accept from me that the arrangements were made in good faith and through the usual channels? But will he also accept that the reason why from time to time this House sits when the Commons does not sit is that the Government persist in producing Bills of inordinate length and complexity? That causes this House to sit, in this instance, for one week longer. Even as late as yesterday the Government, for their own political ends, being under pressure from certain quarters, have decided unilaterally not to have the House of Commons meet on the Monday when it was due to come back. Is it not time that government Ministers in both Houses grasped the nettle and produced what might be called Jopling-like proposals to make sure that the business of the Government which must be got through is got through in better circumstances to allow hardworking Peers at least to do their job and to do it comfortably?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that the whole House, including noble Lords on this side, would wish to join the noble Lord in his remarks about the sad news of the death of Lord John-Mackie.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that the business for that week was agreed through the usual channels, as it was. Arrangements for business in the other place are not a matter for me. I am sure that noble Lords would like a longer Recess. I have to confess, so would I. But were the Recess to be longer, then the consequences would be twofold. Either noble Lords would be asked to consider legislation in more haste, and perhaps less fully than I believe the House would wish; or your Lordships' well-earned summer holidays might be curtailed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the later part of each Session noble Lords have far more legislation to consider than Members have in another place, and that we have to make our own arrangements in order to perform that duty adequately?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. The Government's legislative programme is clearly something that the House is keen to discuss. Both my noble friend the Leader of the House and I are equally keen to ensure that sufficient time is available for noble Lords to examine government legislative programmes thoroughly. It is in that spirit that the arrangements for 9th June have been made.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that my noble friend and colleague on the Front Bench, Lord Graham, is quite correct? There is an extension of holidays in the other place. Is the Minister further aware that it is causing something of an embarrassment? The other House is now having so many weeks off that there are not enough weeks to accommodate the number of Supply Days there.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, again, that is a matter for another place and not for me. However, I believe that it would be wrong to curtail the very
858
important discussions that we have on important Bills which pass through this House in order perhaps to prolong our Whitsun Recess.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from these Benches I should also like to convey the sympathy of my colleagues to my noble friend, which we shall also do privately. I have no doubt that he will be grateful for the expressions of sympathy that have been offered throughout the House.
To return to the Question, as noble Lords will be aware, the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, is sitting with a small group of people at the moment on the subject of the sittings of the House, and will doubtless have taken on board what has been said. It is surely unsatisfactory that this week we have had two major Committee days on the Criminal Justice Bill, with the House sitting until midnight or half-past midnight, legislating for criminal matters late into the night, when full discussion cannot take place on such important issues. I blame nobody except ourselves. We have to find better ways of doing things. I hope that the committee of the noble: Lord, Lord Rippon, will come up with some ideas that will be of help.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, in many respects. This House is a self-regulating Chamber. Sometimes we fail to apply the self-regulator, and the debates on particular Motions overrun. However, it is the arrangements through the usual channels which are important in order to make certain that the number of days that are set aside for the discussion of a particular Bill are appropriate to that Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their expressions of sympathy on the death of my brother.
Perhaps I may raise a point with the Chief Whip. Why is the Scottish local government Bill being debated on a Thursday? I thought that it was an old convention that Scottish affairs were taken rather earlier in the week and not on a Thursday, when Scotsmen like to go home.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord. I understand that he has particular difficulties on 9th June. But I have to say to the House that I think the House is now well used to sitting four days a week, and equally used to taking business without discrimination between days of the week for the convenience of the House as a whole. I believe that that applies to Scottish business, as it does to business relating to other important parts of the United Kingdom.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the Minister recall any summer when there has not been a complaint from the Opposition Benches, whichever party occupies them, that the legislative programme has been too heavy and that the Bills are of such extreme complexity that the timetable is unreasonable? In my 29 years I have never heard anything other than that.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is perhaps an irony that this House, which does such an important

859
revising job in regard to legislation, and considers itself quite rightly to have an influence on that legislation, somehow wants to curtail its own ability to review it.

Royal Assent
11.38 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Insolvency (No. 2) Act,

Intelligence Services Act,

Church of Scotland (Properties and Investments)

Order Confirmation Act,

Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Act.

Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Railways Pension Scheme Order 1994
11.39 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will recall that during the final stages of the Railways Bill last year my noble friend Lord Caithness undertook that there would be further consultation with all interested parties before the orders implementing the detailed future railway pensions arrangements were laid before Parliament for approval. The industry and the present trustees were fully involved in working out the detailed arrangements on which we went to wider consultation on 31st March with the trustees, the employers, the trade unions and the pensioners' representative bodies. We have taken account of their comments as far as possible. I wish to thank all those consulted for the clarity and promptness of their representations.
In particular, we have reached full agreement with the British Rail pension trustees on all major points of principle relating to railway pensions after privatisation. The arrangements that we have agreed honour the commitments given by the Government in Parliament and elsewhere. I can assure the House that the pensions of all railwaymen and railwaywomen, both past and present, earned in their service with British Rail are safe and that the future arrangements will give them security.
We have before us this morning the first two draft orders. Let me deal first with the draft Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order which will give the promised statutory "no less favourable" protection to "protected persons"—broadly, people who were in service or retained benefits in the schemes on
860
5th November 1993—and which incorporates (in Article 11) the "indefeasible right" to remain in equivalent (that is, "shared cost") sections of the joint industry scheme, which will be called the "Railways Pension Scheme", for so long as their employer remains a part of the railway industry. We have agreed to extend this right so that it will not now be lost where employees change jobs voluntarily within the industry. This right will provide valuable security for staff moving voluntarily around the industry in the future.
This order is difficult stuff but so are the matters which it addresses. If any noble Lord wishes clarification on any particular point I shall certainly do my best to give it at the end of the debate, or I may even have to take refuge in writing afterwards such are the complexities of this issue.
I should like to clarify two points on this order. First, that with regard to the definition of "designated scheme" in Article 1(2) the intent is to protect relevant pension rights at the date of the order, including the right to future accrual of such rights on a "no less favourable" basis. Secondly, that there is an area of concern between my department's and the trustees' lawyers over the precise drafting of paragraph (4) of Article 7. Should it be agreed that an amendment is necessary in respect of this latter point we shall make it when we make the transfer order. I intend to lay a draft of that order next month.
For the purposes of the "indefeasible right" which is conveyed by Article 11, paragraph (4) of that article defines the "railway industry". The intent is that the term should comprise activities presently carried on by BR which may in the future be carried on by successors, but only to the extent that they are activities connected with, or provided for, the railway industry.
The order also designates the existing pension schemes to which it applies for the purpose of enabling their members or beneficiaries to be protected persons. A handful of British Rail employees retain membership of pension schemes operated by Associated British Ports and the National Freight Company. If we did not specify these schemes, those BR employees would not be given statutory protection. I wish to emphasise that this is the sole reason why we are designating the ABP and NFC schemes. I give an assurance that the Government have no intention of using the powers in relation to "existing schemes" contained in Schedule 11 to the Railways Act to amend either of these schemes.
The Railways Pension Scheme Order formally establishes on 31st May 1994 (under the powers provided in paragraph 2 of Schedule 11 to the Railways Act 1993) the railways pension scheme which it is planned will succeed the existing main BR scheme, the BR pension scheme, which I gather is shortened to BRPS, on 1st October 1994. The order also appoints the Railways Pension Trustee Company Limited as the first trustee to the scheme, and designates the scheme as "the joint industry scheme" for the purposes of paragraph 8 (the "indefeasible right") of Schedule 11. The key provisions are in the schedule which contains the pension trust and the different scheme section rules.
Existing BRPS pensioners and deferred pensioners will be transferred into the 1994 pensioners' sections of

861
the RPS. Initially, there will be two such sections, the reason being a practical one related to valuation of the Government's liabilities to them under the 1980 Transport Act. Those people who were already pensioners and deferred pensioners at 31st March 1994 will join the A section, while those retiring or deferring their pensions between 1st April and 30th September this year will join the B section. The two sections will have similar rules and will be amalgamated as soon as possible thereafter.
The Secretary of State will be under a duty to give a solvency guarantee to those sections. The guarantee will secure the continued payment of fully indexed-linked pensions. The proposed draft of the guarantee, the details of which have been agreed with the present trustees, was deposited in the Library last Friday. The members will have rights under the rules to share in any future surpluses in their fund. The rules are contained in Appendix 1 to the schedule. Distributed surpluses will be shared 40 per cent. to the pensioners and 60 per cent. to a special reserve retained in the fund. The Government cannot withdraw those sums while the fund continues.
Serving staff who are members of the BRPS will be transferred into the BR section of the RPS. They will move into their new employers' sections, which will have materially the same rules (affording them the security and continuity that they have sought), as their employment is transferred; for example, from BR to a subsidiary which is to become a franchised railway operating company. The rules are contained in Part 1 of Appendix 2 to the schedule. They provide that pensionable service will normally be treated as continuous, even on voluntary transfers between the equivalent sections of participating employers, subject to Inland Revenue restrictions. The Railtrack and European passenger services sections will be set up almost immediately.
The method for determining the initial split of assets between the sections of the railways pension scheme will be agreed with the trustees after taking the advice of our respective actuaries. The transfer order, another affirmative order, a draft of which will be laid before Parliament next month following the formal establish-ment of the scheme, may be used to split the assets between the sections of the RPS. Because we have to consult the trustees of the RPS first, the transfer order cannot be laid until the RPS has been formally established and the trustees appointed.
To maintain flexibility, employers will be able to admit new employees either to their section which succeeds BR's section, or to other new sections providing alternative pension arrangements. This will make the RPS more attractive to new employers and give their employees the comfort of belonging to a large, well-managed pension scheme. A template for the rules for defined benefit and defined contribution sections is contained in Parts 2 and 3 respectively of Appendix 2 to the schedule.
The remaining appendices to the schedule contain detail subsidiary to the main constitution of the scheme.
Equal employer/employee representation will continue on the trustee board and the pensions committees
862
(the management committees) of all sections. For legal and technical reasons, we are having to form a new trustee company, the Railways Pension Trustee Company Limited, to act as trustee to the RPS. At 1st October this company will also take over as trustee of the other BR pension schemes for which the present trustee company acts, so that the existing investment pooling and management arrangements can continue.
It is our intention that all the participating employers in the RPS will share in the ownership of the trustee company so as to prevent a single employer having sole influence over it. To facilitate this the trustee company will be wholly owned by a holding company, Railtrust Holdings Limited, which will be a company limited by guarantee (making change of ownership easier when employers join or leave the scheme). The first directors will be the directors of the present trustee company together with two nominated by Railtrack, and one each by the British Transport Pensioners' Federation and the Retired Railway Officers' Society. The present trustees have suggested that these last two posts should be directly elected by the pensioners from the outset, but I have been advised that an early election would be difficult to organise. However, those nominees will only serve for the first two years until direct elections can be organised.
Although the articles of association provide for direct election of employee/pensioner directors after an initial two-year period, they empower the trustee board to devise alternative arrangements provided the equal employer/employee representation is maintained. Copies of the memorandum and articles of association of both companies, which were incorporated by the BR board yesterday, were placed in the Library last Friday.
For historical reasons, BR has a number of other pension schemes, all listed in the designation order. Those schemes will stay in place. We see no requirement for the time being to transfer members (either serving staff or pensioners) out of their schemes. I should make it clear that no changes are proposed to the BT police scheme.
In relation to the closed fund for pensioners—in other words, the pensioners' sections—we have honoured the memorandum of understanding entered into with the trustees and the BR board last July, which was debated at great length in this House last Autumn. We reached agreement with the trustees on arrangements for partial deferral of government cash support payments under the 1980 Transport Act to the pensioners' fund to take account of the government solvency guarantee-. Any deferred payments will remain an obligation of government, earning interest, and will be accounted for as an asset of the section. We intend to bring an order before Parliament before the Summer Recess giving effect to this agreement, which we intend will take effect in October.
It was agreed last July that the Government must give their consent to decisions affecting its financial exposure under the guarantee. Originally, this consent was to have been exercised by a "government director" on the trustee board. Because of potential conflict between his fiduciary duties under general trust law and his responsibility to the Government, we have decided,

863
as I said at Question Time, not to proceed with that proposal. Instead, the consent of the Secretary of State will be required (within the terms and conditions of the guarantee) to strategic decisions about the fund, but not its day-to-day operation. Accordingly, there will be no government director on the trustee board. But there can be a non-voting "government representative" if the powers delegated by the trustee board to the committee running the pensioners' section of the scheme are withdrawn.
When the orders were laid before Parliament on 10th May there was one issue in relation to the pensioners' fund on which we had failed to reach agreement with the trustees. It is my understanding that when the trustee board, including the trade union nominees, last met on 5th May, they were content with all the significant elements of the Government's proposals but this one. Although we had accepted that pensions should not be reduced in cash terms in the event of a deficit in the fund (even if they include unguaranteed discretionary increases) we had not resolved the procedure which would apply (in the absence of other agreement) if the fund went into deficit and subsequently returned to surplus.
However, we have now reached agreement on the basis of a compromise proposal put to us by the trustees. The compromise was fully endorsed at the trustee board meeting on 5th May which mandated the chairman and chief executive to negotiate it with the Government. In the event of a deficit, the special reserve will be applied in full first before any freezing of pensions. I should emphasise that the pension prevailing at the establishment of the closed sections on 1st October 1994 will always be indexed for inflation. Total pensions may subsequently include discretionary real increases, and it is the total that may as a last resort be temporarily frozen until the indexed guaranteed pension exceeds it. After those sources have been exhausted, government guarantee payments will be made. A subsequent surplus would be applied in the reverse order. The trustees have also offered changes to our original agreement on 1980 Transport Act payments to reflect the ramifications of this proposal. Both we and the trustees regard this position as a fair way of dealing with a problem which was not foreseen at the time of the memorandum.
Even though the pensioners' section rules do not presently reflect this revision of policy, there is no need to amend the order. We are considering with the trustees changing the rules, in particular, rules 13, 14 and 16, on which re-drafts have been agreed, after formal establishment through the amendment procedures written into them. That procedure would also be used, with the agreement of the trustees, to make other agreed amendments to the pension trust or rules to clarify the existing drafting where that is considered necessary, particularly in relation to the provision in Clause 8C of the pension trust for "seamless" voluntary transfers between railway employers within the RPS in normal circumstances. Failing that, the required amendments will be made together with the forthcoming transfer order.
In respect of seamless transfers, we have agreed that
864
where a person who has the right under Article 11 of the protection order to remain in the RPS moves voluntarily to another section within the scheme there will be automatic credit of pension years provided that his pensionable salary is not increased on transfer by more than 7.5 per cent. A greater figure may be agreed between the trustees and the new employer and the new employer may pay into the scheme to augment his benefits. In normal circumstances we would expect the trustees and the employer to be able to increase that automatic floor from 7.5 per cent. to around 10 per cent. We fixed that limit to protect the interests of other members of the transferee section. Actuaries advise that 7.5 per cent. is a prudent automatic figure taking account of all relevant possibilities. We believe it delivers the promise that such voluntary transfers will normally be seamless.
I do not propose to withdraw the order to make such amendments because that is not necessary and would make it impossible for the new scheme to commence operation on 1st October. A delay would cause unnecessary uncertainty and concern for all involved.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way on that point. On any showing, including the Minister's statement this morning that there is an area of possible dispute on legal issues which may have to be dealt with subsequently, why was there such haste that we could not come back to this issue during the week of 6th June? That would give everybody an opportunity to resolve those issues properly when we still have the possibility of disagreement, albeit not on matters of major principle, still overhanging the orders.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that we had to proceed. If an element of disagreement emerges in the discussion then that can be attended to in other orders. However, we believed it was necessary to proceed so that the two orders can be completed by 31st May. There is much uncertainty about these matters. I understand that. As I was about to say, there must be uncertainty among the people involved, the actual pensioners or the employees. What we have tried to do, and I believe we have succeeded in doing, is remove entirely any uncertainty. We delivered our undertakings and we are providing in these orders the promised security, protection and peace of mind to BR's existing staff, pensioners and deferred pensioners. I hope that the House will support the two orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
11.57 a.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to thank my noble friend for an eloquent and comprehensive speech which, so far as I was able to follow the detail, covers all the outstanding points. It is now on the record for careful examination by anyone who feels so inclined. Perhaps I may take up a few moments of your Lordships' time with the background to this development.

865
It was the promise of the Government at the time when the idea of privatisation first made its appearance that pensioners would receive no less favourable arrangements than they did previously. Nevertheless, the Bill reached your Lordships' House with no guarantee of the solvency of the closed fund or any acceptance of the need to index link it. A number of your Lordships, including myself, pointed out persistently that it was not the choice of the pensioners in any way that privatisation should take place; in so far as this would necessarily impact on their interests, it was essential and only fair that those arrangements should be absolutely watertight. The closed fund which the Government proposed to set up, the amount of which was to be actuarily determined, was, in the view of many of us, vulnerable both to inflation, tax changes and also to the possibility of pensioners living longer than actuaries thought appropriate.
The Government considered in July that discretion was much more praiseworthy than an absolutely foolish adherence to the position which they had taken up. A memorandum of understanding was issued in July. It had the effect of averting a Division in your Lordships' House which the Government might well have lost. Thereafter there were talks and more talks over quite a long period—interrupted from time to time by a series of almost audible hiccups—when the Government were at least giving the appearance of saying that they would not do what they had promised to do, particularly on one point—that is to say, the phasing of capital payments by the Government into the closed fund. It was declared in the memorandum that the phasing would be agreed with the trustees. Subsequently the Government thought that all they could do was to consult the trustees.
I am very glad—it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge it—that the Government have moved a long way to make sure that the words which they spoke at the beginning should survive and mean something. According to my information, on 5th May there was a meeting of the trustees at which it appeared that everything was settled except for one issue of how any deficiency which might arise in the fund should be handled. The chairman of the trustees put to his colleagues, so I am informed, a compromise. The whole body of trustees agreed that if the whole package, including the compromise which they were then suggesting, was accepted by the Government, the trustees themselves would accept it in turn. The Government did accept that alternative.
Now, so my information goes, 10 out of the 12 trustees have declared themselves to be satisfied with the agreement which they reached with the Government and which is more or less enshrined in the two instruments which are before your Lordships. Two of the trustees have not commented and no single trustee has asked for a meeting of the whole board at which the matter could be re-examined. So the remaining barrier seems to be only one of words. The Minister agreed to the proposals in another place and my noble friend has gone into more detail this morning.
I would like to refer to what the Minister of State said on 23rd May. There is no need to go into detail, but for the record I would like to refer to the Official Report of
866
the other place and include the references. They are cols. 130, 131, 134 to 136 and 151. They all contain indications of the Government's intention to amend the scheme in certain respects. It is quite unnecessary for me to take up a lot of your Lordships' time. To me it is a source of great satisfaction that we can now say that the British Rail pensioners are fully protected, which they were not before. It has taken a very long time to reach this point, but nevertheless it must be a source of great satisfaction to all of us. I believe also that it is a source of great satisfaction to your Lordships' House that these very useful developments were launched from here.
I cannot resist the temptation to refer very briefly to some of the wording in the Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994. I ask your Lordships to turn to page six and Article 7(4) (b). Your Lordships will find sufficient there to whet your appetites and to go further into the detailed wording of the scheme. I shall quote just that paragraph:
"without prejudice to the obligation imposed by sub-paragraph (a), the person who is required under article 4 to provide the scheme to which those rights are transferred shall pay or secure the payment to the trustees of that scheme of such part of any difference between the amounts calculated under article 6(2) and 6(5) (a) as is not paid to the trustees of that scheme under that sub-paragraph".
The profound respect which I have for your Lordships leads me to believe that many of you would find it very easy to rise to your feet to explain exactly what that means, but it is beyond me. I wish to follow up what I said to my noble friend just now in thanking him for his speech. I praise him without hesitation as having talents reflecting those of William Shakespeare and Einstein. Therefore I am confident that in winding up and without taking up too much of your Lordships' time, he will be able to say precisely what the words mean which I have just quoted.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, and without a brief.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I shall not detain your Lordships any further. There are those who believe that your Lordships do not achieve very much in the set-up of modern politics. But with the limited experience which I have had of your Lordships' House, I believe that there are occasions when a point of very great seriousness tends to get overlooked and that the forum provided by your Lordships' House offers a most valuable opportunity to put right what might have been a very serious wrong. I believe that that has occurred in this case.
12.9 p.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, first, I wish to congratulate my noble friend on his eloquent and well-informed speech and also to thank my noble friend the Minister for his admirable exposition of an immensely complicated subject. I share with my noble friend difficulty in understanding considerable parts of it. I draw his attention to the thin book at Article 9(b). I shall not ask for an explanation now. In due course, after the Recess, perhaps he will favour me with a reply as to what that part actually means in practice. I was unable to decipher it.

867
It was indeed unfortunate that these pension proposals were first made public at the same time as the great Maxwell scandal became apparent. That caused a great deal of apprehension because it seemed—I believe on the whole totally unjustifiably—that the Government were attempting a Maxwell on the railways.
I am glad that there has now been a considerable retreat from the original proposals and that railwaymen, past, present and future, seem to have obtained a valuable and worthwhile deal from the Government as a result of the objections which were made to the Railways Bill in this House. There is an immensely long time-spell in these pension affairs. When I spoke on the Bill I mentioned that there were already 90 pensioners over the age of 100, of whom the eldest was 105, and that there were also some 900 or so aged between 90 and 100. That means that actuarial advice to the trustees and others involved is of immense importance.
I should like to make two other points. In this House one of my noble friends, whose name momentarily escapes me, mentioned that a very unsatisfactory division of pension assets had taken place in the case of Welsh Water and that in the event one part of the fund had been left very unliquid. I should like to be assured that that point will be borne in mind when any division is attempted and that appropriate advice will be sought.
I am also particularly pleased to see that the proposal, which bore all the hallmarks of Great George Street, that a government director be appointed has now mercifully been withdrawn. I am grateful to my noble friend for that concession. I look forward to the industry being prosperous and contented and I am glad that these things have been done.
It may amuse my noble friend momentarily to refer to page 87 of the thick book where he will see that possibly some of his former constituents are to benefit. Perhaps I may save him the effort of looking it up because I have the book open. It states:
"Scheme No. 243. Highland Railway—artisans in workshops at Inverness—50 pence per week".
I am grateful to my noble friend and to all those who have achieved a satisfactory solution and I look forward to seeing it in its final revised version before too long.
12.12 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, first, I think one should express thanks and indeed sympathy to the noble Lord, the Minister, for having to come into this whole exercise at so late a stage. He has obviously done a lot of homework to get himself up to speed on what is a very complicated matter. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is quite right to say that, had it not been for your Lordships' House, many of these matters would not have been properly dealt with. Among those who deserve the greatest credit, there is no question that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, himself should put this on his family battle honours to be flown on every possible occasion.
The matter also perhaps refers back to the discussions that took place at Question Time this morning on the way in which we conduct our business. The idea that some of these extremely complicated matters can be
868
dealt with at times approaching midnight or even the early hours of the morning is something we need to examine ourselves on, because, quite clearly, on such matters people cannot be as on the ball as they ought to be and cannot get themselves properly briefed. Many things slip through your Lordships' House that ought to have better consideration. Fortunately, on this occasion, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and others, we were able to spot problems. There was also some fairly excellent briefing from outside which drew our attention to the problems that existed.
I want to touch on the timing. I well understand the point the Minister makes that people need to be given assurance as to what is going to happen, but the consultation process was, I understand, a very short one and the trustees were not at all happy with the speed of the consultation, which closed on 25th April. Apart from giving assurance to pensioners and members of British Rail, I wonder what the hurry was all about. It is not as if there is a huge rush to buy up this network. Mr. Branson, having failed in the lottery, may now change direction and buy up half of British Rail, but it does not seem at the moment that there is a collection of people rushing to buy up what was and still is British Rail.
As we have heard today, the truth is that the position has not yet been finalised. There is still some fine tuning to do. I think it would have been better if the Government had withheld this order until such time as all the i's had been dotted and all the t's had been crossed. However, agreement has now been reached and compromises have been made. It looks as though the scheme will be satisfactory so far as concerns pensioner guarantees. Nevertheless, I think it is true to say that if the scheme is examined in detail it still does not quite measure up to the memorandum of understanding. It is not as good as the old scheme. It will do. The pensioners are not at risk but it does not leave them in precisely the same state that they were in before, which is what the memorandum of understanding said would be the case. I do not blame the Department of Transport for that. One realises that it is the heavy hand of the Treasury which is always lurking in the background of such arrangements. Thank Heaven that we were able to step in early enough to stiffen the Department of Transport to fight the Treasury to get this whole thing right.
However, having said that, there is a moral dimension to this. If the Government will privatisation, they must will the payment of the costs of that privatisation. I hope that they have learnt their lesson from this whole exercise. When they go into these schemes they have to make quite sure that every angle is covered. No doubt from now on, when any such scheme comes forward on a privatisation Bill, they will know that the House of Lords is watching them like a hawk. Please let us make sure that if the Government will the end they also will the means, even if it is expensive. However, compromises have been made and the size of the surpluses is such that they can more than cover any deficiencies. Unless a catastrophe strikes, the actuarial situation is such that there is a very, very, very small risk, although it is still finite, of there being problems in the future.

