Sitting of 2 November 1994

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

    Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty recently signed in Washington.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I attended the signing of the treaty which took place on the Israel-Jordan border. It was a very moving occasion. The treaty is important and courageous and the British Government applaud it.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Although we all welcome the signing of the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, does the Minister share our sense of disappointment at Syria's recent failure to condemn terrorism and to enter into direct negotiations with Israel? What measures has the Minister taken to encourage Syria to cease its sponsorship of terrorism in that region and to enter into the talks?
    Mr. Hogg: Three weeks ago I had the opportunity of talking to President Assad of Syria on the importance of a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel. I stressed that it is an opportunity not to be missed. I believe that Syria is intent on peace and that Israel is as well. The problem is which will be the first to start the process. It is the unwillingness of the Syrians to embark on bilateral talks that I find most troubling.
    Mr. John Marshall: In view of the treaty between Israel and Jordan and as it is many years since there was a state visit to Jordan, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is high time that there was an official state visit to Israel by Her Majesty the Queen?
    Mr. Hogg: That sounds a splendid idea.
    Mr. Janner: In recognising that peace throughout the middle east is important, did the Minister meet with Mr. Nashashibi, the Palestinian Finance Minister? If so, and even if not, will he consider how Britain can help the Palestinians to re-establish themselves and their administration, police and education, because without that the entire process may collapse?
    Mr. Hogg: Indeed, I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Nashashibi about three weeks ago when he called on me in London. We discussed what the Government could do to assist in the Gaza strip and in the territories. I said that we had already contributed or were intending
    1548
    to contribute £75 million over three years. I drew his attention in particular to the recent grant of £5 million, of which £3 million was for the Palestinian police force.

    European Union
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about action being taken by the United Kingdom Government to encourage further enlargement of the European Union to include countries in central and eastern Europe.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): We support the enlargement of the European Union to include the associated countries of central and eastern Europe. We are working closely with the German presidency to ensure that a substantial package of measures to help these countries prepare for full membership will be ready for agreement at the Essen European Council on 9-10 December.
    Mr. Thompson: When my right hon. Friend attends the summit in Essen next month, will he emphasise the benefits, especially to national and international security, of the enlargement of the Union to include eastern European countries? Will he urge examination—and, where necessary, reform—of the outdated institutions and structures within the Union, for example, the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Hurd: It is hard to imagine the CAP in anything like its present form being extended to the new central and eastern European countries that we hope will join the EU. They simply could not afford it. The reforms that are already under way need to go a good deal further before we could envisage a common policy that would include those countries. The same is true of the structure plans.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: In future enlargement discussions, will candidate countries be encouraged to join all the institutions, including associated institutions such as the Western European Union?
    Mr. Hurd: That is up to those countries. It is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister means when he talks about a flexible Europe. At the moment, Ireland is a full member of the EU, but not of the WEU—the defence organisation. I suspect that that will be true of Austria next year and probably of Finland. Those countries that join the EU can, if they wish, become members of the WEU, but they do not have to do so.
    Mr. Dykes: Does the Foreign Secretary find it interesting that, coming back to the framework of the EU policies, without a single exception, all the existing or future, potential or actual applicants for membership, accept the acquis communautaire in all its aspects, Maastricht, Maastricht stage 2 and the future policies

    1549
    probably developing out of the 1996 conference? Is not that encouraging and will the United Kingdom Government do the same thing?
    Mr. Hurd: We are not committed for the future and the applicant states were not in such a strong position as we have been as regards the social chapter.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Does the Foreign Secretary have any view on whether the change in portfolios of the Commission this week has strengthened or weakened the progress towards enlargement? Does he recall the Prime Minister describing Mr. Jacques Santer as a reconciler and a healer—the right man for the right job at the right time? As the British Conservative Commissioner is the only one dissatisfied with his new job, would the Foreign Secretary care to repeat that description today and can he carry Sir Leon Brittan with him in that view? Or did not the events of last weekend confirm that the Prime Minister at Corfu picked the wrong fight over the wrong job?
    Mr. Hurd: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his portfolio and on the brio with which he has embarked on his job. I look forward to many such exchanges in the future. Whether he will prove to be the right man in the right job, we will know as time passes. I am sorry to read that, like Sir Leon Brittan, he is a little disappointed at the way in which things have turned out, but I hope that he will reconcile himself to the position that he has.
    I do not have any doubts about the views of Mr. Van Den Broek on these matters. I have known him for a long time and I do not have any doubt that the decisions that we have taken already on enlargement, on which we have touched already, will be continued. I do not have any worries about that. It is a pity that Leon Brittan, with his experience and achievements in this particular area, could not continue in it, but the essential thing so far as he and Britain are concerned is that he continues to hold the external trade portfolio.

    "Partnership for Peace"
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development of the NATO "Partnership for Peace" proposals, including practical co-operation.
    Mr. Skinner: He is the only Minister with a clean pair of hands.
    Mr. Hurd: I wish that the hon. Member would stop being so polite. It is extremely worrying.
    "Partnership for Peace" is developing well. Partners have established offices at NATO headquarters and SHAPE.
    The first military exercise under "Partnership for Peace", Co-operative Bridge, took place in Poland from 12 to 16 September, involving forces from 13 alliance and partner countries. Since then there have been two further exercises under "Partnership for Peace", Co-operative Venture, from 29 September to 7 October, and Co-operative Spirit, from 24 to 28 October. British forces took part in all three exercises.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank my right hon. Friend for news of that encouraging process. I assure him that I do not treat this matter lightly.
    1550
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the volatile nature of many of the eastern European countries is such that they need to be drawn swiftly into the military and political ambit of NATO? Can he give me some idea of the progress made towards common standards?
    Mr. Hurd: We see "Partnership for Peace" as a good idea in itself and we are delighted that it has had such good take-up from our former adversaries in the Warsaw pact, including Russia. I hope that my original answer showed the progress made on that. It may lead forward in some cases to the expansion of NATO, but the timing of that remains to be considered. I agree with my hon. Friend. We need to do everything that we can to show those who were our adversaries to the east in the Warsaw pact that for them NATO is not a hostile organisation and "Partnership for Peace" shows the practical ways in which that can be proved.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: But is not there an eloquent example of practical co-operation rather nearer to home in the proposal that the Royal Air Force and the French air force should now indulge in operational co-operation? Is not such practical co-operation essential to achieve an effective European defence, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly envisaged in his recent speech to the Franco-British Council?
    Mr. Hurd: I am certainly in favour of close military co-operation between ourselves and the French. We see that in action in Bosnia at the moment and it is extremely valuable. We have not yet concluded arrangements for the combined air forces group but may do so at the Anglo-French summit soon. It will simply be a joint planning capability, which could draw together the air assets from Britain and France for use in suitable operations on which we agree.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not important that "Partnership for Peace" be not just a question of hanging around in antechambers but that it provides an opportunity for NATO applicant countries eventually to become full participants in the alliance? In that context, is it not vital that no obstacles be placed in their path, such as that for the right of collective security, and that they must make commensurate contributions, because smaller countries are the most vulnerable and needful of the alliance's collective security arrangements?
    Mr. Hurd: I believe that some nations currently involved in "Partnership for Peace" will become full members of NATO, as my hon. Friend wants. That will be up to them and to us. Certainly we are not closing that door.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that an orderly and verified reduction of the bloated armament industries of eastern Europe is essential to achieve the objectives of "Partnership for Peace"? Does he see NATO and also the European Union playing a role in that achievement?
    Mr. Hurd: The countries of eastern Europe and certainly Russia need to convert their industries, which are overbalanced on the military side, to civilian use. They find that difficult. We can help to some extent, but it is not so much a matter for NATO as for individual effort.
    Mr. Churchill: Although it is clear that any extension of NATO's nuclear guarantee can be done only with great

    1551
    care and circumspection, does my right hon. Friend agree that countries that were our allies during the second world war and which were cut off from their alliances only because they were occupied by the Red army—specifically Poland and the Czech and Slovak
    republics—should be put on a fast track for NATO membership, and that Hungary should be included among them?
    Mr. Hurd: It is likely that the countries that my hon. Friend mentioned, given the history that he described and their present policies, will want to become full members of NATO and will succeed. We and they must consider the timing—no dates have been fixed. Meanwhile, it is important that they all make full use of "Partnership for Peace", which offers experience of joint exercises such as those that I described, and joint training and planning.

    European Parliament
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the future democratisation of the European Parliament.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): All present Members of the European Parliament are already directly elected. MEPs who will represent acceding states will in the first instance be appointed by their national Parliaments, but they will be subject to direct election within two years of the accession of those states.
    Mr. Williams: In view of the difficulties that surrounded the appointment of the President of the European Union earlier this year and, more recently, Sir Leon Brittan's responsibilities, where does the balance of the argument lie in terms of appointing a President of the European Parliament? Is there an argument for MEPs to be given the responsibility of electing their own President, and for that person then to appoint his own European Commissioners, as happens with every other directly elected Parliament?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman misses the importance of the role of sovereign states. The current arrangements are perfectly satisfactory.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware of Malta's strong desire to play its full part in the European Parliament following its successful application for European Union membership? What is the Government's policy on the Maltese application, and when is it likely that consideration will be given to applications from micro-states?
    Mr. Davis: The Government of the United Kingdom take a positive view of the application of Malta, and, of course, after its subsequent accession, whenever it occurs, one will foresee a point at which it is properly represented in the European Parliament. The intergovernmental conference, at its meeting in Corfu, issued a statement on that. We stand entirely by it.

    Subsidiarity
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has
    1552
    taken to implement the principle of subsidiarity in the levels of decision-making within the European Union and the United Kingdom.
    Mr. David Davis: The Edinburgh European Council established clear guidelines for the operation of subsidiarity within the European Union, and the Government have pursued the application of that subsidiarity with great vigour in conjunction with other Governments and the Commission. The principle of subsidiarity does not apply to the internal arrangements within member states.
    Mr. Jones: In his recent book entitled "The Europe We Need", Sir Leon Brittan describes subsidiarity as something that should
    "allow for the ebb and flow of responsibility between regional, national and European authorities."
    Does the Minister agree?
    Mr. Davis: That is a very thinly veiled expression of the hon. Gentleman's well-known views on the position of Wales within the United Kingdom. If I may, I will address that point directly, because it is predicated on three wrong precepts: first, legally, because it was made very clear at the meeting of the Heads of Government at Birmingham, and at other times, that subsidiarity does not apply within states, and that it is up to the states themselves to decide the distribution of power within the states. Secondly, there is a practical oddity. The hon. Gentleman likes to pretend that there is not a great deal of devolution of power within the United Kingdom. That is not true. In Wales, £3.6 billion of expenditure each year comes under the control of local government, so that is hardly a small issue. In political terms, the hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets that, when the Welsh people were asked what they thought of devolution, they voted four to one against it.
    Mr. Forman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is, perhaps, a minority opinion on the Conservative Benches, which might not be shared by him at the moment—that, as an English Tory, it is possible to welcome the principle of subsidiarity being applied within the United Kingdom as well as within Europe? One does not have to be a Welsh nationalist to see some force in those arguments.
    Mr. Davis: With a name like mine, Welshness is not a monopoly of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. The fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom Government see subsidiarity as a very important component of stressing the importance of the nation state within Europe. We have put our efforts principally into ensuring that the European Union reflects and respects that status. We have seen one of the best outcomes of that—the reduction of proposed directives from the Commission from 185 a few years ago to 39 so far this year. That is a very good measure of what subsidiarity is really about.
    Mr. Barnes: Does not subsidiarity mean anything that anyone wants it to mean? It has no legal or constitutional significance. It is useless as far as the European Union is concerned, and therefore would be useless as far as the United Kingdom's provisions are concerned. We should have clear constitutional divisions and provisions, and democratic arrangements.
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman condemns his own argument out of his own mouth, because subsidiarity is

    1553
    written down in the treaty and is specified very clearly. What is more, it has practical effects, which I have just described in terms of the reduction in the number of directives, and it will see continuing practical effects in future presidencies. I expect the French presidency coming up to treat it very seriously, too.

    Inter-Parliamentary Union
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he will be taking of the resolutions passed by the 92nd Inter-Parliamentary Union conference held in Copenhagen during September as they affect his Department.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We were grateful for the report from the leader of the British delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Copenhagen in September and have taken particular note of the adoption of resolutions passed, including those on human rights and the Uruguay round.
    Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend will know the welcome that the conference gave to the latest general agreement on tariffs and trade and how it can be used to help alleviate poverty throughout the world. Will he tell us, in respect of Her Majesty's Government, who have been at the forefront of the negotiations, how well her country has done with ratifying the treaty and whether we will meet the target of 1 January 1995?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend, who was at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, is absolutely right. The GATT round, which follows the excellent work done by, among others, Sir Leon Brittan, is good news for Britain. The deal agreed last December is a big step towards freer and more open international trade: it will lead to major tariff reductions for trade in goods. The round will bring major benefits for United Kingdom industry and consumers alike, in the form of increased growth, more jobs, lower prices and wider choice. Every hon. Member should be pleased about that.
    Mr. Flynn: How do the Government react to the concern expressed at the conference about the potential military threat posed by Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave, the only route to which runs through Lithuania? Has the Minister had an opportunity in the past two days to discuss with the Prime Minister of Lithuania, Mr. Adolfas Slezevicius, the further moves that can be made to connect Lithuania and the Baltic states more deeply with the organisations for peace in the European family of nations?
    Mr. Baldry: I have not had such an opportunity, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—the Minister of State—has.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a direct relationship between the resolutions of the IPU conference that has just ended and the proposed United Nations social summit in Copenhagen next year? Will he take this opportunity to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will give all
    1554
    possible assistance in ensuring that parliamentarians can play a full part in UN activities, not only in Copenhagen but throughout the year of the UN's 50th anniversary?
    Mr. Baldry: I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend, who has just completed his three-year presidency of the IPU. It was a very successful presidency, helping to establish a higher and well-deserved international profile for the IPU, for which thanks are owed to my hon. Friend.
    I am delighted that my hon. Friend will chair an IPU working group arranging a special meeting in New York to coincide with the UN's 50th anniversary celebrations. We too are organising a major national commemorative ceremony in Westminster hall in June next year for the 50th anniversary of the signing of the UN charter. We shall, of course, want to ensure that parliamentarians here can play a proper part in UN conferences, as they did at the recent very successful UN conference in Cairo on international population and development.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Minister aware that one of the most remarkable and welcome features of the conference was the return of a multi-party, multi-ethnic delegation from the new South Africa? Will he continue to give priority to democracy-building in South Africa, and assisting the IPU and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in their relations with the country? Will he also give a special welcome to the newly formed British South Africa group in the House, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn)?
    Mr. Baldry: Yes. I hope that all hon. Members will read the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in South Africa, in which he made clear our support for the new South Africa and referred to the large amounts of aid that the United Kingdom will devote to supporting it.

    European Union
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage inter-regional relationships within the European Union.
    Mr. David Davis: I welcome inter-regional and cross-border co-operation within the European Union. We have, for example, given full support to the Interreg II Community initiative, an important source of Community funding for such activities. The overall policy co-ordination for this is the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I welcome the progress that has been made, particularly with Interreg II, and in the context of Wales and Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that that programme, and others like it, will deepen and develop the relationships between British regions and their European counterparts, and that real benefits are in sight?
    Mr. Davis: Indeed, I do. The Interreg programme will certainly help communication and trade between Wales and Ireland and will, therefore, help to deepen and widen

    1555
    those links. The Government are looking at the allocation of the programme, but I expect the overall benefit to amount to about 99 million ecu for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Is the Minister aware of the tentative efforts taking place involving representatives from the Scottish highlands, Merseyside, Ireland and Northern Ireland over the collective anxiety that is being felt about the way in which objective 1 is proceeding in those areas, not least in regard to the smaller-sized private sector companies? As the Minister acknowledged, much of this comes under the remit of the Department of Trade and Industry, so if I send him the details, will he undertake to pass them on to the President of the Board of Trade so that the anxieties can be fully examined?
    Mr. Davis: I shall of course do that. We secured objective 1 status for Merseyside and the highlands and islands in addition to Northern Ireland. The sum total was about £2 billion, so it is important that it is applied properly.

    Rwanda
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is offering to Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hurd: Since 6 April, we have committed over £60 million in humanitarian assistance. The Overseas Development Administration and British non-governmental organisations have provided water and emergency supplies to 2 million Rwandan refugees. Within Rwanda we are financing rehabilitation projects, and human rights monitors. We have also provided 600 troops to the UN force. They have helped restore transport routes and have operated a field hospital which has treated over 106,000 people. This has been a substantial, timely and successful effort.
    Mr. Llwyd: Given the continued and unmitigated disaster in Rwanda, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is up to him to argue with those in the Treasury to secure the budget for the next two or three years? It is my understanding—I am sure that he will agree with this—that there is a projected cut of £60 million in the ODA budget for Africa over the next three years. Therefore, I call on him to do something about it. If he does not, his Department will not have the necessary flexibility to deal with similar future emergencies.
    Mr. Hurd: I am discussing with the Treasury as part of the normal public expenditure round the ODA budget for the next three years. Comments such as that have been made from the Opposition Benches over and over again in past years. What we have done in Rwanda, and particularly what the ODA has done, has shown that we have been and remain capable, as much as any other country, of putting prompt, effective and substantial help in the field.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is not one of the basic problems with Rwanda that the United Nations was slow to forecast and prevent that catastrophe? Will my right hon. Friend spell out what the British Government will be doing to try to get better forecasting of such situations?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will accept that it is difficult for the UN or anybody else to plan in advance the extent to which they will intervene in the internal
    1556
    affairs of a member state. It is not easy. When I talked to the General Assembly in September I put forward some British ideas about how we could help Africans forestall such problems in the future. That is the way that we should help. I have discussed the matter with the Secretary-General of the UN and we shall press on with those ideas.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that tomorrow the aid agencies will express their concern at growing intimidation in the refugee camps by militia of the former Government of Rwanda? Can he assure those agencies that Britain will support any UN measures to improve security in the camps to allow aid work to continue and to enable those refugees who want to return to Rwanda to do so free from intimidation by the very people who carried out the mass murders?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on what I think is the most dangerous aspect of the problem at the moment. It is a real problem. It is not easy for the UN to decide how to deal with it without making it worse. I discussed it with Mr. Boutros Ghali when he was here last week and he knows that we will support any action that he thinks is justified.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain is providing considerable support to the people of Rwanda, but that it is not the cash figure that is significant but the individual quality of the programmes concerned?
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree. It is speed and quality that count on such occasions, and we have been good at providing both.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Robert Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Indonesia to discuss bilateral relations.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to do so. I visited Indonesia in April.
    Mr. Banks: I am glad to hear of my right hon. Friend's visit in April. Does he agree that Indonesia continues to make rapid economic progress under a stable Government and that we should encourage contact and trade at all levels between our two countries? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the National Human Rights Commission there must be seen to be independent and a power unto itself if it is to deal effectively with the exaggerated statements of the overseas media and to settle grievances?
    Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is right—Indonesia is a country that, while it still has a low income, has enjoyed rapid development, adopted sound economic policies and made good use of aid, from the Asian Development bank, the World bank, the Japanese, the Germans, ourselves and others, to reduce poverty. The country is a major potential market for the United Kingdom and will come to assume greater economic weight in the region.
    The National Human Rights Commission was set up only earlier this year, but Amnesty International has acknowledged its active and energetic approach. The

    1557
    commission has already surprised its critics with the strength of its public statements on domestic human rights issues. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about it.
    Mrs. Clwyd: I find the right hon. Gentleman's attitude amazing and complacent in the teeth of a recent report by Amnesty International. Does he not know that the Government in Indonesia are suppressing freedom of speech and assembly, and that arbitrary killing and widespread torture continue? Does he not realise that the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and some of his hon. Friends have just been on a visit to Indonesia, paid for by the Indonesian Government? Does he not realise that, while our Government fawn over that evil regime, it continues to violate basic human rights, both in East Timor and in Indonesia? Why does he not condemn that?
    Mr. Goodlad: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and hope that we shall enjoy further exchanges in future. On reflection, she will not consider it wrong for hon. Members to visit overseas countries—she has done so herself. Through such visits, hon. Members are able to speak with greater knowledge.
    The Indonesians are well aware of the importance that we attach to their living up to their human rights obligations. We raise our concerns whenever appropriate, both bilaterally and with our European Union partners. I did so when I visited Indonesia in April. Our experience of the Indonesian Government shows that confidential dialogue is often more effective in bringing about changes in attitudes than public hectoring. Independent observers of Indonesia have said that there has been an improvement there. Amnesty International acknowledges in its report that Indonesia has taken a number of steps to demonstrate its commitment to protecting human rights, such as setting up the National Human Rights Commission and granting more freedom of access—for example, allowing human rights representatives from the United Nations.
    This year's session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights commented favourably on the greater access recently granted by the Indonesian authorities to human rights and humanitarian organisations. The commission agreed that Indonesia should invite Mr. Wali N'Diaye, the special rapporteur, to visit Indonesia. Indonesia has been elected as the chairman of the non-aligned movement and has recently been elected a member of the Security Council of the United Nations. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Lady will be ashamed of what she has said from the Labour Front Bench.

    Indo-British Partnership Initiative
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress with the Indo-British partnership initiative.
    Mr. Hurd: Our partnership with India is going splendidly. Bilateral trade has increased by nearly 50 per cent. since the partnership was launched by the Prime Minister in January last year. New British investment increased fivefold last year and the momentum is continuing. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade will lead an 85-strong delegation to India next month.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity—supported, I am sure, by the whole House—
    1558
    to pay tribute to the skill and bravery of the Indian police who effected such a dramatic rescue a couple of days ago? Does he agree that his reply shows how considerably Britain's relations with India have improved in recent years? Does he further agree that the increase in our investment there is partly a result of the significant economic reforms that India has introduced?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend on all points, especially on the first. We were delighted and relieved that the three Britons held hostage were released so soon and we are most grateful to the Indian police for their professional and effective operation. On behalf of the House, I should like to express our regret about the deaths of two Indian policemen in that operation, and our sympathy to their relatives.

    Middle East
    Mr. Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to move forward the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We strongly support the peace process. As I have already said, we regard the treaty between Israel and Jordan as a very important step. We now look to progress in the negotiations with Syria and Lebanon and to further negotiations with the Palestinians.
    Mr. Alexander: Will my right hon. and learned Friend welcome the decisions taken at the Arab-Israeli conference in Casablanca last week to end the Arab boycott and establish a regional economic community? Does he agree that that helps to underpin the peace process and that countries that trade with one another are the least likely to go to war with one another? Will the Government co-operate to the greatest possible extent in those economic developments?
    Mr. Hogg: I had the pleasure of going to Casablanca to participate in the conference. It was an important occasion, partly because it brought Israel and many of the Arab states together in discussion, which is greatly to be welcomed, and partly because it drew the attention of the wider world to the economic opportunities in the region. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) that if nations trade together they are much less likely to fight.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: The Government have identified the protection of human rights as a key confidence-building measure. Will the Minister assure us that when the temporary international presence for the calling of elections in Gaza and Jericho is established, pursuant to Security Council resolution 904, he and our European partners will insist that a viable human rights mandate is to be a central plank of that protection force? That would be in contrast to what has happened with the temporary international presence in Hebron, which is regarded as an absolute failure by the whole Palestinian community.
    Mr. Hogg: I would rather deal with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, about elections, which are very important. I had the opportunity of talking to Yossi Beilin last week on that issue. I should like elections to be called, and called soon.

    Kenyan Investors Conference
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to attend the Kenyan investors conference in London on 17 November.
    Mr. Baldry: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will not be attending the investors conference. However, he will be calling on President Moi during the President's stay in London. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will deliver the opening address to the conference.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that, since last year's meeting of the Paris club of Kenya's creditors, the Kenyan Government have embarked on a truly remarkable programme of economic reform? Is not the outlook for British investors in Kenya better now than it has been for some time?
    Mr. Baldry: Yes. The United Kingdom is by far the largest overseas investor in Kenya, with assets valued in excess of £1 billion. I am glad to say that this year United Kingdom exports to Kenya have increased by 22 per cent. on a similar period last year. We very much welcome the action being taken to improve Kenya's economic performance and look forward to discussing those issues further with President Moi and his colleagues during their forthcoming visit.
    Mr. Corbyn: When the Minister meets the President of Kenya, will he convey to him the concerns of many people about the fact that Kenya does not have a genuine multi-party democracy or genuine freedom of speech, and that far too many people have spent too long in Kenyan prisons for attempting to speak out against the current regime?
    Mr. Baldry: We shall have a constructive dialogue with President Moi when we meet him and, of course, whenever there are concerns relating to human rights or other issues, we raise them.

    Rwanda
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with United Nations counterparts with the aim of establishing an international judicial tribunal to rule on war crimes in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The preliminary report of the UN Commission of Experts has been received, and work is now being done within the Security Council on the question of a draft.
    Mrs. Ewing: That is welcome news, but does the Minister accept that strong representations have been made by, among others, Amnesty International, to the effect that there must be a judicial review of what has happened in Rwanda? Does he accept that it is essential that war crimes are examined and war criminals tried and sentenced, especially when they have been guilty of genocide? Will the Government ensure that all initiatives undertaken by the Security Council are given the full moneys and the support of the House?
    Mr. Hogg: It is entirely right that those who have committed serious crimes should be brought to trial. It is
    1560
    equally important that when we set up, define and formulate a tribunal we try to ensure that the processes are as just as they can be made.
    Mr. Worthington: Is not it better to prevent war crimes? What do the Government intend to do to prevent future war crimes? We were promised in May that 5,500 troops would be deployed in Rwanda, but we have now been told by Baroness Chalker that the deployment of those troops will take another 10 weeks. Now, in November, we are still two battalions short because of the failure of the major powers to provide the logistical support to get the troops there. Is not that in great contrast with what happened recently in the Gulf? Is not it true that, to the Government, oil wells are more important than African lives?
    Mr. Hogg: War crimes will stop when human nature changes.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although Britain has made an outstanding contribution in Rwanda, as in many other countries, it really is pushing it when a party that has consistently called for defence cuts suggests that our overstretched armed forces should make even larger contributions to try to prevent incidents that, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly says, are ultimately the result of the ugliness of human nature?
    Mr. Hogg: We have indeed made a contribution in Rwanda, and an even larger contribution in the former Yugoslavia. I do not think that the British Government can in any way be criticised for the steps that we have so far taken.

    European Union
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the accession of new states to the European Union; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Davis: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have had discussions on that matter with our opposite numbers in the European Union at several meetings, up to and including the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.
    The Foreign Secretary said earlier that the Essen Council will propose a strategy for the accession. That will contain substantial measures—for example, trade liberalisation, political dialogue and integration with the single market. Meanwhile, we welcome the progress already made by the European Free Trade Association members.
    Mr. Salmond: Now that Austria and Finland, as small European states, have voted to join the European Union, and we hope for further progress from Scandinavia, will the Minister tell the House why the nation of Scotland should settle for B-league status in Europe—as part of Britain, with Commissioners who are humiliated and a Government who are out of step with all other

    1561
    Europeans—instead of aspiring to an independent status and to equality of status with those other small European nations?
    Mr. Davis: It seems to fall to me today to defend our nation state against its main aggressors.
    Mr. Salmond: The enemy within.
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman describes himself as the enemy within. I am a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that United Kingdom brings benefits to all its members, in Scotland, in England and in other parts. I am proud of that fact, and so are most people in all parts of the United Kingdom. For that reason, the hon. Gentleman's question is not only hypothetical but implausible.
    Mr. Colvin: I have always advocated the widening of the European Union rather than its deepening. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the recent four new members of the European Union, the Scandinavian countries and Austria, are all net contributors to the European budget, but that the next four waiting to join—Poland, Hungary, the Czech lands and Slovakia—will all be big beneficiaries of the European budget, which will more than double its size? Therefore, is not further widening of the EU to be regarded as a long-term aim and not something to be rushed into quickly?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend raises an important point which relates to how we must prepare for the next accession and the next stage of the enlargement of the Union. The two principal components of the fund flow that he describes from the current Union to the accessionary states of the Visegrad four would be the structural funds and the common agricultural policy. If we took the route of enlargement with those policies as they currently stand, we would see a transfer of—probably—some 50 billion ecu. That tells me, and the whole Union, that we have to get those policies properly corrected and properly structured before the next accession and the next stage of enlargement.
    Ms Quin: Can the Minister clarify the Government's policy towards a defence role for the enlarged European Union? I ask this question given the different reports in the press last week. It was reported one day that the Foreign Secretary was keen to see a defence role for the enlarged European Union, but the next day that there was deep disquiet among Government Back Benchers about the matter.
    Mr. Davis: I welcome the hon. Lady back to her old role and I am glad that she is still there. Security in the European Union and its enlargement, which is what this question is about, after all, is an extremely sensitive issue, and it is important that people understand public statements. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has put the text of his speech in the Library of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Jessel: Could enlargement entail too many Commissioners? Has my hon. Friend noticed that both Sweden and Norway have nominated Commissioners
    1562
    although they have not yet had their referendums, the results of which are uncertain? Are not they pre-empting the results of their referendums?
    Mr. Davis: Yes, they have put forward names for their Commissioners, but that is a matter of practicality. The European Parliament votes on the proposed Commissioners very quickly after the accession date. Yes, we think that there are too many Commissioners. Indeed, our policy is to reduce the number.
    Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister accept that the overwhelming majority of Scottish people believe that their interests are best served by being part of the United Kingdom? However, does the Minister also accept that the best interests of the United Kingdom in the European Union would be best served by the maximum subsidiarity in the United Kingdom through the maximum devolution of a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh assembly and English regional assemblies?
    Mr. Davis: I commend the hon. Gentleman. For a long time I have known him to be a bastion of the Union—indeed, he is built like a bastion of the Union—but this is a rather long stretch of the subject of enlargement.