869
Perhaps I may also echo the thanks for the fact that the government director has been removed from the scene. Noble Lords will remember that we felt very strongly about the matter when the Bill was passing through the House. It was impossible to consider him as being an independent member of the pensions board.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, there was another view expressed at the time. I welcomed the presence of a government director because I felt he would realise the difficulties. I thought that the trustees would have the government director's fingers well and truly stuck in their mangle, and a very good thing too.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, had that point of view, but I think generally there was a feeling that it was a form of non-independent interference with the trustees in carrying out their duty towards the pensioners.
It has been put to me that in paragraph 13C on page 57 of the Railways Pension Scheme Order the terms of secondment are not as good as they are at the moment. That may or may not be right, but it appears that people who have been seconded for more than three years could find themselves in difficulty whereas in the past that has not been the case. I think of people being seconded to the United Nations and other international bodies. In future people may be penalised. It depends on how one takes the words,
"or longer if the Inland Revenue permits".
Knowing the Inland Revenue, it will not permit much, so I should be glad of some reassurance on that point.
I am glad that ways have been found of involving the pensioners' societies and federations, such as the Retired Railways Officers' Society and the British Transport Pensioners' Federation. I know that that is difficult because pensioners are a very disparate group of people and it is difficult to find an organisation that is democratically accountable to all pensioners. Noble Lords will remember that we said at the time that it was unfortunate that the pensioners themselves had no direct representation with the trustees and that it was possible for the employers and the trade unions representing the current workers perhaps to carve things up to the disbenefit of the existing pensioners. That seems to have been put right, and I am grateful for that.
Finally, in thanking the Minister for putting the order before us so clearly, I suppose there is no hint of hybridity in it.
12.21 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I join the noble Lords, Lord Peyton, Lord Tordoff and Lord Cochrane, in thanking the Minister for giving us the explanation. I thought that he went well beyond the requirements of his duties when at five o'clock two days ago, acting as a postman in person, he delivered a vast bundle of documents to me in my office—I think with a sense of mischief that it might occupy my bedtime reading for two nights. I hasten to add that it did not—any more than I suspect it did for the Minister. Nevertheless, we are grateful to him and it would be churlish not to recognise that the Government have departed from the position that they occupied at the very beginning of this
870
debate in a major number of circumstances, most particularly in relation to the interpretation of "no less favourable arrangements".
I too have some difficulties about some of the matters that are still outstanding. I am not wholly convinced that it is simply a matter of words, because words are terribly important when it comes to the construction of documents and testing them in the courts. It is a pity that the matter was not deferred. The mere fact that the magical date of 31st May appeared on the draft order does not seem to me to be a very compelling argument when we could have been given further time to review the matters legally. I certainly have not had time to take legal advice on these issues. We are not talking only about this order, to which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred; we are also talking about the vast and huge documents that I have with me. I confess that I do not have any more capacity to absorb these matters than the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—in fact, probably far less.
Having said that, I think that it is right that we should place on the record what actually occurred and what has given rise to this great anxiety. It is a matter that ought to be inscribed on the record. On any showing, the railway pension orders are of huge importance to something like 380,000 railway pensioners. They have been members of one of the best, most efficiently run schemes, bearing comparison with any other—certainly in the private sector. The Government have chosen to meddle in it, disastrously in some respects.
These issues have been under discussion for approximately 18 months. Until recently they were handled in a catastrophically cack-handed way by the Government. One has only to recall how initially the pensioners became seriously alarmed when they took the view that the Government—in other words, the Treasury—were planning to collar half their hard-won savings. The Government were then forced to change their stance repeatedly, albeit under protest, and relied on a constant stream of hastily conceived excuses which we in this House were successful in showing to be a pretence. The noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Marsh, played a significant role in exposing that. I am. sure that the great body of pensioners will appreciate that. The two opposition parties also had a role to play.
The House will recall the extraordinary events which followed the hastily devised memorandum of un-derstanding just a few hours before the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was due to be debated in the House. The noble Lord has rightly drawn attention to that fact. That memorandum of understand-ing was devised simply to forestall imminent defeat. It may be remembered that it was falsely alleged on that occasion that all the trustees had given their agreement to the memorandum. The Government were later forced into some humiliating concessions.
It is for those reasons—essentially the fact that the Government got it wrong on so many previous occasions—that I understand that the pensioners remain anxious despite the Government's assertions that all their claims have been met or, if the Government have not got it quite right yet, that those concerns will be met by 1st October. The Government must know after all this time that, deeply sensitive though the issues are,

871
they have hardly been conducted with the consummate care and skill that they deserved, yet the Government have perpetuated to this moment their quite extraordin-ary handling of the affair, in respect of which I would not charge them with deceit when the simple allegation of crass incompetence will suffice. That unquestionably has been the situation.
I do not believe that we should be debating the orders today. The orders and the documents on which they are based are hugely complex. Indeed, I was reminded of an expression that was used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, in a case in the Court of Appeal. He referred to those circumstances as being,
"a minor masterpiece of opacity".
That phrase could appropriately be applied to these documents, and not simply to the part to which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, referred. The documents required diligent consultation and, more than that, explanation so that the pensioners could understand what was happening.
What happened? Why the haste, so that on the eve of a Recess we come to discuss these very important matters this morning? I really cannot believe that it would have been inappropriate to give us a little more time to take appropriate advice on these matters because we as legislators have a role in that. The trustees may be perfectly satisfied, but we know that there are still some matters outstanding, albeit not of principle. We have a role and a duty to try to understand these matters, but we have not had the time. I do not believe that the unions have had sufficient time to consider a situation which affects so many of their members.
I should like to give the chronology of what occurred. On 31st March, the detailed documentation having been completed, the Government say that they went out to consultation, just before the Easter Recess. That documentation was not received by the unions until 7th April. They were given until 25th April to respond to those immensely difficult documents. On 21st April, the unions, acting, I think, with commendable speed, presented their response to the Minister at a meeting which he held with them at which he agreed to extend the consultation period so that he could provide a considered view of that detailed response from the unions. On 5th May, the trustees met, and it seems that, while it was the view that more time might have been given by the Government, the chairman and chief executive were mandated to negotiate a compromise based on the proposal presented by the Government.
It was originally designed that the debate in another place on the draft orders would take place on 19th May. Yet at that time the documents were not even complete; amendments were still being made. It was not until last Friday, 20th May, at five o'clock in the evening, under cover of a document stating,
"On Her Majesty's Service. Express service at all stages. I certify that the papers transmitted under this label are official and of great urgency and require to be delivered by 5 p.m. today"—
with all that panoply—that the documentation arrived at union headquarters, when the matter was to be debated on the Monday. It is extraordinary. After 18 months of discussions, massive legal fees being incurred by everyone, that is how the Government went about their
872
business—biking their response to the union's detailed reply of 21st April, the intention being, despite Opposition pleas for some delay, to debate the matter after the weekend.
Even since then further amendments were made, and it appears now that more are to follow. As I have said before, on 24th May the Minister went out of his way —I am grateful to him for that act of extraordinarily good postmanship—and came to see me and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. We are grateful to him. I do not know whether he had a childish wish at one stage to be a postman, but that has been fulfilled.
There has been no time to call a meeting of the trustees, which would have been desirable.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The Minister may be looking forward to taking over the Post Office when it is privatised.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have no doubt that he would be better rewarded financially than he is at the moment.
It would have been desirable—notwithstanding the mandate given to the chairman—for the trustees to have met and to have given a firm validation of what had occurred.
There are some points which remain outstanding, and I gave notice of them to the Minister. I shall just put them on the record. The TSSA faxed me yesterday to say:
"Two aspects remain of major concern to us: We are not sure that the definition of the railway industry Clause No. 11 (4) would cover all current employees of BR in say Central Services, the Audit Office and in general the non operating aspect of work. Many of these staff have been long serving members of BR and we remain concerned that in a sell off situation they could lose their no less favourable rights under the Act. However, to be fair the definition is better and does talk about services but it shows one aspect where the lack of time being given to us to look at documents causes the Association and our members some sense of insecurity".
Then on the question of the transfer and full protection of the accrued pension rights of the staff it states:
"It is quite possible that the staff transferring with long service may well be fairly senior staff who in the privatisation situation may be head-hunted",
And then it states that the Minister's letter to me of 24th May, paragraph 4 on page 3,
"seems to us inadequate at setting a 10 per cent. salary increase limitation qualification for seamless transfers. It seems to us that it does not deliver the no less favourable promise the House of Lords was given during the memorable debates that took place…in the latter part of last year".
Those are two points of which I gave the Minister notice yesterday. I hope that he will be able to take them on board.
In the course of this debate I received another fax, which is difficult to read, in which the RMT raises an issue about the solvency guarantee:
'The Solvency Guarantee could, following a deficiency, result in increases to Pensioners' Pensions not being applied until the Reserve has been replenished. Under existing arrangements Pensioners would not have to forego such increases. These arrangements are, therefore, 'less favourable'. The Winding-up Rule permits the Secretary of State to institute winding-up proceedings at any time after 31st December 2012. Only 40 per cent. of any resulting surplus would be applied to improve benefits. The remaining 60 per cent. would go to the Treasury".
That is another matter that needs to be dealt with.

873
The fourth point that I raise relates to the situation of future railway staff. Is it not right that there is no assurance given that they will have access to membership of an industry-wide scheme for railway staff? That was the position prior to privatisation. That was the purpose of amendments moved in Committee by my noble friend Lady Turner which would have provided for that contingency but, regrettably of course, we lost that on a vote.
It is fair to add that we also lost votes, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has said, on the question of the appointment of a government director—notwithstanding the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton— when we argued forcefully that there was clearly a potential conflict between his fiduciary duties as a trustee and his responsibility to the Government. Those arguments were dismissed out of hand by the then Minister and the noble Lord who sits there.
At that time the Government said that our ideas were effectively unrealistic and illusory, but now they are belatedly accepted. That is the problem. Who knows whether the Government have it right? Everyone is convinced that they may have it right now, but who knows? Many other matters were conceived badly at the time, but I want to be fair. Following the debates in this place the Government have tried to meet most of the anxieties that we represented to the House which have been elaborated upon by the trustees and the unions.
I hope that I am wrong in the sense that I have conveyed that there may be serious errors. I am not in a position to justify that, but I worry about it.
In conclusion, what has happened over these past months has been—this must be recognised—a huge change of stance by the Government. We appreciate that latterly they have made great efforts to reach a fair agreement, but mistakes which should have been averted long ago occurred, and that is unfortunate. It was for those reasons that I was motivated at one stage to consider putting down a Motion to defer consideration of these draft orders to enable full advice to be taken on these matters. But I am persuaded that the Ministers are acting in good faith. I think therefore that they should be given the benefit of the doubt, although, as I have indicated, some doubts will remain.
12.38 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had an interesting and slightly complicated debate on pensions. When I discovered that dealing with that matter was part of my role, I was concerned because about four years ago I was appointed chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, and the first matter with which I had to deal was that of pensions, something which the accountants among your Lordships will recognise instantly as SAP24. It required a cold towel and a great deal of effort to begin to understand what that was about. Pensions are, I am afraid, complicated. This experience with British Rail pensions has not changed my view on the complicated nature of pensions. Your Lordships might share my feeling, at the end of trying to follow all this, of hoping that someone
874
understood my pension arrangements, because. I did not think that I would have the energy or the intellectual capacity to understand them myself.
Noble Lords have asked a number of questions, and I shall respond to them as best I can. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil has of course taken a keen interest in this matter and caused some waves, it might be said, in your Lordships' House last Autumn. I am especially pleased to hear that he is satisfied with the arrangements as they have emerged. He asked me about Article 7, paragraph 4(b). As I said in my opening speech, the effect of this article is that the new importing employer of a transferred pensioner must make up any shortfall in the transfer value if the exporting employer is not able to do so; for example, because of insolvency. We are looking with the trustees at the exact wording to see whether it requires improvement.
My noble friend appeared to imply that the difficulty in understanding legislation such as this was entirely new. I shall resist the temptation to spend next week in the Library reading some of the legislation which he as a distinguished Minister put on the statute book in order to see whether it is entirely comprehensible or whether he created legislation which is a little complicated.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will not take up any of your Lordships' time in answering, but I am tempted to ask him in due course to detail to me the large number of statutes for which I was responsible in which huge complexities occur. I am sure that the statutes for which I was responsible have areas of complexity but there are few of them and they are quite short.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I told my noble friend that I should resist the temptation to make any study. I assure him that the wording is being looked at and if improvement is required that will be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Cochrane of Cults, asked me about paragraph 9(b) in the same vein. Rather than reading that out and discussing it, perhaps when I have studied what he said I may write to him, I hope, to his satisfaction. The noble Lord also asked me a difficult question about the existing pension fund's assets being split and what would happen if the split turned out to be unfavourable to one of the funds which was the recipient of that split. The most equitable division of assets on establishing the JIS will be agreed between the scheme's actuary and the Government's actuary. The scheme's actuary has proposed a basis for apportionment which we are presently considering and the split will be notified to Parliament when the required order transferring pension rights is laid. There will be no advantage to the Government in over-funding, say, the new closed fund at the expense of the serving BR employees' fund. Even if that could be agreed with the trustees, who have a fiduciary responsibility for ensuring the proper provision of benefits for all members of the existing BR pension fund, including serving members who will not transfer to the closed fund, over-funding of the closed fund would lead to under-funding of the balance remaining for serving employees. That would be likely to make that fund

875
unstable and hasten any call on the Government to exercise their power to issue a solvency guarantee for that section too. I hope that that answers my noble friend's anxieties.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, raised the issue of secondment and rightly pointed to page 57, Rule 13C, of the order. That states:
'The Designated Employer may decide to treat any Member who is on secondment as still in Pensionable Service for up to 3 years (or longer if the Inland Revenue permits), so long as there is a definite expectation that the Member shall return to Service and he does not join another occupational pension scheme".
The BRPS scheme at present makes no specific provision for secondments. Members can remain in the scheme for as long as they remain in service. The definition of service includes any period during which the member is absent or on leave of absence, whether paid or unpaid. Implicitly, this is subject to Inland Revenue approval. Therefore, there is no real difference between the two schemes. We believe that the RPS rule is clearer.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, non-operational staff will be protected. While they continue to carry out their works for an activity connected with or provided for the railway industry they will retain their indefeasible right. But even if they lose that right, their statutory, no-less-favourable protection will continue provided that their transfer of employment has been compulsory.
I discussed the other point that the noble Lord made about the 7.5 per cent. salary increase on seamless transfers. Perhaps I may reiterate and expand on that by saying that we need to balance the respective interests of the person transferring, the other members of both the transferor and transferee schemes and the employer. However, the trustee and the employer can agree a higher percentage if the state of the fund allows. In normal circumstances we would expect the trustee or the employer to be able to increase this automatic floor from 7.5 per cent. to around 10 per cent. Alternatively, as I explained in my introductory remarks, the employer can pay into the fund to augment his recruits' benefits as part of the overall employment package agreed.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, read out a fax which he received this morning from RMT. This method of dealing with surplus following an earlier deficit was part of the trustees' compromise proposals. I do not consider it to be less favourable. At present there is no guarantee. If, when the noble Lord manages to read the fax, there are any points which he wishes to draw to my attention, I shall be delighted if he would write to me and I shall attempt to respond.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lord, I managed to decipher the fax with reasonable accuracy and it is on the record. Therefore, I look forward to receiving a letter from the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall read what the noble Lord said, and if I have not covered all the points I shall write to him.
As regard future railway staff, it is not now within our powers to guarantee membership of the BRPS to new staff. However, the RPS has been set up and there
876
is flexibility to encourage employers to put new staff into it and to encourage the staff to see it as a pension fund that they wish to join.
In the holiday spirit of the coming week's Recess, I shall allow to pass over my head the criticism of the way in which the Government have handled the matter during the past few months. I say merely that the outcome of parliamentary debate and the way that government works, listening to views and negotiating, in this case, with the trustees is important. Whatever noble Lords' views on privatisation, which I understand, all appear to think that the outcome that we have before us today gives the guarantees which my noble friend Lord Peyton and others have asked the Government to provide. Those people who are retired on British Rail pensions, who are deferred pensioners or who are currently employed and wonder what will happen on privatisation will be able to be confident in the future security of their pension schemes.
I wish to put on record that my right honourable friend Mr. Roger Freeman has done a great deal of work on this issue. He has attended a large number of meetings with the trustees, the BR board and the employees' representatives in order to reach the position we are in today. Finally, perhaps I may pay tribute to my noble friend and predecessor Lord Caithness. While he held this post he played a major part in attempting to explain these difficult matters to the House and in finding the solution that I am presenting today.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the Minister said that he hopes that pensioners and present staff will be satisfied with what has been achieved. Will steps be taken to ensure that these arrangements are explained in simple and clear language to the people who are covered by them; otherwise, those people will remain very suspicious?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure how easy it will be to translate these orders into simple and clear language. However, we in Government and in the House, the trustees and the unions, have an obligation to explain to anyone who is worried that guarantees have been given, that the security of their future pensions is safe, and that they do not have to concern themselves about them. I shall certainly look into what the noble Baroness says. I would welcome warmly a one-page explanation of all of this, as perhaps your Lordships would have done when I introduced the order about an hour ago.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railway Pensions (Protection and Designation of Schemes) Order 1994
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

International Transport Conventions Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 1994
12.50 p.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This is a very simple and uncontroversial order. Its purpose is to put the Government in a position to ratify a number of detailed amendments to the convention concerning international carriage by rail, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
The convention provides positive benefits to passengers travelling abroad by rail and to freight companies shipping goods by rail internationally. It creates a uniform basis for claims in the event of loss or damage. Without the provisions of the convention, individual railway operators would need to negotiate separate carriage agreements with their counterparts in all the countries through which they would wish to provide an international through rail service. With the opening of the Channel Tunnel, there will be greatly increased international rail traffic between the UK and the Continent and the convention will become that much more important for us.
The amendments to the convention make detailed changes to the procedures for its administration and to the rules applicable to the international carriage of passengers and freight. The amendments were agreed at the 1990 general assembly of the states which are signatories to the convention. They comprise the 1990 protocol, reproduced in Command Paper Cm. 2232.
The convention is given the force of law in the UK by the International Transport Conventions Act 1983, as amended by Order in Council in 1992. The draft order will amend the Act, enabling the amendments to have effect in United Kingdom law from the date when the 1990 protocol comes into force. This will be 12 months after its ratification by two-thirds of the member states. So far, 13 out of the 36 member states have ratified.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th January be approved [16th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Land Drainage Bill [H.L.]
12.52 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill before the House today is intended to give greater weight to conservation in existing land drainage legislation in England and Wales. It is designed to build upon the very real progress that has been made in recent years in providing essential land drainage and flood defence services to the public in ways which do not damage the environment but rather protect and enhance it. As such, I hope that the measures that the Bill contains commend themselves to the House.
878
I should add that I have a very real appreciation, as a landowner and farmer, of the need to combine sound drainage policies with a regard for the surrounding environment. At home we have what I have always called a snipe bog but which is more accurately known as periodically flooding wetland. It sustained a wide range of wetland plant species and wildlife. In so doing, it presented a rare and attractive sight on a piece of ground which will never have any agricultural or commercial use.
A few years ago, the local authority adjusted its drainage policy with fatal consequences for the bog, which no longer exists. That is to the regret of everyone from myself as a landowner to the local school which used it for its nature studies. The loss was neither foreseen nor intended. The land was not necessary for any purpose nor useful to anyone. The irony is that had a very simple regard for the environment been exercised within the needs of that drainage policy, the same drainage objectives would have been achieved at less cost to the ratepayer and the bog would still exist.
That is an historic example. Therefore, I stress that in this day and age the vast majority of farmers, landowners and authorities are very aware that a simple regard for the environment in such matters can amount to little more than good common sense, good rural practices and good economics.
I return to the Bill. Many Members of the House will be aware that under present legislation, a number of bodies are empowered to undertake land drainage and flood defence works in England and Wales. First and foremost is the National Rivers Authority, whose chairman is my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The authority has a range of responsibilities in relation to the aquatic environment, including the prevention of flooding for which it has powers to undertake flood defence works on major watercourses.
Secondly, there are 250 or so internal drainage boards or IDBs, some of which have existed in one form or another for over 100 years. Those boards exist only in areas of special drainage need such as the Fens and the Somerset Levels, for example, and can carry out arterial drainage and flood defence activities in their (districts. The boards are run by a combination of elected representatives of the agricultural drainage ratepayers in the district concerned and nominees from local authorities in the area.
Thirdly, local authorities may undertake land drainage or flood defence works in areas outside internal drainage board districts which are not designated as main rivers and therefore not dealt with by the NRA. The Bill is concerned with the environmental role and duties of internal drainage boards and local authorities as currently laid out in the Land Drainage Act 1991. It would not amend the role or duties of the National Rivers Authority as currently set out in the Water Resources Act 1991. In fact, as I shall explain, in some respects the Bill would confer on internal drainage boards and local authorities provisions which already apply to the NRA, so putting the various land drainage and flood defence bodies on a more consistent footing.
Under the Land Drainage Act 1991, Ministers approve proposed capital works on land drainage and

879
flood defence undertaken by internal drainage boards and local authorities before making grant aid available towards the costs of the works. In recent years the Ministry of Agriculture and the Welsh Office, which are the departments responsible, have made it clear that only those schemes which are judged to be environmentally acceptable can be approved. In making this judgment weight is given by the departments to the advice of the statutory conservation organisations and particularly English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. Hence proposed capital works are thoroughly vetted for technical, economic and environmental acceptability before they can go ahead.
The Bill before your Lordships is primarily concerned with the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the existing land drainage and flood defence infrastructure rather than capital works. Operational matters remain the responsibility of the body concerned —the NRA, the internal drainage board, or the local authority. These are the bodies with the relevant local knowledge, expertise and legislative powers. But it is important to note that the day-to-day operation of pumping stations, sluices and other water management devices can have a profound effect, not only on the alleviation of flooding, but also on the environment; effects which may be just as significant as the original decision to put the structures in place. The Bill is designed to help drainage boards and local authorities to strike an appropriate balance between flood defence and conservation in their day-to-day activities.
A number of sites of high conservation value owe their existence or their special interest to drainage or flood defence structures. I have in mind the Ouse Washes in Cambridgeshire, and the Pevensey Levels in East Sussex. I am glad that two Members of the House are to speak today who come from those two counties and will therefore know them well. These sites and many others continue to require sensitive management of water levels to maintain their conservation interest. Many such sites are designated as sites of special scientific interest. It is estimated that there are some 200 SSSIs in internal drainage board districts. Some will be candidates for designation at the European Community level, as special protection areas under the EC birds directive, or as special areas of conservation under the EC habitats directive.
In order to build on the work already being done by internal drainage boards, in partnership with local conservation bodies, to protect these sites, the Bill I am putting forward would amend present legislation in three ways.
First, local authorities carrying out land drainage and flood defence activities would for the first time be placed under a duty to have regard to the environment. At present internal drainage boards are under such a duty, by virtue of Sections 12 and 13 of the Land Drainage Act; and the NRA, as befits a national environmental agency, is placed under even more comprehensive environmental duties. But at present there is no such duty on local authorities when acting in that field.
880
The Bill would remove that anomaly by bringing local authority environmental duties broadly in line with those applied to IDBs. I can assure the House that, in consultations prior to the preparation of the Bill, local authority associations saw no difficulty with that. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of local authorities are already fully mindful of the need to protect and enhance the environment in all that they do.
The second proposal in the Bill is that Ministers—in this case the Agriculture Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales acting jointly—would be enabled to issue codes of practice to internal drainage boards and local authorities in England and Wales. Those codes would guide them on how to discharge their environmental duties when carrying out their drainage and flood defence functions.
The departments already publish advice on the incorporation of environmental considerations into flood defence policies and practice, but that guidance, while generally recognised as helpful, has no formal status. Under legislation governing the National Rivers Authority, Ministers may already issue codes of practice to it. It seems sensible to enact a similar provision referring to the other drainage bodies, so that consistent advice in that area of policy can be issued to all of them.
I should emphasise to the House that it is proposed that the codes would be drawn up after consultation with a range of bodies, including the NRA and the major conservation organisations. It is not intended to make the code legally binding, and contravention of the code would not in itself constitute an offence. However, Ministers would be required to take compliance with the codes into account when exercising their functions under the Act. The codes would be confirmed by order, subject to negative resolution procedure. I hope that the House will agree with me that such codes would help foster good environmental practices among drainage boards and environmental authorities.
The third new measure contained in the Bill would enable either of the Ministers to issue a direction to an internal drainage board if it was considered that the board's activities were likely to destroy or seriously damage an environmental asset of national or international importance. That proposal clearly needs a little explanation. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I give it.
At present, internal drainage boards have a large measure of freedom of action in the way that they manage the drainage structures in their districts, and quite rightly so. The boards are, after all, controlled by elected representatives of drainage ratepayers and by local council nominees, the latter often in a majority. Those bodies are well placed to deploy their local knowledge and expertise in such matters to the benefit of the local community that they serve. In the vast majority of cases, that presents no problem. Most boards have adapted readily to the changes in environmental policies and practices which have taken place over the past 10 years, and work constructively with conserva-tion interests to enhance the local environment in all that they do. The Association of Drainage Authorities, to which the vast majority of internal drainage boards belong, and of which my noble friend Lord De Ramsey

881
is President, has done much to encourage and strengthen this environmental awareness among its members. I pay tribute to the association for that.
I should point out that my noble friend Lord De Ramsey had very much hoped to be present today to speak in support of the Bill. It is with great regret that an unavoidable commitment has prevented him from so doing. I should also point out that shortly before the debate commenced I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who had also hoped to be able to speak in support of the Bill, expressing apologies for his absence today.
It is important to note that at present there is no "back stop" in the legislation for those hopefully rare cases where an IDB, by accident or design, fails to take adequate account of the effect of its activities on the environment. Such a "back stop" does however exist in the case of the NRA, to which Ministers may issue a direction in certain circumstances. The proposal in the Bill is that a Minister should be able, in the last resort, to direct an IDB in the exercise of its functions, if he or she is satisfied that an environmental asset of national or international importance would otherwise be seriously damaged or destroyed.
The environmental assets principally envisaged here are sites formally designated under European Community or UK legislation. The Bill proposes that, except in an emergency, Ministers would consult with the board in question before issuing a direction, thereby giving every opportunity to resolve the matter through discussion. I would also add that use of a ministerial direction would have the advantage of precision; in other words, rather than pass draconian regulations restricting the freedom of action of all internal drainage boards, the remedy would be carefully targeted where it is needed, leaving the generality of boards to continue their good work as they see fit.
In brief, the Bill aims to reinforce the current trend towards more environmentally-friendly flood defence and land drainage policies and practices. It does that through the three changes to existing legislation which I have outlined, which will put the various public bodies involved on a more equal footing and encourage them to strengthen their conservation roles. I believe that the Bill complements action being taken in related areas —for example, through implementation of the European Community habitats directive —in helping to protect and where possible enhance our wetland environment. I therefore hope that your Lordships will give the Bill your support and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Lindsay.)
1.5 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am glad to be able to support the Bill. I am also most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for the comprehensive way in which he introduced it, which has left the rest of us with very little to say. As the noble Earl explained to us, wetlands provide important habitats for many species, especially birds. As a council member of the RSPB, I am well aware that the society wholeheartedly supports the Bill.
882
About 40 per cent. of our wetlands have disappeared since the 1930s. That was for the best possible reasons originally because, obviously, we were trying to grow more food and there were all kinds of reasons why we needed to drain the land. However, things have changed. I agree with the noble Earl that the atmosphere has also changed and that now there is a great spirit of co-operation between all concerned as regards the preservation or the use of such wetlands. I have had discussions in recent years with the drainage authorities and I know that they are taking a much happier approach to this kind of exercise.
In what remains of our wetlands there are sites of national and international conservation importance which need to be treated with special care. That is why the provisions of the Bill are so important. Among the very useful provisions in it, the Bill allows for the relevant Minister to issue directions to drainage boards in some circumstances where there is a threat to a site of national or international importance. That is the one provision which might cause a little discomfort between the drainage boards and the Minister. However, I believe—and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer this in his response—that the power which already exists over the NRA has been used very infrequently. Indeed, the number of occasions when such a situation is likely to arise would be very small. I am quite sure that the provision would be used with great care if the occasion arose.
As I said, I am very glad to be able to support the Bill and I hope that it has a safe passage through the House. However, at the risk of introducing a slightly discordant note, I must say that I worry about its future. I say that because this House was engaged for some weeks with work on the National Parks Bill. That Bill came forward in very much the same way as the Bill now before us: that is, a Bill with Government backing; a Bill which was drafted in a government department; and a Bill with support on all sides of the House. Yet, the Bill has fallen flat in the other place on the voice of one Member—or, perhaps I should say, two Members because I believe that there were two attempts to get the legislation through. That Bill has now had to be withdrawn. I should be very sad indeed if we were to work as hard on this Bill as we did on the latter and then see it meet with the same fate. Therefore, should anything go wrong with the current Bill I hope that the Government will be prepared to adopt it in another place as a government Bill and put it through in government time.
I shall not treat your Lordships to a long harangue about the necessity for the Government to be braver about such Bills which they appear to want. However, it worries me very much that a Bill which is so necessary should be subject to such a potential danger. I hope that when the Minister responds he will assure us that the Government intend to see that this Bill succeeds.
1.10 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on his introduction of the Bill. I welcome the opportunity to debate the subject. I must say straightaway that I support the principle of ensuring that there is due regard for the

883
needs of the environment as regards the activities of the internal drainage boards. Therefore, my concerns, so far as there are any, are merely matters of fine tuning as to the way in which environmental compliance in this important area of nature conservation is procured by the Bill. I am also a little concerned about the absence of an express duty to take socio-economic factors into account. The National Fanners Union and the Country Landowner's Association have both expressed anxiety to me on those points.
The problem arises because in general there are inadequate provisions for bench marking existing qualitative and quantitative aspects of environmental goods, and for assessing the alterations that have occurred in the past and those which might occur in the future. The way in which this bill is worded is no exception.
In managed landscapes—and drainage is a management tool —there is no birthright in the sense of natural goods. It is hard work, diligence, and often brings little reward. Therefore, there is anxiety that there may be an imposed form of managed retreat, which we have heard about so often, in relation to the activities of certain internal drainage boards or that the cautionary principle —again about which we hear so much—may remove effective management freedoms.
I turn now to specific clauses in the Bill. Clause 61C requires the conservation agencies to notify internal drainage boards and others of any area of land which is of special interest by reason of its flora, fauna and so on. The reference to "any area of land" is not qualified in the Bill. I feel that it ought to be. It can be presumed that the sites of special scientific interest referred to in the margin are those identified by various agencies under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that that is the case. I feel that that should be clarified because there is great potential for confusion between statutorily designated sites and other sites which are presented to local authorities by local county wildlife trusts and others with a request that they be incorporated into local planning authority plans. While noting the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, on that point, I should be grateful if the Minister could give me an assurance that the aim is to restrict Clause 61C to those sites which have been officially recognised under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
In respect of Clause 61D there is a similar but slightly different situation. Under that clause the Minister may give directions regarding the effects on environmental features which in his or her opinion are of national or international importance. Again, the description is not qualified by anything other than a reference to the opinion of the Minister. It would be inappropriate to rely solely on the opinion of the relevant Minister when advisory bodies and agencies and procedures already exist, or may be introduced in due course, for the careful assessment of such sites, whether they are of special scientific interest or of international importance.
It seems strange that a decision of this importance is left purely to a Minister. The National Farmers Union in particular believes that the power of direction could
884
seriously undermine its members' interests if the measures which are incorporated in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which safeguard the interests of owners and occupiers, are not to apply. I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that it is intended that the normal basis for the assessment of national or international importance of a site under that Act will apply in this case.
I referred earlier to the question of social and economic interests. I believe that this Bill neglects that aspect. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred to the National Parks Bill. I, too, am sorry that it has not survived in another place because we were given a particularly welcome assurance by the Minister at the end of our discussions on that Bill concerning the importance of social and economic factors following the provisions of Section 37 of the Countryside Act 1968.
I make no apology for returning to that aspect with this Bill. I believe that a parallel provision is needed here and that it should be on the face of the Bill. I shall be most grateful if the Minister will explain how the important needs of agriculture and forestry and the social and economic interests of rural areas can be safeguarded.
In view of the fact that time is getting on I shall curtail my further remarks. I feel that there is a great need for legislators and those who are the guardians of our environmental assets in this country to take careful stock and wake up to the reality of life at the sharp end. By that I mean the chap in his Wellington boots who has responsibility for the hands on, and in this case perhaps the feet in, management of the land. We need clarity of purpose and proper procedures to protect legitimate interests.
It is that economic activity which pays for management and financial investment and which creates business satisfaction. It also feeds families and educates children. Most importantly, it maintains the countryside. Lack of management, or inadequate management, is one of the greatest single threats to conservation objectives. I am concerned that if economic interests are not taken into account or are harmed in a way that is outside the control of the person pursuing them, then abandonment of traditional land management is the inevitable consequence.
Therefore, I particularly welcome Clause 61E which relates to codes of practice. I merely ask again that some reassurance can be given that in the formulation of those codes there will be the widest consultation with the owners and occupiers of the land as well as with other bodies.
1.17 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for explaining his Bill in such detail to the House today. I also thank him for writing to me in advance of that explanation to tell me what the Bill was all about.
It has already been established that the Bill has the support of the Government. For that reason such comments and questions as I have will be directed to the

885
Minister rather than to the noble Earl. I am sure that he will understand the wisdom of and necessity for such an approach.
To set the scene for the Bill, a Written Answer to a Question in another place on 1lth May took my eye. A Member asked the Minister of Agriculture:
"if she will make a statement on the place of arterial drainage infrastructure and sea defence works on British agriculture".— [Official Report, Commons, 11/5/94; col. 145.]
Mr. Jack responded for the Government:
"The Government's flood and coastal defence strategy for England and Wales recognises that over 50 per cent. of grade 1 agricultural land is situated in areas which depend on flood defence or arterial drainage works to maintain their productive capacity. The maintenance of this infrastructure is supported through central Government's financial support for local authorities.
As far as capital works are concerned, the Ministry no longer provides financial support for new rural arterial drainage schemes which are intended primarily to increase agricultural production but assistance may be available for works intended to alleviate flooding or coastal erosion in rural areas provided these meet the Ministry's technical, economic and environmental criteria".— [cols. 145–6.]
Arising from that Written Answer, I should like to ask whether the Bill before us will increase public expenditure in meeting higher environmental standards, and, if so, who will meet those added costs.
On the codes of practice which the Bill proposes to establish, perhaps I may ask the Minister or the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, which bodies other than Ministers may draft codes of practice for approval under the Bill. Where a code has been drafted other than by Ministers, will its parentage be acknowledged when the relevant SI is laid before Parliament?
Perhaps I may say by way of an aside that on this side of the House we have been looking in recent days at the growth of government SIs. Indeed they featured quite strongly in preceding business of the House this morning. In 1983, SIs presented to Parliament totalled 1,965. Ten years later, in 1993, the number of SIs had increased to 3,359. That is a staggering increase by any standard. Sometimes one thinks in the early hours of the morning that Parliament may soon need a third Chamber to be called the "House of Scrutiny".
The Bill is due to come into force in two months, beginning with the day on which it is passed. Does the Minister consider that period adequate as regards notice? What will the effect of the introduction of the legislation in two months' time have on work in progress? Will such work be governed by existing or new legislation?
While acknowledging the provisions contained in the Bill for emergency action, I should like to ask whether the consultation provisions required of Ministers under the Bill will have a delaying effect on implementing work under its provisions. Consultation is a fine and worthy institution but it is introducing in this country long delays in getting anything done. It is important to have some indication of whether delays will result from the provisions of the Bill.
We acknowledge the support which exists for the Bill. It has been described in some detail by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. In view of that support and the improvement potential over existing procedures
886
contained in the Land Drainage Act 1991, we are supportive of the Bill. I look forward to hearing what the Minister may say in answer to the questions I raise.
1.22 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the debate we have had on the Bill that my noble friend Lord Lindsay has introduced has, I think, amply demonstrated the importance of the work that is done by internal drainage boards and by local authorities on land drainage and flood defence. The services which these bodies provide are often unsung, but are nonetheless vital for the continued well-being—in both economic and environmental terms—of many of our urban and rural areas.
As my noble friend has said, his Bill enjoys the Government's full support. The measures it contains; will, I hope, commend themselves to all sides of the House. I believe they enjoy a broad range of support from conservation bodies and from the flood defence authorities themselves.
In many ways the theme of the Bill is nothing new. Its provisions fall squarely within the policies and principles set out in the Government's strategy for flood and coastal defence in England and Wales which was published by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in October las;t year. It might be helpful to the House if I were to outline the key principles behind our strategy.
First, our overriding priority will always be to safeguard human life. This consideration is clearly a major determinant of the resources which we allocate to flood defence every year. Secondly, environmental considerations must be integral to flood defence policy. The potential impact on wildlife habitats and the environment generally is a key consideration both when capital works are being formulated and equally when existing structures are being managed and operated. Thirdly, we emphasise the need for a strategic approach. Measures to address flooding should not be looked at in isolation from their wider impact on the river catchment. Whenever we decide what action, if any, to take we must bear in mind the natural processes involved and the effects of defence measures on adjacent areas. Fourthly, a factor which cannot be overstated is the importance of consultation with those affected by flood defence and land drainage activity. Once again, that applies not only to proposals for major capital works, but also to the day-to-day operation of flood defences.
I turn now to the three measures set out in my noble friend's Bill. I should like to say a few words about each in turn. The first of the Bill's provisions would place a duty on local authorities carrying out land drainage or flood defence works to have regard to the environment. The Government believe it entirely appropriate that local authorities, along with other drainage bodies, should be under a duty to have regard to environmental matters, and the associations representing local authorities share that view. They also agree with us that the change would not impose any significant additional

887
burdens on authorities, given that the majority of them are already mindful of environmental concerns in all they do.
I believe that that is my cue for answering one of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, when he asked whether any measures in the Bill would increase public expenditure. The Bill will have no such effect. In practice, local authorities are already very environmentally aware. I hope that the House will agree that that first measure is sensible.
The second of the Bill's new provisions is the power for Ministers to approve, by order, codes of practice giving guidance to internal drainage boards and local authorities on how best to discharge their environmental duties under land drainage legislation. There are a number of reasons why the Government support that.
In the last three years departments have produced a number of guidance booklets advising on the integration of environmental concerns into flood and coastal defence policy and practice. We believe that the existing guidance is very valuable, commands widespread acceptance and is generally followed. That acceptance is in no small part due to the extensive consultations carried out during its preparation. But the Government believe that further encouragement would be given to best practice among authorities if the guides were formally approved as codes.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, expressed concern about the extent of consultation in this area. The Bill makes clear that wide consultation will take place before such a code is approved and that codes will have to be confirmed by order. I can assure the House that it is the firm intention of Ministers to continue their present practice of holding thorough and comprehensive consultations before issuing guidance documents on flood defence and land drainage. Those consultations will continue to extend well beyond the major organisations listed on the face of the Bill. I can assure the noble Earl that that would include landowning and farming interests alongside others concerned.
In relation to the codes of practice, it is worth re-emphasising what my noble friend said: the Bill would place local authorities and IDBs on the same footing as the National Rivers Authority, to which Ministers are already empowered to issue such codes under the Water Resources Act 1991.
The third provision in the Bill is the measure enabling Ministers to direct the activities of an internal drainage board when a Minister considers that a board's actions would otherwise result in an environmental asset of national or international importance being destroyed or seriously damaged. Relatively few new flood defence capital works are undertaken by local authorities and internal drainage boards nowadays, although some £2 million a year in total goes mainly on refurbishment of existing works. But the operation and maintenance of the existing structures are an important and continuing task for those bodies. Ditches have to be kept clear, pumping stations operated and water levels managed. Those operations greatly affect the local environment. Land use and economic activity in the catchments concerned may have changed greatly since the original
888
drainage works were undertaken. The environment and wildlife habitats may also have changed; and the needs and aspirations of local people, as well as national policy, also change.
I believe that in the vast majority of cases the local drainage bodies have adapted to these changes and where necessary modified their operations. These bodies are, after all, representative of local people and interests. But whereas at present Ministers stand as ultimate custodians of the national interest in respect of capital works—and in addition have a power of direction over the National Rivers Authority—there is no such backstop or power of last resort over the day-to-day flood defence activities of IDBs or local authorities. The Government believe that in respect or IDBs at least there should be such a backstop, and that is what the Bill proposes.
The purpose of the ministerial power of direction is, therefore, to provide a mechanism whereby in the last resort, if very important environmental issues are at stake, the Minister can ensure that the national interest will prevail. Specifically, the wording of the Bill means that Ministers would intervene only if a number of conditions were met. First, the environmental asset at risk must be of national or international importance. This means that Ministers would not intervene in matters of purely local importance. This would be entirely inappropriate as the local bodies concerned are best placed to resolve such difficulties. In determining what is of national or international importance, Ministers would give weight to the views of the statutory conservation advisers: English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Commission and the equivalent bodies in Wales.
Secondly, the environmental asset in question would need to be at risk of destruction or serious damage. Again, weight would be given to the advice of the statutory conservation bodies in assessing this. I can assure the House that such a judgment would not be made speculatively but on the basis of expert advice and sound science.
Thirdly, the Bill provides that the Minister should consult the IDB in question before issuing a direction, except in an emergency. I can assure the House that we would wish to enter into full and frank discussion with a board were such a set of circumstances to arise. I hope that in the majority of cases such explanation and discussion would result in the board concerned deciding to make the necessary changes to its practices voluntarily without the need for recourse to a formal direction. Where boards have agreed water level management plans already in place, the need for directions is likely to be even less.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, asked how often the ministerial power of direction has been exercised over the NRA. To date, it has never been exercised. The NRA has been in existence for only five years and has a very good record of achievements, as I am sure the House will agree.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised a point about the new Section 61C. He wanted to know whether the phrase,
"any area of land … of special interest",