    Saudi Arabia
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Saudi Arabia.
    Mr. Hurd: They are excellent.
    Mr. Dalyell: What have the Saudis said to the British Government about the commercial activities of Mark Thatcher?
    Mr. Hurd: Nothing.

    Gaza Strip
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British support to the Palestinian authorities in the Gaza strip.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: We support the negotiations and are providing £75 million over three years.
    Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister recognise that, while that sum of money is very welcome, it does not go very far towards meeting the needs of the Palestinian authorities? Indeed, it is not as much as some other western countries are contributing. Will he kindly review the amount of money that we are giving? In addition, will he put pressure on Syria, following last week's Casablanca conference, to ensure that it contributes to the Palestinian authorities in Gaza and, in doing so, avoids the threat of militancy and extremism?
    Mr. Hogg: The most important and constructive thing that the Syrians could do is enter into discussions with Israel with a view to achieving a full peace treaty between Syria and Israel. That is the course of action that I commended to President Assad and it is something for which the British Government will continue to press.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that peace in the middle east is a very fragile flower and that the Palestinians are having much difficulty

    1563
    at the moment as a result of the terrorist actions of Hamas? Will my right hon. and learned Friend and his Department try to intervene with the principals of Hamas and, in particular, with the state of Iran to ensure that it will do everything in its power to encourage Palestinians to remain at peace with Israel?
    Mr. Hogg: It is important that Chairman Arafat should do all that he can to prevent Hamas operating as against Israel. However, it is also fair to point out to the Government of Israel that it is sometimes rather hard to expect of Chairman Arafat a result and outcome which Israel herself, with all her forces, could not achieve.
    Mr. Burden: Does the Minister accept that, while we condemn the kind of terrorist attacks that took place in Tel Aviv on 19 October, collective punishment of the Palestinian people is neither acceptable nor lawful and that we really require more progress to an early relaxation of the border restrictions between Gaza, Israel and the west bank?
    Mr. Hogg: I would prefer not to address the two issues, as it were, in the same paragraph because that might suggest that there is some justification for terrorism and I know that that is not what the hon. Gentleman meant.
    With regard to a relaxation in the prohibitions on people from Gaza entering Israel, there needs to be an early relaxation. I am glad to say that on 1 November, the Israelis announced that they would grant 8,000 licences for people in the construction industry to go into Israel. I welcome that. We look to a further and early relaxation with a view to a very substantial increase in the number of people from Gaza able to work in Israel.

    European Union
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on United Kingdom policy towards the further enlargement of the European Union to encompass the countries of central and eastern Europe.
    Mr. David Davis: As I have already said, we support the eastward enlargement of the European Union. At the Essen Council, in conjunction with the Commission and the German presidency, we shall be looking for ways to help that process take place, including substantial measures, as I have said, in trade liberalisation, political dialogue and integration with the single market.
    Mr. Brown: This is the first opportunity that I have had to congratulate my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour on his new responsibilities. Will he confirm that the impetus for the enlargement process with regard to eastern Europe has so far come largely from the efforts of the United Kingdom? Will he give an assurance and an undertaking that that impetus, which so far has been stimulated by this country, will continue?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right in a sense. It is rather more generally a mark of the success of our view of the future of the European Union. That view has been taken up by many other countries and many others subscribe to it. However, it is not the only example. One
    1564
    could also say that we have been successful in pushing the causes of subsidiarity, of enlargement—which my hon. Friend mentioned—and of the single market, and our arguments on deregulation with respect to increasing employment in the EU are now also winning the day.
    Mr. O'Hara: With regard to enlargement, will the Minister give an assurance that the British Government will not make the accession of Cyprus to the European Union conditional on the prior resolution of the current situation in Cyprus?
    Mr. Davis: Clearly, the division of the island of Cyprus is a problem for us, but we shall look at the matter in January.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: What more can my hon. Friend and the Department do to encourage and promote cultural and trading links with the countries of central and eastern Europe, so that British influence in those areas can be sustained by direct contacts?
    Mr. Davis: A great deal is already happening. As part of the PHARE programme, British companies are winning between 16 and 17 per cent. of technical advice contracts. That is already leading to enormous influence for British ideas in eastern Europe.

    Exports (Far East)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help is given to British industry and commerce by United Kingdom embassies to develop the export of United Kingdom goods to far eastern countries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Goodlad: Commercial officers in our far eastern posts use their specialist market knowledge to give exporters practical help, advice and support. For instance, they provide exporters with targeted information about opportunities for their products and help exporters identify overseas representatives. They also give background information about local firms with which British companies plan to do business.
    We attach high priority to expanding exports to the rapidly growing far eastern market. By using savings made elsewhere, manpower resources devoted to commercial work in Asia and the Pacific rim have risen by 23 per cent. since 1990. Last year, 28 new front-line commercial jobs were created in Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. I am glad to say that exports to the region rose by 28.5 per cent. in 1993, to £13 billion.
    Mr. O'Brien: Given that, in recent years, the Government have tended to emphasise the exporting of arms and military equipment, may we be assured now that there will be a greater emphasis on more domestic products, and that assistance will be given to exporters, especially in west Yorkshire, so that we can develop the export trade to the far east?
    Mr. Goodlad: I have visited Yorkshire and spoken to exporters, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will get all the help that we can give them.

points of order
3.31 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry came to the House some time ago and made a statement, based on the options set out in the White Paper, on the Post Office. It now seems that the options that were described to the House have been cast aside and that fresh proposals are being cobbled together in an ad hoc way and are being discussed at this very moment in an upstairs Room.
Can the House be given a statement on the options for the Post Office; and can it be communicated to the Secretary of State that the future of the Royal Mail and the Post Office is not a matter to be dealt with as a bartering process among Conservative Members?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member will have seen that there are appropriate Ministers on the Treasury Bench. I have not been told by any Minister that he is seeking to make a statement on that matter today.
I had anticipated that there would be a point of order for me today about the events that took place last night when the Committee of Privileges finished its meeting. As there is no point of order, however—[Interruption.] I can cope without one. It is a matter of great seriousness and great importance. What has taken place could have repercussions for the working of the whole of our system of Select Committees. Clearly, the matter has privilege
1566
aspects—[Interruption.] Order. Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) have a point of order for me?
Mr. Robin Corbett: I do not know what you are talking about, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps, once it is printed, the hon. Member will do me the courtesy of looking at the Hansard report.
As I was saying, the matter clearly has privilege aspects, and for that reason I could have insisted that it was first raised with me in writing. But because of its importance, and because this is the last full working day of the Session, I have decided, exceptionally, to make an interim ruling today.
My ruling is that the Committee of Privileges must have an opportunity to make a report on this matter to the House before the House takes any action. Members will find described on page 136 of "Erskine May" the practice of the House whereby
"A matter alleged to have arisen in committee but not reported by it may not generally be brought to the attention of the House on a complaint of breach of privilege."
The purported written report from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) was issued, so I understand, after the conclusion of yesterday's meeting of the Committee of Privileges. The Committee has therefore not yet had the opportunity of making a report on it to the House of the kind to which I have just referred. I hope that, following its next meeting, the Committee will make such a report so that the House can have an early opportunity to consider this matter in an orderly manner and to take any action that it may think fit.
For those reasons, I do not propose to take any points of order on this matter today. The House knows exactly where it stands if hon. Members have listened very carefully to all my words.

Disabled Persons (Consultation)
3.35 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a system of consultation when legislation relating to disabled persons is proposed and to set rules for formulating compliance cost assessments in the case of such legislation.
The House will be aware that the Government have recently consulted on their proposals to tackle discrimination against disabled people. It will also be aware that that exercise was conducted in response to the overwhelming support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. No doubt that accounts for the attendance in the Chamber at this time.
I am sure that support for the Bill, inside and outside the House, encouraged the Government to put forward their own proposals. I am also sure that their consultation document was published in response to the widespread disquiet at the manner in which the Government blocked that Bill temporarily. Nevertheless, I welcomed the consultation exercise, not least because, by issuing that consultation document, the Government made it quite clear that disabled people face systematic discrimination and that they believed that this must be tackled through legislation. Therefore, in common with other hon. Members, I eagerly await the Government's publication of the results of that consultation exercise and further debate on that issue. In the meantime, my Bill is a modest attempt to address and correct some of the serious limitations in that consultation exercise.
The main issues that we must consider are the way in which consultation exercises are undertaken and the misuse of so-called compliance cost assessments. For example, it is said by many people, including the Prime Minister, that the price tag on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is £17 billion. As I shall demonstrate, that figure has no basis in fact. That a document claiming to be a compliance cost assessment could come up with that figure suggests that we should carefully review the rules for compliance cost assessments in order to ensure that truthful figures are produced, not figments of people's imagination.
In relation to the consultation process, my Bill recognises that the Government may, of course, consult on whatever proposals they wish—there is no question about that. Disabled people, however, have felt and still feel that it was regrettable that, in the recent consultation exercise, the Government refused to consult on the one proposal for tackling discrimination against disabled people that disabled people wanted—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
I recently received a communication from the Spastics Society—I am sure that hon. Members would like to join me in congratulating that society on the fact that, tomorrow, it will change its name to Scope—in which it pointed out that it regretted that the Government had excluded from their consultation exercise items that featured in the civil rights Bill. That regret has been repeated by other organisations of and for disabled people.
My Bill contains some very modest proposals. It would require that, when the Government undertook a consultation exercise, they would include with their proposals for disabled people any proposals relating to similar matters that disabled people supported. That seems perfectly reasonable.
1568
Secondly, it would also be reasonable to state that any proposed Government consultation should include legislation that received an unopposed Second Reading in the Chamber. A Bill is not carried every day of the week by 231 votes to nil on Second Reading. That vote expresses the view of the House and should be the subject of consultation.
Thirdly, my Bill would require that any legislation that had successfully completed its Committee stage should be a matter for proper consultation. Finally, any legislation that had completed either of those stages in the other place should also be the subject of consultation.
I am sure that hon. Members are reasonable, although I do not want to over-egg it, and I am sure that they would agree that any legislation that has passed any one of those four tests, let alone all of them, is worthy of detailed consultation in the sort of exercise in which the Government have just engaged.
The second issue dealt with in the Bill concerns compliance cost assessments for proposed legislation. Those sound very grand. Some people think that the assessment is based on a widely accepted technique for evaluating policy, whether by economists or anyone else. It is not and no self-respecting economist would touch many of the assessments with a bargepole. Indeed, the appalling errors in the compliance cost assessment for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill have led me to suggest these new rules. They are not controversial, but they are worth stating.
First, when undertaking a compliance cost assessment, one should refrain from counting the same thing twice. Double counting, whether by accident or by design, obviously inflates estimates of costs. That may be welcome to someone who opposes the legislation, but it hardly brings such an exercise into good repute. For example, the compliance cost assessment for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill included the cost of providing access to existing buildings in the environment section, but some of the costs were counted again in the sections on employment and education. That double counting accounts for £6 billion of the alleged £17 billion costs.
Secondly, one should not assume a phasing-in period that is not contained in the proposed legislation. It was assumed that everything contained in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would have to be done within five years. That does not feature in the Bill. If we allow for a proper phasing-in period for transport, we could reduce the costs by yet another £6 billion.
I am running short of time, so suffice it to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."]—I appreciate why some opponents of the Bill might be happy about that. The £17 billion figure should never be used again. According to the Government's assumptions, if we avoid double counting and do not allow for time periods that are not in the Bill, we are down to £5 billion.
Compliance cost assessments should also be required to take into account the benefits of legislation. It has been estimated that discrimination excludes disabled people from the labour market at a cost of between £3 billion and £5 billion a year. The cost of inaccessible transport is £1 billion. My Bill would ensure that much more meaningful consultation took place on legislation relating to disabled people and it would ensure more meaningful cost-benefit

1569
analyses. Today's Bill, like the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, has all-party support and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. John Austin-Walker, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. David Congdon, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Don Dixon, Sir John Hannam, Mr. Alan Howarth, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Gordon McMaster, Mr. Alfred Morris and Mr. Dafydd Wigley.

Disabled Persons (Consultation)
  DISABLED PERSONS (CONSULTATION)
  Mr. Roger Berry accordingly presented a Bill to provide for a system of consultation when legislation relating to disabled persons is proposed and to set rules for formulating compliance cost assessments in the case of such legislation: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 173.]

Privileges
3.45 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of your wise and understandable statement, and as the Government knew perfectly well as far back as 10 May that a letter had been written on House of Commons notepaper, is not it rather odd that we should give preference above other business to a debate such as this at this time? We must remember how long the Government have known about the letter and surely your statement rather alters events, does it not?
Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The motion on privilege is extremely narrowly drawn—as you reminded us when we considered a similar motion earlier this week. In view of last night's events, there will be a clear temptation in today's debate for hon. Members on both sides to discuss the proceedings of the Privileges Committee. That is something which you warned us against previously and which I am sure you will warn us against today.
Secondly, anyone voting for the motion today cannot have any idea whether, if carried, the complaint will be considered by the Committee in public or in private, or how the proceedings of the Committee will be arranged.
Madam Speaker: Order. Could I have a point of order for me?
Mr. Madden: I believe that to consider the motion today would be premature. Could it be withdrawn to enable us to consider it when the proceedings of the Privileges Committee are themselves clear and made known to the House?
Mr. Alan Duncan rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can deal with the two points of order now. I think that I have captured the mood of the House on this matter. There is certainly no conflict between the motion before us today and the statement that I made earlier. The motion is in perfect order and it is ready for debate. Quite frankly, the House has a responsibility, at this stage, to deal with the motion now.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, during the time that you have been in the Chair and prior to that, there have been countless instances every year of people, both inside and outside the House, using House of Commons notepaper when they should not have done so. Can you tell me on how many occasions such people have used the notepaper but not had it brought before the Privileges Committee?
Madam Speaker: Of course, I cannot give the hon. Member a figure for that at this stage, but I shall certainly have some research carried out and do my best to respond to his question. It is not a point of order for me, but I am always willing to give as much information as I can to individual hon. Members.
3.48 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: I wish to call attention to the alleged action of The Guardian newspaper in representing that a letter sent by it to the Ritz hotel, Paris, was sent in the name of an honourable Member of this House.
I beg to move,
That the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
There are occasions when I would give my eye teeth to address the House in prime time and on an important issue, but this is not one of them. This debate opens up all sorts of predictable criticism and offers us assorted traps into which we can all fall. I fully understand that in a debate such as this it would be very easy to sound pompous, sanctimonious and utterly party political, but when we seek to defend our collective reputations and, more importantly, the status and symbols of the House, there will always be a risk of allegations of hypocrisy, oversensitivity and being out of touch.
While the debate is, of necessity, about a possible abuse of the House and contempt of Parliament, I hope that the whole House would be just as concerned if the victim of this alleged conspiracy, impersonation and forgery were the proverbial Joe Bloggs, whose letter heading did not have a portcullis or the words "House of Commons".
Mr. Tony Banks: I would have much more sympathy with the case being made by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) if the information about the use of a piece of notepaper purporting to come from the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) had been brought to the attention of the House when the right hon. Gentleman himself knew about it. He knew about it on 10 May. The Cabinet Secretary knew about it on 18 May. Why was not the House so informed at that time if it is so important now?
Mr. Wilshire: I am happy for other hon. Members to make their case in their way, but I prefer to make my case in the way that I think is best.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a point for you. You have emphasised, understandably, that this is a matter of precedence over other business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says, the matter was known about in the public print on 10 May and the Cabinet Secretary wrote letters on 18 May. Why is it given precedence?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member cannot disrupt our proceedings in this way with points of order that are really not points of order. It has been determined that this matter takes precedence today and it is the responsibility and duty of the House to debate it. It is about time that we faced up to some duties in the House.
Mr. Wilshire rose—
Mr. Roger Gale: In view of the points that have just been raised, does my hon. Friend accept that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary apparently considered referring the matter to the Press
1572
Complaints Commission, but as at that time Mr. Peter Preston was a member of the Commission, they felt that it was not worth doing so?
Mr. Wilshire: Again, those are interesting points, but I should like to press ahead.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can we now assume that the rules involving raising matters at the earliest possible moment no longer apply?
Madam Speaker: As I have told the House and the hon. Member, the motion before us and the way in which we are proceeding are completely in order according to the business of the House and precedents that have stood us in good stead over many years.
Mr. Wilshire: Thank you, Madam Speaker. All that I can say is that as soon as I knew about the matter, I raised it with you on Monday morning.
I also want to make it clear at the outset that in saying what I say this afternoon I do not seek to criticise all journalists and all editors when I criticise one. I make no claims at all to be better than or different from anyone else. I know that I run the risk of setting myself up for abuse and criticism, but so be it. That is the lot of all politicians.
All I know is that if I was caught forging faxes, however much I felt that I could justify it, I would expect to be pilloried by every newspaper in the land, and that is a fate that I would richly deserve. If, when I was found out, I indulged in self-righteous self-justification, I would rightly deserve the contempt of every fair-minded person.
Again at the outset I want to say that I am anxious to try to avoid cheap party politics. [Interruption.] I guessed that that would get a hollow laugh. All I can say is, please hear me out and then judge at the end whether I am playing party politics.
I am relieved that you, Madam Speaker, have made it clear that the debate must confine itself to narrow issues—in fact, the issues in my motion—because those are the issues that I wanted to raise when I wrote to you on Monday. Whatever an hon. Member may or may not have done is not part of the issue, although I can quite understand why there are people in the House who want to pursue that story.
This issue is sufficiently important to require separate and immediate attention. What concerns us today are the methods employed by a respected national newspaper when investigating a Member of Parliament. At best, those methods were ethically flawed; at worst, they were downright criminal. Whichever they were, they were a flagrant abuse of the House and need to be investigated.
I say that for three reasons. Those in a privileged position must be above reproach—at least, that is the message that newspapers have been trumpeting these past few weeks. I am perfectly happy to accept that Members of Parliament are in a privileged position, even if most of us do not have much power. I am, however, clear in my mind that newspaper editors are in an equally privileged position and wield substantial power.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Mr. Peter Preston acted

1573
in the public interest in revealing the fact that Conservative Members failed to register pecuniary interests: yes or no?
Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself and hear me out, he will get his answer.
If editors maintain that Members of Parliament should be above reproach, it follows that they also should be beyond reproach. My second reason is that two of the most important duties of all Members of Parliament are to stand up for the rights of the individual and for the rule of law. Perhaps the greatest threat to both is the belief held by people in powerful positions that the ends justify the means. Down that route lurks the jackboot and the lynch mob.
If I understand history correctly, this Parliament came into existence to protect the citizen from arbitrary abuse and victimisation. Throughout Parliament's history, we have had to square up to the over-mighty who seek to place themselves above the law.
My third reason is the total lack of a proper apology by the editor of The Guardian. From time to time, we all allow our enthusiasm to run away with us and do things that we later regret. When I do that, I find people willing to accept a proper apology, while I want to hide in a dark corner for quite a while. But not so the editor of The Guardian. Over the past few days, and again in Mr. Preston's letter of resignation from the Press Complaints Commission last night, the nation has been treated to the mocking of decency and honesty, and to the attempted justification of deceit and deception.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilshire: No. I will press on because I have been generous with interventions up to now.
My description of the details of the allegations is based on comments made by Mr. Preston, Mr. Al Fayed and reports in The Guardian. In the circumstances, I hope that the House will find all those sources reliable. Last autumn, Mr. Al Fayed told Mr. Preston about a Ritz hotel bill. Quite how or why an extremely busy international tycoon found time to interest himself in such a matter of detail is not reported, as far as I can discover. Mr. Preston wanted a copy of that bill, while Mr. Al Fayed wanted to protect his own reputation and that of his hotel. They concocted a plan to forge a fax.
Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Are we debating whether the matter should be considered by the Committee of Privileges, or are we debating what should be discussed by the Committee at a later date?
Madam Speaker: That is a very good point of order. We are debating today whether the House should refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. I have just read the motion for the umpteenth time and it is very narrow. Although references may be made to certain matters, they should not be detailed and ought to be brief. The
1574
House should keep it in mind that it is considering only whether the matter should go before the Privileges Committee for detailed investigation there.
Mr. Wilshire: I shall certainly try to keep my reasons for wanting the matter referred as brief as I possibly can.
As I said, because Mr. Preston wanted a copy of the bill, a plan was concocted to forge a fax. I am no lawyer, but that sounds like a criminal conspiracy to me. As a result, Mr. Preston arranged for the top of a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), on official House of Commons stationery, to be stuck to the top of a fax to make it appear that it came from a Member of Parliament. That sounds remarkably like forgery to me.
Finally, Mr. Preston worded the fax to suggest that the sender was my right hon. Friend's private secretary. Lawyers to whom I have spoken tell me that that sounds remarkably like impersonation. Thus, it appears to me that Mr. Preston has admitted not only to an abuse of Parliament, but to criminal activity. That is why I have referred the matter to the police.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wilshire: No—I have detained the House long enough. I want to make a couple more points; then I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, could call the hon. Gentleman to speak, if he is on your list.
I can think of no better way to sum up my case than to quote something that I heard on Radio 4 on Monday morning:
"I think that anyone other than a Member of Parliament writing on parliamentary paper is unacceptable and I think that there does need to be some investigation into exactly what happened. I don't think it's right for others than Members of Parliament to take on that role, and I think there are some questions that need to be answered there."
I agree with every word of that comment made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), Labour's shadow Leader of the House. Thus the hon. Lady and I stand united across the party political divide. That is why I want the matter referred to the Privileges Committee. That is why I want to hear its verdict and its views on possible punishment. That is also why I welcome the verdict of a jury and the punishment handed down by a judge.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton)rose—
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the House is Chairman of the Privileges Committee, which will deal with the matter. He used his casting vote on a previous occasion, and I have no doubt that if it meets again he will use it for this matter. I want to know why he can take part in the debate, leading on behalf of the Government, when he will be acting as judge and jury.
Mr. Newton: As I had indicated to you, Madam Speaker, I felt it appropriate to say a word, but really only two sentences. First, as Leader of the House, I hope that the House will accept my hon. Friend's motion. Secondly, as Chairman of the Privileges

1575
Committee, I think that the House will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment beyond that.
4.2 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I, too, will be brief as the matter before the House is relatively straightforward and the motion is very narrow.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I very much regret the extravagant and intemperate language that he used, which did not help his case.
The basis of the complaint is that the editor—[Interruption.] If we are able to consider the matter carefully, it will do the House a great deal of good; it is an extremely important issue.
The basis of the complaint that the hon. Gentleman made, in respect of allegations that the editor of The Guardian used House of Commons notepaper and forged the signature of a member of staff of a Member of the House, is very serious, and on Monday, you, Madam Speaker, instigated inquiries through the Serjeant at Arms.
The motion proposes that the matter be referred to the Privileges Committee. Clearly, there has been a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. I repeat what I said on Monday morning, which the hon. Member for Spelthorne quoted. I made it clear, as soon as I heard the allegations against Mr. Preston, that for anyone other than a Member of Parliament to use official notepaper is completely unacceptable, as it clearly is for anyone to forge any signature. It is unacceptable behaviour for an editor of a newspaper or, indeed, for anyone else. Anyone who receives a letter on House of Commons writing paper must be able to believe that the letter is genuine, not least to protect our ability to serve our constituents. When we write to doctors, lawyers or, indeed, anyone else, those recipients must feel confident that the letters are genuine.
The reference to the Privileges Committee is therefore inevitable and entirely appropriate. I do not seek to defend the actions of the editor of The Guardian, or to justify them. Mr. Preston has said that, in retrospect, he may have been wrong to do what he did. He was wrong; he was foolish; and it is right for the Committee to consider his actions.
I hope that the Committee will also consider when hon. Members first knew of the fax, and of the forgery that forms the subject of this inquiry. It is important that the Committee finds out who knew about the forgery, when they knew about it and why, if Members of Parliament knew that there had been a flagrant breach of this kind, they did not report it earlier to you, Madam Speaker.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Why does the hon. Lady think that the timing is relevant? The important point is that either this was done, or it was not. I gather from what the hon. Lady is saying that she thinks it was thoroughly wrong to do it. It was against the principles and rules of the House, and that is the end of the matter.
Mrs. Taylor: I think that any hon. Member who finds that there has been a flagrant breach of privilege has a responsibility to report it to the House. I think it entirely right for the Committee of Privileges to examine this matter as well as the other details that have been mentioned.
1576
Statements have been made in today's press that Cabinet members—including the Prime Minister as well as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—knew all about the misuse of House of Commons paper several months ago. It is not for the House to consider that in detail this afternoon, but I believe that it is relevant to the inquiry, and I hope that the Committee will take that aspect on board.
The fact that Mr. Preston was wrong should not be used as a reason for ignoring the issues that he was raising and, indeed, the evidence that has come to light. Mr. Preston might claim that he used a foolish device to verify essential evidence and to protect his source of information. It is interesting that no one has challenged the factual information that he presented, nor are those facts challenged by this debate.
Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Lady, surely, is trying to change the facts completely. Surely what happened was a conspiracy by Mr. Preston to try to hide the fact that he was working with a blackmailer in an attempt to bring down the Government.
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the Privileges Committee will hear everything that is said. [Interruption.] As some of my hon. Friends are saying, it would be wise not to make allegations of that kind outside the House.
Mr. Corbett: I do not disagree with a word that my hon. Friend has said. Does she acknowledge, however, that although paragraph 7 of the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct, which was generally approved by the Government, states that subterfuge should not be used, it also states that it is possible if it is in the public interest?
Mrs. Taylor: It is interesting to note that, when Opposition Members have attempted to increase the accountability of the press, they have generally been blocked by Conservative Members. We are considering one aspect of the means used to obtain information. The ends do not justify the means, but neither do the means invalidate the attempts to raise issues of genuine and important public concern. The methods adopted raise some big questions and we should not lose sight of the fact that journalists and others are trying to prise out information because we do not have a sufficiently transparent system of accountability in this country. If we had a better system of registering the interests of Members of Parliament and Ministers, this might not have happened.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You told the House, rightly, that this is to be a narrow debate. The hon. Lady is attempting to make some party political points.
Madam Speaker: I am listening to the debate carefully; the hon. Gentleman can leave it in my hands. The hon. Lady is doing perfectly well at the moment. I believe that she is about to finish, if the hon. Gentleman will allow her to do so.
Mrs. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was about to conclude. I have tried not to be partisan because these issues are in the interests of us all.