889
was meant to refer solely to sites of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or whether it had a wider meaning. It is right for me to remind the House that the part of the present Bill to which the noble Earl referred carries forward the existing provisions in Section 13(1) of the Land Drainage Act 1991. The Bill which my noble friend has introduced simply extends those provisions to local authorities. The short answer to his question is that the phrase,
"any area of land … of special interest",
goes wider than just sites of special scientific interest under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. In practice, however, the notifications given by the statutory conservation agencies to internal drainage boards and local authorities have been of SSSIs. So far as I am aware, the provision to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred, which I understand has been on the statute book in that form since 1989, has not created problems. There is no reason to believe that it will do so in the future. At this stage, therefore, the Government have no plans to amend the clause in the way that the noble Earl suggested.
The noble Earl also sought clarification of the new Section 61D which sets out the proposed ministerial power of direction to which I referred. Perhaps I could elaborate on one or two of the points I have already made. The intention under the clause is that Ministers would be guided by the views of the Government's statutory conservation advisers, as I have already said. Those bodies' views on the seriousness of the risk to the feature in question would also be sought so that Ministers would have the benefit of the best available scientific advice from both within and outside the department. I can assure the House that Ministers will expect to see compelling evidence before making use of the provision.
I do not think it would be appropriate to restrict application of the ministerial power of direction to those SSSIs in which a nature conservation order is in force. Those orders are primarily, though not exclusively, designed to deal with the activities of landowners and occupiers of SSSIs. The proposed power of direction, on the other hand, is intended to apply solely to one class of public body, namely IDBs, and to put them on a similar footing to the NRA, which is another public body acting in the same field. The Bill will therefore complement rather than duplicate the nature conserva-tion order procedure.
I must make it clear that it is not the Government's intention to rely on the present Bill to implement their obligations under the EC habitats and species directive. Separate regulations will be made under the European Communities Act to achieve that. The present Bill is intended to be complementary to those regulations.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Earl that the decision to proceed by ministerial direction would not be taken lightly. It would be taken in the last resort only and on the basis of advice backed up by comprehensive scientific evidence. Equally, however, I hope that the noble Earl will accept that if the procedure
890
is made too formal or too cumbersome, its advantages —namely, those of a quick and precise remedy to isolated and serious problems —will be lost.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, raised a number of other queries. He asked what effect the Bill would have on work already in progress. The effect will not be retrospective. The power of direction will be used only if there is firm evidence of damage on works that are in prospect rather than those which have already been approved. He also asked whether two months' notice, as prescribed in the Bill, was adequate. I believe that that period will be adequate, bearing in mind that environmental considerations are in practice already taken into account by operating authorities.
The noble Lord asked who may draft a code of practice other than the Government and whether that fact will be acknowledged, if it applies. I envisage that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will lead on the drafting of such guidance. However, that exercise will involve the statutory conservation bodies and the flood defence authorities themselves, in addition to the involvement of landowners, as I have already made clear to the noble Earl, in the consultation process. I hope that what I have said on the record today will be a sufficient indication of the Government's debt to all concerned in the codes of practice.
I hope that I have given the House a clear view of how the Government regard the Bill, why we think its provisions are necessary and useful and how they might be applied in practice. I commend my noble friend Lord Lindsay for taking it on in such a capable way. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that its effect would be to strengthen the environmental aspects of land drainage and flood defence activity in a way which is sensible and proportionate and which avoids excessive regulation. It has the Government's full support and I hope that it will command that of your Lordships' House.
1.39 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, this has been a most valuable debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. I should particularly like to thank the Minister for his expression of the Government's support for the Bill and his explanations of how Ministers see its provisions being implemented.
A number of important and interesting points were made on aspects of land drainage and conservation by all speakers. I will endeavour to answer the points that still need to be answered. I am grateful to my noble friend for answering some of the specific points raised. If any remain unanswered, I shall endeavour to write to noble Lords.
I am very grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, is able to support the Bill arising from her role within the RSPB and more especially because of her extraordinarily wide experience of all countryside matters. Much of this Bill is based on that breadth of vision, and therefore that balance of vision.
The noble Baroness quite rightly identified the spirit of co-operation and consensus which now exists in the countryside on many matters. Some of the old battle lines which people anticipated four or five years ago

891
between conservation and the environment on the one hand and farmers and developers on the other have not materialised as was expected. Indeed, a great sense of co-operation and of mutual benefit and interest has been identified.
The noble Baroness mentioned the National Parks Bill and her distress that this Bill might suffer a similar fate. I stress that this Bill contains three fairly modest and simple proposals designed to strengthen the conservation aspects of local land drainage and flood defence duties. They were the subject of very wide consultation before they reached this House. On that basis, there seems to be a good chance that this Bill may be successful both in this House and in the other place. I also add, from a personal and rather pragmatic Back-Bencher's point of view, and given the weight of legislation that is consuming the time for the Government's programme, that if I were not to present the Bill there would simply be a delay in the introduction of this sort of measure. Therefore, it seemed well worth taking the risk and hoping that we might achieve something with it.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, raised a number of very interesting issues. I assure him, first, that I understood exactly what points of reassurance he was seeking. Apart from having an interest in environmental issues, I am a member of the CLA. I am a farmer and I own land which is not of any agricultural use, but is quite wet land. We have an SSSI and although the land consists of only 700 to 800 acres, we have an extraordinarily complex pattern of ground. There are many migratory species tracking through it. My role in introducing this Bill was based only partly on my interest in environmental issues.
I looked at the Bill very carefully and at the implications for landowners and for farmers. I would not be standing before your Lordships today if I felt that there was a material threat to their interests. The noble Earl made a remark about this Bill threatening the reality of life at the sharp end. I believe that that is not a threat that is posed by this Bill in any way whatever. I would not in any way want to be associated with a Bill that did pose that sort of threat. Like all small farmers, I am very anxious that the other, so to speak, socio-economic activities involved with the countryside are properly protected.
I therefore mention specifically that internal drainage boards have considerable experience of balancing the needs of flood defence and socio-economic activities. I remind the House that the boards are governed by representatives of agricultural drainage ratepayers and local authority nominees. The legislation under which they act rightly gives precedence to flood defence considerations, and that will not change. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will feel reassured. It is a point that we could take up either in writing or in discussion after today's debate if he would like to do that.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for his support. I am conscious of the fact that he wisely directed most of his questions to the Minister and that they have been answered. I would add one footnote. The
892
noble Lord was worried that, by raising environmental standards, costs might also be increased. I believe that the example that I gave earlier in the debate put that doubt to rest. Very often, by increasing respect for the environment, costs which might be associated with engineering or with day-to-day operations are actually decreased. One of the great realisations of the past year or two—it goes back to what the noble Baroness said —is that many environmental activities are not the bottom-line cost activities which were anticipated in the 1980s. Many of them reduce costs or produce bottom-line profits. Therefore, increasing the environ-mental consideration of flood defence and land drainage uses will not necessarily increase costs and might well reduce them.
In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords who made a contribution to today's debate. I think it is fair to say that the Bill enjoys a good measure of support from both the land drainage and flood defence authorities and the conservation bodies. I hope that it has support from all sides of this House, and certainly from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who is unable to be here. I hope that the level of agreement will make for the speedy passage of the Bill both in this House and in the other place. I feel sure that it will help to foster and strengthen the provision of environmentally friendly land drainage and flood defence measures to the benefit of local communities and the public interest generally. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am told that I gave a slightly misleading answer to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, which I certainly did not intend to do, on the question that he asked me about the effect that the Bill might have on works that are currently in progress. I answered the noble Lord that the Bill is not retrospective —which is absolutely right. Conceivably, it could apply to the current or indeed the future operation of infrastructure work which has been installed in the past. I should like to make that point absolutely clear.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Chiropractors Bill
1.47 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Exactly a year ago I had the privilege of standing before your Lordships' House to open the Second Reading debate on the Osteopaths Bill. I little thought then that I should be performing a similar role so soon on behalf of the chiropractic profession. I am however delighted to be opening this debate on the Chiropractors Bill. My sense of pleasure is enhanced because, as many noble Lords will know, I had the honour to serve on the two working parties set up by the King's Fund to look into the question of statutory regulation for the osteopathic and the chiropractic professions. Both working parties were chaired by the right honourable Sir Thomas Bingham, now Master of the Rolls. I would like

893
to record, on behalf of both the professions and myself, our appreciation of his sterling work. I think it is fair to say that had the King's Fund not taken the initiative and set: up the working parties, neither profession would be where it is today.
Before I move on to the Bill itself, may I remark how swiftly things have changed in the field of complemen-tary medicine. Thirty years ago, American chiropractors in some states of the USA were convicted of practising medicine without a licence. A little under 10 years ago the then mainstream attitude among my colleagues in the medical profession gave no indication of the great developments that were in store. Today, by contrast, the Osteopaths Act is already on the statute book and the chiropractors stand poised to become, should this Bill be successful, the second profession from the complementary medicine field to achieve statutory regulation.
Complementary medicine does, of course, cover a very wide range of approaches and professional activities. In many ways the only thing which all practitioners of complementary medicine have in common is that they do not form part of orthodox medical treatment as it is practised in most European, and indeed most Western, countries.
Chiropractic itself is a bio-mechanical therapy based on the premise that the spine carries and protects a large part of the body's central nervous system, a matter with which as a neurologist I am much concerned. Therefore it has a key role in maintaining the body's effective functioning. When the mobility of the spine is affected either by becoming inflexible and stiff or even by becoming too mobile, the nervous system may also be affected in turn. In many cases severe pain can result, but it is often experienced not only in the back but also in the limbs or indeed in other parts of the body. Chiropractic treatment provides a means of assessing the position of the spine to discover the presence of such a condition and then making an adjustment or manipulation to correct it.
That very brief explanation makes chiropractic sound very like osteopathy. It is true that the two professions share many similar concepts and procedures. While it is very difficult to define briefly what precisely distinguishes the two professions, it is fair to say that they have somewhat different philosophical and practical approaches to training and to the exact types of manipulative techniques that they use. Their own history, especially in their separate development as professions, means that the two professions will often approach the same problem from rather different angles.
I have come across a rather endearing story which is somewhat analogous to the situation and which, like all similar anecdotes, might upset the purists but should appeal to others as possibly coming close to the truth. It relates to a small railway station in the west of Ireland which had two station clocks showing different times. A traveller who was unfamiliar with the local ethos asked the station master why there were two clocks and why they each told a different time. "Well," said the station master, "if they both told the same time, we would only need one of them."
894
Returning to more serious issues, perhaps I may say first that having personally visited the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic in Bournemouth, I was much impressed by the quality of instruction and the rigorous application of scientific methods which I saw there. The King's Fund working party came to the conclusion that the differences between osteopathy and chiropractic, though relatively minor, fully justified independent regulatory machinery for each profession. Many noble Lords will be aware that a few years ago a Medical Research Council trial, which compared the manage-ment of low back pain by chiropractic, on the one hand, and by more traditional hospital-based techniques such as physiotherapy, on the other, demonstrated that chiropractic was significantly superior.
The Bill seeks to establish a statutory registration scheme for chiropractors which will regulate the profession and require all persons calling themselves chiropractors to be registered with a new statutory council. That new statutory body, the General Chiropractic Council, will have the duty to regulate, promote and develop the profession of chiropractic and lay down standards of professional conduct and education.
The Bill also provides for the establishment of four statutory committees to advise the general council on matters relating to chiropractic education and training and to ensure that any complaint or allegation made about a registered practitioner's fitness to practise chiropractic is properly investigated and effectively resolved. The general council itself is to consist of 10 chiropractors elected by the profession, six lay members representing the interests of patients and consumers and four members, one of whom will be appointed by the Secretary of State for Education, to advise on matters of chiropractic and professional education. The general council's statutory duties will include preparing and publishing a professional code of conduct and a standard of proficiency required for the safe and competent practice of chiropractic; appointing a registrar to establish and maintain a register of practitioners; and appointing members of the Education, Investigating, Professional Conduct and Health Committees.
Entitlement to registration is to be determined primarily on whether a person holds a "recognised" qualification. For example, the Anglo-European college in Bournemouth now offers a four-year honours degree course followed by one year of practice under supervision before full registration would become possible. The qualifications to be accepted under the terms of the Bill will be any qualification which the general council, on the advice of its education committee and with the approval of the Privy Council, "recognises" as equipping the practitioner with the education, training and skills necessary for the safe and competent practice of chiropractic.
The Bill also provides transitional arrangements to enable those practitioners who may not now hold a recognised qualification but who have been practising chiropractic lawfully, safely and competently over a period of years to be registered. The Bill further enables the general council to introduce, after consultation with

895
the profession, a system of provisional registration— normally a year—during which a practitioner will be entitled to practise only under the supervision of a fully registered chiropractor; and to make continued registration subject to the condition that the practitioner undergoes regular post-registration training.
The Education Committee is to be responsible for promoting and reviewing standards of education and training in chiropractic and for advising the general council on all matters relating to chiropractic education and training, in particular the qualifications entitling a practitioner to be registered. To assist it in fulfilling those duties, the education committee will be empowered to request, from training institutions offering or seeking to offer recognised qualifications or post-registration training et cetera, information on the courses and facilities that they provide and to appoint visitors to report on the standard of training given.
A key function of the committee will be to advise the general council on the recognition of qualifications offered by training establishments. It is to do that on the basis of whether the qualification provides evidence of having reached the standard of proficiency laid down by the general council for the safe and competent practice of chiropractic.
The investigating, professional conduct and health committees are to investigate and, if necessary, take action on allegations made against a registered chiropractor concerning his or her professional conduct, competence or fitness to practice. In carrying out investigations, the committees would have the power to order the immediate suspension of a chiropractor's registration where such action is considered necessary for the protection of members of the public. To protect the interests of the practitioner, the Bill provides a right to a hearing with legal representation if the practitioner so chooses and with full rights of appeal before such a suspension is imposed.
The Privy Council is to be given the responsibility of overseeing the work of the general council and its four committees. If the Privy Council believes that the general council is failing in its duties, it will have the power to direct the general council to perform any of its statutory functions. In the last resort the Privy Council would be able to take over entirely the functions of the general council and do anything that the general council is able to do. That supervisory role and the accompanying powers are similar to those exercised by the Privy Council under the regulatory schemes of other groups of health care professionals. However, I have to say that there is no known case of the Privy Council ever having to use its default powers in that way.
The reason that statutory regulation is being sought by the profession is quite simple. As the honourable Member for Aylesbury said when the Bill had its Second Reading in another place, there is at present nothing to stop anyone fixing a brass plate to his gatepost and immediately setting himself up in practice as a chiropractor. That poses a real risk to anyone unlucky enough to find himself in the hands of such a person. The manipulation of necks, backs or even limbs by the hands of an untrained person could have very
896
serious consequences. In addition, a considerable part of chiropractic training is devoted to the recognition of those conditions which chiropractic cannot treat, and especially those where immediate referral to a medical practitioner is warranted. The potential risk to a patient of a serious condition remaining undetected by an untrained manipulator is obvious. While the profession remains small, it would have been more difficult to practise, but with the recent expansion of the profession, the possibilities for bogus or cowboy chiropractors, if I may use those terms, will increase.
There are now around 900 chiropractors currently working in the UK, about twice the number there were only a few years ago. If we add in the number of students currently on chiropractic training courses, the profession may well be set to double in size again before the end of the century. The achievement of statutory regulation would, furthermore, enable chiropractors to take their proper place alongside those in other long-established caring vocations. They would be recognised as a mature and responsible profession, capable of being entrusted with the regulation of their own affairs within the framework provided by the Bill. Statutory regulation would also provide patients with the necessary assurance that their treatment was skilled, competent and appropriate, and may well encourage more people to take up chiropractic as a career.
By far the majority of, if not all, practising chiropractors in the UK are at present members of a voluntary registration scheme. The profession recog-nises, however, that a voluntary system of control is inadequate in that it cannot provide members of the public with the level of assurance many would wish to have about their personal practitioner. For example, if an incompetent practitioner were to be struck off a voluntary register, he or she would remain free to continue in practice and to continue describing himself or herself, perfectly legally, as a chiropractor. A patient injured in those circumstances by an incompetent practitioner has no opportunity for redress outside the civil law. As around 75,000 patients consult chiropractors each week, I am sure noble Lords will agree that the profession's pursuit of statutory regulation is entirely appropriate.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bill follows closely the precepts of the Osteopaths Act and indeed, like the latter Act, is broadly modelled upon the medical Acts which regulate the function of the General Medical Council, of which I had the honour to be president from 1982 to 1989. The system of regulation which it contains may serve in future as a model which other professions may choose to adopt should they in the future seek to follow the lead of the osteopaths and chiropractors. It would therefore, I believe, be wise to take advantage of the unique opportunity presented by the Chiropractors Bill to make a small number of what have been described as fine-tuning amendments to the Osteopaths Act. Those have also been incorporated in the Bill which is before your Lordships today.
The Bill received detailed examination as it passed through its stages in another place. It is a striking and substantial example of current thinking on the question of professional self-regulation. It is a Bill in which the

897
profession and all who contributed to it can be confident and by which they may feel duly rewarded for all their efforts. It would be appropriate for me to mention in particular at this point the quite remarkable and dedicated work done by members of the Chiropractic Registration Steering Group, some of whom were also members of the King's Fund Working Party. The profession and all patients of chiropractors owe them, and notably the assiduous Ian Hutchinson, a sincere debt of gratitude for all their hard work.
Should the Bill succeed, as I fervently hope it will —Private Members' Bills are delicate objects at the best of times—it will, in addition to achieving the result for which the profession has worked tirelessly, mark and recognise that this model of regulation, already enshrined in the Osteopaths Act, is both workable and sound. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Walton of Detchant.)
2.4 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, it is my privilege to be the first to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and to thank him and congratulate him on the preparation and content of the Bill. I am sure your Lordships will agree that he does himself little justice in praising so many other people. We all know that it was his driving force that brought forward both the Osteopaths and Chiropractors Bills and we thank him for doing so.
On a personal note, I should perhaps thank the noble Lord for coming to the Chamber at all today. I understand that Lady Walton is not well and it must be an extremely difficult time for him. I was told that Her Ladyship was a little better today and I am sure that the whole House joins me in wishing her well.
I speak not as a practitioner of this activity, but as a lay promoter of alternative medicine. The noble Lord gave a comprehensive review and referred to the similarity of this Bill with that of the Osteopaths Act. It is good news that both services will now be available both to NHS hospitals and fundholders alike. I am sure that there will be great relief in the minds of all existing practitioners that they will not have to go back to school for another four years.
The conditional registration arrangements are also generous and encouraging to younger and less experienced practitioners. The new register will have important provisions to declare full details of practitioners' qualifications which will be available to the public in order to provide complete transparency. Chiropractors have an existing, well established and excellent school at Bournemouth. The noble Lord complimented them upon the school and it is right that he should do so. They have made great efforts to promote the school and have prepared a system of registration and preparation for all chiropractors of which we, as a nation, can be proud.
The professional conduct and health committees' powers to regulate members is a reflection of the increasingly important need to protect the public. In many ways I am against the promotion of the nanny state which attempts to remove all responsibility from
898
the individual. But reluctantly I must say that in this instance it is not only good and laudable, but vital. The problem of perceived success or failure in any medical treatment is often extremely subjective, especially where the patient believes that he or she is the victim. In that situation there must be clear evidence of the treatment given and the case history for judgment by the committees to maintain public confidence in the practice of chiropractic whose long history and record of success is now being recognised.
We should have short speeches—I am sure that the noble Lord is anxious to get home to the bedside of his wife—but I would say that there are other therapies, particularly in the alternative medicine field, which I should like to bring to the attention of my noble friend the Minister, especially the Chinese system where a combination of modern medicine, herbal medicine and acupuncture provide a remarkable source of successful medical practice which is already in use in some parts of the country. I would hope that that might soon also be recognised by the medical profession.
2.8 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it is also my pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on introducing this Bill with a very lucid explanation—no less so than when, as he said, a year ago he put before your Lordships' House the Osteopaths Bill. It is a very happy occasion that with only a year in between we are seeking to put on the statute book a system for the control and training of chiropractics as already exists for osteopaths. I should like to add my thanks to the King's Fund, which by its studies has initiated both these Bills, and to Sir Thomas Bingham as chairman of the working party. I do not think we should allow the occasion to pass without congratulating David Lidington, a Member of Parliament in another place, who piloted the Bill through another place with considerable success.
I very much agree with the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, in that many of us hope that we have notched up two on the ladder and that the ladder will go higher. He is right in saying that we should be looking at acupuncture as the second choice. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, is here to speak in view of his excellent work in terms of registration of those who are practitioners of acupuncture.
The proposed legislation has received widespread support from other health service professions. I was particularly glad to see the comments of the physiotherapists, who in a sense would like to have had a Bill for themselves. They would like to see regulation because they have no control over the many people who claim to be physiotherapists but have not necessarily undertaken the training. To that extent chiropractics will be at an advantage as a profession. It is good for the professions that they should have rules and regulations to provide for the confidence of the public.
There is no doubt that there is a need for the profession of chiropractic. I was looking at some facts which show that 310,000 people in the United Kingdom are off work each day with back pain. Not necessarily all but most of those cases could be treated by chiropractic. Back pain costs the country more than £3 million in lost

899
production every year. Disability from low back pain is increasing faster than any other form of disability. In fact, the incidence has doubled in the past 10 years. It would be interesting if the Minister could give some explanation for that remarkable and disturbing increase.
There has been great progress by the profession. There are now about 900 chiropractors working in Britain. About 75,000 patients consult a chiropractor each week. We can see, therefore, that the numbers dependent on this form of manipulative treatment are very large. A recent study by Which? in November 1992 showed that chiropractic was the second most frequently used complementary therapy. The Medical Research Council's clinical trial, reported in the British Medical Journal on 2nd June 1990, found chiropractic to be considerably more effective than hospital outpatient treatment for low back pain, particularly for those with chronic or severe pain. That was the first large-scale trial to compare a complementary method with orthodox medical treatment. It came out with flying colours. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that it is encouraging that public attitudes, and particularly the attitudes of the medical profession, towards complementary therapies have gone through tremendous change. That is enormously encouraging. Were that not the case we would not have this Bill before us today. The very fact that it is the noble Lord, Lord Walton—a former president of the British Medical Association—who has piloted both Bills through the House means that he more than anyone else has led to this great improvement in relationships and understanding.
A report on back pain which was published in August 1993, commissioned by the Canadian Government, stated that,
"the safety of chiropractic care and higher satisfaction levels expressed by patients offer an overwhelming case in favour of much greater use of chiropractic".
It is a very happy occurrence that this Bill is introduced now because chiropractic celebrates its centenary in 1995. It will be very nice if it is able to implement the Act, as it then will be, in the year in which it celebrates its centenary. I am certain that the House, with the extraordinary generosity which it always shows, would want to say to the profession, "A happy 100th birthday".
I end by quoting three short paragraphs from Sir Thomas Bingham's report. They are paragraphs 17, 18 and 19. Paragraph 17 says:
"We are of opinion that legislation to regulate the practice of a profession such as chiropractic which offers manipulative techniques which, if wrongly applied, could be harmful is necessary for the protection of patients. Although the profession is small in number, demand for chiropractic treatment is growing and the number of students in training increasing at such a rate that the profession is likely to double in size in the next five years".
Paragraph 18 states:
"Chiropractic is statutorily regulated in most countries where it is practised. Alone among English speaking nations, Great Britain and Northern Ireland are content to rely on voluntary arrangements".
We are not content to rely on voluntary arrangements which is why we hope that the Bill will go on to the statute book. Paragraph 19 also states:
900
"Voluntary arrangements of this kind do not work in practice. Voluntary registering bodies have no effective sanctions against unlicensed, untrained or professionally negligent practitioners. They cannot prevent such practitioners from continuing to practice even though it is against the interests of patients for them to do so".
I believe that these are most powerful arguments for a statutory regulation system. The profession itself wants to see the change as did the osteopaths.
As I say, I hope that we shall now have on the statute book the second of what I hope will be a series of measures. It is right to take them one by one although I must add, as I did in the debate about a year ago, that I do not believe that it should be dependent on the vagaries of the system of Private Members' Bills. In the past two or three weeks we have been very tragically reminded how a good Bill can be lost in the processes of another place. Thank Heavens your Lordships do not treat Bills in that sort of derisory way. I wish this could have been a Government Bill. It is really the luck of the draw if one can persuade a Member of another place to take up this particular cause out of the 13 Bills which are likely to succeed. We were fortunate that it happened. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is right in thinking and hoping that this measure will reach the statute book. If it is, it owes very much to his work and commitment.
2.17 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I welcome this Bill and congratulate all those whose hard work has made it possible. With the Osteopaths Act of last year to light the way we are now within reach of seeing both sets of manipulators—I say that in the best sense of the term—safely on to the statute book. This is surely the right road to take. The more that standards are established for all to see, the greater the protection for everyone concerned and the less the need to go down the route of banning therapies with all the restrictions on innovation and freedom that that entails.
It is an admirable Bill, as was the Osteopaths Bill. It will not come cheap for the profession, but that is the sort of price that complementary therapists will expect to have to pay for any worthwhile self-regulation. There are no short cuts.
Although I wear the hats of Joint Chairman of the Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine and Chairman of the British Acupuncture Accreditation Board, I see these things mainly through the eyes of a patient. I have two concerns here, one of which I voiced at the time of the Osteopaths Act. In gaining your place in the sun it is easy to lose your soul. Something of the kind has happened in the USA. If I go to a chiropractor, I do not want to find a watered down medical practitioner by another name. There are skills and attitudes to chiropractic which are worth preserving, and I hope they will be preserved.
In the case of chiropractic, there are three schools with different approaches. The King's Fund Report commented rightly that there was no intention, in levelling standards, to do away with diversity. It even suggested that the professional register should show what school a practitioner came from, but I do not see