1577
The Nolan committee will consider some of the wider issues, and it is important that the House does so too. Mr. Preston's action must be referred to the Privileges Committee, and I hope that its members will investigate all the issues that are raised by this reference.
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, arising from what was said by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who moved the motion. He said that he had reported this matter simultaneously to the police. For many years, the House, which has a jurisdiction of its own, has kept a wide boundary between its jurisdiction and that of the courts. If this is to be pursued in the courts with, presumably, a prosecution for forgery, while the Committee is handling the matter, we could be in difficulties.[Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen because this is a point of substance.
If the case is taken to court, it will be heard in open court, whereas in the Committee of Privileges it will be heard in secret.[Interruption.] Yes, that is the decision of the Committee. If Mr. Preston is referred to the Committee of Privileges and he asks for the right to print in his newspaper what happened in the Committee, he will be guilty of another breach of privilege for revealing the Committee's proceedings. I am drawing to your attention, Madam Speaker, an important question. We have stumbled into this without thinking it out. There are two jurisdictions and two regimes: an open regime in the court and a private regime in the Committee. If Mr. Preston were to be hauled up, he would be put in an impossible position.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but it is not a point of order for me. It is a speech that he might wish to make during the debate, when he may have something of substance to say. It is not a point of order at this time.
Mr. Benn rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling.
Mr. Benn rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down for a moment. I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. It is not a point of order at this stage. It is a point that right hon. and hon. Members may wish to employ during the debate. It is not a point of order on which I can rule.
Mr. Benn: With great respect, I have no intention of speaking today because I spoke on Monday. By accepting a motion after we have been told that the issue is going to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the House is infringed. That is a matter for you, Madam Speaker; it is not a matter of judgment for the House. It is for you to protect the jurisdiction of the House and to order the hon. Member for Spelthorne, if we do proceed, not to take the matter to the courts, otherwise the rights of the House of Commons will be taken over by the courts.
Madam Speaker: I gave the matter careful consideration before it came before the House today. There is no sub judice involved—we are perfectly in order, as was the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr.
1578
Wilshire) in moving the motion. I spent a great deal of time taking legal advice on the subject, and the way in which we are proceeding is perfectly in order.
Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you confirm that one reason why Committees sit in secret is that they collect evidence? Police and other investigations are carried out in secret, and only when all the information has been looked into and collected—
Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are attempting to conduct the debate through me. They must wait for me to call them. I hope that there will be no more points of order—we must proceed with the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, who has not had a point of order yet.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was rising to speak in the debate.
Madam Speaker: What a wise man. I shall call him after I have dealt with the points of order.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) asked a number of questions that other hon. Members had asked earlier. It was clear that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was either unable or unwilling to answer those questions, which related directly to the motion. The House requires clear information that the Leader of the House was unable to give—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, but a matter for debate. Hon. Members are raising matters for argument, not points of order. There has been no breach of our Standing Orders or procedures. Hon. Members are raising matters for debate across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Dalyell: I have a point of order that is directly for you, Madam Speaker; it falls within your jurisdiction. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) what possible relevance there was in the timing of all this. Is there not an obligation on the Government at least to give an explanation? They may have a perfectly good explanation, but the debate cannot continue without their explaining why something that was known in May was not tackled until November. That is a fundamental point and the Leader of the House of Commons has an obligation to explain.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me; it is a debating matter. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to extract information, which is perfectly reasonable, but he cannot extract information from me; he must do it through other hon. Members.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall take no more points of order.
4.17 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I wish to raise five matters that are relevant to the decision that we will be required to take later today. I shall confine those issues strictly within the bounds of the motion. I am well aware that some of what I have to say will not be palatable.
Before raising those issues, I want to ask the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) a question. She indicated that she intends to support the motion. In the light of her partisan statements and the partisan comments from Labour Back Benchers, I want to know whether the Opposition intend to support the referral of a breach of privilege to the Committee. Will the hon. Lady's Back-Bench colleagues support that referral?
Mrs. Ann Taylor: That is a matter for the House, and I hope that all hon. Members will exercise their judgment. I clearly said that I support the referral to the Select Committee on Privileges. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should ask me about that.
Mr. Gale: It seems that Opposition Members are trying to have their cake and eat it by half-heartedly condemning the clear breach of privilege while trying to curry favour with the press.
The press have sought to give the impression to the public that we are discussing the misuse of House of Commons writing paper and, in so doing, have sought to trivialise the matter. They have given the impression that we are talking merely about a letter that was written on paper, which we now know was not stolen paper but just the clipped heading of a piece of House of Commons paper. They have given the impression that the matter involved a trivial misuse, and simply represented a mistake.
That is not all that we are dealing with this afternoon. We are dealing first with the forgery of a letter purporting to come from a Minister of the Crown, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Secondly, we are dealing with a very clear intent to deceive. Thirdly, we are dealing with the impersonation not only of a member of the Chief Secretary's staff but of someone who was at the time a senior civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, whose signature was copied.
That is the first series of issues. They are not trivial matters but serious and possibly criminal offences. The use of writing paper was certainly a discourtesy to the House, but the matter goes much wider than that and we need to focus on it, however much others may seek to mislead the public.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: In the world of modern communications, whether one is dealing with a fax or another communication to a newspaper, are not the chances of a letter getting into general circulation—even with none of the explanations attached to it that the editor of The Guardian has sought to attach to it—such that they make such an action even more culpable and fraudulent?
Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I hope and believe that those responsible for bringing criminal charges in this case will consider his point very seriously. I would expect a criminal action to follow, but that is not what we are here to consider today.
1580
This matter does not relate only to The Guardian, although we are debating the referral of the actions of its editor to the Privileges Committee. The Guardian set itself up as the gamekeeper of political morality and all the other Fleet street newspapers clung to the gamekeeper's coat tails. The gamekeeper's coat pockets have now been found to be full of stolen pheasants. The other newspapers that ran stories about my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, that ran pictures of his wife and children and that sought to drag him and his down, are left with sizeable egg on their faces. If I may mix my metaphors, the rats are now quickly leaving a ship that is holed and sinking.
Mr. Chris Mullin: The hon. Gentleman, like me, is a journalist by profession. Is he even mildly curious about what the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement was doing in a hotel in Paris at the same time as three Saudi arms dealers?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) will not pursue that, as to do so would stray wide of the motion.
Mr. Gale: I am entirely content to accept the explanations that have been offered to the House, as they should have been, by my right hon. Friend. If I may digress slightly in response to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have cautioned the hon. Gentleman and the House. The hon. Gentleman knows full well how narrow the motion is. We are debating whether, if the House so wishes, to refer the matter to the Committee. We are not arguing the merits or demerits of any individual.
Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend is answerable not to The Guardian or any other medium but to two sets of people: his constituents and hon. Members. His constituents have faith in his integrity and he has answered to the House.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the tone of the debate, especially from the Opposition, is frightening? We have seen a casual disregard for the rule of law, which is a frightening portent of what would happen if the Labour party were to get into power.
Mr. Gale: Much has been made of the fact that knowledge of the forgery was in the hands of certain people—in particular, the Cabinet Secretary—some time ago. It is important that we consider that because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has referred to it, as have other Opposition Members. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my understanding is that referral of the forgery to the Press Complaints Commission was considered carefully by the Cabinet Secretary, who concluded that, as the editor of The Guardian was at that time a member of the commission, there was little point in asking the turkey to vote for Christmas.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Madden rose—
Mr. Gale: No, with respect to the hon. Gentlemen, I shall not give way. Many hon. Members wish to

1581
intervene in the debate. It is better if I conclude my remarks and let other Members make their own speeches.
Last night the editor of The Guardian resigned from the Press Complaints Commission, not as a matter of personal honour but as a result of pressure from inside the House.
We must consider another salient point. Throughout the affair, the Press Complaints Commission has maintained a stunning silence: not one word of condemnation has been heard. [Interruption.] It is another issue, but I suggest that the time has come for the House to create an independent press tribunal with statutory powers—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. We are not discussing any press tribunal. I have cautioned the hon. Gentleman; many people want to speak in the debate, and I now ask hon. Members to stay with the point and get on with debating the motion.
Mr. Gale: We have been discussing whether the editor of The Guardian, a former member of the Press Complaints Commission, should be referred to the Privileges Committee. I seek to give the House instances showing why I believe that that referral should and must take place. I believe that because of the forgery, the deceit and the impersonation that he has practised, using House of Commons notepaper, Mr. Preston's conduct as a member of the Press Complaints Commission is part and parcel of the matter that we are considering.
The press, especially the editor of The Guardian, have set themselves up as the guardians of the public interest, but that guardian angel has turned out to be the whore from hell. I believe that some good may yet come from the matter. If it is referred to the Privileges Committee and the Committee considers it correctly, as I believe it will, and the report is published and debated by the House in full, as it will be, the public may at last realise the depths to which that editor and others are prepared to sink to stand up a story at whatever cost to the truth.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) asked whether any hearing would be held in camera or in public. That is an interesting question, and I am sure that the press will take a keen interest in it. If the matter is referred to the Privileges Committee, as I believe it must be, I should prefer Mr. Preston to have the opportunity to give his evidence in private.
I believe that the Committee may also wish to call Mr. Al Fayed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fayed."]—and to hear Mr. Fayed's evidence in private. That should not be turned into yet another media circus and yet another feeding frenzy. For that reason, if for no other, I hope that the Committee, if the matter is referred to it, will decide to hold the hearings in private, and then to publish in full.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gale: No. I apologise to my hon. Friend, but as I refused to give way to Opposition Members I must refuse to give way to him too.
1582
I have written to the chairman of Guardian Newspapers to ask whether the company believes that its editor has acted properly and whether he still has the confidence of the board. If former Ministers should be required to resign their offices to clear their names, the editor of The Guardian should be required to do the same.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In deciding whether to support the motion, several of us will find ourselves in a dilemma because of the following question: did the editor of The Guardian and his newspaper, using House of Commons notepaper—using it wrongly; I do not try to justify its use—intend to serve a genuine public interest in trying to secure information that he believed could not be obtained in any other way? I ask you, Madam Speaker, whether in those circumstances we could have a little more information. As matters now stand, many of us will have some difficulty in approving the motion.
Madam Speaker: I feel that hon. Members are trying to debate the motion through the Speaker. I cannot answer questions such as that. Hon. Members have to attempt to extract that information from others. It is certainly not a point of order. Perhaps, if the debate were to proceed, we may get the information. If hon. Members were to speak briskly, I could call as many as possible and the information may come.
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: This is about the fourth point of order that I have had from the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Madden: It is relevant, Madam Speaker. As everyone so far has been unable or unwilling to answer the questions which a number of hon. Members have put, I assume that those questions were put by the Serjeant at Arms in the inquiries that you asked him to undertake. Therefore, assuming that his report has been completed, may I ask that it is made available to hon. Members before the vote takes place in the hope that the Serjeant at Arms' report reveals the information which a great many hon. Members require?
Madam Speaker: There is only one matter before the House today—the motion printed on the Order Paper. It is for the House to determine whether the subject is of such seriousness that we want it examined by our Privileges Committee. That is all. If we want to leave the matter as it is, the motion is defeated. If we want to go further into it, it is for the Privileges Committee to go into all those details, not the House at the present time. There is a simple motion before us.
4.30 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I suspect that some hon. Members would expect me to declare an interest in the present debate in the sense that I was the subject of what I considered a scurrilous piece of journalism by a sister paper of The Guardian fairly recently. Some may think that I rise, in some sense, to even the score, but I assure colleagues in the House that I shall be either abstaining or voting against the motion. I want to explain to the House and put into context the

1583
reason why I have come to that decision. As someone who co-authored a biography of Harold Laski, it is with some sense of irony that I speak today when we are looking at a problem involving the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Much of my time, when I was writing that biography, was involved with an illustrious or notorious predecessor of his in the famous Laski 1946 libel trial, which is interesting for the historical record.
It seems to me that there are two institutions in crisis at present in Britain. The first is our Parliament, where we seem to be in so many senses out of touch with what ordinary people think or believe or care about. This debate is very much about whether by its actions tonight, we will show that we are in touch with ordinary opinion or totally out of touch with it. The second institution that I believe is in crisis is the British media—the newspapers and the other media. One can analyse easily why our media are in crisis. It is a question of the new media of communication, increasing competition, new technology—
Mr. David Shaw: Low standards?
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman says it is also a question of low standards. Perhaps some of those low standards are a consequence of the failure of the Government to act on a crisis, which has been coming for a very long time and has been unanswered by the present Government. That is the crisis of increasing monopoly ownership of the media, cross-ownership of the media between the Fleet street media as they used to be called—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in attendance throughout the debate. He will have heard Madam Speaker's firm ruling on what the debate is about. It is certainly not about the ownership of the press.
Mr. Sheerman: Sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I only—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being sorry, but Madam Speaker has ruled and I am confirming her ruling. I should be most grateful if he carried on with whatever other points he has to make.
Mr. Sheerman: I was merely putting into context the reason why I shall be abstaining or voting against the motion tonight. As I was saying, the institutions that are out of touch with ordinary opinion are Parliament and the media. I was explaining why I believe that the media are in crisis. Increasingly, there is a war in Fleet street which is not just about price and whether The Times is 20p or The Independent is 30p. The war is also about who can produce the most scurrilous story.
That competition in Fleet street, not just in the tabloids which seem to concentrate more on the royal family and sex scandals, but in the broadsheets, seems to have undermined our strong and excellent tradition of investigative journalism. Investigative journalism now seems to be any story—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be having some difficulty relating his contribution to the motion. The motion is very clear about referring the matter to the Privileges Committee. Unless
1584
the hon. Gentleman can relate his remarks firmly to the motion, I must ask him to resume his seat or develop his argument properly.
Mr. Sheerman: I was about to develop that argument. I believe that Fleet street has moved towards picking up stories that are poorly researched and presented in a tradition of investigative journalism in respect of which we once led the world. I believe that that has led us to our present problems in respect of which the House is considering whether to approve the motion.
I believe that we should not pass the motion because the House is becoming out of touch with what ordinary people want and perceive. Day after day, ordinary citizens, including my constituents, face a serious and dangerous life with the press. These people are the subject of scurrilous stories. The person involved may be a plumber in Huddersfield. It may not involve a leading politician from an aristocratic background. However, the facts are the same.
When we are deciding whether to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee, we must bear in mind the impact on the rest of the country. If we are perceived to be members of a cosy little club which is going to rush off and have a special tribunal in order to try the editor of The Guardian just because someone has used a piece of House of Commons notepaper in a fax—
Mrs. Edwina Currie: If the hon. Gentleman believes that the behaviour of The Guardian should not be referred to the Privileges Committee, given that some of us would agree with his attitude towards scurrilous and ill-researched stories, what should be done with The Guardian?
Mr. Sheerman: Most sensible people outside the House would have said, "Ignore it." There has been an on-going investigation into the behaviour of certain hon. Members and members of the Government in particular. My answer to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is that the Government should act in terms of setting an example in public standards and introduce legislation which protects the ordinary citizen in this country in the way that the Government seek to protect a member of their own Government.
When an ordinary person in this country is attacked by the press and when an injustice occurs, there should be mechanisms for that ordinary citizen to obtain justice. Time after time, ordinary people are given no opportunity—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this debate is purely about whether the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee. The hon. Gentleman said three times that he was coming to that point, but on each occasion he has not come to it. This is the last time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now purely refer to whether the matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee and not refer to his constituents or to any problems they may have.
Mr. Sheerman: I was coming precisely to the point of advancing the argument that if we take part in a cosy conspiracy that leads to decisions being taken in secret in the House, ordinary people who are denied justice day after day throughout the country will feel angry and frustrated with this institution. I speak as one who

1585
understands very well what it is like to be the subject of a scurrilous story in the press. But what is the choice for the ordinary citizen? He has the option of an expensive libel suit or of going to the Press Complaints Commission, which has no real power or standing any longer. In short, there is no justice for the ordinary citizen.
If the House decides this evening to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee in this cosy little world of Parliament, that will prove more than ever before that the House is out of touch with the citizens of this country, and that it is about time it was reformed.
4.40 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: To say that the press or the elected members of this House are out of touch with ordinary people is perverse.
Newspapers have to find their constituency every day or every week among members of the public; and Members of Parliament, besides what they do between elections, have to take part in electoral contests when people have a choice. So to argue that any of us—journalists, editors, politicians, Ministers or shadow spokesmen—is out of touch is absurd.
Before dealing with the motion I should like to say where I stand. It is not easy to make a speech that is not popular or which does not seek party advantage. One of the tasks of this Parliament is to ensure that we frustrate all attempts to control the media.
Part of the freedom of the press is the freedom to be wrong. It is no true freedom if we say that the press has the freedom only to be right or to say things which it can prove in a court of law.
The Guardian is to be both congratulated and criticised—there were two examples of this yesterday. It is to be congratulated for its persistence over the years in the Carl Bridgewater case, over which the paper has challenged the courts. It is to be condemned—although not to the same degree—for its absurd front-page story about the Minister and the part-time dentistry.
What exactly are we trying to refer to the Committee of Privileges? The point at stake is a narrow one. I must declare an interest, as having earned £200 from The Guardian and accepted a meal from its editor. The issue solely concerns the use of the House of Commons letter heading. It does not concern whether a piece of paper was stolen—we do not know whether it was. At stake is the representation as from the House of Commons. We are not discussing the signature of the private secretary either.
The issue for the House concerns whether the editor is prepared to tell the Privileges Committee, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake."
There are of course plenty of other issues to debate, criticise or defend, but they are not especially important for the Committee.
Some issues should be discussed inside the newspaper itself and in the media generally: how far was The Guardian being used by other people? How far was it conscious of being thus used? Did the paper—regardless of my views—pursue what it thought was a legitimate line of inquiry?
The editor of The Guardian is not in the same position as other people. In times past the paper may have sought special privileges for itself, as it did in 1974–75 over the
1586
capital transfer tax and the wealth tax. It may have had the advantage of £70 million falling off the back of a lorry into its trust in 1990.
Its editor's position is in effect a protected freehold. There are also arguments within the trust about the independence and character of The Guardian. All these are matters for the paper to decide.
The House has two tasks, of which the first, for the Committee of Privileges, is to find an answer to the question: does the editor accept he was wrong to use the House of Commons letterhead, as he did?
Secondly, and away from the Committee, will we go on frustrating the efforts made by Members on both sides of the House to shackle the media? By all means let us get involved in arguments with the press and criticise it, but we must not use the Privileges Committee to try to control what journalists do in their legitimate role of vacuum cleaners, picking up the dirt and sifting it, sometimes making mistakes but often getting it right when they decide what to publish for the public.
4.44 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: We have just heard a sensible and refreshing speech by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley)—probably the only one of its kind that we shall hear from a Conservative Member today.
That Mr. Preston was wrong, and that The Guardian was unjustified and fell below acceptable standards in falsifying a fax transmission so that it appeared to come from a Member of this House has been frankly admitted.
I do not know what kind of admission Conservative Members expect from Mr. Preston. Do they expect him to walk naked through the snow, crying, "I'm guilty!"? We have already heard a great deal of exaggeration from Tory Members today.
Mr. Preston's act was certainly reprehensible, although in many ways the use of the House of Commons logo was less reprehensible than the use of the signature of an entirely innocent civil servant who has nothing to do with these issues.
All this is much to the discredit of The Guardian and Mr. Preston and it must colour how we decide to vote tonight. But what worries me about this debate, about the motion and about the whole issue is the fact that it has been characterised by an extraordinary outburst of self-righteousness and by subjective and political indignation of the kind that does this House no good. It brings politicians into further disrepute and it shows that at least some Members of the House are out of touch with the real indignation felt by members of the public about Members of Parliament. The public feel that some Members of this House do not seem to know the difference between the legitimate exercise of judgment, occasionally appetised by a free lunch, and burying their snouts so deep in corporate troughs that they have been able to enjoy a diet almost entirely comprising lobbyist-fed truffles.
Before we decide whether to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, let us look for a moment at the real effect of Mr. Preston's subterfuge. Amid the accusations of blackmail and forgery it has emerged—putting it at its lowest—that at least some of Mr. Al

1587
Fayed's statements are true. Still, it is not surprising that there should at an early stage have been a degree of mutual distrust between The Guardian and Mr. Al Fayed.
What is described in the motion as a letter was not used to deceive anyone in any responsible position, inexcusable though it was. Two conclusions should be drawn from this episode. The first is that Mr. Preston did go beyond the limits of legitimate journalism; that will certainly be a factor colouring how we vote later. The second conclusion is that the evidence confirmed as a result of the subterfuge raises matters in the public interest which are important and which require further explanation from the Chief Secretary—along with other allegations made in this morning's Daily Mirror which are also of great seriousness. Uncomfortable though Conservative Members may find it, it is a fact that, despite the subterfuge, The Guardian has done the country a service.
Sir John Gorst rose—
Mr. Carlile: I am sorry; a great many Members want to speak.
In my view, the House, in deciding how to vote on the motion, should accept that The Guardian should be congratulated on bringing into the public domain issues concerning the behaviour of Members of the House which are legitimate matters for public interest. Those are the issues that we must address in gauging the point on the scale of indignation where our judgment should rest at the end of the debate.
It should not be forgotten by those of us who go into the Lobby that the Government have known about the action on the part of Mr. Preston since 18 May. It should not be forgotten that the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) knew about the fax on 11 May. I have a copy of his response to it and it is extremely relaxed and far from as indignant as the expressions on his behalf by right hon. and hon. Conservative Members.
When we decide how to act tonight it should not be forgotten that the way in which the issue has emerged has involved a degree of politicisation of the Cabinet Secretary, a man of integrity, which has sent shudders through First Division civil servants. Nor should it be forgotten that the Government's incandescent reaction to Mr. Preston's conduct does not lie comfortably if a test of consistency is applied. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is not in his place now, but I heard him fulminating about how disgraceful it was for a piece of House of Commons notepaper to be used in a forged fax. Of course, he is right. He is also certainly right that an issue of that sort should go to the Committee of Privileges. But there should be a degree of consistency, so I ask Conservative Members why a very different view was taken in 1992 when someone employed by the Serious Fraud Office forged a fax from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir. D. Steel) on House of Commons paper.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not considering that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes, we are."] Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is experienced and learned and he knows that we are not considering on this motion evidence of activities that took place in 1992.
Mr. Carlile: In deciding how we vote tonight we are surely entitled to debate, among other things, the issue of how consistent the Government have been in their actions.
1588
On the occasion to which I referred, the Attorney-General—I am glad to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the Chamber because I gave notice that I intended to raise this issue as part of my argument—and the Government were satisfied enough for the Attorney-General to state on 7 July 1993 that that forgery was just an unfortunate practical joke committed on April Fool's day.
It would appear that a different set of values were applied to an attack on my right hon. Friend in a fax which was sent to those attending a court of law, in comparison with a fax that relates to a member of the Government.
Mr. Madden: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carlile: I shall not give way because many hon. Members wish to speak.
A Government who fail to take disciplinary measures against an officer of the law, who sent a forged fax to persons attending a court building, and in the name of a Privy Councillor, with the clear intention to deceive, are hardly in a position to do any more than set new standards of unjustifiable sanctimoniousness in respect of the fax under dispute, which deceived nobody.
The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken about his facts. The issue is remote from the debate. I would be grateful if he clarified those facts for himself before he proceeds further with that issue.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Tell us the facts then.
The Attorney-General: The error in his understanding is that the letter in question was produced by a police officer. The matter was looked at extremely carefully and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) and the hon. and learned Gentleman were carefully written to. He is misleading himself about the accuracy of the background.
Mr. Carlile rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. While it is perfectly fair and appropriate to refer to a number of incidents that took place when charging hon. Members to make up their minds, the hon. and learned Gentleman then developed his argument with the result that the Attorney-General quite rightly raised a point of order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is responsible for his own words, but it is my responsibility to ensure that he debates the motion. I trust that he will now return to it.
Mr. Carlile: I would like to answer the Attorney-General and would do so, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall obey your injunction.
I hope that no newspaper will ever again make use of the House of Commons logo or of a Member's name in the manner under debate. I also hope, however, that the Nolan committee, a rigorous inquiry by the Committee of Privileges and a thorough investigation by the Select Committee on Members' Interests will result in any future debates of this kind not being caused by highly questionable dealings with murky arms dealers, freebies at the Ritz and fistfuls of Harrods vouchers.

1589
Before we decide how to vote tonight many questions remain to be answered. The person who has already had the courage to ask many relevant questions has been the fallible Mr. Peter Preston. We should bear that in mind in deciding how we vote. I hope that after the reproof which the debate clearly implies, Mr. Preston will not only regret the sending of the fax, but will pursue issues such as: how can the Home Secretary really expect the House to believe that he was trying to ensure that Mr. Ali Al Fayed's nationality application was fairly—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman may be an experienced lawyer but those remarks are entirely out of order and beyond the scope of the debate. If he has nothing else to say, I should be grateful if he concluded because a number of hon. Members wish to speak. Does he have anything further to say?
Mr. Carlile: It is my submission to the House that if there is to be a reference to the Committee of Privileges, the sort of question to which I started to allude should not be cast away in a cursory inquiry. It is not enough for the Committee of Privileges simply to demand Mr. Preston's attendance so that he can say sorry.
On balance, I shall vote for the motion because I trust the Committee of Privileges to carry out a full inquiry. I also trust it to include the actions not only of Mr. Preston, but of all those right hon. and hon. Members who have been tainted by evidence that their pockets may have dictated their judgment. I also trust the Committee to include evidence not only from those right hon. and hon. Members, but from Mr. Al Fayed and Mr. Rowland. I trust it to carry out a rigorous inquiry, free from party interest and founded, for a change, upon a genuine search for the truth.
4.57 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I hesitate to say anything that may get Mr. Peter Preston off the hook, partly because he was the newspaper editor who shopped Sarah Tisdall and ensured that she went to prison and partly because, some years ago, I had occasion to look into the background of Mr. Al Fayed and I am bound to say that I came to the conclusion that he was pathologically corrupt. I will say something on behalf of Mr. Peter Preston, however, and argue why we should not refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges.
In terms of consistency, equity and fairness the public will be a bit uneasy about what the House is doing tonight. Some years ago, a question arose about the use of Downing street notepaper by Mr. Denis Thatcher. On that occasion, I do not remember some demented hyena from Thanet, North fulminating at the mouth—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure if I heard the hon. Gentleman right, but if he used the term "demented hyena", I would be most grateful if he would withdraw it.
Mr. Sedgemore: I shall certainly withdraw the remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) fulminating at the mouth and asking that Mr. Denis Thatcher be reported to the
1590
Privileges Committee, brought to the Bar of the House, or humiliated in some other way. We must treat the editor of The Guardian in the same way as the husbands of Prime Ministers.
On the subject of notepaper, we can all fulminate somewhat pompously about the use of that paper. Like everyone else, I have to deprecate its use by anyone other than a Member of Parliament, although on at least one occasion I used a sheet of House of Commons notepaper for private and personal business. I suppose that that constitutes theft, but I am not sure. Even this morning, I received a note from the researcher of another Member of Parliament on a little sheet of House of Commons notepaper, which asked me out to lunch. I am not sure where that comes in the great pantheon of such things, but we can whip ourselves up into an unjustified frenzy.
I understand that additional factors are involved and I will come to them, but I am concerned that the public will think that the British establishment and Parliament are once again saying that the accuser should become the accused. It would not be the first time that that has happened here or in some other countries.
In the mid-1980s, I investigated a bank and Lloyd's. We were not talking about a sheet of notepaper, but of millions of pounds and of hundreds of millions. A small analogy is that at the end of the investigation, a detective chief inspector and a detective sergeant came to question me in a room in this House and suggested that I might be a conspirator in the case and that the whole investigation might have been a result of my conspiring with someone who ran abroad to destabilise the British Government. That is absurd. The accuser became the accused.
In Italy recently, Mr. Berlusconi found himself in difficulties. He was accused and what did he do? He turned on the judges and said that they were breaking the law and the constitution. There is always a tendency for people who are engaged in wrongdoing to protect themselves by attacking others.
The public may think that that is what is happening in this case. Mr. Peter Preston has launched some allegations, some of which may be true and some false, but we are being asked to turn him into the defendant and the criminal to deflect those allegations.
I am sure that Madam Speaker has been given the highest legal advice and I would not challenge anything that she said. I speak as a very modest and humble lawyer. Whatever the legal advice she has been given, once the matter is referred to the Privileges Committee, it will find itself in conflict with the law. Today, we have heard several allegations about criminal offences—mostly judicially illiterate stuff, but never mind that—committed by Mr. Peter Preston. When the Committee launches its inquiry, even within the terms of the motion on the Order Paper, it will have to discuss whether he has committed those offences.
Neither the House nor the Privileges Committee has any right to act as a court of law in a criminal case. For the Privileges Committee or the House as a whole to set themselves up as a court of law in a criminal case is both improper and unconstitutional. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) raised a point of law. Perhaps he should have raised it as a point of debate. That seems the most powerful reason for us to decide that there is another way out.

1591
In that splendid voice, which is renowned throughout the world, Madam Speaker gave Mr. Peter Preston a wigging. She made it clear exactly what she thought of him. She does not like what he did and nor do most of the rest of us. Surely that is enough. We do not want to become involved in a conflict between this House and the judiciary and we do not want to make ourselves look absurd or pompous.
5.4 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) as he used many of my arguments, so my remarks can be shorter.
Notwithstanding my long interest in the freedom and the responsibilities of the press, the very fact that we are dealing with the press today shows that the issue of privilege is involved. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) carefully argued that there is a delicate balance between press freedom and the freedom of the press to investigate politicians.
My argument follows directly on from that of my colleague the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. If we bring a newspaper editor before the Privileges Committee and possibly to the Bar of the House to be disciplined in some way for raising questions about the Government's conduct, the House will be misunderstood. People outside will not understand—although they have reason to criticise the press and be critical of the way in which it deals with individuals and groups—primarily because they also understand that one of the roles of the press is to call to account the Executive and to some extent the legislature. For that reason, the House needs to be very careful before it disciplines the press.
Part of the function of the press is to challenge us. That does not make Peter Preston right over the fax. Clearly, he was wrong and has said so openly.
I remind Conservative Members who are minded to vote for the motion to remember that the Opposition have infinitely more experience of our party being attacked by the press. It happens all the time [Laughter.] Yes, it happens all the time. That situation has changed in recent years, not because the press has been critical of the Tory party, but because of criticism of the present Prime Minister. I accept that that is happening in a major way, but that does not alter the fact that usually the Labour party is attacked. That should not trouble us in this debate but it warns both parties and all Members of Parliament that we would be setting a dangerous precedent by arraigning an editor.
If I wanted to be Machiavellian I might suggest that Conservative Members should think carefully about what is involved. If I became aware of a breach of privilege of the House I would have two options—bring the matter to the notice of the House or say nothing about it. I might have good reason for doing the latter, but what would happen if another Member of Parliament brought up the matter, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) did today? It would then be debated in the Privileges Committee and afterwards in the Chamber arid hon. Members might want to know why the breach was not reported in the first instance—in this case, back in May. In all honesty, if the Conservative party wants to debate
1592
that in such a way, from a purely party political point of view I should be happy to do so. However, I do not think that it makes much sense for it to do so.
In this case, it would be a serious mistake for the House to overreact and to arraign the editor of The Guardian before a Committee of the House. It would be totally misunderstood outside, as some of my colleagues said. If anyone has doubts, he should refer to the debate in the House on 24 January 1957, when it arraigned Sir John Junor, then the editor of the Sunday Express, to appear before it. I have little time for him as I think that he was an appalling editor, but that is neither here nor there. The House called him before it because he claimed that if petrol rationing came in, Members of Parliament would vote themselves large allowances to get round it. When we look back on that case, we think that it was crazy and that we were going over the top.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman has an account of the words that John Junor used, perhaps he would share them with the House.
Mr. Soley: The words are not recorded in Hansard. However, if the hon. Gentleman buys today's copy of The Guardian he will find them accurately reported there. Mr. Junor was alleging that hon. Members would abuse their position by ensuring that they had additional rations.
Mr. Bottomley: Mr. Junor did say he was sorry.
Mr. Soley: That is right.
I say in all seriousness that the House should not get into this ball game and arraign editors of the press. As I showed clearly through my Freedom and Responsibility of the Press Bill, many people outside the House have good reason to be angry about press irresponsibility. What happens to them is often far more serious than what happens to Members of Parliament and Ministers, who are better able to defend themselves. If we took a hard line with editors when they attacked Members of Parliament, but not when they attacked vulnerable groups or individuals outside the House, that would be utterly misunderstood, and rightly so.
It would be much better to back off now, which is why I shall vote against the motion. Although Mr. Preston was wrong to send the fax, it would be stupid and wrong of the House to arraign a member of the press. If we did, when we looked back on it in 20 years' time, as we look back now to the 1957 example, we would say, "What on earth were we doing? What on earth were we thinking about?"
I would be tempted to vote for the motion only if, included in the Committee's deliberations was the question of why hon. Members and members of the Government, who were aware of the breach of privilege in May, did not choose to report it to the House.
5.11 pm
Mr. George Galloway: I declare an interest as a journalist who has very occasionally worked for The Guardian.
I oppose the motion without in any way minimising the serious error of judgment of which Peter Preston is guilty. I have been the victim of not one, but two forged letters on my headed notepaper. Both of them were given to the police and thoroughly investigated, although the culprits have not yet been found. The hurt and anger caused when

1593
someone's headed notepaper has been used to impersonate and misrepresent, and the plausibility of a letter purported to come from a Member of Parliament, are serious matters. However, it is critical that the House keeps the matter in perspective and avoids over-reaction.
The earlier part of the debate, although not the later, was not an edifying sight. Tory Members worked themselves into a lather—this time it was against the left-wing newspaper The Guardian, but only a few months ago it was against the right-wing newspaper The Sunday Times. They have shot the messenger and disregarded the message. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) cried "smear". If any hon. Member knows about smears, it is him. It has not been a pretty sight.
I began to question the judgment of Mr. Peter Preston long ago, even though I occasionally took work from him. As has been said, he caused a young, vulnerable woman, Sarah Tisdall, to go to prison because of his failure to protect her as his source in the Ponting case. Perhaps Mr. Fayed, a richer and much more powerful individual, required more protection than that young, vulnerable woman, but that does not strike me as being very plausible.
I believe that Mr. Preston will regret the extent to which he climbed into bed—I hope that you will forgive that phrase, Mr. Deputy Speaker—with Mr. Fayed. His name is not Al Fayed; that is one of the many misrepresentations of which he has been guilty while in this country. He is a liar and a crook. The Government's investigation of him during the takeover of Harrods made that quite clear. He was thrown out of Haiti by Papa Doc, who could not bear his stench of corruption. He blackmailed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying beyond the motion. Will he return to it, please?
Mr. Galloway: I accept your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the fact that Mr. Preston's judgment is flawed for all to see is germane to whether we should leave the matter there as has been suggested, or compound it by referring it to the Privileges Committee. Nevertheless, I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will say no more about Mr. Fayed—other than that the editor and Members of Parliament who were in bed with him will have cause to regret it. He is a man who keeps the receipts; he is a man who keeps the tape recordings; he is a man who, as we may soon discover, even keeps the video recordings from the bedrooms of the Ritz.
It is not plausible for hon. Members to work themselves into a lather about the mere misuse of a House of Commons logo. After all, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) emblazoned one on the elegant ankle of a stockinged lady on the cover of her sexy novel, which is selling like cold cakes in the remainder shops.
1594
I do not know whether the former Prime Minister's son, when travelling in her gravy train, ever used House of Commons notepaper, but his father certainly did.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an abuse of the debate. I should be grateful if, for the second time of asking, the hon. Gentleman would return to the motion.
Mr. Galloway: You are the boss, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that precedent and consistency are issues—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be so, but conjecture is not.
Mr. Galloway: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall avoid conjecture.
Many people misuse our notepaper. Indeed, one hon. Member used it to send out an offer of South African wine at knocked-down prices under apartheid. It was the Member for Pretoria, South or Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle); I forget which. The fact is that many people have done similar things. It is always wrong, but it is important to keep a sense of perspective—
Mr. David Shaw: That was not forgery.
Mr. Galloway: Forgery is a criminal offence. I am not a lawyer, but I know that for something to be a crime there must be criminal intent. I do not believe that any hon. Member thinks that Peter Preston, as fallible and mistaken as he was, did what he did with criminal intent.
Mr. Shaw: It was forgery.
Mr. Galloway: It was forgery only if it was done with criminal intent.
Mr. Shaw: Peter Preston has already admitted forgery; the question is whether that is a criminal offence. As I understand it, forgery in itself is not necessarily a criminal offence—although it is a very serious matter—and that an important factor is whether there was financial gain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that financial gain may have been the intent both of Mr. Fayed and of Mr. Preston, in terms of increasing his newspaper's circulation.
Mr. Galloway: Forgery, by definition, is a crime. If Mr. Preston is guilty of forgery, he is guilty of a crime. However, he can be guilty of forgery only if his action was based on criminal intent. Many people sign documents when they apply for jobs as our researchers and they are not always open and above board, but we do not drag them before the Privileges Committee. Perhaps we should. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dover brought a prostitute into the House under bogus—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will know that I am not a lawyer either and we are not here to debate the legal definition of certain acts. We are here to debate whether, under the motion, the editor of The Guardian should appear before the Privileges Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now succinctly put his reasons why that should or should not happen.
Mr. Galloway: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having been dragged into the gutter most often frequented by the hon. Member for Dover. The electorate will deliver its verdict on the hon. Gentleman very shortly.

1595
Peter Preston has been a fool; he may even have been a knave, but the public outside are more concerned about the activities and actions of Members of the House of Commons than they are about the actions of newspaper editors. If we fool ourselves about that we do ourselves and this place no credit at all. We shall merely deepen the deep cynicism and hostility that is growing in the country towards Parliament if we are seen to pursue the mediaeval route of dragging a newspaper editor to the Bar of the House, uncovered, as the regulations say, and arraigning him for an offence of bad judgment when so many Members of the House of Commons daily demonstrate bad judgment themselves.
5.21 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I have three interests to declare. First, some 20 years ago I had the honour to be president of the National Union of Journalists. I am now a Member of Parliament but I still consider myself in part a journalist—an honourable, decent and necessary profession.
Secondly, I have taken The Guardian shilling, so I must declare some fees from that paper. However, even after several years of attempting to get my articles accepted, my fees do not yet amount to the £1,000 offered and accepted by two Conservative Members for asking questions.
Thirdly, on the issue of subterfuge, which is part of the debate, I was dismissed by the BBC some 20 years ago when, on the instruction of a producer, I faked a phone call to a phone-in programme on the BBC. I paid a heavy professional price and thus I was interested when I heard the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the chairman of the Conservative party, at the recent Bournemouth conference, invite Gideons, as he called them, to make fake phone calls to put in propaganda on behalf of the party.
Mr. David Ashby: What has that got to do with the motion?
Mr. MacShane: What it has to do with it is that 20 years ago that was the standard set for subterfuge. Two or three weeks ago, that standard disappeared when a Cabinet member invited the British public to practise subterfuge on our airwaves.
The logo is germane to the debate. I am concerned about that because this weekend my children got hold of some House of Commons notepaper and were busy scribbling on it. I am not sure whether they will have to be brought before the Committee of Privileges. If they are, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not be taking notes of what they have to say, but instead will read them one of the fairy tales with which he so often beguiles the nation.
It is difficult for Opposition Members ever to book a Dining Room in the corridor downstairs. Time and again they are all being used for Tory fund-raising dinners organised on House of Commons notepaper. Reference has been made to the wonderful book of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). We authors appreciate each other's writings. I enjoyed the hon. Lady's book and I understand why she put the House of Commons logo on its cover.
1596
We come then to the question of forgery. I read in The Times this morning that in the 18th century someone was executed for forging a letter. We have heard much talk of crime. I understand that the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), is also referring the matter to the police. We have heard a great deal of talk that what took place was a criminal action. I cannot understand then why in May, when the Chief Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary and the Prime Minister knew of this so-called criminal action, it was not reported to anyone. Either it was a crime then or it was not. If it was, they were grossly derelict in their duty.
The NUJ and the Press Complaints Commission have a code of conduct which covers matters such as this. The NUJ code states:
"A journalist shall obtain information, photographs and illustrations only by straightforward means. The use of other means can be justified only by over-riding considerations of the public interest. The journalist is entitled to exercise a personal conscientious objection to the use of such means."
The code of conduct of the Press Complaints Commission is along much the same lines. It would be helpful if the two could be combined and we could, to use a phrase from the Government, have a charter of journalism that could be taught in schools. It would not be a statutory code, but it would be part of a journalist's way of life.
There we have the words:
"The use of other means can be justified only by over-riding considerations of the public interest."
The person who decided that dodgy stays in the Ritz were a matter of public interest was not Mr. Preston but the Prime Minister when he dismissed the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) for taking that money and staying in the Ritz. He dismissed another Minister for having a financial relationship with Mr. Fayed. It was the Prime Minister who decided that there was overriding public interest.
So we come to the question of Mr. Preston. Yes, he was wrong, and every single journalist to whom I have spoken since the affair broke agrees that he was wrong. The Sarah Tisdall affair was referred to earlier. There was no question then, when Mr. Preston did the Government a favour by shopping her, of bringing him to the Bar of the House, but Mr. Preston suffered—
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the use of the word "shopping" in that context?
Mr. MacShane: I am sorry. Perhaps that is a question that Ms Tisdall and Mr. Preston can answer better than I can.
The obloquy that Mr. Preston suffered then came from his journalist peers, just as the unhappiness that he feels today is because many British journalists think that he has done wrong. The tone of remarks made so far in the debate is probably winning, minute by minute, the journalists and the people of Britain to Mr. Preston's side. I would regret that.
The House can make a gesture tonight, but the real problem is that the House is parlous in so many things. We live in a form of democratic, one-party state. We have a centralised Government who have replaced local and other democracies with their placemen and their wives. The press, for all its faults, is our only bulwark against the kind of centralisation of power that we are daily witnessing.
I am a new Member. As a son of two immigrants who, in years gone by, would have loved to have had parliamentary democracy, I value what the House stands for. On a

1597
question such as this, if it is the House versus the press, the British people, able to vote every five years for a new House, will prefer to support those who have brought the attention of the public to matters of grave concern.
I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). However, his conclusion in no way followed from his argument. I shall be going into the No Lobby tonight.
5.29 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I have no criticism of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who is an honourable man, but I am surprised that he learnt only recently of the alleged fraud in question.
Mr. Wilshire: I lead a sheltered life.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman must lead a cloistered existence—one that does not involve reading newspapers, which is unusual for a Member of Parliament.
An atmosphere of hysteria is settling over the House, and that is destructive. Mud tends to stick to all of us, even the most innocent—of which, I hasten to add, I am not one. Therefore, it is important that these matters are speedily and publicly resolved.
I am not interested in the actions of the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) or in who paid for his weekend in Paris. I recognise that there could be implications for the rules governing the conduct of Ministers, but that is for others to decide. Much as I would like to, I cannot condone the methods by which information on the hotel bill of the right hon. Member for Thanet, South was secured, although I suppose that a public interest defence could be entered. Only time will tell whether the methods used were justifiable.
It is not simply a matter of using House of Commons notepaper. That has been done by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. They had their wrists slapped, but they were not reported to the Committee of Privileges. There is an added dimension, in the form of a signature that purported to come from the office of the right hon. Gentleman. That is different from just using a piece of House notepaper.
We are told that time is of the essence in everything that we do, and this matter is out of time. That is why I shall not support the motion in the Lobby tonight. One keeps returning to relevant questions. When did the right hon. Member for Thanet, South first become aware of the use of House of Commons notepaper in a letter purporting to come from him? It appears that he knew around 10 May. In a letter to the editor of The Guardian, the right hon. Gentleman said that he clearly knew of that and would report it to the Government.
When the Ritz found out that it had received an illegal or fraudulent fax purporting to come from the right hon. Gentleman, it alerted him immediately. He faxed back this germane reply:
"The Guardian article has caused surprisingly little serious interest here, probably because it was one of the most boring journalistic examples of an Editor's personalised obsession ever to find its way into print in a newspaper. Moreover there is really little or nothing for
1598
even an ill-wisher to follow up since nobody has done anything wrong, even in the light of The Guardian's somewhat flawed and inaccurate story.
Because of the above-mentioned reaction my present plan is, as my teenage children would say, to 'stay cool'. However, I am taking further legal advice and so is the Government in the light of the new dimension to the story which your fax has revealed."
That fax was dated 11 May. If the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to stay cool on 11 May, why are Conservative Members getting hot about the issue on 2 November?
Mr. Dalyell: Was there not at least a moral obligation on the part of the Leader of the House to give his parliamentary colleagues in all parts of the House some explanation for that delay? Apart from anything else, that would have been good parliamentary manners. Normally, the parliamentary manners of the Leader of the House are impeccable. On this occasion, he owed it to us, as a matter of debt, to provide an explanation. There may be one, but we have not heard it.
Mr. Banks: I entirely agree. Appropriate answers might colour our judgment on how to vote later. The hon. Member for Spelthorne, by his own admission, did not know anything about it before, so he cannot answer questions arising out of his own motion. That is an absurd way to conduct tonight's business.
As to the time factor, in a letter to the editor of The Guardian dated 18 May, the Cabinet Secretary clearly said that he also knew about the use of House notepaper and the fraudulent use of name purporting to represent the right hon. Member for Thanet, South. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister himself did not possess knowledge of the alleged forgery in May.
Why was no fuss made in May about serious matters that we are asked to consider on 2 November? Why were the House authorities not alerted to those serious matters in May? Why were you, Madam Speaker, not told about them in May, when you might have decided to refer them to the Privileges Committee? You, Madam Speaker, were kept in the dark from May until November, which shows great disrespect to you and to your office.
Mr. Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are also entitled to know whether the Attorney-General gave any advice? Was the matter referred at any time to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to the House authorities? It is wrong that the Leader of the House or somebody else representing the Government did not give the House the information that it has been seeking for the past three hours.
Mr. Banks: I agree entirely. As you tell us, Madam Speaker, time is of the essence when contacting your office in respect of a private notice question. We must demonstrate that we were unable to come to you with knowledge at the time that we first knew about it. We are often ruled out because of time. The motion should have been ruled out for the same reason. Conservative Members, and particularly the principals concerned, had ample time to raise the matter with you. Of course one accepts your ruling, Madam Speaker, but it seems to me that the motion should not have been accepted in the first place.
If the right hon. Member for Thanet, South felt aggrieved and if the matter was so serious, why was no action taken at the earliest possible date? We must return to the question again and again. If we cannot defeat the motion, the Privileges Committee must consider the issue. I suggest that when it does, it throws the complaint out.

1599
The alleged fraud surfaced publicly only last weekend, in The Sunday Telegraph. That is a fine choice of newspaper. One knows why the information was put in that loyal Tory newspaper. If Mr. Preston did something wrong, he did it more than six months ago. All the principal characters in this saga knew about it. It was not a matter, as the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said, of considering whether the matter should be referred to the Press Complaints Commission. All the principal characters had a duty to bring the matter before the House and to complain here—not to shove it on to the PCC. If such action were appropriate then, now that Mr. Preston has resigned from the PCC perhaps the motion should be withdrawn and the matter referred to the commission now. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways.
Sir David Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Press Complaints Commission will sit in secret and that we shall never have a full account of its proceedings?
Mr. Banks: I am sure that among all those trustworthy journalists, one would be prepared to leak what happens on the commission.
We are witnessing an organised exercise in synthetic anger, devised to divert attention. What value can we place on today's outrage when it has spent six months in preparation? It is synthetic outrage.
The last question that I want to address is to someone who is not present in the Chamber—the principal character, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South. Did he want the matter to be referred to the Committee of Privileges? He had ample opportunity to do so. He is not present to answer that question. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the hon. Member for Spelthorne to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee? If the aggrieved party decided not to refer the matter to the Committee himself, the hon. Member for Spelthorne should not have done so.
Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman asked me a simple question—
Madam Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) giving way?
Mr. Banks: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman asked me a simple question, to which the answer is no.
Mr. Banks: Well, I must say in conclusion, then, that it is very noble of the hon. Member for Spelthorne to work up so much anger on behalf of the right hon. Member for Thanet, South when his right hon. Friend knew about it on 11 May and said that his position was to "stay cool". I suggest that that is good advice and the House should follow it tonight.
5.39 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I declare an interest because, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out, I do a bit of freelance writing, although I feel bound to observe that, as The Guardian pays so badly, my work very seldom appears in that newspaper. I also, perhaps, have slightly more experience of the matter than many hon. Members, because earlier this year I was referred to the Committee of Privileges, as Madam Speaker will remember, on the same question of the use of the House of Commons logo.
1600
It seems to me that there are a number of problems, some of which have been sensibly highlighted by the speeches that we have heard, about the whole idea of referring to the Committee of Privileges. Hon. Members suggested that that will be seen as if the House of Commons is acting trivially. Of course, that is a difficulty. One of the reasons for my distinctive behaviour earlier this year was that I took the view then—indeed, I take it now—that the reputation of the House is determined not by a squiggle on a piece of paper, but by the behaviour of all its Members and Officers.
Nevertheless, it is well to put on record, as I have been criticised for it twice so far in speeches by Opposition Members, that following the representations that were made to me, including your own, Madam Speaker, I asked my publisher to take the logo off and to modify it, and Opposition Members who trouble to buy a copy of the paperback edition, which is now available at £8.99—[Laughter.]—will find that the logo has been altered.
Another difficulty with the Committee of Privileges, and a much more serious one, is that hon.
Members may be seen to be protecting themselves, and reference to the Committee is seen in that way. In many ways, that does not invalidate the motion. A difficulty will be created, however, if hon. Members will not serve on that Committee. It would make far more sense if hon. Members who said that they are concerned that Members are seen by the public to be protecting themselves were clamouring instead to serve on the Committee of Privileges and, indeed, were voting for the motion. That is rather more the attitude of Front-Bench Opposition Members, who, I understand, plan to vote for the motion. It is a long-standing practice in the House that there is no party difference on references to the Committee of Privileges. It is a shame if some hon. Members prejudge its activities by refusing to serve on it.
A different problem, which, correctly, has been raised, is whether the Committee of Privileges is a serious enough body to bring home to The Guardian and other press representatives their duty to behave responsibly. That is why I put a question earlier to a Labour Member, who was so agitated about the press and had such strong reasons for feeling concern at the way in which it sometimes operates against many of us and many other people in public and private life. He said that he was going to abstain or vote against the motion. I asked him what he would do if the press behaved so badly and if there are so many criticisms correctly to be made, if he did not vote for the Committee of Privileges in this case. His answer was, "Ignore it." That is not good enough. We cannot ignore it, so we should vote for the motion.
Much inconsistency has also been flying around tonight. One of the reasons why I came to listen to the whole debate and eventually sought permission to speak was that we have heard speech after speech from Opposition Members deploring subterfuge and bad behaviour, and praising high standards. I must tell them that that applies to the press as well, and that the behaviour of hon. Members and members of the press is not mutually exclusive. We are all expected by our constituents and our readers outside to behave according to the highest possible standards. If it applies to the press as well, it should be appropriate to vote for the motion and take one small step, possibly, to try to re-establish the reputation of what in the past has been a great newspaper.

1601
The real privilege in the House is the right to speak freely. In fact, it is the only privilege that is really worth having. It has been somewhat abused today by much of what has been said, and some of the views that have been flying around have rightly been pulled up by yourself, Madam Speaker, and your deputy. But that privilege has existed in the House for centuries. That is the source of the prohibition on general publication that we had in the House until 1972. Hansard publishes only with the permission of the House.
It is necessary for us to be able to speak in this place without fear. That is a privilege that I have used sparingly from time to time, and I am glad that I have had that opportunity. Scrutiny by the press is one thing, but subterfuge is another, and that is the issue at the heart of The Guardian's bad behaviour. That is why it is right that it should be considered by a Committee of the House. That is why I shall vote for the motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I am not seeking to frustrate hon. Members who have been here throughout the debate and who still seem to want to speak, but I ask them for a little voluntary restraint, as we have been debating the motion for two hours.
5.45 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the House would like to draw to a conclusion and proceed to a Division, I shall make only three succinct points.
I am the only hon. Member in the House—my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) did not have to do it—who has actually had to stand where that white line is on the Floor of the Chamber and face a full House of Commons, as a result of the Privileges Committee. Whatever anybody says, I do not believe other than that people would find it an awesome and rather terrifying experience. I can assure hon. Members that, having had to be in that position, I know that it is not something that is lightly undertaken.
That is not only my view as a Member of the House of Commons. It was also the view of John Junor. I know because I talked to him about it. As an outsider, he, too, found it an awesome experience. Therefore, what we are proposing for Peter Preston is an extremely serious matter, and we cannot pretend otherwise. Some people may laugh it off, but it is no laughing matter to be brought before the legislature of one's country.
That leads me to the first question. Are we sure that we have got it in proportion? Many other people have done other—shall we say "controversial"—things, who, perhaps, might have greater deserts than being brought to the Bar of the House. So on proportionality I have doubts.
Secondly, I have further doubts, because there are conflicting matters. All right, there is the issue of misbehaviour over House of Commons notepaper, and forgery. There is one point on which I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—I do not think that the matter is straightforward. Nothing to do with the Privileges Committee, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) knows, is straightforward.
1602
The matter of protection of sources is a very important issue. It was most succinctly put in an excellent book, well written, called "Officially Secret". This is what the author said:
"In my reply to General Alexander, dated 20 January, my first priority was to assure a helpful contact that I would obey one of the fundamental rules of journalistic ethics and would not reveal him as my source. I therefore wrote in my reply: 'As for your having shown me a copy I will maintain a grave-like silence about this. Indeed in the very unlikely event of anyone asking me I will know nothing whatever of the existence of your copy.'
My second priority",
says the author,
"was to protect my own subsequent contacts over the Scott Report delivery to the Telegraph. In order to keep all knowledge of Curtis Brown Limited, Hugh Fraser and Yorkshire Television out of reach of the possible investigations, I ended my letter to the General on an ingenuous note, giving the impression that I had no idea how Hugh Fraser got his copy of the document, and finished with the words:
If I hear any Fleet Street or Biafra lobby gossip on the Scott leak I will let you know. I am most grateful to you for writing as you did about all this, and can assure you that my lips are very firmly sealed—Yours ever, Jonathan."
"Jonathan" was Jonathan Aitken, and it was an extremely good book. He put the point about sources as eloquently as I have ever seen a point about the protection of sources put.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Surely the point is that the protector of sources is meant to have been Mr. Fayed himself, who was deceiving his own employees. That is what is now being put around. I, for one, do not understand how the editor of The Guardian can have been required to deceive Mr. Fayed's employees with Mr. Fayed's collusion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain that.
Mr. Dalyell: I admit that my answer to that question wil be tangential. This is a grey area.
For 11 days I sat in the Old Bailey during the trial of Clive Ponting. Reference—ill conceived, in my view—has been made to Sarah Tisdall by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). The position was more complicated than he suggested. There but for the grace of God went I, in relation to Ponting: fortunately, I kept it as a proceeding in Parliament. But what should people do in such circumstances? Some might argue that the Ponting trial, and what Massiter and Tisdall did, were in the public interest; that too is controversial. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made a legitimate, fair and pertinent intervention, but, as I have said, this is a grey area.
You asked me to be brief, Madam Speaker, but may I have one last go at the Leader of the House while the House is quiet? I feel that this question is very important. I genuinely do not understand the position.
It is said that the Government knew about the matter in the middle of May, when it was the subject of considerable discussion among members of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) referred to the letters, but he and I know—as will anyone else who reads them—that it was not just a case of Ministers dropping off odd letters; there was intense discussion in the Government.
At the beginning of the debate, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury to ask, "What on earth

1603
is the relevance of time?" Let me say to the Leader of the House—gently, I hope—that that is exactly what bothers us. The reason why we went on about time at the very beginning is our unworthy suspicion—we may be told that it is misplaced, but we feel it nevertheless—that the Government thought, "Ah: in extremis, we now have knowledge of the forged letter." That knowledge, thought the Government, would keep The Guardian quiet, and would stop it asking all sorts of questions about other matters. The Government would have something on The Guardian, and could exert pressure on it.
"Blackmail" is an unparliamentary word, and I will not use it.
Mr. David Shaw: The hon. Gentleman just has.
Mr. Dalyell: No, I will not use it. The tone of my speech is serious, not yah-boo.
Let me, as courteously as I can, invite the Leader of the House to give his parliamentary colleagues of all parties some explanation of why we are presented with such urgency in November, when the facts were known in May. I think that he owes it to us.
5.54 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise to be exceedingly brief. Let me say in passing that I hope never to suffer the experience undergone by my old and hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in 1968, when he appeared at the Bar of the House.
As what I might modestly call a lesser light in this place, I am anxious to make a point. I entered the Chamber today with an open mind. In my view, Mr. Preston has behaved in a dishonourable and foolish way; I remember being deeply dismayed by his actions all those years ago when he failed to protect a young girl whom he should have protected, although he might have suffered in prison for any length of time. He behaved dishonourably then; recently, he behaved in an equally dishonourable way.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has not convinced me. I came here with the thought that I might abstain, but I intend to vote against the motion, because I feel that Conservative Members have left unanswered questions relating to what can be described only as a most unseemly affair. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was right to ask the Leader of the House the reason for the unaccountable delay between mid-May and early November. There can be no excuse for such a delay, and—although I have no sympathy for Mr. Preston—I believe that some kind of cover-up is going on.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Godman: I will, but my hon. Friend must be brief, because I have promised to speak briefly.
Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that a further cause for concern is the conduct of the debate during the past 45 minutes, when I have been listening to it? We have seen the conviction of a person before that
1604
person has even been tried; and he is to be tried by a Committee that is politically motivated. That cannot be open and fair judgment, in any event.
Dr. Godman: My hon. Friend has put it in a nutshell: this man is having to endure a political trial, and I think that the House has behaved badly—or it will behave badly if it approves the motion.
Mr. Preston has suffered a tongue-lashing from you, Madam Speaker, and you are a formidable lady in every respect. He deserved it—
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member flatters me.
Dr. Godman: I assure you that I am no flatterer, Madam Speaker. I, too, have felt the sharp edge of your tongue, for far less serious acts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am getting on with it. I am saying—as one of the lesser lights of this place—that it will do itself a disservice if it votes for the motion. I believe that this man has been found guilty without a chance to defend himself. Perhaps a written letter of apology to you, Madam Speaker, would suffice.
Mr. David Shaw: He has admitted it.
Dr. Godman: He has admitted it, in another place. As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out, this is a political trial, and I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the motion.
5.58 pm
Mr. Wilshire: Hon. Members have pressed me to clarify two brief points. First, I was asked when I knew about the matter: the answer is last Sunday. Secondly, I was asked whether I was in touch with my constituents' feelings. I have heard from six today: four were in favour and two against, which suggests to me that I have got it about right.
I learnt something today from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), and I am rather glad that I have never stayed at the Ritz hotel in Paris. Other than that, it simply remains for me to say that, when stripped of all the rhetoric, the facts are clear and simple. There was an abuse of the House; it is documented, and has been admitted. When stripped of all the point-scoring, there is a large measure of agreement across the Floor of the House, and I therefore invite my hon. Friends to agree with me and Opposition Members to agree with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 38.