901
this carried forward into the Bill. I do hope that individualities will not be lost among the unequal size of the three schools. I believe that the public are more concerned and discriminating here than one might actually expect.
It is nearly a hundred years since the birth of chiropractic, and it is worth commenting again that this is an extremely long time to have to wait for acceptance from an orthodoxy which for most of that time regarded it as dangerous quackery. My noble friend Lord Walton alluded to that in passing but without drawing any particular conclusion from it. If we have patients' interests at heart we may have to look hard and long at the attitudes and methods of assessment which produce this kind of situation.
I say this, my Lords, because it has lessons for the future. As the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, have already mentioned, other professions are already on the road, notably the accupuncturists, the herbalists and the homeopaths. Various authorities have been staking out the conditions which they believe must be fulfilled before a profession can be regulated. I think we must look at these critically, always with the patients' interest at the front of our minds. The Secretary to the King's Fund, in his foreword to the chiropractic report, insists on solid foundations in science. In one sense, of course, this is unobjectionable. But the trouble is that it is too often interpreted to mean the-body-of-knowledge-as-it-is-currently-understood-in-the-Western-world, which is not quite the same thing though it may be convenient for the medical scientists of 1994. All too often the question How does it work? is put before Does it work? It is the latter that is important, and that brings patients to chiropractic, acupuncture, healing and the rest.
Another condition comes from government, and was restated by the Minister, Mr. Tom Sackville, at Second Reading in another place. It is that the profession concerned should secure the support and acceptance of the medical profession. My Lords, this is highly desirable, and there could be real difficulties if it were not done. But in view of the past track record which I have alluded to, I just wonder whether the Government are wise to elevate this to the status of a firm principle. I would like to hear a bit more argument about this some time.
This brings me to a final plea, which I have made before. The Government have stated in the past that they are "benignly neutral" towards complementary medi-cine. Since the health of the nation is involved, could they not be a little more benign and a little less neutral? We all now accept that chiropractic is a "Good Thing". Should not this have been a Government Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked? In view of the large and growing public use of complementary therapies, which has national policy implications and will not go away, I feel sure it would be in the general interest if government made it easier for the up-and-coming professions which have always lacked money and research expertise to establish just what they can and cannot do. Good health is too important to leave solely to the market place.
902
Meanwhile, my Lords, we have an excellent measure before us, most clearly and ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant under severe personal difficulties with which we greatly sympathise, and I am sure we will all wish the Bill a speedy passage.
2.23 p.m.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I speak not as any kind of expert, but as a very satisfied patient of the British School of Osteopathy, a profession which has already jumped the various and well thought-out hurdles which ended in the 1993 Osteopaths Act.
In a previous incarnation at the then Department of Health and Social Security, I was for a time the source of some merriment owing to my habit of lying on my back in my office, papers aloft, as I suffered what was to become excruciating back pain. It is no small tribute to the department that, while I was there, I was never able to detect any prejudice against what is known as "complementary medicine": uncompromising scrutiny of efficacy, perhaps, but not the kind of attitude that might close the mind to initially doubtful-seeming approaches to therapy, some of which have achieved respectability with time.
I suspect that your Lordships' House is no place in which to make remarks off the record, but if I may lower my voice slightly, it was on the unofficial advice (many moons ago and well before the Osteopaths Act) of a very good friend and colleague of mine—I hasten to state that it was a colleague on the administrative, not medical, side of the department—that I hurried off to obtain the treatment for which I shall for ever be grateful.
For my part, the Bill's promoters are, as it were, preaching to the converted. I have no direct experience of chiropractic as differentiated from osteopathy, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for his valiant attempt to put us all right on that score. To my untutored eye, the two activities seem sufficiently similar, and their supporters adequately and equally enthusiastic. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if, for the purposes of the Bill, I take for granted the bona fides of the practitioners of chiropractic. In 1990 the Medical Research Council largely endorsed what many individual patients have experienced in practice. I am in good company.
There are areas upon which I should like to hear from my noble friend the Minister. I am in no doubt that joint adjusting procedures, manipulation, massage and other techniques to treat muscular/skeletal complaints are cost-effective for the nation. Treatment is already available under the NHS through fundholding GPs and non-fundholding GPs if, in most cases, FHSAs can be persuaded to reimburse the cost from cash-limited funds for GP staff and premises, and DHAs. There is a shortage of practitioners in the specialty. What measures and encouragement are in place for a better supply of the service?
Secondly, will my noble friend assure the House that adequate safeguards are in place to protect not just the public from malpractice—I am content on that score —but the practitioner from vexatious accusations on grounds that would be the concern of the professional

903
conduct committee. There is much at stake for the practitioner and much scope for misplaced troublemak-ing in such a "hands-on" activity.
Thirdly, I am in some confusion over the evidently subtle distinction between, first, osteopaths and chiropractors, and, secondly, the several schools of chiropractic. Now is not the time or place to explore the merits of the two practices amalgamating both legislatively and administratively, but might there be some benefit to the patient if they did so eventually?
This is a worthwhile Bill. I congratulate its promoter in another place, my honourable friend David Lidington; and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on steering it through your Lordships' House. I am sure that he will do so as deftly as he did the Osteopaths Bill. I wish him and the Bill well.
2.28 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I welcome the Bill. I use a chiropractor in Scotland. Although I enjoy excellent general health, following some overweight parachuting, compounded by falling off an army horse on my 23rd birthday, my spine is weak in places. A review of my X-rays usually results in a certain amount of tongue clicking. Some years ago there was always a petition to sign at the chiropractic clinic to get recognition for the profession as an acceptable alternative therapy. I hope that the Bill gives the chiropractic profession the recognition that it desires and deserves. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant and everyone else involved on getting the Bill this far.
All the chiropractors whom I know will have no trouble in complying with their new responsibilities under the Bill, and, once passed, chiropractic skills will be recognised as an acceptable form of alternative medicine which will be available to many more patients if they are referred by their GPs. Horses also benefit from chiropractic skills. Presumably horses must be referred by their veterinary surgeons.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, once again I too am delighted to be able to make a contribution to the process which will establish statutory registration for chiropractors. I say "once again" as I have supported the case for the statutory regulation of osteopaths and chiropractors on several occasions since taking my place in your Lordships' House in the mid-1960s. I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on the way in which he introduced the Bill and say how much I admire the way in which he has taken up the cause for the chiropractors in the same way as he did for the osteopaths. His explanation was clear, erudite and concise and left little extra to be said.
As joint president of the all-party parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine, I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. This Bill has all-party support and I am glad to hear that
904
much of the work has been covered with the osteopaths and that there are very few differences between that Act and the Bill before us today.
I know that my noble friend Lady Hooper is sorry not to be here—she has a previous appointment. She would join me in saying how much I regret that my friend Lord Ferrier did not live long enough to be able to take part in our debate today. He was a tireless supporter of chiropractic. He regularly initiated debates and asked Questions to successive Ministers in successive governments about the availability of chiropractic and its integration into the NHS. The Library has kindly supplied me with copies of two debates which he initiated; one in May 1976 and one in November 1979, to which I was privileged to be able to make a contribution. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I mention two occasions on which Lord Ferrier debated chiropractic. I know that he would have seen today and the passage of this Bill as a culmination of his great support of the profession.
In May 1976 Lord Ferrier asked Her Majesty's Government whether they would be prepared to contemplate any amendment to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 to encourage osteopaths and chiropractors to qualify for registration. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, replied on behalf of the Government. He stated:
"There is nothing to prevent any group from beginning themselves the process of self-regulation; indeed, this is commonly the way in which professions set about establishing themselves".—[Official Report, 12/5/76; col. 1038.]
He went on to say that the Government had approached the Medical Research Council with a view to having some planned research done and they expected much more research to take place on the matter.
In 1979 Lord Ferrier asked what plans the Government had to integrate chiropractic into the NHS. This time the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was in opposition and was much more supportive. He quoted figures from the Cochrane Report which had been set up by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who was Minister of Health in 1976. He urged the Government to implement the recommendations of the Cochrane Committee and stressed the importance of setting up without delay trials by the three non-medical organisations—the osteopaths, the chiropractors and the acupuncturists—with the co-operation of the General Medical Council.
In winding up the debate, my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, stated:
"I am aware … that chiropractors have sought to secure state registration as members of a profession supplementary to medicine under the provisions of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. I am equally aware that, when the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine rejected their application, it declined, and could not be compelled by the Privy Council, to give its reasons for doing so, and that chiropractors and the Chiropractic Advancement Association are aggrieved. However, I believe that, if the chiropractors sought by their application to achieve a longer-term acceptance by the medical profession of what they have to offer and their own ultimate integration into the National Health Service, then their action in making the application was correct. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health has already commended to them that they should seriously consider making a further application".— [Official Report, 21/11/79; col. 270.]
That was 15 years ago.

905
Several speakers suggested that moves to statutory regulation should be set up without delay and the Minister was very supportive. I suppose that 15 years in government timing is without delay. We have the osteopaths on the statute book and this Bill is for the chiropractors. I look forward to similar moves with regard to acupuncturists, homeopaths and herbalists in the near future.
In 1979 back pain cost Britain 18 million lost working days; £900 million in lost production; and £90 million in social security payments. Today, 310,000 working days per day are lost at a cost of £3 billion. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, may have given the figure as £3 million but it is in fact £3 billion. Statutory recognition of osteopaths and chiropractors must go some way towards dealing with that problem.
It is a pleasure to see another complementary therapy about to achieve statutory recognition. Noble Lords must appreciate how much pleasure it gives those of us who have long supported natural medicine to see the way in which orthodox medicine is finally recognising and realising the potential of many of the complemen-tary therapies. I wish the Bill a speedy passage through this House.
2.36 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for introducing the Bill and for explaining so clearly its aims and purposes. The make-up of the council, the rules of registration and the educational requirements are all in line with the Act governing the profession of osteopathy. I welcome also the amendments which have been made to the Osteopaths Act in the present Bill.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer to a profession which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, mentioned; namely, that of chartered physiotherapists in this country. I must declare an interest because I am president of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy.
That is one of the largest professions complementary to medicine. There are 25,500 chartered physiotherap-ists in Britain compared with what I am told is something like 700 chiropractors. Some 5,000 chartered physiotherapists are in private practice mainly dealing with bad backs, necks and other skeletal problems. While the NHS and independent hospitals insist that all physiotherapists employed by them are state registered —that is, properly qualified—there are no regulations governing the private practice of physiotherapists in this country. Anyone can call himself a physiotherapist and practise privately. There are probably over 1,000 such people who have either no qualification at all or who have been on a variety of short, unrecognised courses.
That situation does not apply to chiropractic or osteopathy because there is no evidence of any unqualified people according to David Lidington. They do not have that problem. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy merely asks for the same protection for the patients of physiotherapists —and there are many times more people at risk—as exists in relation to osteopaths and chiropractors.
906
Chartered physiotherapists in private practice and those who are unregistered treat a wide range of conditions, including spinal and joint problems, shoulder and back pain and use a range of techniques including manipulation. It is obviously right that all professions complementary to medicine should be properly registered to protect the public and to guarantee that practitioners receive adequate training, both if they wish to work in the NHS or in private practice. I hope that the Minister will take that problem on board.
2.40 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House —though I am afraid that much of it is not present today as it is the last day of term—and, even more so, the whole profession of chiropractors and their patients will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, for the time that he has put in as regards the preparation of the Bill and its predecessor the Osteopaths Bill. I am sure that all of us are grateful to him for the very clear way that he presented the Bill. As other speakers have said, we are especially grateful to him for his presence here today because of the serious illness of his wife. I join other noble Lords in sending out strong messages of support to the noble Lord and to Lady Walton, together with hopes for the continued improvement which I am pleased to hear is occurring.
As a general practitioner with more than a third of a century's experience, I welcome on board any body of men and women who can help to calm the rough sea of symptoms which sometimes seem overwhelming to those of us who are on the beach facing the breakers of complaints coming at us from patients. There is no doubt that GPs and the National Health Service as a whole cannot, and probably never will, be able to relieve everyone's pain. That is partly because we do not have enough time with our patients, but also because we do not have the training—or sometimes the patience—to cope with many of the chronic symptoms, especially back pain, which patients continue to present even when serious or life-threatening disease has been excluded or treated.
Chiropractors are one of several bodies of practitioners of alternative—or, like other speakers, I prefer the term "complementary"—medicine who have disciplines and skills which can tackle some of those intractable problems which doctors seem unable to cope with, where often bodily symptoms and psychological stress merge and are difficult to separate. I am strongly of the opinion that depression and anxiety underlie and exacerbate much chronic physical pain. But many people do not wish to go down the psychotherapeutic road and strongly deny that there is anything wrong with their mental or emotional balance. I have to say here that perhaps many people protest too much, for which of us is not vulnerable at some level? However that may be, attention to physical symptoms is often of enormous help. If the practitioner has a healing disposition, the whole person is helped while the bodily pain is being attended to.
There is no doubt that many people have been greatly helped by chiropractors. The Medical Research Council trial which was mentioned by at least three noble Lords

907
demonstrates that fact. I have no doubt that similar studies could—and should—be mounted by the other strands of complementary medicine. Like the osteo-paths, chiropractors have got their house in order and have shown that they can conform to the quite exacting (but I think necessary) framework for registration and regulation which this Bill constitutes.
As well as the osteopaths, the psychotherapists and the psychoanalysts are also going down similar roads, so that there is now an increasing group of professions allied and complementary to medicine to which patients and their doctors can safely turn. I very much back the plea made by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, for physiotherapists. I believe that that also applies to a number of other professions allied to medicine.
My only quibble with the Bill is that chiropractors have been allowed to get away with their misuse of the customary way that Greek is incorporated into the English language. Perhaps that is because chiropractic originated across the Atlantic in the United States. I am not a general practor, nor do I undertake general practic. Why can we not have chiropractitioners who undertake chiropractice?
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, said that he did not wish to see chiropractors behaving as watered down doctors, as they sometimes do in the United States. That is partly because in the United States there is not a good system of primary health care and the chiropractors have taken over that role. Is the word chiropractor not perhaps derived from doctor? Perhaps there is something in that because in the United States chiropractors sometimes take on a rather wider role than we would like to see them take on here.
Leaving that aside, we on these Benches are basically very happy with the Bill and wish chiropractors in this country well. Like the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, I hope that further similar Bills will come before Parliament to allow statutory self-regulation for the other main branches of complementary medicine when they are ready. The Osteopaths Bill and this Bill should stimulate that process.
2.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, perhaps I may begin by adding my congratula-tions to those which have already been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House. I am sure the noble Lord will play a fundamental role in the success of this Bill as he did for its forerunner, now the Osteopaths Act. He has been an outstanding member of both the working parties set up by the King's Fund to examine chiropractic and osteopathy. In addition I am aware, as many of your Lordships will be, that he has been an unfailing source of support and advice for both professions as they have moved towards their goal. The Government fully support this Bill and hope that it will speedily take its place alongside the Osteopaths Act on the statute book. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, this is indeed a
908
happy day. I share his aspiration that other professions should grow in stature and retain the confidence of the public.
Chiropractors have a very important role to play in helping people to remain mobile and free from discomfort and pain. However, I could not help but smile the other day when I saw a newspaper report on the Second Reading debate in the other place headlined:
"Welcome for Bill on Care of Feet".
There are issues of semantics here but I shall not go into the same detail as the noble Lord, Lord Rea, did.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, has already described in detail what the Bill would entail. He has also been careful to outline a description of chiropractic as a therapy. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, chiropractic is probably the second most widely used complementary therapy. When we are fit and well and free from pain we rarely stop to ask ourselves how or why that is, but an increasing number of people owe their continued good health to the skilled intervention of a chiropractor. It never fails to astonish me how many people, including some of your Lordships, have benefited from treatment by a chiropractor. My sympathy lies with my noble friend Lord Harmsworth and the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, whose experience brought into sharp and painful focus the need for promoting and regulating chiropractic.
I recently heard of two cases of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who are responding well to courses of chiropractic treatment. These servicemen are not people who spend all day lifting heavy objects. One is a naval helicopter pilot and the other an RAF electronics flight engineer. Both have cost the country millions of pounds to train, and yet both face the possibility of being discharged because of a bad back, exacerbated by the need to sit for hours in their aircraft. After chiropractic treatment one has already returned to full duties and, although it is still too early to be absolutely sure, there is every indication that the other will soon join him back at work. I am sure that your Lordships will know of other examples where chiropractic treatment has made a crucial difference to the quality of people's lives.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the issue of the increasing incidence of back pain and asked whether we knew the reason. It is a difficult question since the increasing levels of disability due to back pain are the result of a complex mixture of physical, psychological and social factors. The problem has been recognised by the Clinical Standards Advisory Group, which is a statutory multi-professional group set up by the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nursing Officer. A report from that group is currently being considered by the Secretary of State, so perhaps we shall be able to enlighten the noble Lord in due course.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has said, medical opinion has undergone something of a sea-change in recent years. This has been strongly influenced by the growing experience which many doctors have of patients being successfully treated by chiropractors. Perhaps more importantly, there is now sound scientific evidence of the effectiveness of chiropractic. The most significant example is contained in the 1990 report of

909
the Medical Research Council's trial. This compared the recovery from low back pain using chiropractic techniques with traditional hospital outpatient treat-ment. The report concluded that for those with low back pain chiropractic "almost certainly" conferred worth-while, long-term benefit, especially for those experiencing chronic or severe pain.
The report also stated that consideration should be given to introducing chiropractic into NHS practice. Last year the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts published its report Complementary Therapies in the NHS. This showed that the NHS is prepared to purchase more complementary therapies. It also made the point that health authorities would welcome continuing thorough review of therapies in order to be able to assess their effectiveness. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group has recently submitted a report on the management of back pain to the Secretary of State. It is likely that this will also add weight to the argument that manipulation by appropriately trained therapists or practitioners should be more widely available on the NHS.
My noble friend Lord Clanwilliam described himself as a promoter of alternative medicine—and I would add, an energetic and doughty promoter. He expressed his pleasure in the widening use of alternative therapies in the NHS. We share his views. The NHS reforms have enabled health authorities and GPs to purchase a wider range of alternative and complementary medicine, including chiropractic. For example, GP fund-holders, with their new freedoms are employing complementary practitioners on a sessional basis. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, alternative therapists are extremely valuable as part of the primary healthcare team. We endorse that. Hospital and community based provision depends on the professional clinical judgment of clinicians and on decisions taken locally by district health authorities on how best to meet the health needs of their population.
My noble friend Lord Harmsworth asked how we could further encourage the greater use of chiropractors in the NHS. But that is likely to depend largely on those doctors who already make use of them persuading more of their colleagues of their effectiveness. However, we expect that by establishing statutory schemes, the development of closer links between chiropractors and the medical profession will be established and encouraged.
The Bill is not designed to affect the provision of chiropractic services in the NHS. What it will do is to provide a system which enables the General Chiropractic Council to regulate, promote and develop the profession. The general council will act as the standard bearer, with the responsibility for raising standards, leading the profession and improving the quality of service offered to patients.
The coming years will be a time of great change for chiropractors. The system of voluntary registration, which has in one case existed since 1925, will be overtaken by statutory regulation backed by provisions to ensure that only those practitioners registered with
910
the general council are entitled to call themselves chiropractors. The four associations will transfer most, if not all, of their duties to the new council.
It would be understandable if some people in the profession, perhaps those about to embark on their career or even students still in training, were to feel uncertain about the future. There is no attempt in this Bill to be prescriptive, nor to dictate to chiropractors how professional issues should be handled. That will be the responsibility of the general council, at least half of whom will be practising chiropractors elected by the profession.
The noble Earl, Lord Baldwin—whose chairmanship of the all-party group, I have to say, is masterly and much valued by myself—and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, suggested that the Bill should be a government Bill. We gave this matter careful consideration. However, we believe that the route of Private Members' legislation is the correct one as it frees Parliament from traditional party influences, allowing it to make up its own mind on this important issue on the merits of the case.
The noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked about other therapists who seek to close their title. Other therapy professions which seek statutory regulation are advised to follow the same route as both the chiropractors and the osteopaths, but first they must reach a consensus within the profession, agree on the need for common standards of education, training and professional conduct and seek the support of the medical profession. Then, if the way seems clear, they need to test the will of Parliament through a Private Member's Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colwyn for putting the Bill in its historic context. I am conscious that I am a johnny-come-lately to your Lordships' House, but like my noble friend I wish to pay tribute to all those who have broken the ground and worked so hard over the past 15 years to achieve the Second Reading of the Bill. We hope to see in enacted.
In conclusion, however quickly the profession has moved in recent years, chiropractic as a therapy is not new. It has been in existence for almost a hundred years. In fact, the profession worldwide plans to celebrate its centenary next year. What better reward could British chiropractors have than the achievement of statutory self-regulation through this Bill? I commend it: to your Lordships' House.
2.56 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, and others for their kind personal message to my wife. Over the past two weeks she has been desperately ill but has received the most skilled, dedicated care in the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford and I am glad to say that she is now well on the road to recovery. Thank you for your kind words.
I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate for the support which they have given to the Bill. Like the Osteopaths Bill, which is now an Act, this Bill is in a sense another historic step on the road towards the