Division No. 339]

[6.00 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Alexander, Richard

Baldry, Tony

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Alton, David

Barron, Kevin

Ancram, Michael

Bates, Michael

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bellingham, Henry

Arbuthnot, James

Bendall, Vivian

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Ashby, David

Blair, Tony

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Blunkett, David

Atkins, Robert

Body, Sir Richard

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

1605

Booth, Hartley

Garnier, Edward

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gill, Christoper

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Gillan, Cheryl

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brandreth, Gyles

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brazier, Julian

Gorst, Sir John

Bright, Sir Graham

Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth; N)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Grylls, Sir Michael

Burns, Simon

Gunnell, John

Burt, Alistair

Hague, William

Butler, Peter

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Hannam, Sir John

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hanson, David

Carrington, Matthew

Hargreaves, Andrew

Cash, William

Harvey, Nick

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Haselhurst, Alan

Chapman, Sydney

Hawkins, Nick

Chidgey, David

Hawksley, Warren

Churchill, Mr

Hayes, Jerry

Clappison, James

Heald, Oliver

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Colvin, Michael

Hendry, Charles

Congdon, David

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

Hicks, Robert

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Horam, John

Cormack, Patrick

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Couchman, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Cox, Tom

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

Cran, James

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

Hoyle, Doug

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Day, Stephen

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Dicks, Terry

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Dixon, Don

Hunter, Andrew

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hutton, John

Dover, Den

Jack, Michael

Duncan, Alan

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dunn, Bob

Jenkin, Bernard

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffery

Durant, Sir Anthony

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dykes, Hugh

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Eggar, Tim

Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

Elletson, Harold

Jowell, Tessa

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Key, Robert

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Evennett, David

Knapman, Roger

Fabricant, Michael

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

Fishburn, Dudley

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Forman, Nigel

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Forth, Eric

Knox, Sir David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

French, Douglas

Legg, Barry

Fry, Sir Peter

Leigh, Edward

Gale, Roger

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Gallie, Phil

Lidington, David

Gardiner, Sir George

Lightbown, David

1606

Luff, Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lynne, Ms Liz

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Shersby, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Maclean, David

Sims, Roger

Maddock, Diana

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Madel, Sir David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Soames, Nicolas

Malone, Gerald

Spearing, Nigel

Mans, Keith

Speed, Sir Keith

Marland, Paul

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Marlow, Tony

Spink Dr Robert

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Spring, Richard

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Sproat, Iain

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Stephen, Michael

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Stern, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stewart, Allan

Merchant, Piers

Streeter, Gary

Miller, Andrew

Sweeney, Walter

Mills, Iain

Sykes, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tapsell, Sir peter

Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Moate, Sir Roger

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Nelson, Anthony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thomason, Roy

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Thompson, Sir Donald

Nicholls, Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Thurnham, Peter

Norris, Steve

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Olner, William

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

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tredinnick, David

Ottaway, Richard

Trend, Michael

Page, Richard

Trimble, David

Paice, James

Trotter, Neville

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Twinn, Dr Ian

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Tyler, Paul

Pawsey, James

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Vaz, Keith

Pickles, Eric

Viggers, Peter

Pike, Peter L.

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Waller, Gary

Porter, David (Waveney)

Ward, John

Powell, William (Corby)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Prescott, John

Waterson, Nigel

Radice, Giles

Watts, John

Rathbone, Tim

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Rendel, David

Whitney, Ray

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Whittingdale, John

Richards, Rod

Widdecombe, Ann

Robathan, Andrew

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wilkinson, John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Willetts, David

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wilshire, David

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Rooker, Jeff

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Wolfson, mark

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wood, Timothy

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Yeo, Tim

Sackville, Tom

young, Rt Hon Sir George

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. Bowen Wells

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene

Bermingham, Gerald

Ainger, Nick

Callaghan, Jim

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cann, Jamie

Barnes, Harry

Chisholm, Malcolm

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Corbyn, Jeremy

1607

Dalyell, Tam

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Enright, Derek

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Etherington, Bill

O'Brien, Michael(N W'kshire)

Flynn, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Galloway, George

Purchase, Ken

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Randall, Stuart

Gordon, Mildred

Sedgemore, Brian

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Soley, Clive

Hardy, Peter

Wicks, Malcolm

Hood, Jimmy

Winnick, David

Livingstone, Ken

Wise, Audrey

Loyden, Eddie

Wray, Jimmy

Mackinlay, Andrew

MacShane, Denis

Tellers for the Noes:

Madden, Max

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

Mahon, Alice

Mr. Ronnie Campbell

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Local Government
6.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
Madam Speaker: With this we shall also discuss the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Construction and Property Services) Order 1994.
Mr. Jones: The orders seek to extend the scope of compulsory competitive tendering to legal and construction and property services of local authorities and other bodies. They will also extend CCT to further manual services—supervision of on-street parking, vehicle fleet management and security work. They are the first of the new services to be exposed to competition, as promised in the November 1991 White Paper "Competing for Quality".
Compulsory competitive tendering has proved an excellent vehicle for testing the calibre of in-house staff. It has been with us now for 14 years. I am sure that many will acknowledge that it has led directly to better value public services. Independent research carried out for the Government has found that, so far, competition in the provision of local services has produced average cost savings of about 7 per cent. a year, with the biggest savings in those services that attracted the biggest competitive response. Those savings far outweigh initial tendering costs. However, that is only half the story because the same research shows that CCT has also led to better quality services flowing from organisational and managerial improvements within local government—not increased bureaucracy, but better management. It is all those benefits that we wish to bring to local authority professional services.
Local authorities of all political colours nowadays are adopting a refreshingly undogmatic approach to securing efficient services. Competition is no longer a dirty word. Few still believe that efficiency automatically equates with direct provision. Indeed, no less a person than Jack Dromey of the Transport and General Workers Union has accepted that there is no ideological reason why certain services should be done by the council. At some risk, I fear that I must agree with Mr. Dromey. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with in-house service provision; indeed, some of the best work is done by local authority direct service organisations. But retaining work in house should not be an ideological goal of local authorities.
Our original proposals to extend the scope of CCT were published in November 1991, and our decisions on the way forward announced in November 1992. The services in question are at the core of the local authority and we have considered the implications carefully. The regime will be tough, but realistic and, where necessary, flexible. Local authorities will be free to organise the delivery of white-collar services in the manner most suited to their needs. We are not seeking to dictate an approach to service provision or to stifle innovation.
The regime for legal services, and construction and property services, has been developed in consultation with the local authority associations and a number of local authority staff with a wealth of practical experience in the

1609
disciplines involved. I would like to thank them all for their time and effort. While we have not seen eye to eye on every matter, discussions in the various working groups have been constructive and I have no doubt that our approach has benefited from the associations and their members' input.
We have also spoken to the professional bodies—the Law Society and the General Council of the Bar, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Our proposals have also been subject to public consultation. Again, while we may not have agreed with everything said, that broader discussion and input has certainly been helpful and, I am sure, contributed to the regime being both realistic and workable.
The orders have been before the House for some time and hon. Members have had time to consider them. The regime that we are putting in place has been developed paying close heed to the concerns of professionals, both inside and outside local government. I believe that it will successfully balance the need for competition with authorities' legitimate service delivery aims and objectives. It will lead to fair and even-handed competition that will benefit local authorities and the taxpayer alike.
I commend the orders to the House.
6.17 pm
Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister said that he would answer the questions asked during the debate. I trust that he will listen carefully to the technical issues that have been raised.
The Minister's bullish view of compulsory competitive tendering is not borne out by the facts. I am aware that the Government commissioned a survey from the Institute of Local Government Studies, which reported as he said. But he is aware that that was a study of a fairly small sample of local authorities. There is a general presumption that, had the Government simply left things alone, without introducing any aspect of compulsion, local authorities would have achieved the same results in house simply because of the pressures on them over those years.
The Minister spoke of the refreshingly undogmatic approach of those in local government. That approach is not mirrored by the Government. We know that when the Government introduce orders such as these to the House they do so as one of their periodic fixes. The Government are hyped up and addicted, and when they cannot get the privatisation of the Post Office on the agenda, they consider instead a little privatisation in the local authority sector.
We know that the measures have little to do with efficiency. The Government were warned by two different consultancies that the costs of legal services outside local government were liable to rise compared with the costs inside local government.
The case for our debating the orders has not been made. They are part of the Government's ideological fixation, but it is a pity that the Minister and his colleagues cannot take the "refreshingly undogmatic" approach that local authorities have taken and see local government for what
1610
it is—an important partner in the delivery of local services to our communities. I wish that the Minister would begin to see matters in that light.
It appears that the Minister wants us to quote expert for expert. He claims that the evidence supports the Government's view of CCT, but many people have said that, although the argument might apply to those services which have already been subject to CCT—very often those involving manual work, which can be repetitive and where the impact of CCT is easy to monitor—it will be considerably more difficult to impose CCT on professional services.
I cite Professor Gerry Stoker of the university of Strathclyde's department of government. He said that
"with CCT moving from blue collar to white collar services, it doesn't follow that the same level of savings will be achieved."
It is incumbent on the Government to make it clear why they expect savings to be made in the professional services and not simply take us once more down an ideological blind alley.
Other voices have also been raised in concern about the impact of CCT. I quote briefly from a speech made recently to the Society of Information Technology Managers' annual conference in Edinburgh. One of the speakers said that CCT
"had reduced scope for local initiative".
That is an important criticism because it came from the Department of the Environment's deputy secretary, Mr. Christopher Brearley. When someone on the inside is voicing such concerns, one assumes that Ministers share them. I do not want to involve officials in an argument in this place, but I assume that Ministers are aware of those worries. Perhaps the Minister will do the House justice and put it on record why the Department of the Environment itself is beginning to have doubts about CCT and the reduction in scope for local initiative.
That speech was reported in an article in Municipal Journal under the headline "Inflexible CCT threat to local democracy, warns mandarin". Again, I should be interested to know whether the Minister goes that far. Does he see CCT as a threat to local democracy? Is that what he wants? I hope that he will make it clear that that is not his aim.
The article details an exchange at the conference. It was suggested to Mr. Brearley that, in view of the uncertainty suffered by the work force and because of the lack of flexibility caused by CCT, it would be more sensible to reduce regulation of CCT. Mr. Brearley replied:
"You'll have to ask ministers … ministers are suspicious when we talk of the need for flexibility."
Tonight we have a benchful of Ministers of one kind or another; perhaps they—individually or collectively—would like to show flexibility and even respond one after another. [Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government says that the flexibility is to be able to leave; of course, he is quite at liberty to do so. It is interesting to hear that Ministers are suspicious of the need for flexibility. I hope that the Minister will prove that those suspicions are unfounded, even if only among those whom I might call his nearest and dearest, or those who were his nearest and dearest before they made speeches to professional conferences. I hope that the Minister will recognise that some aspects of the orders require greater flexibility than has been demonstrated so far.

1611
I now refer specifically to the services involved. It is a little surprising that there has been no attempt to justify this particular selection or ragbag of services coming before the House now. It would have been helpful had the Minister told us of the experience of the one or two remaining flagship Conservative local authorities of voluntarily market testing services. Westminster is such a council and Croydon was one in its previous incarnation, before it changed control in May and became Labour controlled. They had put some aspects of legal services into the private sector. I am told that such is the parlous state of legal services in at least part of the capital—because of the collapse of the housing market and the need for lawyers to earn what I might describe, at least in this place, as an honest crust— that private sector lawyers are interested in taking up the contracts. The Minister should have said at least a little about the trade-off between cost and quality.
I believe that the Department of the Environment is prepared to consider the need to ensure quality in respect of professional services. During the passage of the Local Government Act 1992, we debated quality and the dual envelope concept which was later dropped because it was recognised that it was not the most sensible way to deal with quality. We need a reassurance that quality in legal services will be on the agenda from the start.
It is partly because there are doubts about quality that a significant number of people have questioned whether the move towards CCT with regard to legal services and professional, construction and property services is consistent with efficiency. The Government commissioned Kieran Walsh, the professor of local government at the Institute of Local Government Studies, to carry out a survey. He has recently written about the need to maintain core services within local government and the importance of ensuring that local government has sufficient professional in-house competence to operate as a local authority, not simply as the managing structure for disparate businesses. I hope that the Minister will at least comment on that point because it is intimately connected with the arguments and technical debate about how many services should be subject to CCT.
The Minister said that there had been meetings between the Department of the Environment and other bodies about legal services and CCT. He almost said that there had been some agreement, although I am sure that some bodies such as the Law Society and local authority associations might be surprised to hear that there had been a great meeting of minds. However, it is fair to put it on the record that local authority associations accept that a number of the matters that they raised were recognised and acted on. Having put that on the record, I must say that there are still some basic problems in this respect.
The Government employed two consultancies—PA Consultants in 1991 and Coopers and Lybrand more recently—which both reported that CCT would in all likelihood mean that the cost of legal services would rise for local authorities. The Law Society felt that there were two flaws in the proposals. The first was that there would be a "crowding out" in respect of legal services, whereby ordinary people could not gain access to lawyers because local authorities were employing them. Secondly, and perhaps more significant, it felt that CCT in this instance might compromise lawyers if the local community felt
1612
that they were heavily in alliance with the local authority and therefore unable to offer them unbiased advice in any action that they wanted to take against the authority.
The real doubts that local authorities still have relate first to the time scale and secondly to the 45 per cent. cut-off point for the work to be tendered out. No doubt the Minister will say to the House that the Government have already relaxed a little on the time scale. I accept that, but there are still concerns about the short time scale being imposed on local authorities.
The Government have moved the deadline for legal services to April 1996, but the local authorities are saying that it would be helpful and in everyone's interests if a further relaxation of that time scale could be considered. As the issues have not yet been decided, I hope that the Minister will at least agree to take them away and consider the possibility of a further six months' remission.
Equally, the size of the competitive requirements worries local authorities and the local authority associations. The Minister will be aware that PA Consultants originally recommended that 33 per cent. of services be made available for the tendering process. The Government increased that to 45 per cent. One of PA Consultants' arguments in favour of a 33 per cent. level concerns the difficulty that local authorities will have in hitting a precise figure, which means that they will need to over-tender to be certain to fall within the guidelines.
It is being argued that a 45 per cent. requirement is harsh anyway. I shall say more about that in a moment. However, as well as being harsh it is even more unwieldy simply because of the fluctuations in the need for legal services over time.
The main argument against the 45 per cent. requirement is that it is onerous anyway and forces local authorities to put out to tender more services than is helpful. That will threaten local authorities' ability to run a core legal service, which is not simply a professional and technical service, there to be hired at will, but is part of the way in which a council relates to its corporate duties as a local authority. I hope that the Minister will consider that argument carefully. It has been put to him before, and I hope that he will comment on it tonight, if only to say that he will take the issue away and reconsider it.
The Minister will know that similar arguments about the time scale have been raised in connection with the next area—construction and property services. He has been asked whether such haste is necessary in implementing the tendering process. And again, perhaps the more important issue concerns the specification that 65 per cent. of work must be tendered out. There is concern about the "de minimis" threshold for the minimum percentage of work that local authorities must tender.
The local authorities have argued consistently that some areas of work should be excluded from the tendering block, because they are integral to authorities' democratic functioning or strategic policy making, or because they are essential for maintaining an expert client function able to liaise with consultants, or because they have to be retained in house on the grounds of public interest and probity.
I hope that the Minister will accept, as I believe the Government already have, that there is an argument that at least some of those areas of work should be excluded. The reason why I want to push the Minister to reconsider

1613
the 65 per cent. limit is explained partly by a survey conducted by the local authority associations, which found that in a significant minority of local authorities—38 per cent.—the client core functions represented significantly more than 35 per cent. of construction and property services.
I hope that the Minister accepts the case that there is a need for a core service. If he does, I hope, too, that he will recognise that if local authorities say that core services account for more than 35 per cent., he needs to reconsider the specification.
When the Minister said that considerable consultation on professional construction and property services had taken place with the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Royal Institute of British Architects, he seemed to suggest that there was a degree of agreement among those bodies with the way in which the Government were going. It is worth placing on record the fact that at no point did the professional bodies express any support for the tendering process. In fact, they all oppose it, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that.
The next area consists of security services, vehicle fleet management and the supervision of parking. The Minister said that there had been considerable dialogue about that with various bodies. That may have been true for legal services and professional construction and property services, but there is a feeling that there was little dialogue about the other activities, and little opportunity for local authorities and others to make their views known.
For example, although the consultation document appeared before Christmas last year, the draft order laid in June this year contains considerable changes, and even now there are many areas in which local authorities are not sure of the position regarding the precise implementation of tendering.
A letter of reply was sent to the secretary of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities from the director of local government within the Department of the Environment, Mrs. McDonald. It said:
"As you will by now be aware, we have debates in both Houses on the draft Order timetabled this week"—
the letter was dated 31 October—
"Once the House has approved the Orders we will lay the timetable Regulations. Although this is slightly later in the day than we might have hoped, local authorities have been well aware of our intentions for some time, and details were confirmed in the Minister's announcement of 14 June when the Order was tabled. There is no reason why they could not have begun planning for CCT, and indeed I know a number are well advanced in their preparations".
That might seem fine at first sight, but the Minister must realise that there is still considerable uncertainty about how tendering in those three different areas will operate in practice. For example, the AMA wrote to the Department of the Environment on 16 August asking whether about 15 aspects of security services—I shall not read them all into the record—would be exempted from the tendering process on the ground that each consisted of works carried out under byelaws that gave local authorities specific powers, such as powers of arrest, which could not be passed on to private contractors.
1614
That letter was written on 16 August, but the AMA has not yet received a reply. The official Department line is that enough notice was given, and that would be reasonable had the Department given proper notice, such as a response to questions involving the technical detail that local authorities really need before beginning the tendering process. With no attempt to frustrate the impact of the orders, local authorities are entitled to say that they need time to implement them.
Specifically, the timetable for the three areas of security services, vehicle fleet management and supervision of parking means that the metropolitan authorities and the London boroughs will have to begin the CCT process by October 1995. The local authority associations and the local authorities feel that that is much too tight a timetable. They reckon that it takes at least a year for authorities to advertise the contracts, prepare the specifications and interview the contractors.
I believe that in the past the Department itself has accepted that a year is the minimum period—the Minister can contradict me if I am wrong. As a matter of simple record, it is now November 1994, and if the process is to start by October 1995 local authorities have less than a year.
As we saw with legal services and property services, the Government are being asked to allow some movement on the timetable. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that request. Some adjustment is necessary if things are to be done properly and if the local authorities and local authority associations involved are to have the answers that they need from the Department in order to make real sense of the tendering process.
There are specific questions on security services, some of which, perhaps, the Minister cannot answer tonight. But, certainly, he has at least to allow for the fact that local authorities are asking legitimate questions. Greenwich council, for example, raised an issue about its parks police because they have been given powers of arrest under a byelaw. That power of arrest is not transferable to a private contractor. Greenwich sought to have answered, for itself and on behalf of other local authorities, how that would impact on exemption from the tendering process. I believe that it received a reply today. However, the Minister will understand that, since the order is going through Parliament tonight and went through another place two days ago, that reply is quite late in the day, even for Greenwich, and it will be quite some time before other local authorities know the situation or the answer given to Greenwich.
Birmingham council also wrote to the Department of the Environment seeking clarification of the role of its market inspectors, who have similar powers to the parks police, and asking whether they would be exempted. As I understand it, even as of today, it is still awaiting a reply. So I hope that the Minister accepts that, while some may have criticisms—and those criticisms have been made—of the CCT process in general, such technical questions about the timetable for consultation on legal and property services are important. The amount of those two services which will be put out to tender is also important and I hope that the Minister will consider them in particular.
Precisely because the local authority associations do not feel that they have had time for consultation in other areas, such as security services, vehicle fleet management and supervision of parking, and because the timetable is so tight, I hope that the Minister will agree to be

1615
flexible—that flexibility which he so commended for others—and will promise tonight to consider seriously the complaints made by the local authorities and see whether there can be some easement in the process. If nothing else, that will allow the tendering process to be done in a way that the Minister himself would want—one that makes sense for local communities and for local efficiency, not one which is simply there because it is necessary to push the orders through at speed.
6.41 pm
Mr. David Rendel: As we all know, it is getting towards the end of the Session. I am not sure how many hon. Members were still in the House at 4 am, as I was.
Mr. Robert B. Jones indicated assent.
Mr. Rendel: Those who were—the Minister indicates that he was one of them—will no doubt be beginning to feel that we are getting towards the end of another long day, so I do not intend to detain the House for long.
One or two arguments concerning the orders need to be rehearsed. Most of the main arguments have been rehearsed before—in the House and elsewhere—but, sadly, until now, whenever compulsory competitive tendering has been discussed they have not won the day. The Government have used their majority to push through CCT in the face of arguments that, I believe, should have triumphed.
There are, in fact, some good arguments in favour of competitive tendering by local authorities. It allows local authorities to compare the quality, standard and price of their services with those of outside contractors, and that is very welcome because comparison can throw up new ideas about how services can best be delivered. Indeed, such comparison could even throw up ideas for entirely new services.
Such comparison can also reveal—I imagine that to some extent this is what the Minister was referring to in opening—wasteful spending, which can then be eliminated. There is no question but that, when competitive tendering has been properly used, some wasteful spending has been eliminated.
In addition, outside contractors may have particular expertise over and above that normally available to an authority. The opportunity to choose between its own expertise and that of an outside contractor can only increase the likelihood of an authority improving the value for money that it obtains for the services it provides. The best local authorities, with my party's full support, have always been prepared to consider increasing the use not only of contractors but of their own employees for many of their services.
That is not the whole argument. The problem, which my colleagues and I have highlighted time and again and which we have always seen in the CCT policies of the Government, lies in the compulsory nature of those policies—it is the first "C" that needs to be removed—and especially in the regulations on how the tendering process is to be judged.
Those of us who have worked in local authorities know how difficult and unfair the method of accounting for transitional costs is. It works in a way that is often extremely unfair to local authority employees who are trying to put in a tender. Indeed, an outside contractor's
1616
bid can often appear to be cheaper, even when its real costs to an authority may prove to be more than the cost of providing and running those same services in house.
The only criterion that can, in practice, be used in deciding between tenders is the tender price. Again, those of us who have been involved, as I have, in many such negotiations know that it is well-nigh impossible to give the work to a contractor or, indeed, to an in-house group, on the grounds of quality or extent of services, even when the authority believes that that would provide better value for money.
Value for money surely should be the ultimate criterion, not simply the tender price. Those of us who have been involved in local authorities have, sadly, seen all too many examples of services costing more as a result of competitive tendering, or have seen either the level or quality of services suffer. In my authority of Newbury, almost without exception, when services have been awarded to a contractor the price has not been lowered as a result. If it has lowered, it has been only because the level of services has fallen.
There are further problems with compulsory competitive tendering, such as the accountability of services to a local authority. Accountability is inevitably reduced when a service is contracted out. We should highlight that matter—especially tonight—when we are considering legal services. One of the most fundamental needs of any member of a local authority is the certainty of obtaining objective, fair and honest legal advice from the authority's legal officers. The loyalty that an employee feels if he is directly employed by the authority must surely be far greater than his loyalty if he is indirectly employed through a contractor. That loyalty in an area such as legal advice is extremely important. As a member of a local authority, I would never like to feel that all my legal advice would be provided through contracted-out services.
We must also consider local independence. One of the Government's hallmarks is the centralisation of services. The destruction of so much local independence has been one of the worst features of the past 15 years. If things were going wrong in a local authority—the Minister has said that some authorities have been able to make services more cost-effective and more efficient by tendering—the Government should have solved that problem not by centralising power in Whitehall and Westminster but by making local government more accountable. That is where the Government have fallen down so badly.
The Government are very much a top-down Government; we would like to see government from the bottom up. This is a centralising Government who believe that only central Government know best. That is their approach, but local elections up and down the country have shown that, in practice, people think the opposite—that, on the whole, central Government know less than local government.
An example of that is the way in which the Conservative party now controls just one county council, whereas the Liberal Democrats currently control four—and that figure may well rise fairly shortly. We believe

1617
that local people should be allowed to choose their own way forward because they are the best judges of their own needs.
Mr. Matthew Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rendel: I am just about to finish.
That is an important principle for the Liberal Democrats and it should be an important principle for the Government.
Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is clear that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) is not giving way. I call Mr. Rendel.
Mr. Rendel: I have finished, Madam Deputy Speaker.
6.49 pm
Mr. Robert B. Jones: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply.
The hon. Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that one of the "Cs" in CCT should be dropped. I do not agree that the same results would have been achieved without the compulsory element. Local councillors and local officers to whom I have spoken since I have been a Minister, and in my many years as a councillor and a Member of this House, have confirmed that the discipline of having to prepare specifications and judging and monitoring tender results produces huge benefits, quite apart from cost savings.
I do not believe that CCT is exclusively about savings, although of course we are delighted by the savings that have occurred and the benefits that they have brought to council tax payers. Compulsory competitive tendering involves managers and elected representatives in thinking from basics about the level of service that they want to deliver, how that can be achieved and how they are going to judge the results. That is not a threat to local democracy because local democracy must be about elected representatives taking decisions about standards for their areas.
The hon. Member for Newbury referred to the London borough of Richmond, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats. When I talked to councillors and housing officers in Richmond about CCT for housing management, they said that they were involving tenants on a large scale in an attempt to decide the level of service that should be prescribed in the tender. That enhances local democracy, and such practices are being used not only in Richmond but in many authorities of various political persuasions.
Mr. Rendel: Why should CCT be compulsory? Should not such matters be left to authorities such as Richmond, which in any event probably would have opted for that route?
Mr. Jones: The London borough of Richmond has been controlled by the Liberal Democrats for several years and it was controlled by the Conservatives prior to that, but what I have described did not take place until CCT arrived on the scene. I believe that CCT has concentrated minds wonderfully, to the benefit of the
1618
ultimate client whom we should all be serving—in the case of housing management, the tenant and, with other services, different customers.
The hon. Member for Stretford referred to flexibility. We have tried to approach these matters flexibly. That is the underlying rationale for the percentage approach and for not trying to draw too rigidly the line between the client side and the contractor side. Different authorities will want to approach that in different ways. That is as true of the construction professions as it is for legal services.
I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member for Newbury that we cannot obtain independent advice from a lawyer unless he is directly employed by an authority. That is clearly not true of counsel's opinion, which local authorities seek all the time on specialist issues. It is also not true in respect of run-of-the-mill legal advice, although it is clearly handy to have advice on hand within a local authority and the orders make provision for that.
The hon. Member for Stretford referred to quality. Quality can be very subjective. What some people may refer to as quality others would not. With the professional bodies, we have tried to develop an approach to defining and judging quality. We have been working with the Royal Institute of British Architects on guidance for obtaining architectural services through CCT. We have also been working with the Construction Industry Council on guidelines for value assessment for CCT and with the Association of Consulting Engineers on value assessment and the selection of consulting engineers. That is a very good way of going about it.
It may be possible to extend those principles further because quality is important. I was very closely associated with total quality management and BS5750 and BS7750 until I became a Minister. I welcome the focus on quality.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: If quality matters in professional services, it also matters in blue-collar or manual services. Can quality criteria be built into those services?
Mr. Jones: I should like to think that there is already such a criterion because, for example, specifications lay down how often refuse collections should be carried out and the standards to which streets should be cleaned. It is more straightforward to lay down such conditions in the original specifications for blue-collar services than it is for professional services.
The hon. Member for Stretford raised a specific point about security and referred to a point about the London borough of Greenwich that affects other authorities as well. I recognise that competition may not always be appropriate for local authority security work. That is why we are considering a specific exclusion from CCT for certain byelaw enforcement work. We have already sought the local authority associations' views on that and expect to introduce detailed proposals shortly. I give an undertaking to look at those matters against the background of the timetable and I will contact the hon. Member for Stretford when I have formed a definitive view.
I find it difficult to understand how people can accuse the Government of being dogmatic in their approach to CCT. I served on a local authority virtually constantly from the age of 21 until I became a Member of this House. I cannot say that I came across a local authority that did everything by direct labour or everything by private

1619
contractor. We are talking about how to draw a boundary between what is done by the private sector and what is done in house.
We can approach the matter ideologically by allowing a local authority to say, "Well, we think that this should be done by our direct labour department," or "This should all be done by contract," or it can be achieved by more objective means by laying down a specification and inviting tenders against that specification, evaluating them and awarding a contract to the organisation, whether it is a direct labour organisation or a private contractor, 'which fulfils the specification in the best way. That is a very undogmatic approach and it has delivered considerable benefits. That is why I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.
Ordered,
That the draft Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) (Construction and Property Services) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 20th July, be approved.—[Mr. Robert B. Jones.]