911
formal recognition by Parliament of complementary medicine and its role in assisting the improvement of human health.
Like the noble Lord,Lord Ennals, I wish to pay a special tribute not only to other members of the King's Fund working party but also to David Lidington for the way in which he steered the Bill so effectively through another place. To the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, I say that the purpose of the Bill is to regulate the entire profession of chiropractic, with every intention to preserve the interests of those who are educated in the three schools of chiropractic in the United Kingdom. That is, not just the Bournemouth school but the other two to which he referred. I believe that the standards they provide will be protected by the Bill.
Of course, every doctor is delighted to receive comments from grateful patients. I am sure that the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth and the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, will have left chiropractors who may have listened to or read the debate feeling a sense of gratitude to them both for their kind comments. The sea change which has taken place in the attitude of the medical profession to which many noble Lords have referred resulted not long ago in a member of my family being referred by an excellent GP to a chiropractor. I am glad to say that there was effective treatment of low back pain. In that regard, it was fascinating to hear the historical background narrated so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, of which I was not previously fully aware.
I entirely share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, about the outstanding contributions made physiotherapists in this country. In the National Health Service, their activities are regulated by the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960, but the point which the noble Baroness made that many now practise outside the NHS should, I am sure, be noted. Those involved may well wish to move along a similar road towards professional self-regulation.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his support as a general practitioner and for his lesson in etymology. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but the terms "chiropractic" and "chiropractor" are hallowed in usage. They are like the word "doctor", meaning a doctor of medicine, not of philosophy or literature, which is also hallowed by usage. I believe that the Bill properly hallows that group of traditional terms.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for the outstanding support that she has given, and for the way in which she has made it clear that the Government support this Bill. I wish to say in passing how much I appreciate the very great help that members of her department have given in providing very detailed notes relating to the content of the Bill and its purpose. I trust that she will pass on to them my sincere thanks and, I am sure, the thanks of all those who are involved.
It only remains to me to say that I trust that your Lordships' House will give this Bill a fair wind and that we may see its progress, unamended, through this House so that very soon it will be, like the Osteopaths Act, on the statute book. That is something which I
912
know the chiropractic profession and the medical profession, and indeed the caring professions in general, will welcome. In the meantime I ask, having been privileged to present this Bill for its Second Reading in this House, that the House should give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Breast Cancer
3 p.m.
Lord Ironside Lord Ironside rose to ask Her Majesty's Government in what ways they expect to improve diagnosis and surgical treatment of breast cancer and to avoid hazardous radiotherapy treatment of this condition.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am very glad to have this opportunity of drawing parliamentary attention to a subject which is causing widespread public concern—concern which has been building up for six months or more now. It has caught the attention of the press, television and radio from different angles, all of which I believe have been fairly and accurately represented, without their dramatically overstepping the mark.
If there was a moment that triggered off this issue, I think it was the public meeting that was held by RAGE (Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure) at the London School of Economics on 4th September 1993. The meeting was brought about by the enraged feelings of thousands of women who suddenly discovered for the first time that their brachial plexus injuries—that is to say, the injuries to the network of nerves, blood vessels and lymph glands in the upper arm and front of the shoulder around the collar bone —such as unremitting and irreversible pain and arm paralysis—were a direct result of the radiotherapy treatment that had been prescribed as a precautionary measure following breast cancer surgery. Yet they had been told that the treatment would involve no greater side-effects than temporary nausea and discomfort.
I follow the good example of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and draw on the dictionary for the definition of "side-effect". It refers to: "an unwanted but subsidiary effect". I believe the House will agree with me that paralysis and unremitting pain go far beyond the phraseology of "side-effect", about which we so often hear from practitioners, often as a euphemism for something worse, to sooth the patient. One can understand why the members of RAGE are, to put it bluntly, so enraged by being misled.
There are some 1,029 members of RAGE in England who are the known victims of radiotherapy treatment and countless unknown others who are either too afraid or too embarrassed to come forward, or have never thought of doing so, and there are those from Scotland who have contacted RAGE numbering some hundreds —I believe probably over 400. I shall say more about that later. But those who are still alive are probably alive in spite of the treatment.
Noble Lords will wonder why I raise this Question. I have been closely involved with the issues as my wife is president of RAGE, and I declare an interest— particularly as compensation is on the RAGE agenda —to seek amends for the very large number of innocent victims of horrific injuries. The question of compensa-tion arises as so very few of them—in fact, those whose incomes are low enough to qualify for legal aid—can afford to take legal action. This is an aspect of the issue which RAGE wants the Government to consider. I am very grateful to those noble Lords who are taking part in this debate and for their willingness to address many of the implications of my Question: for example, consequential injuries such as fibrosis, heart damage, brittle bones, lymphoedema (that is the swelling of the arm) and even amputation.
I would like to say how grateful I am to my noble friend on the Front Bench, as the Minister with responsibility for breast cancer matters, for the serious attention that she has given to this issue and for holding a meeting with RAGE, as well as for arranging subsequent discussions for RAGE and others to examine with the Chief Medical Officer the way forward. I assure her that she has the full co-operation of RAGE, which has the basic information of when and where its members were treated, in the absence of central government records being available. That has been done without divulging names.
While victims are afraid of being critical in front of those from whom they still have to seek treatment, they are prepared to confide in RAGE in the knowledge that their collective voice will be heard. What has come to light is horrific. Thousands of women have had their lives shattered, not by cancer but by radiotherapy treatment, about which they had absolutely no warning —they had no warning at all of the serious consequences—after having it prescribed as a precau-tionary measure or a mopping up process, as in my wife's case. She has given me permission to tell the House that two years later, when her injuries became apparent, she was informed, too late, that for administrative reasons, to increase patient through-put, treatment had been given not in doses every day but every other two and three days in alternate weeks for six weeks. That meant higher doses for each fraction and the nerves cannot take that kind of bombardment— which was known from many professional papers at the time. Dreadful complications have thus occurred, after being totally misled about the consequences and having put trust in the practitioner.
However, that is not, as noble Lords might expect, a part of history. The frightening thing is that injuries are still occurring at radiotherapy treatment centres. My wife had textbook screening, early detection and expert private surgery. But all for what? To be crippled for life by RT treatment designed to put a lethal finishing touch to the surgeon's knife, as a precaution.
The pattern of treatment in the UK varies from centre to centre and different regimes are operated according to guidelines—we are told, very strict guidelines. I shall corne back to that point later. RAGE has supplied a list of 525 members showing the incidence of brachialplexus injury at radiotherapy treatment centres with dates
914
going back some years. Of the 53 centres in the United Kingdom, there were 12 with 10 or more injury cases, five with 20 or more cases and one with 59 cases. The remainder had fewer than 10 and many much fewer. If an all-embracing analysis of complete data was earned out, and not just those data from the RAGE membership, the likelihood is that the same injury pattern would manifest itself.
The question that has to be asked, therefore, is why that disproportionate effect apparently exists in the United Kingdom and why the radiotherapy treatment is apparently such a lottery. Incidentally, much the same thing is said about breast cancer surgery. My noble friend on the Front Bench has said that it is important to investigate now, even though the data are not complete —and I agree with her—to find out what has happened, where it happened and why it happened; and to prevent it happening again.
I can assure my noble friend that I am closely involved in following this matter through, at her suggestion, with those professionals most involved, so that, as agreed with the Chief Medical Officer, an audit can openly take place. It is not a matter that can be brushed under the carpet.
I return to the question of guidelines. As I said, we have been told by Ministers that the National Health Service operates strict guidelines on RT treatment. But that does not go far enough. These days we hear a lot about guidelines and that magic word sounds good. But guidelines do not necessarily ensure that things go the right way. Quality assurance to a national standard is needed in radiotherapy treatment, as guidelines are not compulsory and can be interpreted in different ways by different people. In fact, I would say that there is a crying need for quality assurance in RT treatment. I am glad to see that the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer in my noble friend's department has made that recommendation in the consultative framework docu-ment which has just been published. I congratulate her on the publication, which goes to the heart of the matter, and which I hope will now put everything right.
Reading the detailed working party report on quality assurance in radiotherapy, which draws on the practices at the Bristol oncology unit and the Manchester Christie Hospital, I am glad to see that quality assurance in radiotherapy is to be looked at on a national basis in line with the British National Standard BS 5750. Like the MOT test certificate for vehicles, approval to the standard will have to be renewed at regular intervals. It is suggested that that should be every six months. If that is to be the plan, then firms making the assessment must, if the certificate is to be worth anything in the eyes of patients, be accredited by the DTI as having the expertise needed to make the assessment in this radiotherapy field. On the other hand, there may be arrangements for that to be done in-house by the Department of Health as the Ministry of Defence used to do some years ago, though it is now put out to contract. However, I note in the quality assurance manual—I do not know its status but it is a fairly detailed document and I do not know whether it is temporarily in force or what—under paragraph 3.10 on page 8 it says:

915
"Formal certification of a system against BS 5750 will require regular external audit by an assessment body whose accreditation covers radiotherapy organisations. At present (April 1994) no such body has such experience and auditing can only be offered by companies specialising in professional organisations".
One can see from that that a lot of work needs to be done to find firms capable of making assessments.
I will go on to say that screening, diagnosis, surgery and all therapeutic treatments need to be thoroughly integrated so that the habit of passing the parcel—or in this case passing the patient—from one doctor to another can be regulated. The habit of passing the parcel in medicine in any case calls out for quality assurance to a national standard. I recall, after my recent Question to the House in relation to quality assurance in radiotherapy, that I was approached by the British Medical Association. I was asked what my worries were. I said that I was expressing public concern over the need for QA to BS 5750. The BMA said, "What is BS 5750?" I hope it now knows. If it does not, it should read the report and manual on QA in radiotherapy.
Finally, we must not forget that there is a Scottish element to be reckoned with. If breast cancer is a UK issue, then I am concerned that the pace and direction of efforts in Scotland—and Northern Ireland for that matter—may conflict with that in England and Wales. I hope that my noble friend can ensure that there will not be a North-South divide between the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer and the Scottish Cancer Consultative and Advisory Committee. Perhaps I begin to detect a hint of Scottish cancer being present and a different problem. I hope not.
There is grave public concern about all aspects of breast cancer and there are now references almost daily in the papers or on television about it. I hope my noble friend can give specific assurances that she intends to resolve the issue related to the injuries in radiotherapy treatment and get results. I am well aware that clinical opinion is always regarded as paramount and every patient is different. But so is every doctor. To my mind, and I hope to the Government's mind also, that justifies the necessity for practice to be tempered with quality assurance. There may be resistance to quality assurance in professional medical circles. But the MoD, as a customer, calls for it and other public sector bodies, as customers, are also calling for it. I hope that every woman will call for it before she goes into a radiotherapy treatment centre as it must help towards providing the right solution and reducing the risk factor to where it should be; ideally zero.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House and the many medical organisations in our country will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, not only for introducing the debate, but also for the manner in which he did so, covering almost every aspect. I made a little study myself and I have been reading the endeavours of probably the biggest organisation in Europe, the trade union UNISON. It did a thorough search on this matter. When I was listening to the noble Lord I thought I was hearing the words of
916
UNISON all over again. The union, in conjunction with other organisations, conducted a thorough examination of the situation.
For example, in this morning's Nursing Times, one of the major articles is, "Cancer: a special case". It goes on to cover not only the points made by the noble Lord but many others as well. If I can say so, speaking parenthetically, they have full confidence in the Minister here today to take part in future discussions as she has done in the past. The endeavours of the Minister therefore should also be placed on record.
One of the points that seems to be disturbing people is the fact that many district hospitals are substandard and do not seem to know a great deal about all the treatments required for anyone suffering from this appalling disease, breast cancer. Another aspect is that consultants see too few cases to be able to specialise later on in trying to find a rapid cure for the disease. Proposals to reorganise put forward by the advisory group chaired by Sir Kenneth Caiman are urging the department to iron out the inequalities of care around the country. The group is of the opinion that there is a strong case for an independent inquiry into the use of radiotherapy. Other medical organisations join the advisory group in that plea.
Any possibility of breast cancer should mean prompt referral to a specialist team of a surgeon oncologist and a radiotherapist with access to specialist breast care nurses. That is sometimes not happening, probably because people just do not know what to do. GPs should be informed exactly what they have to recommend. That is another vital aspect that we would like the department to look at.
Breast cancer kills 300 women a week. I did not believe the figures and so I made certain. I was shattered when I was given detailed information about what it means not only to die from breast cancer but to suffer in the period when you are dying from breast cancer. No civilised nation would allow this to go on. Unfortunately, my country has one of the world's worst death rates. The disease affects one woman in 12 and therefore there is a special need to have screening immediately there is any danger of cancer.
There is an urgent need to train specialist doctors, specialist surgeons and specialist nurses but that is not enough without distinct and specialised research from which the specialist doctors, surgeons and nurses can learn. A massive endeavour is required to prevent or cure this disease, with more research required either ultimately to cure or to prevent in the early stages women suffering from breast cancer.
Breast cancer is most evil and frightful. When the children of a mother with breast cancer discover that she has that disease, the entire home is affected. That is how serious I believe the subject to be and we must take cognisance of it. I believe that in our country we have the ability and resources to provide more cancer specialists, doctors and nurses. I hope that the noble Baroness will look into this plea, which comes from many distinguished breast cancer specialists as well as from the organisations with which they work. They feel that there should now be a special national conference involving specialist breast cancer doctors, surgeons and

917
—very important—specialist breast cancer treatment nurses. There should even be specialist hospitals to control and ultimately defeat this terror.
There is an urgent need for more specialist nurses for the operation, not only at the time when it is carried out, but also to return home with the patient to help out. That is a vital aspect of the work. There are not enough specialist cancer nurses. Let us hope that something can be done. I am sure that the noble Baroness has read the reaction of RAGE (Radio Action Group Exposure), which make some very valid and telling points. They are experts in what is required and what needs to be done.
In conclusion, our National Health Ministers have the desire and the ability to tackle this problem. I am convinced that our Ministers in this House and in another place, when they come to grapple with the problem, will make a massive contribution which will be looked on as something wonderful by all families where a mother or a relative has breast cancer. Therefore, I believe that the Ministers concerned with our National Health Service deserve the full support of us all to bring about many of the improvements which the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, has called for and the few suggestions which I have submitted in his support. Thank you.
3.23 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, has tabled this Question at a particularly appropriate time for me, and I am very grateful to him for asking it. Three-and-a-half years' ago my closest friend found a lump in her left breast. Very soon after her discovery she had a mastectomy and was given a single dose of radiotherapy as a precautionary measure which lasted 11 minutes. She was also given tamoxifen. She subsequently, at different times, developed secondary tumours in her skull, ribs and liver. On each occasion she was subjected to a single dose of radiotherapy for several minutes.
Towards the end of last year she began to feel sensations of pain and numbness in the first two fingers of her left hand. This was reported to her consultant who offered no explanation, advice or prognosis. Since then I have watched the muscles melt from her arm. I have seen her in excruciating pain as her digits turn into the palm of her hand in spasm, and, worst of all, I have seen her distress at the lack of an explanation for her suffering. It was not until this Monday, when I read the article by Lady Ironside entitled "The Safeguard Killing Patients" in a parliamentary brief of October 1993, that all the pieces of the jigsaw fell into place. I am profoundly disturbed that in 1994 a consultant radiologist should fail to fully inform his patient of the hazards, known for 30 years, of the treatment he is going to give her and that he should fail to give her an explanation when a known side effect manifests itself. It may be that the consultant, knowing that she was a nursing sister, believed that she would know the possibilities, but surely it was incumbent upon him to make sure.
My friend's case almost parallels that of Lady Ironside. She was today to ask her consultant about the possibility of having a sympathectomy or a nerve block
918
to eliminate the pain in her arm. Armed with a copy of Lady Ironside's article, she will now be able to approach the subject with more understanding and without the unquestioning acceptance of the consultant's opinion so ingrained in her by her training.
It is too late for my friend. It is not too late for other women who may discover that they have breast cancer in the future. It is shock enough for a woman to learn that she may have to lose a breast. At least her public image can be retained if she is properly counselled and has a good prosthesis. The loss of the use of an arm, or even the arm itself, is even more distressing as she loses with it a great deal of independence. To discover that she is not a unique case may be a small consolation, but what a poor reflection it is upon members of the medical profession who are responsible for the treatment of women with breast cancer.
I have read with great interest the consultative document, A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services, prepared by the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer to the Chief Medical Officers of England and Wales. I have also read about the Scottish Cancer Therapy Network. I am delighted to see. that the Scots have taken the initiative. Since the 1992 policy statement Scotland's Health, a network has been established and preliminary action on six out of eight site-specific cancers has been taken, with cancer of the breast and colon being given priority.
May I ask the Minister why it has taken the English and Welsh Chief Medical Officers so long to get around to solving the problem of the inconsistency of treatment and outcome for cancer patients when it has been known for many years that the prognosis has differed according to the treatment centre? It would appear from the consultative document that the advisory group does not expect quick results. I urge the Minister to use her influence to impress upon all those responsible for both primary and secondary care of women with breast cancer to note particularly paragraph 3.6 of the consultative document, entitled "The Relationship of Cancer Services with a Primary Health Care Team"—I am tempted to add, "and with the patient".
I am aware that there are some excellent cancer centres where the patient is totally involved and fully informed at every stage of her treatment, with information provided according to the patient's level of comprehension. I know a number of cancer patients and their relatives who have received a tremendous amount of support from Cancer Relief Macmillan Nurses and I cannot sing those nurses' praises too highly. They have among their assets that very important ingredient: time for their patients. If each woman who has had breast cancer diagnosed was allocated a specialist nurse who could explain procedures to her and provide support for as long as she needs it, many of the psychological effects of the disease would be ameliorated.
Diagnosis of breast cancer is no longer the death knell it once was. Many women survive to live long and fruitful lives. I can see no logical reason why the lessons learned about the survivors should not have been accepted by those consultants, whether they be surgeons, physicians or radiologists, who have proved to be less successful in their management of the disease.

919
The incidence of breast cancer is known to be increasing and, until the cause or causes can be pinpointed and preventive measures taken, there is a need to ensure that all women receive the treatment which is currently known to have not only the highest success rate, but subsequently lead to the best quality of life. It is simply not good enough for a women who is left with a useless, painful limb, fragile bones and the fear of other unknown side-effects of radiology to be told, "You are lucky to be alive. What more do you expect?"
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, this is a most interesting Unstarred Question and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, for tabling it. Over half a million women worldwide develop breast cancer every year, but the distribution is not spread evenly throughout the world. Over half of the cases occur in North America and Europe, although those countries contain less than one-fifth of the female population of the world.
Japanese women in Japan have low breast cancer rates, but second and subsequent generations of those who migrate to the US have the same rates as their host population. That would seem to indicate that social and environmental factors, not just genetic factors, are significant. Breast cancer is a disease which occurs mainly in Western developed countries.
As we all know, a woman's chance of survival is increased greatly by early detection. The increase in mortality rates reveals that those in the older age group are helped even more than those in the younger age group by early detection and screening. Some years ago the Forrest Report recommended the introduction of a general screening programme for all 50 to 64 year-olds. At the time I represented the women of the UK on the UN Status of Women Committee. We were concerned that the recommendations of the Forrest Committee might not bé implemented. Women throughout the country wrote to the Prime Minister who then implemented the programme. Screening of women in that age group produces 10 per cent. of women with the disease.
I am privileged to be the new chairman of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust. I should like to share with Members of your Lordships' House some of the latest and best procedures which we are using for all our patients. Before I do that I should like to comment briefly on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside. Radiotherapy treatment has improved greatly in many hospitals as a result of the use of conformational radiotherapy. The patient is put on a simulator which assesses in a three-dimensional way the exact size, location and density of the lesion. Instead of radiotherapy which is a wide scatter system affecting other tissues, the treatment can be much more localised, and that is a great improvement.
Chemotherapy is often given in pre-operative treatment to reduce the size of tumours before surgery. That is proving to be successful. Different drugs are used according to the age of the patient. Tamoxifen is
920
the common drug for the post-menopausal patient. There are many different varieties of cancer. One of our experts estimates that there is something like 100 different varieties of breast cancer. Under the old system a patient had a mammogram. It was then decided whether something required investigation. The patient was given a general anaesthetic and while under the anaesthetic a biopsy was done to see whether the lesion was malignant. Now a different technique is used. It is fine-needle cytology. Through that, the type of lesion and the type of treatment required can be determined. That is a big advance and saves many women. I have a friend who went through the terrible experience of having an anaesthetic. She was told that the tumour would be benign. The doctors did not obtain her consent to further surgery, and then while she was unconscious they discovered that the tumour was malignant. They had to bring her back to consciousness to obtain her consent to further surgery. That is a terrible trauma for anyone to face twice. Under the new system people would not have to do that.
I shall return to some of the work being done by the Royal Free Hospital. I draw my noble friend the Minister's attention to the fact—this is important—that Dr. Parbhoo, who is the director of the Royal Free Breast Cancer Unit, has been conducting some surveys on older patients in the 10 years after the end of the official screening programme. Of 1,000 patients screened in that age group, over 20 per cent. have been found to have breast cancer, although in the younger age group it was only 10 per cent. Those figures do not relate directly one to the other, because many fewer people in the older group are being seen, and those who come in to be checked are those where there is a suspicion that treatment might be required. Nevertheless, 20 per cent. is a significant figure. The other significant figure is that relating to the survival benefit for all breast cancer patients; it is 26 per cent. better than before the screening programme was introduced. Therefore, screening has had a major impact on survival.
The incidence of the disease does not double in old age. The aim is to reduce deaths from breast cancer by 2,000 a year by the year 2,000. Those figures may sound like a neat pattern but it is the medical target. The disease occurs mainly in women but not solely; 1 per cent. of breast cancers occur in men and it is treated in different ways. The diagnosis of breast cancer can be done by mammogrammes and fine needle aspiration and can be shattering, as was said by the noble Countess, Lady Mar. It is not just the fact that one has a terrible disease; there is also the emotional content. Women feel that to lose a breast is to lose some essential part of themselves and their nature. That is an important point and counselling is valuable in helping patients to understand what they face and to reassure them that they will be in good hands and will receive the most caring and best treatment.
At the Royal Free Hospital we have an established charity called Cancerkin. It was established in 1987 by Mrs. Gloria Freilich in conjunction with Dr. Parbhoo, the breast surgeon. The charity has raised more than £1 million through the breast cancer appeal. On 4th July this year, Cancerkin will move to a special purpose-built