Statutory Instruments, &c
Madam Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together motions 5 to 12.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Statutory Instruments, &c

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.
  That the draft Weights and Measures (Metrication) (Miscellaneous Goods) (Amendment) Order 1994, which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.
  That the draft Units of Measurement Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

  INCOME TAX
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kazakhstan) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Mexico) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Russian Federation) Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 20th July.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  TRANSPORT OF ANIMALS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8441/93 and the second Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 4th July 1994, and European Community Document No. 8128/94, relating to the protection of animals during transport; and supports the Government's intention of seeking to negotiate high standards of care for animals throughout the Community during transport.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

  FISHERIES POLICY
  That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 19th April, relating to fisheries: Spanish and Portuguese arrangements, and of European Community Documents Nos. 8940/94, relating to Community fishing areas and resources, 8941/94, relating to the Common Fisheries Policy control system, and 7541/94, relating to fisheries: multi-annual guidance programme 1993; and supports the Government's determination to secure measures to safeguard the fish stocks around the United Kingdom's shores and to protect the interest of United Kingdom fishermen through its fisheries policies.—[Mr. Kirkhope.)
  Question agreed to.

Mr. Robert Nortcliff
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
6.59 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: As I hope I shall explain in this debate, my constituent, Mr. Robert Nortcliff, has suffered an intolerable experience to which Parliament should attend. I hope that the attention that is given will lead to the view that his fate was unacceptable. I believe that my constituent acted as a responsible man in a matter that should be considered to be of serious public importance; and I believe that he has suffered a grave injustice. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to agree with my assessment. I intend to raise a number of matters relating to Mr. Nortcliff's experience, and I hope that I will receive a clear and helpful response from the Minister.
Mr. Nortcliff is an engineer. His earlier industrial career was in the mining industry, in which he reached a responsible position. That experience is relevant, for it meant that he was brought up in a culture of safety which has been responsible for the dramatic improvement in mine safety since 1947—a culture underpinned by regulation, which led to the National Coal Board becoming the safest deep-mine operator in the world. This safety record was achieved, and it continued even when production records were repeatedly shattered. There remain misgivings about recent changes, as the Minister may be aware, but the safety culture in which Mr. Nortcliff gained his first industrial experience meant that he was well aware of the importance of a proper attitude and of decent priorities.
With the closure of the collieries, Mr. Nortcliff decided to pursue a career in the oil industry. He secured employment in the middle east and gained valuable experience there. Returning to Britain, my constituent obtained a position with a contracting business engaged in offshore activity, Nabors of Aberdeen. He was engaged to work on the Elf platform Piper Bravo as an electrical supervisor. He joined the project in 1991 and was dedicated to it from the shipyard right through commissioning to production. I have heard no complaint concerning my constituent's abilities, commitment or expertise.
Unfortunately, Mr. Nortcliff observed dangers and an inadequate response to the arrangements made to safeguard those employed on the platform, and he felt that he had to draw the attention of the management of his company and of the platform's proprietors, Elf, to the risks that he perceived arising from the practices that he observed.
Mr. Nortcliff's oral representations and advice had little or no effect. He then submitted a written memorandum, again achieving little—except perhaps a degree of irritation on the part of the people who should have paid much more attention to his advice. The memorandum was dated 24 February 1993. It pointed out that proper technical judgment had been ignored in the interests of production. He felt that the contracting company, Nabors, was too ready to ignore relevant technical advice.
Not long after, my constituent found that his desk had been moved to another room, but he continued to work with diligence and enthusiasm even though there was little change in his employer's approach. Cynics will know how to respond to the fact that, at the next employer appraisal, it was noted that Mr. Nortcliff's performance had dropped remarkably. That was the first sign that he had of any employer dissatisfaction with his work, and it may have
1622
been related—I believe that it was—to the fact that he had drawn senior management's attention to certain deficiencies, submitted in the written memorandum.
My constituent took the view that this criticism was related to the fact that his professionally necessary and technically competent memorandum had created resentment, perhaps because it was seen as a challenge to those who were not paying adequate regard to the permit-to-work system which is supposed to govern the conduct of operations on a platform.
Mr. Nortcliff then felt that he had little alternative but to inform the Health and Safety Commission's offshore division of his concerns. This was after Nabors had suggested that he move to another oil field. It suggested that he went to the Ninian field, a much older, declining field. Mr. Nortcliff, who was passionately involved and interested in the development at Piper Bravo, felt it right to decline this offer.
Then, in December last year, my constituent was told that he was no longer the Elf Piper Bravo electrical supervisor and that he had to transfer to the Ninian field. He then appealed to his employers and asked that they look into his safety concerns again, pointing out to them that he would have to refer the matter to the Health and Safety Executive if things were not put right. Nabors suggested that he had no proof and that he could not substantiate his fears. The company stood by its decision to replace him as electrical supervisor. I contend that Mr. Nortcliff had no alternative but to draw these serious matters to the attention of the Health and Safety Executive.
My constituent was most concerned and felt, given the company's insistence that he be degraded and removed, that he had no choice, in his own interests, but to inform the relevant parts of the media about his employer's actions. Apparently a senior member of staff at Nabors told him, "You must do what you feel you must do." He did, and immediately informed the relevant newspapers.
The HSE continued its investigation and Mr. Nortcliff remained suspended while it proceeded. Meanwhile, Nabors continued to deny that his suspension had any connection with his removal from the platform or his referral of these matters to the HSE. However, Mr. Nortcliff feared that the conclusions of the health and safety examination would result in his dismissal.
At this point Mr. Nortcliff contacted me, and I wrote to the managing director of Nabors, Mr. Heidt, about my constituent's position. Mr. Heidt replied:
"There is no question of Mr. Nortcliff being disciplined for his disclosures to the Health and Safety Executive."
A very short time later, however, Mr. Nortcliff was dismissed on the ground that he had spoken to the media in breach of his contract. He does not deny that there was a breach of his contract, but he did inform Nabors of his intention to release the information, and he still believes—I agree with him—that he had no alternative but to pursue that course of action.
Most fair-minded people, knowing the treatment that he received, would consider that he acted quite properly. As a qualified, skilled and experienced engineer Mr. Nortcliff was fully aware that giving production an overriding priority above safety can cause and has caused, far too often, tragedies in industrial and offshore operations.
Hon. Members will recall that for quite a few years many of us felt that the HSE's role should be extended to cover North sea operations. The accident rate offshore justified

1623
our call. Many hon. Members will know of constituents who suffered death or injury offshore. That concern led to calls from many of us for improved safety checks—apparently those requests went unheard and unheeded for a long time.
I was concerned not least because of an earlier tragedy when a fine young man from my constituency lost his life on Piper Alpha. I recall that I sought to comfort his bereaved parents by saying that that tragedy would lead to an improved safety regime offshore, which would mean that many more lives would be saved. Yet here we are, a few years later, and I am describing a case concerning not Piper Alpha but Piper Bravo.
The health and safety investigation was concluded in March and further unsatisfactory developments followed. I understand that Nabors claimed that the health and safety report gave it a clean bill of health; in effect implying that Mr. Nortcliff's representations were utterly unfounded. The person responsible for that claim was the personnel manager, Mr. Paterson. He was Mr. Nortcliff's superior and was the official who had instructed Mr. Nortcliff to leave Piper Bravo and transfer to the Ninian field.
I then wrote to Nabors about Mr. Nortcliff's position. I was unaware then that the same Mr. Paterson would also serve as judge and jury as well as supervisor and reporter.
Following Mr. Nortcliff's dismissal, I expressed serious concern to the company and I said that I thought the case should be aired in the House of Commons—perhaps after Mr. Nortcliff's dismissal had been considered by the employment appeal tribunal. I was then astonished to receive a letter from Nabors' solicitor, Mr. J.K. Tierney of Paul and Williams, of Aberdeen. He stated that Nabors would defend the case of unfair dismissal. He also went on to state:
" I also consider that it would be inappropriate for the matter to be raised in the House of Commons, but this is doubtless a matter which is governed by the House's own rules of procedure."
I found that response astonishing because that solicitor should have known that whether powerful individuals or organisations like it or not, the House provides an opportunity for the plight, difficulties or injustices experienced by our constituents to be aired. We must be able to raise matters affecting our constituents, especially when they experience the type of unfairness that Mr. Nortcliff suffered. I was astonished to receive such a letter from someone who, were he a Member of the House, might possibly be called learned.
At the beginning of the long recess we were awaiting the hearing at employment appeal tribunal. Nabors had already said emphatically that it would contest the case. I welcomed that decision, because it meant that the truth would be established in a public arena. Just before the tribunal hearing, however, Nabors settled. That may have provided a little comfort and some necessary compensation to my constituent, but the case was not aired. I believe that it is right that it should be put before the House tonight.
I was grateful for the fact that the health and safety officials said that they would have been prepared to give evidence and present the facts at the tribunal—perhaps that is why Nabors was particularly eager to settle.
It is a pity that there has been no previous public examination of the case, but at least we have a modest opportunity to do so now. This debate might be the only opportunity to consider the essential purpose to which Mr. Nortcliff was dedicated.
1624
Since I considered that my constituent's case was not wholly one for Nabors, I also sought to contact Elf, the platform operator. I did so through the Earl of Lauderdale, who has had a long honourable involvement in energy matters and with that company. I regret that its reply was unacceptable, because it sought to suggest that it considered that responsibility rested solely with Nabors. I was disturbed by that response, because I do not believe that the operators of oil installations can transfer responsibility, legal or moral, to the contractors that work for them. The senior employers at Elf, were, however, aware of the grounds for my constituent's concerns. Platform operators and major oil companies should not simply opt out of their responsibilities, especially when that could have fatal consequences. I do not believe that such a responsibility can be evaded and I regret that Elf was evasive in this case.
No one has sought to deny that Mr. Nortcliff acted responsibly, yet he was dismissed and his efforts and concerns were set at naught. The Minister might care to consider how Mr. Nortcliff felt when, having been belittled, criticised and sacked, his employers then claimed that the examination carried out by health and safety officials vindicated their actions. Mr. Nortcliff is naturally dissatisfied with the results and naturally he feels somewhat aggrieved at the response from those officials.
My constituent had asked for an investigation into several incidents, including one in October 1993 when blocks weighing around 50 tonnes smashed into the crown bumping beam, causing a good deal of damage. I am told that that was due to the fact that the protective arrangements had been deliberately shorted out, apparently with the knowledge, if not on the instructions, of the rig superintendent and of Elf.
In November 1993, operations were continued when the top drive electrical service loop was damaged. The covering on high-voltage cabling was torn and the related junction box was smashed, leaving live conductors exposed. Also in November 1993, a magnetic sensor had to be replaced on the derrick crown. As the electrical supervisor, Mr. Nortcliff proceeded in the proper manner by drawing up the necessary permit to enable that work to be done. He was told that someone else would do it, without a permit—a complete breach of safety arrangements. The job was done without machinery being isolated. We should bear it in mind that that happened on Piper Bravo, but we still remember what happened on Piper Alpha. Electrical systems should not be switched off and safety arrangements abandoned so that production may be maintained.
On another occasion, someone modified an item of electrical equipment without certification when a request for a replacement had been rejected. That suggests that economy looms rather larger than safety in the minds of some of those responsible.
I believe that any examination of those events shows that the health and safety report vindicated not Nabors, but my constituent, Mr. Nortcliff. I regret that those officials did not make it clear that it was unacceptable to suggest that Mr. Nortcliff's claims were unjustified. They should have been sufficiently responsible to set the record straight. Health and safety considerations required that Nabors put its systems right.
The report revealed an obvious awareness that production had been the overriding priority. The officials knew that the rules had been breached, so perhaps the Minister would agree that it would have been better had a

1625
firmer line been taken at that time. The failure to do so meant that my constituent's punishment was particularly severe.
I hope that lessons have been learned and that the Minister will be able to give the House information to suggest or provide evidence that they have. I also hope that he will offer other assurances. I hope that he will assure the House that he and his Department accept that Mr. Nortcliff acted responsibly by proceeding with the complaints about conditions and practices on Piper Bravo. I hope that he will agree that it was entirely right for him to ensure that safety had a higher priority and that it is entirely right for the House to attend to the case.
I also hope that the Minister will accept that offshore employers should recognise, or if necessary be made to recognise, that production cannot command a priority over safety, as was the case on Piper Bravo. That being so, I hope that the Minister will commend Mr. Nortcliff and share my hope that a more responsible company will recognise his ability to provide a significant and professional contribution to the industry and, by implication, make it clear that both Nabors and Elf have cause for shame for their attitude.
The other day I saw a tape of a television programme, in which a leading business man, speaking at a conference some years ago, suggested that the reality of the effect of the United Kingdom's oil resource on the British economy in the 1980s was that it might better have been left in the ground. The Minister might agree that the Government's policies would have looked rather sick if that had happened. As a nation, we must accept that the resource was not put to its best use—it was as if a golden bullet emerged from the wrong end of the gun.
If a similar situation to that which my constituent tried to put right occurs offshore again, and if the nation is prepared to tolerate an inadequate emphasis being given to safety—as was the case on Piper Bravo—people such as Mr. Nortcliff ought not to bear the blame. Perhaps it should be borne not by the Health and Safety Executive but by the whole of our society, if it is prepared to tolerate such risks. My constituent has done nothing of which he should or could be ashamed. I hope that the debate will have pointed to the direction that that shame should take.
One other matter is important. I have visited several offshore establishments. Some years ago, I stayed on a platform and was greatly relieved at the concern for safety exhibited there. Some offshore companies reveal a far greater care for safety than has been demonstrated in this case. Does the Minister agree that those companies that have cared and have served priorities properly ought not to be let down because their competitors cut corners even at the risk of bringing the industry into disrepute? Will the Minister assure the House that the Health and Safety Executive will not be slow or reluctant to act with that austere sternness that past tragedies, such as Piper Alpha, necessitate?
Work on the North sea is far from land and close to hazard. It is potentially exceedingly dangerous and it is inappropriate for that danger to be compounded by inadequate priority. At least Mr. Nortcliff can be comforted by the fact that much attention has been focused on the record of his former employers and that of the operator, Elf.
1626
I was recently greatly obliged to receive a publication called "Blowout", which describes itself as
"the voice of the offshore worker".
It is a fine publication, at least as far as the presentation of Mr. Nortcliff's case is concerned.
Mr. Frank Cook: Perhaps my hon. Friend should explain that that sort of blowout is not the type to which we normally refer in the House. It is a technical term used in oil and gas fields.
Mr. Hardy: I am grateful for that intervention. I have eaten offshore and all the meals were first class. Perhaps they did not quite reach the standard of the Ritz hotel in Paris, but they were substantial—perhaps they did not cost quite so much as those at the Ritz either. I do not know what the meals were like on Piper Bravo, but on the rigs on which I have eaten they were very satisfactory. As my hon. Friend said, however, they do not justify the term "blowout", which has a different definition in this context.
The front page of today's issue of "Blowout" refers to the fact that
"Nabors dodged the publicity of an industrial tribunal by settling out of court … Nabors can count itself lucky to have got off so lightly. Had the industrial tribunal gone ahead, it would have highlighted mismanagement of safety of astounding proportions. This, on the platform which is the successor to Piper Alpha and which has been held up as a shining example".
One is still left with a rather nasty taste.
The publication states that Mr. Nortcliff claims that the case reveals that
"The HSE has refused to condemn actions by individuals where the law was broken … condoned actions in breach of company safety rules and procedures; and … took no cognisance of interference by his supervisors"—
in the exercise of the duties of a responsible and qualified employee. My constituent and I have much sympathy with that view. He questions the statement made by Mr. Allan Sefton, director of operations for the offshore safety division, that
"Our policy is to allocate sufficient resources to investigations to determine the root cause of concerns and to ensure action is taken by duty holders to rectify conditions to prevent recurrence."
"Blowout" also states that the HSE sees its way forward by "proactive intervention", by which it means
"influencing all employers and maintaining a regular presence".
That statement worries me because it is related to resources. Perhaps the Minister will assure the House that there will be no difficulty about providing adequate resources for the maintenance of official health and safety regulations offshore. Mr. Nortcliff s case emphasises the need for that.
There is a case for decent relationships. There is a role for persuasion. If the rules are broken and safety equipment is shorted or switched off, one must be willing to pursue the matter in the courts, otherwise regulation becomes diminished.
I hope that there has been no case for the diminution of safety so far in the debate and trust that the Minister's observations will take us a little further and reassure us that Mr. Nortcliff s experience is never likely to be repeated.
7.28 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: I did not enter the Chamber determined to join the debate, but the topic is so related to my past experience that I felt compelled to comment. I appreciate the fact that the Minister kindly

1627
agreed that I should be allowed to participate in the Adjournment debate as, under normal protocols, I would not be allowed to intervene.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) on raising this matter, which he outlined to the House with considerable skill. He presented a powerful case very clearly. I would not want to comment on it specifically, other than to emphasise the argument that ought to be emphasised—that Mr. Nortcliff had been involved in the Piper Bravo project from day one. He had been involved from the shipyard to hook-up in the North sea, which means putting pieces together in exposed conditions; to commissioning, which means bringing the piece to fruition; through to production. That displays a remarkable personal commitment. We have to understand the mentality of a construction worker if we are to understand that commitment. I say that speaking as one of them. I shall try to explain the base from which I speak.
Having taught for almost 10 years, I left the profession and became a construction worker. I did not "go into construction", as one says; I became a construction worker. That means that I became a labourer. I dug foundations, lay footings, erected scaffolding, carried the hod and generally did what was necessary. Of course, my qualifications as a schoolmaster hardly qualified me to be a construction engineer. After some years, having covered almost every job from one level to another, I became a construction project manager. I was involved in construction work as a member of senior management.
At the same time, I was a committed trade unionist. Although a project manager, I also sat as a lay member on the national executive of my trade union, which at that time was referred to as AUEW-TASS. Indeed, I served on the north regional council of the Trades Union Congress. I had several heads and I had to be very careful about which hat I put on which head at what time. As far as I am aware, I did not commit any major error. My loyalties were always clear to everyone, on whatever team, and I never betrayed anybody or any responsibility.
As a project manager, I had to employ individuals of all grades: industrial—from labourers through to engineers—administrative and managerial. I also had to look after their welfare as a responsible employer. At the same time, I had to look after the welfare of my fellow trade unionists with other employers. It was a strange position, but I managed to live with it.
Of course, there were peaks and troughs and at times I had to release personnel. I had to send them out into the wider world saying, "Sorry, we can't employ you for the moment, but as soon as we can we will let you know. If you want to come back then, you will be more than welcome." Some did not always get the "welcome" bit, but that is the way of things. At times I tried to find them other employment, which meant making contact with other employers engaged in similar work and asking them whether they could use the skills of my workers and whether they had any slots in which to place them.
It was through that process that I began to realise that some employers were not as careful or as caring as I sought to persuade my board of management to be. Those employers would cut corners, underpay and demand—it was not just a question of salami slicing—unsafe working. That frightened me so much that I stopped co-operating with them. I felt responsible for putting in jeopardy people who had worked for me and done a decent job.
1628
All that happened between 1970 and 1975, but it leads to another aspect that is more relevant in today's world. I assure the Minister that I am making these comments in a spirit of constructive counselling. I am not making any party political comments; it is my view of how the world has gone. Employees are now required to assess the position where they work and comment on whether or not it is safe. They are required by a law that was introduced after 1979 to say to their supervisor, "Boss, this position is unsafe and therefore I will not work here until you put it right." That is what we, as legislators, have required workers to do.
On the face of it, that is a reasonable requirement to place on a mature journeyman who is experienced in the industry. What is unreasonable is to allow the employer or his representative to turn around and say to that worker, "Do it or you are finished." Yet that is what happens in numerous cases. It is all very well to say that the worker can go to an employment tribunal and gain satisfaction. That is not sufficient. First, the dangerous position—the hazardous circumstances—continues. Secondly, no matter how much compensation is awarded to someone who loses his employment, it is still an affront to his dignity.
I want to quote an example from this very place. The scaffolding erected on the Terrace for cleaning the facade was in a desperate state. Three times over a period of seven weeks I went to the Serjeant at Arms Department, which said that the Property Services Agency had been told to put it right. When I was in the construction industry, I had to ensure that the scaffolding on my sites was examined and certificated as safe every 28 days. However, there was no such requirement for the scaffolding on the Terrace because this is a Crown building. The only way that I could get redress was to come to the House on a Friday afternoon and raise a point of order with the Speaker of the day, now Lord Weatherill.
Although the Serjeant at Arms Department had responded well to my complaints on those three previous occasions, on this occasion it acted with great alacrity and when I returned to the House on the following Tuesday the scaffolding at the Commons end of the Palace was absolutely pristine—indeed, more than in Bristol fashion—up to the line separating the responsibilities of the Serjeant at Arms from those of Black Rod. The scaffolding on the other side of the line was in terrible order, and that is how it remained.
My point is that the conditions in the House largely reflect the circumstances in the North sea, which do not fall within the standards and requirements that apply on dry land. As the crew of Piper Alpha would testify, being that far out to sea calls for conditions immeasurably better than they are on dry land.
I have made my comments not in any way to provoke inter-party disagreement; that does not enter into it. I was a member of management and I was also a trade union representative. I ensured that my clients, the purchasers, got a straight deal from my employer, which was the contractor, and I ensured that the work force for which I was responsible also got a straight deal. We used to play it according to the book. It is pointless having a book unless everyone abides by it and I saw to it that everyone did his fair whack. That is the way to run things.
I offer these comments because the present climate of deregulation weakens that kind of common and reflected trust, and in the knowledge that we come here as

1629
individual Members with a duty to represent the needs of those who send us here. It does not end there, and anyone who thinks that it does is making a great mistake.
We sit here collectively, representing a nation of people who are so diverse, with all sorts of talents, aspirations and needs. Many of those people, in our interests and in the interests of the national economy, put themselves in jeopardy day in, day out, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks a year out in the North sea on gas and oil installations.
I firmly believe that we have a collective duty to ensure that health and safety standards out there, perhaps beyond the 12-mile limit, are respected every bit as much as we would expect them to be in Crawley, Croydon or Crewe. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that. In that spirit I offer these comments to the Minister tonight.
7.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I thank the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for raising this important issue. I shall not dwell in detail on his comments about dinners at the Ritz, except to say that my experience in that area is sadly limited. Unfortunately, no one ever thought me sufficiently important or influential to invite to the Ritz, so I bow to the hon. Gentleman's greater knowledge. However, I hope to be enjoying the cuisine of an offshore oil installation before long and I shall report to the hon. Gentleman as to whether standards have slipped.
I also thank the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) for his interesting contribution, drawing as it did on his wealth of personal experience, which is always invaluable in this subject. I assure him that when it comes to deregulation our aim is to deregulate only where burdens on industry and business are unreasonable and where the result of those burdens would be to reduce employment.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the record, he will find that, particularly with regard to construction sites, we have tightened up and are significantly tightening up regulations in many areas. Health and safety regulations are now, in almost all instances, much tighter than they were a few years ago, and they continue to be tightened. We take this matter very seriously.
The hon. Member for Wentworth rightly raises an important issue. He has an enormous wealth of experience in health and safety matters, particularly onshore. Safety on offshore installations is a top priority. There can be no question about that. No one will forget the horrors of Piper Alpha and we are determined that such a tragedy will not happen again. The Government accepted every one of the 106 recommendations of the Cullen report. More than half of those have already been implemented, and we are making new regulations to implement many others. Much has already been done which will make the industry safer, but I accept that we in Government, the Health and Safety Commission and Executive and the industry must never be complacent. We must all continue to be vigilant.
The case raised by the hon. Gentleman concerns an individual worker. Individual workers are vital to safety. It is they who are exposed on the cutting edge to the
1630
hazards. They are often best placed to identify new hazards and to suggest ways of controlling them. We strongly encourage all companies to involve their workers in safety, as responsible companies do.
I make it clear that any offshore worker who has a concern about safety should always raise it with the safety representative in the first instance and, after that, with the supervisor or manager. If those sanctions do not work and a worker is not satisfied, he can approach an HSE inspector direct. A telephone number for contacting an HSE inspector is posted on every offshore installation and callers are guaranteed anonymity if they request it. That is an important point.
It is the policy of the HSE to consider every complaint or query on offshore safety matters whether made by telephone, letter or in any other way. The HSE does not shrink from taking tough action when required.
I come now to address the two main issues raised by the case of Mr. Nortcliff. First, and perhaps most importantly, there are his concerns regarding health and safety in relation to his employer and, secondly, there is his complaint about the HSE's handling of the report into his concerns.
It was totally legitimate and right for Mr. Nortcliff to raise health and safety matters. I understand that he first raised them with safety representatives and then they and Mr. Nortcliff raised the issues with management. It was because he was not satisfied with the response from management that Mr. Nortcliff first made known his concerns to the HSE, as was his right, although I understand that no complaint was made to the HSE by any elected safety representative.
Mr. Nortcliff s written complaint was received on 17 January 1994. The HSE acted promptly in conducting a full investigation into all the issues raised in the complaint. In the course of the investigation, it made two offshore visits, had seven visits and meetings at the company's head offices and held three meetings with Mr. Nortcliff himself. All in all, some 300 staff hours were involved in investigating Mr. Nortcliff s concerns. I make that point to illustrate the fact that the HSE took the complaints seriously.
As a result, a report dated 11 March was sent to the installation owners, the drilling company which employed Mr. Nortcliff, the safety representatives on the installation and to Mr. Nortcliff himself.
As a result of its investigation the HSE required both the operator and the driller to make procedural changes to health and safety aspects of their drilling operations. Some of those had been made or were already being developed at the time of the investigation. But the fact that the HSE required action to be taken shows that Mr. Nortcliff s concerns were in large measure justified. The HSE specifically recognises that.
Mr. Hardy: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for those comments. That takes us to the point that I touched upon in my remarks: that the employer sought to create the impression that he had been given a clean bill of health by the Health and Safety Commission, inevitably implying that my constituent had acted improperly,