921
centre within the hospital. It will provide a unique service with one of the only dedicated lymphoedema clinics for breast cancer. It will also have a counselling room and an information and resource centre. Lymphoedema was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside. The arm of a patient visiting the centre might be four times the size of a normal arm. I did not know what form of treatment was available but I now understand that it is physiotherapy which encourages the flow of the lymph through the arm and increases the movement. It is reasonably effective and it is encouraging for patients to feel that someone is caring and trying to do something about the condition.
The Cancerkin centre will also provide important data for the Royal Free's research programme into the causes, prevention and manipulation of the risk of breast cancer. Work in molecular biology, genetics and molecular endochrinology requires finance and space. The National Health Service will never have enough money for the amount of research that is still to be done to prevent this spread of disease. The Cancerkin centre is playing an important role in providing additional resources for that purpose.
There is limited time today and this is a vast subject. There are three essential requirements for women. The first is access to diagnoses and treatment. The second is a multi-disciplinary team to provide the necessary treatment. The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, touched upon those points. The third is a surgeon—not just a surgeon but one with a special interest in breast cancer. Women should be able to see a specialist surgeon operating on not less then 50 breast cancers a year. Surgical and non-surgical expertise is necessary.
Dr. Alison Jones is our physician oncologist specialising in breast cases. We are fortunate to have such a medical expert because they are in short supply and one cannot create enough to meet the need overnight. There are only 80 experts with that qualification in the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to assure us that the Government are aware of the need for a planned increase over the next 10 years.
An important team member is the counsellor—a nurse specialist in breast cancer. The multi-disciplinary approach—surgery, radiotherapy and medical oncology —give any woman with breast cancer the best prognosis. In the recent Caiman Report, the Government have recognised that situation and more specialist centres for cancer treatment will be planned. Women will welcome that.
Meanwhile, I say to those women who have cause for concern: ask about what is available and where; ensure that you are referred to a centre which can provide the care that you really need; it is your life.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as a patient of the Royal Free Hospital, I am delighted to know now who is my new chairman. I assure her that I shall keep her busy with questions, sometimes complaints and sometimes a need for reassurance. But it is good to know that I know who is the chairman of the trust.
I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, on raising this issue. The debate has probably proved to
922
be even more topical than he thought it would be when he tabled the Question. His purpose is to draw attention to the seriousness of the issues that we have been debating. He referred in particular to the injuries caused to a large and identifiable group of victims of radiotherapy who were treated in the UK and who are suffering disastrous consequential effects from avoid-able radiation damage.
The pattern of injury has shown that cases are clustered around some but not others of the 53 treatment centres. Some lessons must be learned from that. There is a crying need to find out what happened, where and why it happened and how to prevent it from happening again. Thus a complete investigation is called for. A demanding search through all the links in the chain is needed; namely, from screening and diagnosis through to surgery, radiotherapy and other therapeutic treatments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, is a formidable champion on behalf of his wife and RAGE. I find it interesting that since there was an exchange in the House on this matter I have received many letters from people who were clearly motivated by RAGE. It has become an extremely effective charity. Through the noble Lord, perhaps I may congratulate his wife on her great courage following her own treatment. I shall not describe her treatment as "disastrous" because we come through disasters, but she has earned the respect of many people in this House.
Many of your Lordships will have seen a leading article in The Times on 15th January of this year. That article dealt with a survey of 417 women who had been diagnosed as suffering from breast cancer which was published in the British Medical Journal only a day before that leader was published. It showed that the guidelines for the treatment of the disease were in many cases not being followed. Since the survey was carried out in 1990, some progress had been made. More than 1 million women were being checked each year under the NHS screening programme which offers women aged 50 to 64 an X-ray check-up every three years. Of course, that is very good. More than 6,500 cancers were detected during 1992. But much more should be done. That is the message which the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, has brought to the debate.
Better diagnostic services are needed for younger women. The law still does too little to help a woman with breast cancer whose condition is misdiagnosed through medical negligence. The main area of concern should be an apparent arbitrariness with regard to much of the treatment following diagnosis. In spite of guidelines published in 1986, the manner in which radiotherapy, chemotherapy and other forms of treatment are used is far too variable and diverse.
The British Medical Journal survey showed alarming disparaties in techniques used to treat women of the same age with cancers of similar severity. For example, four out of 10 premenstrual patients in whom the disease had spread did not receive the recommended chemotherapy. Moreover, in only one in four cases was the severity of the cancer correctly assessed. I shall quote now from The Times leader on 15th January which said:

923
"In particular, there is a strong case for an independent enquiry into the use of radiotherapy to treat breast cancer".
That was the plea made by Lady Ironside in the article to which reference has already been made under the heading "The Safeguard Killing Patients".
I believe that that demand is right. Since then, the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund to which reference has already been made—indeed, in a congratulatory tone, I think that we already have tremendous admiration for the work done by the Macmillan nurses—has said that women with breast cancer should be promptly referred for specialist treatment. That does not always happen. It is often a belated diagnosis which leads to some of the problems that have been mentioned.
In response to growing public and patient concern, the Department of Health has now announced a new cancer treatment programme. That followed the recommendations of the committee over which the Chief Medical Officer presided. I hope that the Minister will say something about those proposals as they relate to the concerns that have been expressed by many speakers during today's debate.
There are further grounds for fearing that treatment in Britain is often of a poorer standard than in other countries. No doubt the Minister will want to comment on some of the allegations that have been made. Experts have said that Britain lags behind the rest of Europe. Proportional to the population, there are fewer cancer specialists in Britain than, for example, in Poland.
Professor Karol Sikora (who many of us will know is an outstanding expert in the field of oncology) from the Hammersmith Hospital in West London has claimed that some cancer patients would be better treated in the third world. That coming from an expert is a very damning criticism of the quality of treatment in Britain. I hope that the Minister will also comment on that. It is estimated that only one in two patients will see a specialist and that thousands die unnecessarily.
It is worrying when one hears criticism of the quality of treatment by the National Health Service as all of us have so much pride in that service. It is also deeply distressing to hear of so many cases being diagnosed each year, with so many people dying, one may feel, unnecessarily. I hope that the Minister will give a sterling response to the concerns that have been expressed during today's brief exchange.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the moving way in which my noble friend Lord Ironside initiated the debate. I hope that the experience of his family will contribute towards significant advances in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease which affects one in 12 women and is probably the most important public health factor which women face today.
It seems that any improvements in case survival or mortality rates are being overshadowed by a real increase in the incidence of the disease. It is reported that of the 16,000 deaths each year, 5,000 British patients die because they do not receive the best treatment. The claim that one in 10 of those patients
924
could survive if treated in any other Western European country is a sad reflection on the British record of treatment.
I would welcome the report of the expert advisory group on cancer, A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services, published on 18th May. I have only just been able to obtain a copy so cannot claim to have read the document fully. But I was sent a copy of the press release by Susan Butler from the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund office yesterday.
The report, which has been prepared by the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Kenneth Caiman, for my right honourable friend the Minister does not admit to any failings but implies criticism of Britain's record and notes substantial variations in patient survival in different parts of the country.
I am aware of the survey by the College of Radiologists which it admits produced disturbing results when treatment protocols were compared for similar cancers in different regions. Treatments varied dramatically and there was no evidence of standardisa-tion. I gather that a grant has been made available from the department to do something about the problem.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say that extensive reforms of cancer treatment are likely to be implemented by the end of next year, with the possibility of a network of regional hospitals becoming high-tech specialist centres, each serving a population of not less than 660,000 people. These centres will have the latest diagnostic equipment, specialist surgeons, services for child cancer patients and the latest drug and radiotherapy treatment facilities.
I think that the report implies that the doctors working in the units will be expected to spend at least half their week treating cancer patients so that they can become experts. There are only 342 cancer doctors in Britain and 65 per cent. of patients never see one, some being treated solely by their GP, who cannot be expected to have gained sufficient experience from relatively small numbers of patients.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I should like to support the minimum standards of care called for by the Macmillan Fund. I shall not detain your Lordships by repeating them, but they call for prompt diagnosis, referral and access to treatment, with back-up information and psychological support from specialist breast care nurses. The fund stresses the need for accurate information and explanation of the disease, its treatment and associated aftercare.
Speaking to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Breast Cancer on 22nd March (regrettably I could not be there as the meetings of the group are always scheduled for mid morning when many of us have to work—and that is a public plea for the group to change the time of its meetings) Professor Michael Baum said that the best prospect for the primary prevention of breast cancer is to concentrate on using some form of chemical intervention. I am sure that that is correct for some cases, but as a supporter of natural medicines I feel sure that the answer lies in earlier screening for deficiencies in basic nutrition and hormonal chemistry.
The actual mechanisms by which cancer is caused are still speculative. The genetic theory which proposes that

925
cancer is the product of chromosomal DNA damage induced by radiation, viruses or toxins, which—as the patient gets older—the natural ability to repair is prejudiced is now replaced by the epigenetic theory, which suggests that correcting and maintaining a healthy intracellular environment will prevent cancer and lead to successful non-toxic treatments for the disease.
Both breast and endometrial cancer are health risks which tend to surface in women at a time when oestrogen is dominant and progesterone is low. The cancer protective benefit of progesterone is clearly indicated in a prospective study in which pre-menopausal women with low progesterone levels were found to have over five times the risk of developing pre-menopausal breast cancer and a tenfold increase in deaths for all malignant neoplasms compared with those with normal progesterone levels.
As women approach menopause, breast and endometrial cancer are two of the greatest fears. When the cause of a cancer becomes known, prevention becomes a reality. Lung cancer, for example, can be almost completely prevented by avoiding cigarettes. A great deal is known about the hormonal factors in breast and endometrial cancer. I hope that the new initiative will include trials and tests on the use of progesterone and its opposition to the carcinogenic effects of estrogens.
I thoroughly commend the setting up of a proper programme for the screening of men and women for cancers and heart disease. Risk factors are only rarely considered when it is too late. I hope that the Government will listen carefully during the three-month consultation process. I am grateful to my noble friend for asking the Question and I hope that our debate will perhaps contribute to those consultations.
3.55 p.m.
Earl of Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I, too, welcome the chance to support the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, in putting this crucial question to the Government, which he has done with great clarity and skill. I look forward to hearing the reply of the Minister, although of course we know something of what she will say from the recent reports in the press, about which other noble Lords have spoken: and most welcome they are too.
My interest in the subject is twofold. I have been active for some time in the world of complementary medicine, which has led me to look closely at alternative approaches to cancer, among other conditions, and by extension to keep an eye through the medical press on what is going on in the mainstream. And, like the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, my wife is a breast cancer sufferer, and the last many months have been fraught with difficult decisions about possible lines of treatment.
From the very beginning we learnt that the figures were stark and there was no place here for rose-coloured spectacles. Breast cancer in the UK, as we know, is rampant. Statistics show that only three women in 10 live out a normal lifespan. The treatment options are extremely unattractive. Radiotherapy was urged on us, after an unavoidable mastectomy. We established that it
926
might not be necessary, since no one knew if the cancer would recur; that if it was necessary, there was no guarantee it would work; that if it did work there would be side-effects which, though probably as insignificant as surgeons and oncologists like to claim, could possibly be as devastating as some of the cases we have heard about this afternoon; and finally—this from a major published review of studies of radiation to the chest—that if you have the radiation you will probably die a bit sooner than if you do not. At the end of this I thought, "What kind of medicine is that?"
It was only later that I was able to study the POST report of last month and learn of the extraordinary complexity of the various steps in radiotherapy treatment, with its countless opportunities for error, to say nothing of the lack of consensus about treatment regimes, about which we have already heard. To my mind, my Lords, this is the unacceptable face of aggressive, technological medicine. There must be a better way, and in a moment I shall return to this theme. So far as diagnosis and surgical treatment are concerned, our experience has been of the best: swift, efficient and as painless as anything so awful can be. But I know that this is far from typical, alas, and would join my voice to those who want to see a levelling up and a better organisation of facilities and expertise round the country. As an aside, I must express some scepticism about the merits of screening which have been put forward by one or two speakers, in view of the continuing controversy in the medical press as to whether it actually brings the benefits that lay people like us would think that it ought to bring.
There is another area where from my recent experience there is room for improvement, though it does not only apply to breast cancer. I read last December that the Minister said at a College of Health conference that effectiveness bulletins on the best means of treating different conditions were to be produced in patient-friendly form. In view of the Audit Commission's findings in November on the poor quality of communication from doctors to patients this is to be welcomed, though it is only a part of the picture. It is not at all easy for a patient to discover the facts about her illness and treatment—full, clear, unbiased facts, with figures where needed, and side-effects not glossed over. Breast cancer is a stressful enough experience without having to fight for the information on which to base decisions which are no longer the preserve of the paternal figure behind a consultant's desk. I hope that the medical profession will take this on board with all seriousness.
The question is, in what ways the Government expect to improve the situation. That there is room for improvement is surely common ground. Variations in treatment, as we have heard, go way beyond the bounds of legitimate clinical judgment, and the damage done to patients, even on standard treatment regimes, is or should be unacceptable. We have heard many of the details from the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, and there is no need for me to repeat them. There used to be. a medical maxim: "Above all, do no harm". I wonder what happened to it.

927
The report of Dr. Calman's committee is to be welcomed, as far as it goes, and I shall say no more about it here. Other noble Lords have spoken eloquently on the subject. But when you stand back and survey the cancer scene over time, a grimmer picture emerges. I have said that this is no place for rose-coloured spectacles. There can be few areas of endeavour where so many resources, so many billions of pounds and dollars and francs and yen, have been expended for so many decades to so little effect. Promises of breakthroughs, yes. Actual effects on the mortality figures of breast and other major cancers, no. This is not a layman's view: you can read it almost any day in the medical press. Last year, on 6th February 1993, the Lancet published a challenging editorial entitled:
"Breast cancer: have we lost our way?"
After cataloguing some of the failures of the past, due largely to,
"the extraordinary capacity of the profession for self-delusion",
it asks,
"would it not be more scientific to ask why this approach is failing and recognise that any more of the same could be the medical equivalent of the surgical excesses of the middle years of this century?"
This editorial foreshadowed a breast cancer conference held in Belgium last month. With growing dismay, but perhaps with rather less surprise, I read the summary report of that conference:
"Have we lost our way? … With confidence we can say no …".
There was little hint of recognition of the seriousness of the situation, the prescription being roughly for the mixture as before, and I was left wondering what other profession could show such calm assurance in the face of so many years of conspicuous failure, and still retain the respect of government and public.
The noble Baroness knows, because I have referred to them before, that there are a number of alternative approaches to breast and other cancers, and I hope she may agree that the time is right for some more radical thinking in this direction. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, would agree. The US Congress Office of Technology Assessment published a report on them in September 1990, and I have asked for a copy to find its way into the Library of your Lordships' House. Let no one think that so-called alternative treatments are good for hay fever and mild psychosomatic complaints but lack a real punch when it comes to the big league. When you cease to focus on the rogue cell, tumour or virus and concentrate on massive reinforcement of the host body and its immune system it is remarkable what can be achieved, as many cancer survivors will testify.
It is not that these treatments have been examined and found wanting: they have never been properly looked at. But it demands new thinking, and a willingness to learn, and it seems to me that both these qualities are in short supply in the cancer field at present. It also demands a better scientific attitude than was brought to the study of the breast cancer patients at the Bristol Cancer Help Centre, whose publication in 1990 did so much harm.
Interestingly, however, only a month ago a report appeared in the press which some of your Lordships may have seen about the apparent recovery of some
928
Danish breast cancer patients in a study on a fruit and vegetable diet with vitamin supplements. These are by no means the only examples I am aware of from that particular nutritional field.
My Lords, we need rapid improvements in the treatment of breast cancer, and I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, in the case he is making. It should be possible to bring most centres and regimes up to the standard of the best. But my wider concern is that the best is still, in absolute terms, pretty bad. I greatly doubt that the situation will change until there is a real willingness to explore other avenues which have shown promising results, if need be from other cultures. I am convinced that anything which the noble Baroness can do to further research in this direction will prove immensely worth while.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Ironside for initiating this debate. I wish to declare an interest and, in doing so, explain why I, as a total lay person in these matters, am taking part in this debate. For just over a year I have been a non-executive director of the Green Park Trust group of hospitals in Belfast. Within that group we have Belvoir Park Hospital, which contains the regional oncology unit for the whole of Northern Ireland. I ask my noble friend the Minister: why on earth was Northern Ireland not included in this consultative document by the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer? The Minister will no doubt say that it is an advisory group for chief medical officers of England and Wales. However, I notice that the Scottish Office was included while the Northern Ireland Office was not.
In case there should be any doubt about the quality of care in the Province, on the fringe of the United Kingdom, I would like to point out the following general points. First, we have in the Green Park group the largest and most modern joint replacement unit in the United Kingdom—1,700 joints last year. It has the only on-site joint factory in the United Kingdom, which uses x-rays and computers to make them. Where else can you be measured up one day, fitted the next and back home in five days? Secondly, we have the most sophisticated gait analysis laboratory in the UK. Thirdly, coming to cancer, we have one of only two (so far as I know) intensive therapy units—the modern equivalent of bone marrow transplant units—so there is no lack of quality provision to call on. In addition to all that, according to RAGE, we have had only one incident of significant brachial plexus injury, and that was in 1989.
The question has to be asked: why exclude the Province, especially when its size of population falls directly in line with what is recommended in paragraph 3.3.5 of the consultative document and it would therefore seem to be an ideal sample unit?
I can see that the consultative document is a very valuable piece of work. But it has fairly long-term planning and financial implications. I would like to look at and discuss how immediate improvements with few financial implications could be made to the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.

929
It is not for me to argue for the increase or otherwise in the age bracket for recommended cancer scanning. However, more encouragement should be given to people within those age groups to attend. In rural areas in Northern Ireland the uptake is fairly good. However, more must be done in urban areas. The health department should look not only at its advertising but also at the location and accessibility of its units in built-up areas.
We already have six breast cancer clinics where women may go. There they may be given fine needle aspiration (FNA) if necessary and can be told immediately of any problem. This is a good system. However, there is an alternative; namely, the old system whereby women can go to their GP, who may use his own judgment as to whether to refer the patient to the general hospital. I would suggest that that is not good practice and, if in doubt, all GPs should be obliged to refer patients to breast cancer clinics for FNA, and so obtain a surer diagnosis from stage one. I realise that there may be a problem with the supply of histopathologists. However, since the life span of samples is, I understand, from two to three hours, it would be quite possible to centralise that part of the service and the test could be done very quickly.
From that point, patients diagnosed as having the disease go to a hospital and are operated on by, more often than not, a general surgeon. Many of those surgeons may see only half a dozen breast cancer patients in a year. That cannot be good practice. Rather than many surgeons doing a few operations, it must be right to reorganise their allocation of operations so that most, if not all, cancer operations are carried out by a reduced number of surgeons. Even without additional training they would become more specialised by practice. At this stage, it is the surgeon's opinion as to whether or not to refer the patient to the regional oncology unit—in our case, Belvoir Park Hospital.
It is my impression that up to this stage we have too many unspecialised people taking decisions on referral and all too often obtaining no specialised advice. In Northern Ireland out of 5,000 cancer patients a year of all types, only about 2,800 were referred last year. That seems to reflect the national average.
For those with breast cancer who are referred to an oncology unit, there are variations of technique and treatment throughout the UK, some of which may result in lower quality of treatment and complications, such as brachial plexus injury. It is thought that certain techniques might carry a higher risk of injury, but no one knows which are involved. Therefore it is not any lack of quality in the oncologists but the lack of research that is at fault. We must await the results of analysis of the information that will be contained in cancer registers.
Meanwhile, it appears that although all oncology units have a medical physics department, it is not always consulted in the planning stage of treatment. It is equally important to decide not only whether to use radiotherapy but also the size and number of fractions used and the target areas. Fear of leaving large gaps in the junctions between fractions should not lead to too much overlapping, which perhaps carries a higher risk
930
of injury. It could be suggested that the planning by medical physics departments is more important than some oncologists might believe. Every case is different and the medical physicists must be of a uniform standard and must be consulted.
Consideration should be given to such matters as stronger fractions and a smaller number of treatments or weaker fractions in a large number of treatments. Although the treatments are cumulative in strength, it is important to note that cancer cells react to different strengths of treatment compared to nervous tissue. Much more research needs to be done. We hope that the Government will encourage it.
In conclusion, the way forward seems to be indicated by the consultative document prepared by the expert advisory group in the medium term. In the shorter term, much improvement could be obtained with more consultation vertically and laterally within the medical profession, together with some administrative reorganisation, to achieve maximum availability of quality treatment. Clinical directors must be given guidance on how to implement immediate change, where it can be carried out in the short term. In their trust status, this will be new to them, as it used to be the task of the department. They need leadership. I hope that in future Northern Ireland will be consulted when this problem is further examined.
Lastly, there has been talk of counselling, especially on the patient's side, which I support. At Belvoir Park Hospital consideration is being given to counselling of oncologists and the other bearers of bad news. There seems to be room for such counselling. They have an extremely hard job to do. We feel that counselling will help greatly to improve their methods and their efficiency.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, for raising this subject, which is of such intimate concern to women.
Cancer in general is mainly a disease of the elderly and is increasing in our society. That is not so astonishing because the age of the population is also increasing. But breast cancer is quite different. First, it is tremendously difficult to diagnose early enough. It has a tremendously high incidence and death rate. There are 30,000 women diagnosed as having breast cancer every year.
The problem with breast cancer is that there does not seem to be a single identifiable factor which causes the disease. We are quite happy to assume that cigarette smoking is responsible for lung cancer. I say "assume" because I am a smoker, although I accept that it is a correct diagnosis. It is certainly thought that a high fat and low fibre diet could be a factor in breast cancer. Breast screening, either through self-diagnosis or through the NHS programme, has had a small impact, but has not significantly reduced the death rate.
Dr. Beral of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund has carried out some studies. She recorded a fall of 400 in the death rate from cancer between 1989 and 1992. She

931
states that it has been known for some time that having children, especially having the first at a young age, reduces the risk of breast cancer.
After the Second World War the average age when women had their first baby fell from 26 to 24 and the percentage of childless women halved from around 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. It is in those women that the breast cancer incidence has fallen. By contrast, the women with increasing death rates were those of child bearing age at around the time of the depression when many women put off having their first child until much later or had no children at all. That is a theory of Dr. Beral. If there is anything in it, it is worrying that the present population of women who want to develop a professional career are putting off having their children later and later. It is therefore something which should be investigated.
One feature of the treatment of breast cancer is that it can sometimes be many months after the initial visit to the GP before the diagnosis is made, and then there is a further delay before treatment is started. When the diagnosis results from screening, the process is usually quicker and the patient usually has surgery within four weeks of diagnosis. However, it may take several more weeks before radiotherapy begins. In some cases that may be due to the fact that hospitals with radiotherapy departments have insufficient funding and as a result considerable delays may occur. Also, as a result of the reforms in the NHS, the service is not now under regional control. The way it now works is through local purchasers buying treatment. As a result, sometimes through lack of money, many purchasers put their emphasis on less specialist services. Lack of resources increases the risk of errors. Examples of that have given rise to the recent problems with radiotherapy such as the cases in Stoke where underdoses were given and in Exeter where overdoses were given.
The Department of Health is now doing something about the issue of central advice to purchasers. But it is important that we make certain that the lack of resources is not the reason for the treatment not being given efficiently or on time. Of course, breast cancer patients can obtain high quality service in most units, and in low quality units patients are beginning to realise that they can demand better service. But there are still a large number of patients in the NHS who are not receiving good service and the division of hospitals into individual provider units will cause that number to increase.
Errors can occur in any form of treatment. Systems of quality assurance and quality control for radiotherapy are developed and are used, but again there can be errors along the line. If resources are not enough, there may be shortages in the number of physicists and radiographers so that they are working beyond their normal hours. Errors can creep in through fatigue. It appears that lack of resources is directly linked to errors. It is directly linked to the overdosage incident in Exeter which was partially the result of there not being enough physicists and consultant oncologists. In addition, the management structure was poor so that there were unclear lines of responsibility.
932
The same faults occurred in Stoke where under-dosages were given. The staffing levels of radiographers and the provision of equipment were below the recommended levels. Again, insufficient physicists and oncologists were employed. This has now been rectified in those two centres, but the accidents have shown that there should be regular monitoring in all centres to ensure that there is good quality control and that clinical audit is carried out.
Recently a survey has been conducted by the Royal College of Radiologists of equipment and non-medical and medical staff in all regions. This has pinpointed the fact that there is no way in the present purchaser-provider system of ensuring that when equipment is wearing out there are funds to replace it. The survey also showed that one of the main causes of stress was not having enough time with patients to give the standards of care that doctors felt was necessary. In this country we have 272 clinical oncologists funded by the NHS and 65 medical oncologists mostly funded by cancer charities. This is the lowest number of cancer doctors per head of population in Europe, apart from Portugal. On average a clinical oncologist sees 560 new patients per year. Those patients are then on that doctor's list for at least five years. So the average number of patients under the care of an oncologist is 2,000 at any time; again not enough time to deal with patients in depth.
There is not always an understanding among the public that all medical treatment will have side effects. That is so with radiotherapy perhaps more than any other treatment. Because it does not look as if anything is happening during treatment, patients completely fail to realise that it is a serious treatment, like major surgery. The long-term side effects can be severe and that needs to be explained to patients. However, good treatment should keep the side effects to a minimum. For most patients with breast cancer radiotherapy is a major treatment for all stages of the disease. It has been proved that radiotherapy increases survival as well as controlling local disease. Therefore it is most important that radiotherapy techniques are good and, whenever possible, improved to minimise long-term side effects.
It follows from this that what patients need most of all is counselling and time to decide which treatment to use. They also desperately need the help of a breast cancer nurse to give psychological support and information. I welcome the Macmillan breast cancer research campaign and the distribution of 3 million leaflets round the country to help women to help themselves. Because of the fear of cancer people withdraw into themselves. They do not want to discuss it. That does not help when it comes to seeking treatment in time. The counselling women need both from their doctors and their nurses is one of the most important helps we can give them.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like other noble Lords and noble Baronesses—I anticipate the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, on 6th June to ask why when we speak of other noble Lords we include noble Baronesses; and noble Baronesses in this debate are