1631
inaccurately or irresponsibly, when, as the Minister has shown by his recent words, the HSE exonerated my constituent, vindicating him, not his employer.
Mr. Oppenheim: It is correct to say that Mr. Nortcliff was correct in going to the HSE and his raising of the concerns was ultimately vindicated because the HSE required action. It is fair to say that in some instances the company was already taking action in some of the areas. But the bottom line is that Mr. Nortcliff was totally justified in going to the HSE with his concerns. I make that absolutely clear.
The hon. Gentleman referred to enforcement action. I understand that the HSE considered taking enforcement action, including prosecution for breaches of safety law. However, in view of remedial action which had already been taken and further action agreed by the company, it was considered that an improvement notice was not appropriate. Further, it was considered that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution case. Therefore, on the balance of evidence, and in view of the remedial action taken, it was decided not to refer the case to the procurator fiscal for possible prosecution. I stress—and in many ways, this is the most important point of all—that the HSE is continuing carefully to monitor the situation, to ensure that all necessary remedial action detailed in the report has been carried through.
Mr. Nortcliff s complaints about the HSE's handling of the investigation were considered in some detail not once but twice, by senior managers who were not involved in the original case. After receiving his copy of the HSE's report, Mr. Nortcliff telephoned an offshore safety division principal inspector on 16 March and raised further concerns. The inspector met Mr. Nortcliff on 22 and 23 March to discuss the aspects of the HSE case with which Mr. Nortcliff was unhappy. He appeared to accept that the OSD's investigations had concentrated on the facts of the case and on the evidence from interviews with the workers and managers concerned.
Under caution, Mr. Nortcliff said that he did not wish to make a formal statement contradicting the signed statements already taken from personnel on the installation during the HSE investigation. However, the HSE agreed to explore further two issues—whether a certificate of fitness had been invalid during the lead-up to one incident, and drilling procedures. Additional HSE inquiries did not reveal evidence of offences and Mr. Nortcliff was told that on 29 March.
Mr. Nortcliff then made a formal complaint about the way in which the division had conducted its investigation. As a result, all relevant papers were reviewed by the senior OSD manager responsible for the team that had carried out the investigation. He wrote to Mr. Nortcliff on 27 May indicating that he believed that the investigation had been properly conducted and that the companies concerned were now taking appropriate remedial action.
As Mr. Nortcliff remained unsatisfied, the division's operations director asked senior personnel, who had not been involved with the investigation, to review the papers.
1632
The operations director wrote to Mr. Nortcliff in late July, stating that he was satisfied that the HSE had investigated the complaints properly. Mr. Nortcliff replied on 1 August, expressing continued dissatisfaction. The operations director responded on 5 September, setting out fully his reasons for believing that appropriate action had been taken and stating that he considered the matter closed. A further letter from Mr. Nortcliff, dated 12 September, refused to accept that decision.
I give those details not because they will be new to the hon. Gentleman but because they show how seriously the HSE takes any complaints about its handling of investigations, and that it took that particular set of complaints most seriously.
As to Mr. Nortcliff s original health and safety concerns and his subsequent complaint about the HSE's handling of the report, I am satisfied—having talked to the officials responsible—that the HSE acted in a fully professional and satisfactory manner. However, I repeat that that does not detract from the important point that Mr. Nortcliff was right and justified to raise the issues in the first place.
It is most regrettable that Mr. Nortcliff found himself out of a job. He was absolutely right to raise the issues that he did. Safety was at risk, and as a result of Mr. Nortcliff s action, steps were taken to correct safety deficiencies. I cannot comment in detail on the rights and wrongs of Mr. Nortcliff s dismissal. That matter would have been for the industrial tribunal to decide, had Mr. Nortcliff chosen to continue his complaint. If he had done so and won, it would have been open to the tribunal to order his employers to reinstate or to re-engage him, and to award significant additional compensation if they had refused. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Nortcliff chose instead to accept settlement, and he was of course entirely free to do so.
I assure both hon. Members that the Government continue to regard safety as paramount. It is essential that the HSE retains the confidence of the offshore work force, so that all employees are able to exercise their legal right and their duty to contribute to the better management of offshore health and safety.
As I made clear but will repeat, because it is important, any worker may raise a safety issue with the HSE in confidence, via the use of an on-site telephone if he or she wishes. It is of course essential that a worker raising a safety issue should not feel that he or she is likely to be prejudiced or victimised in any way. The Government recognised legitimate concerns in that respect, and introduced legislation last year to extend protection against dismissal for reasonably raising health and safety issues with an employer to all workers, not just safety representatives. Industrial tribunals will take that matter very seriously. The Government also consider it to be of immense seriousness and have taken steps to deal with the problem. I will make it my personal business to ensure that that remains the case in future. I thank both hon. Gentlemen for raising the subject in the way that they did.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eight o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The percentage figure for such public appointments made by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Northern Ireland court service was 27 per cent. as at 1 September 1993. This answer does not include judicial appointments.

  The figures for 1994 are still being collated and will be announced in due course.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average cost to his Department of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 387.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No central records are kept of previous employment of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor to non-departmental public bodies. It would therefore not be possible to give the detailed and comprehensive information sought by the question without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout his Department.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is not available. The Lord Chancellor's Department has 497 buildings on its estate and therefore the information could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  London Rail Connections
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for restoring the rail route facilities that permitted through services of trains from the former Great Western main line, at its junction with the Heathrow branch, with(a) King's Cross, (b) Liverpool Street and (c) Stratford, as part of his studies consequent on the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution.

  Mr. Watts
  Any restoration of these rail routes is a commercial matter for Railtrack. The recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution will be considered carefully.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimates he has made of(a) the passenger demand for an international station at Stratford and (b) the number of jobs likely to be created by such a development;

  (2) what estimates he has made of the likely level of demand for travel between Ebbsfleet and Paris/Brussels, and of the approximate number of passengers expected to join each train calling at Ebbsfleet;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the construction of Ebbsfleet on nearby stations owned by Railtrack, and the effect of reduction in passengers using them on future levels of train services on the North Kent and Chatham lines;

  (4) what analysis was carried out of the costs arid benefits to passengers of constructing stations on the proposed high-speed rail link at (a) Stratford, (b) Rainham and (c) Ebbsfleet.

  Mr. Watts
  The assessment of each of the intermediate station options was based on studies undertaken by Union Railways and its consultants. Union Railways worked closely with the principal local authorities concerned and each of the promoter groups. The approach was to evaluate and compare outline designs, passenger demands, road traffic and highway impacts, associated developments, socio-economic impacts, environmental appraisals, cost/benefit analysis, contributions by third parties and safety considerations. Account was also taken of estimates of the impact of intermediate stations on nearby domestic stations and estimates of future levels of domestic services.

  Some of the information in the assessment is commercially confidential. However, much is provided in Union Railways' October 1993 report to the Government, which was placed in the Library on 24 January 1994, together with a supporting report by the consultants Pied a plc, entitled "Intermediate Station Options: Socio-Economic and Development Impacts".

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations were received from the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) concerning the location of an intermediate station on the proposed high-speed rail link between London and the channel tunnel.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No meetings were arranged by the Department of Transport between Ministers and the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold).

  Scotch Whisky (Transportation)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations his Department has received in connection with the proposed EC directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states with regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road, and by the Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 1994, as they may affect the transportation of Scotch whisky; what discussions he has held with his European counterparts on this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department has had representations from the Scotch Whisky Association about the effect of the draft directive and the regulations on the carriage of whisky in casks over 250 litres capacity within Great Britain. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has also made representations on behalf of the association. The Transport Council agreed a common position on the draft directive in June, and will discuss it again only if the European Parliament proposes further amendments. My officials have explained to the association how they propose, within the derogations permitted by the directive, to exempt the carriage of whisky within Britain in traditional-sized casks from the unintended requirements for design-type testing of the casks, so that existing practice can continue.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what strategic planning considerations he took into account when determining that there should be an international station at Ebbsfleet, together with associated urban development.

  Mr. Watts
  Strategic planning objectives for the south-east Region are set out in the Government's regional planning guidance published in March 1994—draft March 1993. The location of intermediate stations on the new channel tunnel rail link at Stratford, Rainham or Ebbsfleet would be consistent with the policy of encouraging future development in the east Thames corridor or Thames gateway. The scope for development, in terms of land availability close to the projected an additional station site, is greatest at Ebbsfleet. Ebbsfleet has been selected, but the opportunity for an additional station at Stratford remains open. The potential contribution which stations and associated developments at these locations could make to the future development of Thames gateway is set out in the more detailed guidance contained in the consultation draft of the Thames gateway planning framework published by the Department of the Environment on 7 September.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the company to be granted the concession to operate passenger trains on the channel tunnel rail link will also be given a concession to operate international passenger trains on the existing lines through the channel prior to the channel tunnel rail link coming into use.

  Mr. J. Watts
  The channel tunnel rail link promoter will be granted the ownership of European Passenger Services Ltd. which will be the operator of international passenger trains through the channel tunnel on the existing lines, as well as on the channel tunnel rail link when it comes into use.

  Statistics
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current annual capital spending on(a) overground and underground railways and (b) national roads; what is (i) the number of passenger and vehicle occupant journeys and (ii) the distance travelled on (a) overground and underground railways and (b) national roads; and how much was spent on (a) overground and underground railways and (b) national roads (A) per passenger and vehicle occupant and (B) per mile travelled.

  Mr. Watts
  Information on journeys and passenger mileage is not available separately for national roads. The other information requested is given in the table.

  Capital expenditure on and use of national roads and railways 1993–94

  National roads

  Overground railways1

  Underground railways2

  Capital expenditure, £ million

  2,316

  824

  627

  Passenger journeys, millions

  na

  713

  735

  Passenger miles, billions

  na

  18·9

  3·6

  Expenditure (£) per journey

  na

  1·2

  0·9

  Expenditure (£) per 1,000 passenger miles

  na

  44

  174

  1British Rail

  2London Underground

  na not available

  For comparability, only infrastructure expenditure (including renewals) is included—expenditure on rolling stock is excluded.

  European Passenger Services Ltd.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current capitalisation of European Passenger Services Ltd.

  Mr. Watts
  At 31 March 1994, the date of the latest audited accounts, the company had a capital value in terms of fixed assets of £928 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the valuation of assets transferred from the British Railways Board to European Passenger Services Ltd.; and what is the value of the liabilities attributable to British Rail's former European passenger services operating divisions that remain on the British Railways Board's balance sheet.

  Mr. Watts
  The net value of assets transferred from the BR Board to European Passenger Services were valued at approximately £818 million. The board retains certain contingent liabilities in respect of guarantees and indemnities which it had entered into when EPS was its subsidiary.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what communications he has had with the safety commission of the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission concerning use of the new
  1123
  Austrian tunnelling method in the channel tunnel's cross-over chambers.

  Mr. Watts
  The Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission supervises all matters concerning the construction and operation of the tunnel on behalf of the United Kingdom and French Governments. It is advised by the independent channel tunnel safety authority. The safety authority carried out very careful checks of the tunnelling and support systems used in the channel tunnel, including the new Austrian tunnelling method, before advising the intergovernmental commission that it had no objection to their use.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what detailed arrangements have been made covering the Secretary of State's freehold interest Ai the channel tunnel, in the event of the formal liquidation, or insolvency of the concessionaires; and what equivalent arrangements have been made in respect of assets within the public domain in the Republic of France.

  Mr. John Watts
  In Britain the Government hold the freehold of the land on which the fixed link has been built. This land is leased to the concessionaires under the terms of the concession agreement. In the event of formal liquidation of the concessionaires the concession agreement states that the terms of those leases shall end. Similar arrangements in France are also covered by the concession agreement.

  M25
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the proposed widening of the M25.

  Mr. John Watts
  This an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms. Tessa Jowell, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what representations he has received about the proposed widening of the M25.
  A total of some 14,000 representations have been received in respect of the proposed widening of the M25 between junctions 5–7, 12–15, 15–16, 16–19 and 23–26 for which draft proposals have been published.

  Marine Safety Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ship inspectors are employed by the Marine Safety Agency; and what are his projections for the number employed in the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  Mr. Norris
  The Marine Safety Agency currently employs 125 staff based in the marine offices, which deal mainly with the survey and certification of United Kingdom ships and the inspection of United Kingdom and foreign ships. Under current plans to meet the Department's efficiency gains proposals it is expected that by April 1996 there will be 117 such staff based in the marine offices.

  Stockport Bypass
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the side orders on the A6(M) Stockport north-south bypass.
  1124
  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Thomas Arnold, dated 2 November 1994:
  Mr Watts, the Minister for Roads and Railways, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State regarding the A6(M) Stockport North-South bypass, as this is an operational matter for the Highways Agency.
  We expect to publish fresh Orders early in 1995 with a view to holding a public inquiry in the Autumn.

  Railways
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the areas of rail transport policy about which Ministers in his Department answered parliamentary questions prior to the passage of the Railways Act 1993 but which are now regarded as either(a) matters of commercial confidentiality or (b) other matters about which answers will no longer be given.

  Mr. Watts
  There has been no change, since the passing of the Railways Act 1993, in the way in which matters of commercial confidentiality are defined. Ministers will not answer questions on issues now properly, the statutory responsibility of the regulator.

  London Underground Ltd.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much capital spending London Underground Ltd. made in each of the past six years, excluding the fire-risk reduction cost following the King's Cross fire.

  Mr. Norris
  London Underground Ltd.'s capital investment expenditure on the core network, excluding fire safety works, over the last six years, was as follows:

  £million outturn prices

  1993–94

  445

  1992–93

  590

  1991–92

  265

  1990–91

  310

  1989–90

  245

  1988–89

  200

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the final date for consultation on the proposed restructuring of the Highways Agency; and when he expects to announce the results.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Faber, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Railways has asked me to respond to your Parliamentary Question about the proposed restructuring of the Highways Agency.
  Consultations with staff and trade unions on the restructuring are continuing and I expect to announce the Agency's future organisation later this month.

  Plutonium Transport Review
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 October,Official Report, column 325, when he received the executive summary of the plutonium transport review; how the review report has been distributed; and if he will place copies of both the review and its executive summary in the Library.

  Mr. Norris
  The plutonium nitrate transport assessment done in 1984 was reviewed by the Atomic Energy Authority in 1993 in the light of updated criteria. The exercise was an internal one within the AEA for a specific purpose and a copy of the summary of the review was received by my Department, on request, on 19 October 1994. I am awaiting a copy of the full review. Copies of the summary and the review will be placed in the Library.

  PowerGen Building, Shirley
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what conclusion is reached by the Property Holdings report on the PowerGen building in Shirley, west midlands, on whether the agency should take up the lease; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library;

  (2) when the Highways Agency leased the PowerGen building in Shirley, west midlands; and if he will make a statement on the cost.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Minister for Roads and Railways has asked me to respond to your two Parliamentary Questions about the Powergen building in Shirley.
  I am exploring a number of property options in relation to the Agency's restructuring proposals. No new leases have yet been signed. Reports on properties received from Property Holdings have to be treated as commercially confidential.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the costs(a) incurred by the Exchequer to date in respect of the proposed Birmingham northern relief road, (b) of his Department's involvement in the public inquiry into the road, (c) for the use of Mans Hal management centre for the public inquiry into the proposed road; and if he will recover this sum from the concessionaire, Midland Expressway Ltd.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Joan Walley, dated 2 November 1994:
  You asked the Secretary of State for details of expenditure on the proposed Birmingham Northern Relief Road. As this is an
  1126
  operational matter for the Highways Agency I have been asked to reply.
  In response to those detailed points I would answer, using your paragraph letter, as follows:

  (a) The Exchequer has so far spent around £6·7 million on the proposed BNRR.

  (b) The setting up of the public inquiry currently in progress has cost the Department about £250,000 and there are running costs (including fees, hire charges etc.) of around £20,000 per week.

  (c) It is no longer intended to take the inquiry to Hams Hall. Alternative arrangements have been made.

  You also asked about the recovery of costs from Midland Expressway Limited. The detail of the cost sharing between MEL and the Department is commercially confidential.

  Transatlantic Air Services
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his response to the third report of the Transport Committee on the future of air services between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, HC 47; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will estimate the cost of an(a) single-line and (b) double-line tunnel to extend the route of the docklands light railway under the Thames from Beckton to the north Kent railway at Thamesmead as part of his studies consequent on the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution;

  (2) if he will obtain an estimate of the approximate additional percentage of paid passenger miles which would need to be travelled in order to reduce the general level of fares by (a) 10 per cent. (b) 20 per cent. and (c) 30 per cent., as part of his studies consequent on the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution;

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 17 October, Official Report, column 97, if he will request Railtrack and the potential operators of the route from north Woolwich to Woolwich Arsenal to estimate the marginal cost of movement alone of three-car multiple-unit trains, subsequent to its re-electrification from Willesden junction to North Pole junction, as part of his studies consequent on the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution;

  (4) if he will estimate the marginal cost of movement by rail within the approximate area of Greater London per passenger mile, or other convenient unit, at weekends and public holidays, assuming no charge for standing charges, infrastructure costs, or any cost other than that of the direct movement costs of trains currently time-tabled on (a) the rail services of London Underground Ltd. and (b) the inner-London services operated over routes for which Railtrack is responsible, as part of his studies consequent on the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport, for Health and for the Environment welcomed the Royal Commission's comprehensive report and will be studying carefully the recommendations, including their potential benefits and costs. I have no plans at present to ask for the specific information referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

EMPLOYMENT

  Objective 3 Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total amount received in European Union objective 3 funding for 1993 and 1994 for(a) each county in Wales, (b) each training area in Wales, (c) Wales, (d) England, (e) Scotland and (f) the United Kingdom, indicating the percentage change in each case; if he will conduct a review of the methods used by his Department in allocating such moneys; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The amounts in the following tables have been claimed for 1993:

  Objective 3 and 4 in 1993

  Country

  ESF £ millions

  Wales

  41.08

  Scotland

  89.13

  England

  257.99

  Total

  388.20

  Objective 3 and 4 Spend in 1993 by Welsh Counties

  County

  ESF £ millions

  Clwyd

  3·63

  Dyfed

  5·45

  Gwent

  5·84

  Gwynned

  5·06

  Mid Glamorgan

  8·50

  Powys

  0·78

  South Glamorgan

  6·31

  West Glamorgan

  5·51

  Total

  41·08

  European social fund grants for objective 3 are managed at Great Britain level through sector managers, with Northern Ireland managing ESF separately. Information is not collected below county level.

  An amount of £344 million for objective 3 is available in 1994. The process of approving applications has not yet been completed and it is not yet possible to give figures for the overall levels of assistance which will go to projects in Wales or Scotland as a whole in 1994.

  The monitoring committee for objective 3 will be considering proposals for allocating money to the non-Government sectors for 1995 and beyond later this month.

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the credibility and effectiveness of the job interview guarantee scheme; and what plans he has to review it.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  1128
  Letter from M.E.G Fogden to Mr. Peter Hardy, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the credibility and effectiveness of the Job Interview Guarantee (JIG) Scheme.
  The Scheme was first piloted in 20 inner city offices from September 1989. The pilots were reviewed during 1990 and found to be effective in helping long term unemployed and other disadvantaged clients into jobs. As a result JIG became a national programme from April 1991.
  Since the original pilots, a survey was carried out in 1991–1992 by an independent organisation on behalf of the Employment Services (ES) of both JIG participants and employers who had used JIG. The findings showed that 92 per cent. of employers were positive about the service they had received from the jobcentre, 89 per cent. were satisfied with the people they had recruited and that some 40 per cent. had taken on a long term unemployed person for the first time.
  For clients who had been found a job through the scheme, evidence showed that JIG had considerably increased their chance of being successful at interview and 60 per cent. were still in work.
  So far this year, 46 per cent. of the people helped through JIG were placed into jobs.
  A major evaluation of ES programmes and services which lead to jobs, including JIG, is currently in progress.
  December marks the fifth anniversary of JIG. I am taking the opportunity to remind the people who deliver JIG in my local offices about the key features of what is one of our most effective programmes. The anniversary has been supported by re-designed publicity material and updated guidance for people in Jobcentres to help long term unemployed people and others at a disadvantage in the labour market to get back into work. Copies entitled "Job Interview Guarantee, Extra Help in filling your vacancies" and "Job Interview Guarantee, Extra Help to get you a job", have been placed in the Library. I hope this is helpful.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to(a) pilot test contracting out of the work of the Insolvency Service and (b) evaluate the pilot scheme prior to deciding whether to accept the recommendations of the Stoy Hayward report.

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have asked my officials to begin work on devising a specification which could be the subject of an invitation to tender to private sector contractors. They will be advised in this work by consultants. Only when that work is nearer completion would it be possible to decide whether there should be a pilot scheme and on the detail of evaluation criteria.

  Any decision to contract out work of official receivers or to invite private sector contractors to bid for such work would be subject to the passage of the Deregulation arid Contracting Out Bill currently before Parliament and the procedures applicable to contracting out which are set out in it including the requirement to consult with official receivers as statutory office holders.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the companies currently running bus services in Worthing; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness and fairness of competition in this area with particular reference to Stagecoach and Cedar Buses.
  1129
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Adur Valley Swift Line, Sussex Bus, Sussex Coastline Buses Ltd., and S H Martin trading as Access Cars have services registered to operate in Worthing. Under the competition legislation it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to keep under review the effectiveness of competition and take action if appropriate.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the companies currently running bus services in Hastings; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness and fairness of competition in this area; and if he will make a statement on the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Bexhill Buses, Eastbourne Buses, Maidstone and District Motor Services Ltd., Rambler Coaches, and South Coast Buses Ltd. have services registered to operate in Hastings. Under the competition legislation it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to keep under review the effectiveness of competition and take action if appropriate. The acquisition by Stagecoach (Holdings) Ltd.—owners of South Coast Buses—of Formia Ltd. was referred in 1990 to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which found that acquisition could be expected to lead to removal of competition, reductions in choice, service quality and frequency and higher fares. Stagecoach has since given undertakings on lines recommended by the MMC to remedy these adverse effects.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times Stagecoach South has been investigated by the Office of Fair Trading and by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; if he will give details of the results of the investigations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: The Director General of Fair Trading has conducted one Competition Act investigation involving what is now known as Stagecoach South—"An investigation under Section 3 of the Competition Act 1980 by the DGFT: Southdown Motor Service Ltd.—the registration and operation of services 242 and 262 in Bognor Regis". The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has also reported on this matter—"Southdown Motor Services Ltd.—a report on the conduct of Southdown Motor Services Ltd. in respect of its operations of local bus services on route 262 and 242 in Bognor Regis". The MMC has also reported on two mergers: Stagecoach/Portsmouth Citybus and Stagecoach/Formia Ltd.

  Full details of the findings are given in the reports. Copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will conduct an investigation into alleged predatory pricing practices of Stagecoach, with particular reference to similar routes at different prices.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: It is for the Director General of Fair Trading to consider allegations of anti-competitive practices including predatory pricing.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the Office of Fair Trading in halting anti-competitive practices by bus companies; and if he will make a statement.
  1130
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: There is scope for increasing the effectiveness of UK competition law in general and the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill will do so. But my assessment is that action taken by the competition authorities to limit anti-competitive behaviour under existing law has been broadly effective.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list all the companies currently running bus services in Bognor; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of competition in this area; if he is satisfied that competition is working effectively; and if he will make a statement on the findings of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: B. Hand and Sussex Coastline Buses Ltd. have services registered to operate in Bognor Regis. Under the competition legislation it is for the Director General of Fair Trading to keep under review the effectiveness of competition and take action if appropriate. The conduct of Southdown Motor Services Ltd.—now Sussex Coastline Buses Ltd.—in operating certain routes in Bognor Regis was referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1992. The MMC found that the anti-competitive conduct of Southdown on one route was the main cause of the withdrawal of a competitor. Sussex Coastline Buses has since given undertakings relating to the operation of this and adjoining routes.

  Cuba
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 26 October,Official Report, column 647, regarding the visit to Cuba of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology, if he will place in the Library a copy of the bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  On 14 September 1994 I initialled the English text of a bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement with Cuba. The agreement is not yet signed. We are only awaiting a precisely matched Spanish text from the Cubans before proceeding to full signature and publication.

  After signature of the text, the agreement will be presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the normal way.

  Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the former Minister for Corporate Affairs was party to the ministerial decision in respect of action on the report by DTI inspectors on alleged insider dealing by Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare.

  Mr. Heseltine
  As Minister for Corporate Affairs, my hon. Friend was fully aware of all the issues involved. Reponsibility for the decision in this case was mine.

  Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects British standard 4434 and the relevant European standards to be finalised for hydrocarbon refrigerants; and if he will make a statement on progress so far.
  1131
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  A meeting of a BSI committee to discuss an amendment to BS4434 to permit the use of hydrocarbons in refrigeration systems was held on 13 October. A proposed amendment to EN60335–2–24, which is the safety standard for domestic electrical refrigerators, to permit the use of hydrocarbon refrigerants will be debated in CENELEC, the European electrical standards body, in December.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he considers refrigeration systems that avoid the use of hydrocarbons to be best practice and therefore eligible for inclusion in his Department's best practice programme or demos programme.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  DEMOS—DTI's environmental management options scheme—is no longer open to applications for grant assistance.

  The joint DTI/DOE environmental technology best practice programme, ETBPP, aims to promote better environmental performance and to increase the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry and commerce. Emphasis will be on waste minimisation and reducing pollution at source in the manufacturing process. In the selection of projects for inclusion in the programme, preference is given to those lying within the areas to which the programme is currently giving special attention. These areas are currently foundries, metal finishing/surface engineering and releases of volatile organic compounds. However, any project encompassing the use of cleaner technology can be considered for inclusion in the programme if it has sufficient merit and satisfies the announced selection criteria, including those relating to potential for stimulating national cost savings.

  Those wishing to propose technologies and techniques to the programme should in the first instance contact the environmental helpline on 0800 585794.

  Regional Challenge
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress is being made on regional challenge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Further to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's announcement of 21 July,Official Report, column 538, I shall be launching a round of consultation with a range of bodies in each of the eligible areas. A copy of the draft guidelines for regional challenge has been placed in the Library of the House. It is my intention that this special competition should encourage greater partnership between the public, private and voluntary sectors and take full advantage of the talents and expertise of the local community in addressing the problems of the eligible areas. I look forward to receiving a wide range of views as a part of this consultation process.

  As a result of currency movements and adjustments to the financial tables of the single programming documents during their negotiatin with the European Commission, the £160 million announce by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 21 July now represents 12 per cent. of the money available from the European regional development fund in each eligible area, plus 10 per cent. of that sum from the European social fund.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations his Department has received 1132
  from individual members of the public concerning the 16th round of offshore oil and gas licensing.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I have received more than 2,300 postcards and more than 500 letters from members of the public making representations about future offshore licensing rounds. The 16th round was mentioned specifically in only a few of these cases.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he next expects to visit China; and if he will make a statement about the effect of the issue of Hong Kong on Sino-British commercial relations and prospects.

  Mr. Needham
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is hoping to visit China next year to promote our trade and commercial relations. We have no firm evidence that political differences with China over Hong Kong are having an effect on British commercial interests. Our exports to China rose by 72 per cent. in 1993, and by a further 21 per cent. in the first nine months of 1994; and the level of intended direct investment by British firms in China rose from £1 billion to £3 billion in 1993, which will make Britain one of the largest overseas investors there.

  Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies with deficiencies of £500,000 or more were not investigated after receipt of an initial report highlighting misconduct under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 due to lack of resources; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many initial unfit conduct reports, pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 have been received from(a) insolvency practitioners and (b) official receivers during each of the last three years; what was the source of each report; how many initial reports were rejected; and if he will give the reasons for rejection.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of unfit conduct returns/reports pursuant to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 received and rejected during each of the three calendar years and the current year (to 31 October 1994) are as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  11994

  Insolvency practitioners

  Received

  3,479

  4,144

  4,093

  2,726

  Rejected

  2—

  2,888

  3,322

  1,864

  Official receivers

  Unfitted returns received

  2,057

  2,317

  3,318

  2,308

  Unfitted reports

  208

  169

  78

  150

  Rejected reports

  26

  29

  19

  12

  1To date.