933
playing a major role—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, and Lady Ironside for bringing this issue into the public arena.
Following the RAGE press conference in September of last year, the very dignified article of Lady Ironside in the Parliamentary Brief last October and the two Questions asked by the noble Lord in this House, the issue has been brought into the public eye. Perhaps Lady Ironside's intervention has accelerated government action.
The visible evidence of that has been the recent and excellent consultative document which other noble Lords have referred to. It is published by the department and by the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer chaired by the Chief Medical Officer. There is also the Department of Health's publication Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy which has been quite difficult to find. The one I have arrived only this afternoon.
I am not asserting that RAGE and the noble Lord were the only influences in getting these publications produced for us. But it is interesting that both reports were published only just before the noble Lord's Unstarred Question. Unlike many Department of Health documents, these documents were not published in a glossy, expensive format. They are quite stark in nature. One has a plain blue cover and the contents look as though they came straight off a word processor. That is no criticism. In fact both reports are extremely useful, particularly the consultative document which has wide-ranging recommendations that I do not believe will be very popular with some surgeons and radiotherapists, especially those working in isolation, and perhaps with some of the 53 centres which may be superseded if the recommendations of this report are carried out. I wish that some other publications of the Department of Health had been so concise, authoritative and businesslike. I am sorry that there is not a fuller bibliography such as that in the excellent Scottish Home and Health Department document on Scotland's diet, which is a model of how such a critical and important topic should be presented. But perhaps rapidly produced reports may be excused such academic finesse.
The consultative document has one deficiency. It completely omits discussing the prevention of cancer. It is true that its remit was to consider treatment services. However, other noble Lords have spoken about prevention and that is in order in this debate. As many noble Lords have already said, this country has the highest rate of breast cancer in the developed world, as well as the highest mortality rate from breast cancer once it has been diagnosed. That means that it is the highest in the whole world because the developed world has higher cancer rates than in the developing world, unlike many other diseases. This is a disease which comes from affluence, if you like, and living in the somewhat artificial environment that we perhaps have in the industrialised North.
Perhaps this is not the occasion to inquire why the rate of cancer is so high in the United Kingdom. The reasons are not fully understood, of course. There are many factors to consider and no one of them is the whole answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, described what is probably the most important factor;
934
namely, the late starting of families. The condition is more common in those of higher social class. That is the section of the population where women are educated, start careers and put off having a family more than at the other end of the social scale. Diet has also been mentioned and alcohol consumption may play a part.
The part played by these various factors will become clearer as current and ongoing research is completed, as well as much needed further research.
Here I have to declare an interest, as my son is a trainee oncologist who is at present doing his PhD at the Imperial Cancer Research Fund's laboratories.
What concerns us today is why breast cancer is more likely to kill women in the United Kingdom than in other countries. One possible reason for that is that British women are less likely to present breast disorders to doctors at an early stage than are women in other countries. There is possibly a very British reluctance by women, particularly older women, to know and physically to feel their own bodies, especially the sexual parts of their bodies, than is perhaps the case in other countries. There is a hesitancy to seek medical advice. Two years ago the British Medical Association produced a video with an accompanying text called "Preventing Cancer" for the use of general practitioners and nurses in primary health care. It stated:
"Women should be familiar with the feel and appearance of their breasts. This should not only help women to detect lumps at an early stage but should reduce anxiety about the normal changes which occur during the menstrual cycle … Breast self examination is a skill which ha; to be taught".
That brings me to the role of the general practitioner which, as other noble Lords have pointed out, is absolutely crucial. I do not think that all GPs are referring early enough although most do and are careful and thorough when a woman presents them with a breast problem. I deny what the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, said —that some GPs try to look after cancer cases themselves and do not refer them. I think that if a GP does that, he is guilty of negligence. The only case in which a GP should hang on to a cancer patient and not refer is that of a very old or debilitated person who perhaps could not stand an operation or a course of radiotherapy or chemotherapy.
Postgraduate education, as well as good under-graduate education, is absolutely essential. The present system of postgraduate education, in which part of the pay of GPs is withheld unless they attend a minimum number of postgraduate sessions, is working. But the detection of early breast cancer is a very practical skill. It is not always easy, if I may coin a phrase, to lay on patients on whose breasts doctors on postgraduate courses can lay their hands. My rule as a GP has always been: when in doubt, refer. I think that the great majority of doctors feel the same way. I have been particularly lucky in having specialist breast clinics in two hospitals within a two-mile radius, one being the Royal Free Hospital which is now under the jurisdiction of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes! Both clinics have a very short waiting list.
Reference has been made to the National Breast Screening service, which was set up following the Forrest Report. That looks like becoming a success story although there is still too wide a variation in take-up

935
—for instance, 60 per cent. of women in the eligible age groups take it up in Kingston and Esher while 74 per cent. do so in Southport and Formby. That difference in take-up rates is associated with quite a big difference in the breast cancer death rates in the two areas. I am not saying that that is necessarily due to the effect of screening. It is probably due to the attitudes of the women in the two different areas and perhaps to the breast cancer services there and the women's faith in them so that in Lancashire women are more likely to present early while women in Kingston are less likely to do so.
With regard to treatment centres, I am sure that the recommendations of the Expert Advisory Group on Cancer are on the right lines. The recommendations state:
"Improved outcomes are associated with specialised care for uncommon cancers and many studies also suggest this association for common cancers",
of which breast cancer is the commonest, although deaths from breast cancer are now being overtaken by deaths from lung cancer in women because of the difficulty that women have in giving up smoking.
Some of the rather heroic and higher dose courses of radiotherapy to which some members of RAGE were exposed, have already been modified and improved. For instance, routine axillary irradiation which used to be more common has largely been abandoned. It should be emphasised though that the local variations in radiotherapy practice, pointed out by other noble Lords, are now being addressed—they are still there—by the Royal College of Radiologists, with the support of the Department of Health.
The 1991 report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee entitled Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy has been followed up by this very recent large document which I am afraid I have not had time to read. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how the 1991 SMAC recommendations have been followed up. The 1991 report sets out 18 requirements, covering the entire process by which radiotherapy is delivered to the patient. However, as has already been pointed out, a survey reported in the BMJ earlier this year suggested that many deficiencies remain. There are other initiatives, which I shall not go through—I have occupied too much time already—in train, studying what is going on, with the possibility of speeding up the improvements for which we are all hoping.
All that will be made easier if the recommendations of the expert committee are accepted. I shall give just two of its recommendations. Recommendation (iii) states:
"Cancer Centres and Cancer Units should be established to provide an integrated network of cancer care. Communication between … centres is vital".
Recommendation (iv) states:
"There should be a clear understanding of appropriate referral and follow up patterns between General Practitioners, Cancer Units and Cancer Centres. These should be based on agreed guidelines and information on quality and outcome of care".
There are 13 recommendations in all.
Finally, I take up a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. Manpower and resources must be discussed. There seems little doubt that even though
936
we have the highest rate of breast cancer in the world, the resources devoted to cancer care are considerably less than in other countries. That has been pointed out by several other noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, described the shortage of oncologists in this country compared with France, Germany and the USA which have almost twice as many oncologists per head of population as we have. It is clear that the number of oncologists needs to be increased, but in the past two years only 32 extra were appointed.
There is also little doubt that the NHS is overall a cost-efficient service, but there are areas—this is one of several—where resources are stretched dangerously thinly, too thinly to be efficient and safe. The noble Baroness pointed that out clearly. I am afraid that the sad stories we have heard today bear that out fully, even though rather late in the day the Government now appear to be acting.
Lord Colwyn: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I did not intend to imply any criticism of GPs. I intended to say that, because of the relatively small numbers of patients they saw, I felt that they may not have the experience to know whether to refer or to watch for a little longer. I was not intending any criticism.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ironside for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships' House. As your Lordships will be aware, my noble friend has worked tirelessly to increase the knowledge of the public about the vexed issues concerning breast cancer and in particular the need for an assured standard in the quality of radiotherapy treatment.
The practice of medicine, like many aspects of modern life, is becoming increasingly complicated. The ability of the health service to offer sophisticated cancer treatments is to be applauded, its potential encouraged and its continuing development informed by up-to-date research. However, the possibility of causing harm has also to be recognised. The Government want people to have justified confidence in their health service and to know that the treatments available are effective and safe.
The diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer are a government priority since each year around 25,000 women in England will be diagnosed and, tragically, around 13,000 women will die prematurely from the disease. Many of those lives can be saved if the cancer is spotted and treated at an early stage.
Prompted by this sad loss of life, and encouraged by the results of multi-centre trials, in 1985 the Government established the Forrest working group. The group's report recommended the introduction of a national population breast screening programme, the first in the European Union, whereby women between the ages of 50 and 64 should be called for three-yearly screening by mammography.
Between 1987 and 1990, £70 million was allocated to set up and run the breast screening programme.

937
Resources were invested in four national initiatives: education and training, quality assurance, equipment and information systems.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, successful treatment depends on the early detection of breast cancer. I know that that view is not shared by the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, but work on cervical cancer screening has shown a reduction of one-third in cervical cancer in women who have regularly been tested. That is why we have made such efforts to establish specialised breast screening centres nationwide.
It is essential that all local screening programmes have reliable quality assurance systems. These are monitored to ensure that abnormalities detected by mammography screening are investigated as soon as possible.
The Government have a clear objective to reduce mortality and morbidity caused by all cancers. Breast cancer screening offers an effective and measurable intervention in reducing deaths and is a key priority in the Health of the Nation strategy.
But of course we recognise that this cannot be achieved without the help of others. Last week, as your Lordships mentioned, the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund launched its breast cancer initiative. We welcomed that campaign, which is entirely consistent with our wish to empower patients to give them more confidence to question diagnosis and to exercise choice in their treatment. We want them to be active partners in their care. We also recognise the significant contribution made by other voluntary groups working in research, working with ethnic minority groups and with homeless people raising cancer awareness.
It is vital to have a high quality service for women who believe that they may have breast cancer. The Government's Chief Medical Officer has written to all doctors in England giving advice on the ways in which women can be involved in early detection, outlining the key symptoms and signs.
We now need to ensure that all women with breast cancer receive the best care available. The chief medical officers of England and Wales recently published their consultative report on the provision of services. The report was welcomed today by your Lordships and also widely outside the House. The report, prepared by an expert advisory group which included leading cancer specialists, has far-reaching implications for the future organisation of services.
The report sets out general principles which should govern cancer care. These principles include the need to involve not only patients, but their families and carers; to give them clear information about treatment options; and to respect their views. This seeks yet another change in culture, but health services are beginning to accept the notion that the patient's own opinion is not just relevant but of overriding importance; and it can affect the speed of recovery.
Another principle in the report is that all patients should have access to a uniformly high quality of care. The report proposes a network of expertise at three levels with the patient's own doctor playing a crucial
938
professional role, not only in terms of the initial diagnosis, treatment and care, but guiding, supporting, informing, advising and above all listening to the patient and her family. Throughout the whole episode of treatment and care, wherever that may take place, the linking professional should always be the GP.
Recently, there has been criticism of the referral of women to cancer specialists. We understand the anxiety and trauma of those who believe they may have breast cancer. That is addressed in the report, which recommends that there should be detailed discussions between all the GPs in an area and the local hospital service to clarify patterns of referral and follow up.
The second level of care is to be provided by cancer units in local hospitals. Those designated units will treat the more common types of cancer. It is recognised that, in order to gain enough knowledge and expertise, a sufficient volume of work is necessary. The expert advisory group will be discussing with the relevant professional bodies the workload necessary in each hospital to achieve universally the high standards of clinical practice which we seek.
We recognise that many cancer units will not have a sufficient workload to justify the development of services for the more rare and unusual forms of cancer. We are therefore planning for cancer centres which will serve a population of about 1 million. Those centres will also provide services for their local population in the same way as cancer units, in addition to giving the highly specialised and sophisticated treatment to the small minority of women who need it.
The report has far-reaching consequences for the organisation and provision of services. We will, therefore, consult widely and listen carefully to all the views expressed before deciding on how the report's recommendation should be taken forward.
We strongly support the view of the noble Countess, the Countess of Mar, that every woman should receive information on the options available and be offered a choice of treatments. Recent studies of adjuvant therapy indicate that a combination of treatment—surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, adjuvant endocrine therapy—is highly effective, but circumstances differ in individual cases.
Assessing the outcome of different treatment regimes is complex. As my noble friend Lord Brookeborough so clearly explained, treatment depends on a range of factors including cancer size, stage, site, and the overall health of the individual woman. Benefits and side effects may take years to become apparent. But the expert group not only draws attention to the work already done in setting standards for quality assurance and radiotherapy. It also draws attention to the need to pursue clinical audit. With greater concentration of service and expertise, that will be easier and more effective. We would expect nurses to be closely involved in audit because we know that they play a crucial role in supporting women and their families prior and post diagnosis and In any treatment and care which follows.
As my noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said, breast cancer nurses play a crucial role in answering women's questions and

939
explaining treatment options. However, I am sure that my noble friend will support me when I remind your Lordships that staffing in local units is a matter for local decision and we should not wish to direct it from the centre. The expert group on cancer recommended that patients should be seen by appropriately trained members of a multi-disciplinary team.
My noble friend Lady Gardner, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, addressed the need for an increase in breast cancer specialists. The expert group on cancer believes that there may be a need for more cancer specialists. However, much can be done in organising the existing services better so that doctors become increasingly specialised instead of treating the broad range of diseases.
The number of oncologists in this country is lower than in other European countries, and that is for historical reasons. Oncology specialists are increasing in number more rapidly than other specialists and we now have 200 clinical oncologists in England and 30 medical oncologists, with more than those numbers in training.
Increasingly health professionals acknowledge that a holistic approach to treating patients is not only appropriate but more effective. This is particularly important in a disease like cancer, which is always frightening for patients and their families and for which conventional medicine does not always have the complete answer.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Colwyn that there are many factors which influence cancer. Complementary medicine may have a place in the treatment of many diseases. It is encouraging that the British Medical Association has recognised this in its recent publication Complementary Medicine: New Approaches to Good Practice, and I welcome the increased communication and collaboration between the mainstream clinical professions and other therapists.
Many complementary therapists have a valuable place in the provision of health care but they also have a responsibility to the public. That form of health care should, therefore, be subjected to the same rigorous evaluation and audit that is applied to conventional medical practice.
Radiotherapy has been used to treat cancer for nearly a century. In those early years treatment machines were completely unprotected and were dangerous to staff and could not be directed with any precision. By the outbreak of the First World War, a number of major radiotherapy centres had been established, including the Christie Hospital, the Holt Institute and the Royal Marsden.
I think that I can say with some confidence that we have moved on and we have learned from those early years; but we are still learning. Future advances are expected in biological techniques to identify those patients with increased normal tissue sensitivity. That will enable individual treatment to be tailored more precisely.
Your Lordships may be aware of the 1991 publication entitled Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy. That document sets out 18 requirements to be satisfied
940
to ensure that quality in radiotherapy is maintained. Quality assurance is defined by the British Standards Institution as,
"all those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a … service will satisfy given requirements for quality".
In the light of that report, two clinical oncology centres were funded by the department to undertake pilot studies on how best to implement quality standards, and to prepare manuals which might serve as a model for use by other radiotherapy centres. The results are set out in a document drawn to our attention by my noble friend Lord Ironside entitled, Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy—A Quality Management System for Radiotherapy, which has been widely circulated. However, it is an advisory document—a tool which we hope the NHS will find helpful in providing services.
I agree with my noble friend that it is important for all radiotherapy centres to have good quality assurance systems for radiotherapy. That is to be encouraged. However, BS 5750 is only one such system and offers no guarantee of a quality service or improvements to clinical practice if the quality systems are themselves inadequate or if clinical protocols are not right.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, sought some reassurance about funds for research. In 1992–93, the Government spent over £3.8 million on breast cancer research, £3.1 million of which was commissioned through the Medical Research Council. Government expenditure of £3.8 million on research into breast cancer in 1992–93 does not include clinical research supported through local NHS research programmes or excess service costs for the NHS attributed to breast cancer research. It is estimated that in 1992–93 the major cancer research charities spent £8.7 million on breast cancer research, thus giving, with the Government's contribution, a total identified spend of £12.5 million.
My noble friends Lord Ironside and Lord Brookeborough asked why Scotland and Northern Ireland were not part of the review. First, perhaps I may reassure my noble friends that there is no evidence of a North-South divide, nor, so far as I am aware, any evidence of an East-West divide. My noble friends can take some comfort from the fact that the Quality Assurance in Radiotherapy treatment document sets standards and has been commended to centres in Scotland and Northern Ireland by their chief medical officers. I am sure that those two countries will also be interested in the framework document which we have just launched. However, your Lordships will be aware that both those countries have their own health Ministers, health officers and structures.
The noble Countess, Lady Mar, asked why it had taken us so long to produce the policy document that was launched last week. There are a number of reasons. First, we wanted to ensure that the screening systems were in place, because our priority had to be early detection. Secondly, we had a great deal of work to do to prepare the ground, not least in terms of clinical audit. That concept is now well established in the NHS and the preparatory work on quality assurance is complete, especially for radiotherapy. Thirdly, we wanted to ensure the co-operation of the professionals involved.

941
We believe that we have that now and that they support in principle the proposals in the document which we launched last week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, asked about other staffing levels. She referred to the incidents at Stoke and Exeter which occurred some years ago. I believe that in the case of Stoke the problems started in the early 1980s and in Exeter occurred in 1988. Since then there have been increases in the recruitment of medical physicists throughout the country, including in both those areas.
The noble Baroness also asked about funds for replacing worn out radiotherapy equipment. The Government have recognised the need to replace old radiotherapy equipment. To speed up that replacement, a three-year programme of £15 million a year was set up from 1992–93 to cover the purchase of expensive equipment, including linear accelerators for cancer treatment as well as diagnostic equipment such as mammography units.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked why we had the highest incidence in the death rate for breast cancer in this country. It is true that we have a very high incidence, but it is not fully understood why that should be so. One of the reasons that has been suggested is that in this country we have a very good system of cancer registration. We believe that if we are doing this better than other countries then we may have an apparently poorer record in terms of the incidence of cancer.
In conclusion, there are many women alive and well today who owe their lives to the progress that has been made in the detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. The service in general is good, but we want to make it even better. To that end, we have drawn up a blueprint for the future which we want widely discussed and debated, not only among professionals in the health service but by all those who have an interest in the subject.
Finally, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Ironside that we are very aware of his concern about
942
radiotherapy treatment and his and his wife's involvement in the organisation RAGE. He has been kind enough this afternoon to mention my personal interest in those women who have suffered side effects following such treatment. I thank him for the detailed information which he and RAGE have submitted to the Department. I am conscious that our policies are for the future and that it is right that we must go forward, but I cannot ignore the past.
I have discussed this matter at length with the Chief Medical Officer for England and he has agreed to establish a small group of professionals and lay people who over the next few months will consider guidelines for care for the group of women who have suffered tissue damage following radiotherapy for breast cancer. I hope that that will go some way to reassure my noble friend as to the seriousness with which we address this issue. Once again, I pay tribute to him for his diligence in pursuing the matter and in seeking to take it forward.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question in connection with the clustering of radiotherapy treatment injuries which have occurred. Can she go further and say to what degree she is prepared to look at the situation from the point of view of an audit to see what happened and where and why it happened, with a view to preventing it happening in the future?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is a separate point. My noble friend is due to meet the. Chief Medical Officer for England and also the President of the Royal College of Radiologists to take the matter forward. I suggest that that is the forum in which he should raise the question and receive an answer. I am concerned with the women who have already suffered through radiotherapy treatment and how best we can look after their interests.
House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday at one minute before five o'clock.

  TRIDENT II D5 MISSILE TEST FIRING
  TRIDENT II D5 MISSILE TEST FIRING
  WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION
  WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION
  SWALEDALE: RADIO RECEPTION
  SWALEDALE: RADIO RECEPTION
  EC STRUCTURAL FUNDS GRANTS
  EC STRUCTURAL FUNDS GRANTS
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION: NATIONAL AUTHORITY
  CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION: NATIONAL AUTHORITY
  EC HABITATS DIRECTIVE
  EC HABITATS DIRECTIVE
  SOUTH WEST WATER
  SOUTH WEST WATER
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT: INDEPENDENCE OF PLANNING INSPECTORS
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT: INDEPENDENCE OF PLANNING INSPECTORS
  TRANS-EUROPEAN ROUTE NETWORKS
  TRANS-EUROPEAN ROUTE NETWORKS
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION
  JUBILEE LINE EXTENSION
  TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY SALE: FINANCIAL ADVISERS
  TRANSPORT RESEARCH LABORATORY SALE: FINANCIAL ADVISERS
  CRIMINAL TRIALS: NON-DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE
  CRIMINAL TRIALS: NON-DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE
  CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE
  CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE
  KUWAITI PRISONERS IN IRAQ
  KUWAITI PRISONERS IN IRAQ
  SWITZERLAND: EMPLOYEES OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
  SWITZERLAND: EMPLOYEES OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
  WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
  WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL FOR FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
  BROUGHTON HOSPITAL, CLWYD: HSE INVESTIGATION
  BROUGHTON HOSPITAL, CLWYD: HSE INVESTIGATION
  PESTICIDE APPLICATION: RETENTION OF RECORDS
  PESTICIDE APPLICATION: RETENTION OF RECORDS
  TAKE-HOME PAY
  TAKE-HOME PAY
  FRESHLY DIPPED SHEEP
  FRESHLY DIPPED SHEEP
  CROSSRAIL PROJECT: HYDE PARK
  CROSSRAIL PROJECT: HYDE PARK