  2Not known.

  The main reasons for rejection were where the unfitted conduct alleged was not considered to be sufficiently serious or evidentially strong enough to justify disqualification proceedings in the public interest. Other reasons include cases where there was clear mitigation or

  1133
  where the case was linked to other proceedings which could result in disqualification or where the whereabouts of the directors were not known.

  Contracting Out
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce primary legislation to facilitate the contracting out of parts of the Insolvency Service.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The coming into force of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, when enacted, will enable parliamentary approval to be sought for an order which will permit official receivers to contract out their functions.

  I have no plans to introduce any further primary legislation in this regard.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effects of the proposals of Stoy Hayward on contracting out part of the functions and duties of the official receiver on the official receiver's statutory duty to investigate the affairs of bankrupts and companies in compulsory liquidation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Stoy Hayward Consulting reported that the contracting out of official receivers' case administration work would enable official receivers to concentrate more on their investigative role. I am satisfied that this would be so.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions in the past year the spouse of a Minister in his Department has travelled abroad at public expense to accompany a Minister on public duties, and what has been the total cost to public funds; and on how many occasions such travel has been undertaken at own cost.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: In the past year, spouses of Ministers have travelled abroad at public expense six times. The total cost to public funds was £22,998.67. On three occasions in the past year spouses have travelled abroad at their own expense.

  Spouses accompanied Ministers on the six occasions in order to take an active part in the official programme. Spouses' activities included attending official functions, as well as, for example, visits to education and welfare establishments.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Allowance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the numbers of children who would receive the (a) higher rate and (b) the lower rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance if the age limit of five years was (i) removed altogether, (ii) reduced to age two and (iii) reduced to age three; and what is the estimate of the costs in each category;

  (2) how many awards of the care component of the disability living allowance are currently payable in respect
  1134
  of children aged under five years at (a) the higher rate, (b) the middle rate and (c) the lower rate, by main disabling condition;

  (3) how many claims for disability living allowance care component have been made in respect of children aged under five years since 1992; and how many were refused, giving figures for each reason for refusal.

  Mr. Hague
  The tables set out the best available estimates of the caseload and expenditure implications of changes to the lower age limit for claiming the mobility component of disability living allowance; and information on current awards of the care component of disability living allowance to children aged under five years. No information is available on the number of claims made in respect of the care component of disability living allowance, the number refused or the reasons for refusal.

  Changes to age limit for DLA mobility component: estimated numbers of gainers 1994–95

  Mobility component

  Total abolition of age limit

  Age limit reduced to age 2

  Age limit reduced to age 3

  Higher rate

  9,000

  8,000

  6,000

  Lower rate

  10,000

  8,000

  6,000

  Total

  19,000

  16,000

  12,000

  Note: These estimates are highly uncertain and subject to significant margins of error, therefore should be treated with extreme caution.

  Changes to age limit for DLA mobility component: estimated additional costs 1994–95 (1994 prices)

  Mobility component

  Total abolition of age limit £ million

  Age limit reduced to age 2 £ million

  Age limit reduced to age 3 £ million

  Higher rate

  16

  13

  9

  Lower rate

  6

  5

  4

  Total

  22

  18

  13

  Notes: These estimates are highly uncertain and subject to significant margins of error, therefore should be treated with extreme caution.

  DLA care component: number of awards to children under five by main disabling condition (thousands)

  Rate of care component

  Higher

  Middle

  Lower

  Total

  Muscle/bone/joint disease

  1

  2

  —

  3

  Blindness

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Stroke related

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Learning difficulties

  2

  4

  1

  7

  Epilepsy

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Deafness

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Chest disease

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Heart disease

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Asthma

  2

  2

  2

  6

  Neurological Diseases

  2

  1

  —

  3

  Skin Diseases

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Other causes

  3

  3

  —

  6

  All causes

  14

  16

  4

  34

  Notes:

  As at 31 August 1994.

  Source:

  DSS analytical Services Division—based on a 5 per cent. sample. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand, so component parts may not sum to totals.

  Job Seeker's Allowance
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give his best estimate of the number of claimants who will be worse off at any one time as a result of the introduction of the job seeker's allowance and the reduction in the contributory benefit from 12 months to six months

  Mr. Roger Evans
  It is estimated that at any one time 250,000 unemployed claimants would no longer be entitled to an adult dependency increase, or would receive the lower personal allowance for claimants under 25, or would receive no or less benefit after six months. However, claimants in those groups may benefit from other measures outlined in the White Paper. A further group of claimants could either gain or lose a small amount depending on whether the personal rate of unemployment benefit would have been higher or lower than the personal allowance of income support in 1996–97 for claimants aged 25 or over. Since the uprating factors will depend on the increase in the Rossi and RPI indices in the year to September 1995, it is not possible to provide firm estimates of the effects at this stage.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates rounded to nearest 10,000 cases.

  2. Estimates assume:

  a) 2·55 million unemployed claimants;

  b) 600,000 Unemployment benefit claimants.

  3. Losers are estimated using the Policy simulation Model with 1990/91/92 Family Expenditure Survey data and 1994 Unemployment Benefit Statistics.

  Income Support
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the definition of the term, "habitually resident", as stated in the new income support regulations.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The term "habitually resident" is not defined in the regulations. When deciding whether a claimant is habitually resident, among the factors that the adjudication authorities may take into account are the length and continuity of his residence in another country; his employment record; his reasons and intentions for coming to the United Kingdom and factors which show where his centre of interest is situated. The concept of habitual residence is well established in United Kingdom and European Union law.

  Children in Hospital
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what conditions must be met by families who face serious financial difficulties as a result of visiting their sick child in hospital to qualify for any financial assistance towards these costs from the social fund.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Community care grants from the Social Fund can assist people in receipt of income support to meet the cost of visiting a hospital patient. Social fund officers have to take account of all the circumstances of each application to the fund, but the Secretary of State's guidance provides that help with costs to visit a child in hospital should normally be given high priority. Those payments are designed to ensure that help is focused on those with the lowest income who are least able to meet the cost.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many benefit penalties for non-co-operation with the Child Support Agency have now been imposed by Benefits Agency branch office.

  Mr. Burt
  From April 1993 to the end of August 1994, 4,850 cases have been considered for the implementation of a reduced benefit direction. Details of the number of cases in which benefit was reduced is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what powers are possessed by Child Support Agency officials to elicit financial information from those being pursued for payment; whether the agency is empowered to obtain copies of bank statements and other confidential financial information without permission; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Information, Evidence and Disclosure Regulations place parties to an assessment, and other specified persons, under a duty to furnish information or evidence required by the Secretary of State for one or more of the purposes listed in the regulations. That duty does not extend to banks or other financial institutions and a child support officer cannot therefore request information from them.

  The Secretary of State may, however, appoint inspectors for the purpose of acquiring information under the Child Support Act 1991. Those inspectors are not bound by the Information, Evidence and Disclosure Regulations and may ask banks or other financial institutions for information.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  This information is contained in "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Mr. Hague
  None to those bodies listed in "Public Bodies 1993".

  National Insurance
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on Treasury revenue in 1995–96, and in a full year, of(a) raising the national insurance ceiling to the same level as the higher-rate tax band and (b) abolishing the ceiling for national insurance contributions.
  1137
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table:

  1995–96 Additional Yield (£ million)

  Employees

  Self-employed

  Total

  (a) In Year

  1,000

  50

  1,050

  Full Year

  1,150

  100

  1,250

  (b) In Year

  3,000

  200

  3,200

  Full Year

  3,350

  500

  3,850

  Note:

  (1) The reply assumes that the upper earnings limit would remain in place at current levels for the purpose of calculating contracted-out rebates.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate for 1994–95 or give the most recently available estimate of the number of(a) employees who pay national insurance contributions, (b) employees with earned income above the national contributions ceiling, (c) employees with earnings less than the income tax threshold who pay national insurance insurance contributions, (d) self-employed who pay class 4 national insurance contributions, (e) self-employed who pay class 2 national insurance contributions, (f) self-employed who pay class 3 national insurance contributions, (g) all self-employed paying national insurance contributions and (h) self-employed with profits above the upper profits limit for national insurance contributions.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table:

  (a) 18·1 million

  (b) 3·2 million

  (c) 0·5 million

  (d) 1·6 million

  (e) 2·4 million

  (f) Reliable estimates are not available.

  (g) In addition to those at (e) a number of self-employed earners pay Class 3 National Insurance Contributions (NICs) to make-up their contribution record or Class 1 NICs from concurrent employment as an employment earner. Reliable estimates of the numbers involved are not available.

  (h) 0.35 million

  Note:

  Figures in the table (a-e) have been rounded to nearest 0.1 million.

  Benefits
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants were deprived of benefit as a sanction for breaking benefit rules(a) in the latest year for which figures are available and (b) in each of the preceding three years; and what in each case this total represented as a percentage of the total number receiving benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of claimants deprived of benefit and the percentage this represents of the total number receiving benefit. I have assumed that the claimants to which you refer are those in receipt of benefits being paid to unemployed people.
  Unfortunately the statistics you asked for are not available in the form you have requested. Information on the number of adjudication
  1138
  officers' decisions and disallowance rates (in respect of unemployment benefit (UB) and opinions (in respect of Income Support (IS) is contained in a published document entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". This provides information on all the main entitlement questions arising on claims, including those which might be regarded as sanctions. Copies of this document are held in the Library of the House. The latest available information relates to the quarter ending June.
  I am also unable to provide information on the total number of claimants receiving UB or IS during any particular period. The number of people receiving benefit during a period is constantly changing, and a simple count would include those who received benefit for only one day as well as those who received it for the whole period. It is possible therefore that a person would be included in such a count more than once. For these reasons statistics relating to the number of people who are claiming benefit at a given time are more meaningful. These are, as you know, regularly compiled and placed in the Library on a monthly basis.

WALES

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has of the management and administrative costs of running each of the training and enterprise councils in Wales in 1993.

  Mr. Richards
  The figures requested are given in the following table.

  TEC administration costs for Wales 1993–94

  TEC

  £'000

  Gwent

  1,796

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,665

  North East Wales

  1,340

  North West Wales

  911

  Powys

  539

  South Glamorgan

  1,467

  West Wales

  2,552

  Total

  11,270

  Source:

  Published accounts.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many drug addicts were notified in Wales in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is given in table A3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of Drug Addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom 1993"—area tables.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total amounts of money spent over the last five years by his Department on the prevention of drug abuse.

  Mr. Richards
  The following table gives the information requested as far as it is available. The figures shown are totals for the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse: it is not possible to disaggregate the amount spent on prevention of drug abuse.

  Year

  A £

  B £

  1989–90

  1—

  —

  1990–91

  1—

  —

  1139

  Year

  A £

  B £

  1991–92

  246,712

  —

  1992–93

  298,129

  43,275

  1993–94

  354,193

  19,500

  1Not available.

  In addition to the sums in column A, the Department has made available the additional moneys shown in column B for specific prevention projects such as European drug prevention week and the Wales sixth form conference.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many drug addicts were newly notified in Wales in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is given in table A 1 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Statistics of Drug Addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom 1993"—area tables.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action his Department has taken to promote and mark European drug prevention week this year.

  Mr. Richards
  The Department undertook a range of actions to promote and mark European drug prevention week this year.

  A comprehensive programme of events in Wales for European drug prevention week has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Planning Inquiry, Oystermouth
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now publish his decision on the planning inquiry into the proposals at Oystermouth, Swansea.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Secretary of State has not yet issued his decision on the planning application of the development of the Oystermouth bus station site, Mumbles, Swansea. The decision is expected to issue very shortly.

  National Curriculum
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to announce his decisions on recommendations for the revised national curriculum submitted to him by the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend and I are grateful for the extensive work that the authority has undertaken on the shape of its proposals. The result is a slimmer curriculum which meets Welsh needs, offers teachers more time to use at their discretion and gives schools an excellent platform from which to continue the work of raising educational standards. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend has accepted the authority's recommendations for the new subject orders. Proof copies will be issued in November and will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Health Authorities
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has concluded his consideration of the future configuration of health authorities in Wales; and when a decision is likely to be released to the service.

  Mr. Redwood
  The extensive consultation exercise conducted by my Department revealed a broad consensus 1140
  on the advantages of amalgamating district health authorities and family health services authorities. Opinion was much more divided on the geographical areas which merged authorities should cover.

  In the light of the consultation responses, I believe that the health service in Wales will best be served by a reduction of DHAs and FHSAs from 17 to five. Subject to legislation, this will involve the merger of DHAs and FHSAs and the geographical amalgamation of certain areas also. My preferred option—based on option C in the consultation document—will involve the creation by 1 April 1996 of:

  a North Wales Health Authority (Gwynedd and Clwyd);

  a Mid and West Wales Health Authority (Powys and Dyfed);

  an enlarged Gwent Health Authority (including Caerphilly Unitary Authority area);

  an enlarged West Glamorgan Health Authority (including Bridgend Unitary Authority area); and

  a Mid and South Glamorgan Health Authority (comprising all of South Glamorgan and the remaining parts of the present Mid Glamorgan)

  Recognising the strides already made by Pembrokeshire and East Dyfed health authorities to establish a West Wales Commission, those DHAs could be amalgamated formally in advance of the main reorganisation. I therefore propose to issue very shortly draft regulations for their amalgamation to form a single Dyfed health authority as from 1 April 1995.

  My aim is:

  to reduce expenditure on management and administrative costs in favour of spending on direct patient care;

  to ensure that Health Authorities are in a position to perform all their roles and functions effectively; and

  to ensure that Health Authority boundaries are compatible with those of the new Unitary Authority boundaries.

  The reorganisation should result in significant savings, which I believe should exceed £3 million per year in the longer term, allowing more patients to be treated sooner. As it is envisaged that fewer staff will be required than at present, I expect health authorities to use natural wastage to run down their numbers. There will be full consideration and consultation.

  I believe that the new health authorities should aim to pursue greater patient choice. Their task is to improve standards of care and treatment and provide effective stewardship of public resources.

  I am writing today to the chairmen of the existing health authorities and family health service authorities informing them of the outcome of my deliberations. Having decided upon the future health authority structure in Wales, I hope to shortly announce my decision on the structure of community health councils in Wales.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to extend the official status of the Welsh language in European Union proceedings.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 20 October 1994]: Under article 217 of the treaty, the Council has to agree unanimously to approve a new official language. It has recently agreed that Finnish, Swedish, and Norwegian will

  1141
  be added as official languages subject to their entry. The Council has no plans to add any other languages.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval, including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 27 October 1994]: The details of the public appointments I make are given in "Appointments by the Secretary of State of Wales, 1 September 1994", copies are in the Library of the House. The figures are as follows:

  Number

  Appointments to Executive Bodies

  235

  Advisory Bodies

  170

  Other Appointments

  1403

  1 Of which 320 are to NHS bodies

  I am also consulted on a number of appointments made by Ministers in charge of other Government Departments, but this information is not held centrally by the Welsh Office.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Foreign Legislatures
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what are the salaries, expenses and associated benefits paid to the elected members of the legislatures of(a) each EU member state, (b) the United States of America, (c) Canada and (d) Japan.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Salaries (Europe)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, what are the basic salaries paid to elected Members of Parliament in each of the European Union countries.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Privy Council Office
  Ms. Maddock
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures were available.

  Mr. Newton
  The percentage in 1993 was 36 per cent.

  Norman Shaw Buildings
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) what compensation has been received by the House from the company responsible for the non-availability of lifts in the Norman Shaw North building;
  1142
  (2) if he will list the companies, the cost and the length of the contracts to undertake structural alterations at the riverside entrance to the Norman Shaw buildings;

  (3) what has been the total cost to date of the work in Norman Shaw North and South on (a) the structure and (b) the lifts.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  These are matters for the Director of Works and I shall ask him to write to the hon. Member.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout the Palace of Westminster.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  This is a matter for the Director of Works.

  Administration Committee
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when it is proposed to introduce improved large envelopes for hon. Members' mail.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  Approval for the inclusion of large pre-paid plastic envelopes for bulk mail in the range of stationery available to Members has been given by the Administration Committee. These envelopes are now available from the Serjeant at Arms Stores.

  Palace of Westminster
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what proportion of the floor area of the Palace of Westminster is occupied by(a) the House of Commons and (b) the House of Lords.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  Of the usable floor space in the Palace of Westminster 58·3 per cent. is the responsibility of the House of Commons and 38·7 per cent. the responsibility of the House of Lords. Three per cent. of the Palace is under the joint control of the Speaker, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Jack
  The percentage of women appointments made by the Minister to those bodies listed in "Public Bodies" is 18 per cent. Figures for 1994 are still being collated and will be announced in due course.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.
  1143
  Mr. Jack
  I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman of 6 July 1993,Official Report, column 110.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms animals have been shipped by ferry from(a) France, (b) Holland and (c) Belgium into the United Kingdom, in each of the past three months; and if he will make a statement.

  July

  August

  September

  1994

  France

  Holland

  Belgium

  France

  Holland

  Belgium

  France

  Holland

  Belgium

  Cattle

  493

  1,190

  —

  401

  1,019

  —

  132

  265

  7

  Pigs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sheep

  1

  7

  115

  25

  —

  20

  3

  3

  —

  Poultry

  56,330

  6,720

  25

  70,250

  24,999

  —

  63,064

  8,552

  31

  Note:

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Pigs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to assist pig producers in the United Kingdom between now and 1 January 1999 when new unilateral rule changes on sow stall and tether regulations take effect.

  Mrs. Browning
  This Department has contributed to the work of the pig welfare advisory group and financed the publication of a series of nine booklets on alternative systems of pig husbandry. These have been used at associated workshops run by ADAS. The Government also fund a programme of research into alternative systems.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the additional financial cost to United Kingdom pig producers of the unilateral rule changes on sow stall and tether regulations to be introduced on 1 January 1999; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  The total cost to producers in Great Britain of complying with the phasing out of tethers and close confinement systems for sows has been estimated at £9 million. Further details are given in the compliance cost assessment, prepared for the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. The total cost to producers in Northern Ireland is estimated at £0·5 million.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to make the proposed United Kingdom changes in rules on sow stall and tether regulations applicable throughout the European Union.

  Mrs. Browning
  EC Directive 91/630 requires the European Commission to report, by 1 October 1997, on the welfare of pigs in different types of intensive system and to submit appropriate proposals to the Council. The United Kingdom will be pressing for this review to be undertaken at the earliest opportunity and for our own high standards to be adopted throughout the European Union.

  Oyster Farms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many of the oyster farming
  1144
  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is not available. However, when consignments of animals are despatched from other member states notifications are sent via the Animo computer messaging system from the veterinary authorities of the countries of despatch. These notifications indicate that the following numbers of farm animals have been sent by all routes to Great Britain from the member states in question in the period July to September 1994:

  sites in England and Wales monitored for faecal coliforms achieved (a) classification A, (b) classification B or (c) classification C; how many were prohibited; what percentage of the total number of sites each represents; how many oyster farming sites in Holland and France are also monitored for faecal coliforms; what classification each site achieved; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many oyster farming sites in England and Wales are monitored for faecal coliforms under the shellfish hygiene regulations.

  Mr. Jack
  In England and Wales a total of 41 oyster production areas are monitored for faecal coliforrns— E.Coli—under the Food Safety—Live Bivalve Molluscs and Other Shellfish—Regulations 1992. In these areas there are 63 groupings of beds, of which 12–49 per cent.—fall into class A, 39–62 per cent.—into class B, nine–14 per cent.—into class C, and three–5 per cent.—are prohibited.

  All production areas in Holland and France are required by directive 91/492/EEC to be monitored. Information on the number of oyster farms classified in other EU member states is not generally available to us.

  Whitland and Longridge Creameries
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was informed that Dairy Crest intended to close its Whitland and Longridge creameries.

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: The closures were a matter for the commercial judgement of Dairy Crest.

  It is not my practice to reveal details concerning the receipt of commercially sensitive information.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether the members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee are required to declare their commercial and non-commercial interests;

  (2) if he will publish the commercial and non-commercial interests of the members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.
  1145
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 446, for what reason members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee are not required to provide details of consultancies held; and how this practice differs from that applied to other advisory committees for which he is responsible.

  Mrs. Browning
  Further to my written answer on 18 October about the commercial and non-commercial interests of members of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, the following information is now available from member, Dr. W. A. Watson:

  Commercial interests

  Name of company

  Nature of interest

  Sheep farmer

  Food and Agriculture organisation of the United Nations

  Occasional consultancy work

  Biotechnology and biological sciences research council

  Occasional consultancy work

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of toxic waste was imported into Britain from abroad for disposal or reprocessing in 1991, 1992 and 1993; and what is the projected level for 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  Imports of hazardous waste into Great Britain, notified under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988, were as set out in the table. In order that comparison may be made with previous years, the totals are expressed by financial year–1 April to 31 March.

  Year

  Tonnes

  1990–91

  44,542

  1991–92

  46,714

  1992–93

  45,942

  Figures for imports notified in 1993–94 have not yet been published.

  For further information, I refer the hon. Member to table 7.6 and paragraphs 7.9 to 7.12 of the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics No. 16, 1994 (HMSO)", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the draft list of hazardous wastes set out in the European Commission's proposal for a Council decision establishing a list of hazardous waste, pursuant to article 1(4) of Council directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste, Com (94)156 final, dated 21 September 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my Department's explanatory memorandum on this document, which was deposited in the House Libraries on 27 October.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce additional planning controls to protect the green belt in the centre of England in the areas affected by the expansion of the national exhibition centre, the expansion of the airport runway, the widening of the M42 and the development of housing under the unitary development plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Stringent controls already exist to protect green belts from inappropriate development. Such development is only allowed in very special circumstances, while green belt boundaries can be altered only in exceptional circumstances. The revised version of planning policy guidance note 2 will maintain our commitment to green belts when it is published.

  In the recently published draft regional planning guidance for the west midlands we confirm that there is no case for fundamental review of the green belts, which have served their purpose well and which will continue to do so.

  Pollution
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was first given a copy of the draft text of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution's 18th report, "Transport and the Environment", Cm 2674.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend was sent a copy of the report the day before publication. My Department's officials received early drafts of parts of the report for factual comment earlier in the year.

  Stockton Shopping Centre
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the proposed redevelopment of Stockton's shopping centre by the city challenge team is expected to commence.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This is a matter for the Stockton city challenge partnership.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Such information is not available centrally.

  Development Corporations
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the total amount of urban block expenditure by his Department, (b) the total amount and percentage allocated to all urban development corporations and (c) the total amount and percentage allocated to the London Docklands development corporation for each year from 1987–88 to 1993–94.
  1147
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is detailed in the table:

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Urban expenditure

  514·4

  597·6

  815·0

  964·5

  979·4

  984·4

  936·3

  UDCs and Docklands light Railway

  160·2

  254·7

  476·8

  607·5

  601·4

  515·0

  371·2

  UDCs as a percentage of Urban expenditure

  31

  43

  59

  63

  61

  52

  40

  LDDC

  82·8

  116·4

  255·8

  333·0

  248·7

  156·5

  105·4

  LDDC as a percentage of Urban experience

  16

  19

  31

  35

  25

  16

  11

  Figures exclude UDC borrowing and receipts.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many successful prosecutions have been undertaken by local waste authorities over the past three years.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.

  Statistics relating to prosecutions undertaken by waste regulation authorities cannot be identified centrally.

  The table shows the number of non-police prosecutions and convictions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989

  Number of non-police prosecutions for certain sections under
  the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 and the
  Control of Pollution Act 1974,1991–1993 England and Wales

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Act/Section

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section:

  33(8)

  —

  —

  13

  8

  45

  36

  33(9)

  3

  3

  1

  —

  1l

  10

  34

  —

  —

  14

  9

  57

  43

  38(10)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  38(11)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  —

  —

  6

  4

  —

  —

  57

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  59

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  69(a) (b)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  69(c)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  71

  1

  1

  5

  2

  2

  1

  Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 Section:

  1

  4

  3

  —

  —

  23

  18

  5(4) (a)

  —

  —

  2

  1

  36

  35

  5(4) (b)

  1

  1

  —

  —

  13

  11

  6(9)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  7(3) (a)

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  4

  7(3) (b)

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Control of Pollution Act 1974 Section:

  3

  7

  4

  4

  2

  50

  30

  16

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Home Office—Court Proceedings data.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.
  1148
  and the Control of Pollution Act 1974 for certain waste-related offences in England and Wales in 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  It should, however, be noted that the statistics of court proceedings are based on returns made by the police to the Home Office and although these include offences where there has been no police involvement, such as those prosecutions instigated by Government Departments, local authorities—in this case probably waste regulation authorities—and private organisations and individuals, the reporting of these types of offence is known to be incomplete.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on public appointments to non-departmental public bodies and nationalised industries for which the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible is contained in"Public Bodies 1993", published by HMSO, a copy of which is

  1149
  available in the House of Commons Library. This gives the percentage of all such appointments, for which this Department is responsible, held by women, as 22 per cent., at 1 September 1993. Similar information for 1994, to be published in "Public Bodies 1994", is currently being collected.

  The information in "Public Bodies" includes the Commons Commissioners and valuation tribunals, for which the Secretary of State for the Environment is responsible but to which appointments are made by the Lord Chancellor and local authorities, respectively.

  CFCs and Hydrofluorocarbons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will support proposals circulated by the Dutch Government at the September meeting of the international negotiating committee—INC 10—to restrict the use of HFCs to applications where there are no viable alternatives to those HFCs with low global warming potential and to where leaks can be avoided.

  Mr. Atkins
  The document circulated at INC 10 was a report on the likely global warming effects of various HFC emissions control scenarios and, as such, was not a proposal by the Dutch Government. United Kingdom policy on HFCs is set out in sections 6.37 to 6.39 of the United Kingdom climate change programme, a copy of which is in the House Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress green Ministers have made in eliminating CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs from the Government estate.

  Mr. Atkins
  Green Ministers have encouraged the elimination of ozone-depleting substances and Departments have prepared action plans showing how they will reduce use and emissions of these substances,

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he has given to waste regulation authorities to ensure that they uphold the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 relating to the deliberate release of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs; and what action he will take if this guidance is not acted upon.

  Mr. Atkins
  Guidance on the application of waste law to ozone-depleting substances is contained in paragraphs 4.95 to 4.103 of DOE circular November 94. I fully expect waste regulation authorities to act upon this guidance.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance his Department has produced to help refrigeration engineers and technicians to assist in his policy of phasing out CFCs and HCFCs and limiting the use of HFCs.

  Mr. Atkins
  Guidance for the refrigeration industry is contained in the DTI publication,"Refrigeration and Air Conditioning. CFC Phaseout: Advice on Alternatives and Guidelines for Users." A second edition should be published by the end of November.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held on the strategies for phasing out CFCs and HCFCs in refrigeration and limiting the use of HFCs with(a) ICI, (b) Calor Gas, (c) Sainsburys, (d) Tesco and (e) Iceland.

  Mr. Atkins
  My officials hold regular meetings with the refrigeration industry at which retailers and producers 1150
  are represented. Discussions have also taken place with Calor Gas concerning hydrocarbon refrigerants. In addition, representatives of the refrigeration industry met my predecessor last year, and I shall be meeting them later this month.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to deposit in the Library all the submissions received on his Department's nuclear waste policy review.

  Mr. Atkins
  A list of submissions will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring is undertaken of sites where low-level nuclear waste is deposited.

  Mr. Atkins
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regularly samples leachate or other local waters at sites authorised to receive low-level radioactive waste for controlled burial.

  Details and results of the programme are given in HMIP's annual monitoring reports, copies of which are lodged in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the suitability, in terms of lining, soil conditions and proximity of water sources of Beddingham landfill site near Lewes for possible disposal of low-level nuclear waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  The suitability of the Beddingham landfill site to receive low-level radioactive waste, small quantities of which are sent only from Sussex university, was carefully assessed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution before an authorisation for disposal was granted.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what precautions are taken to ensure that low-level nuclear waste is not dispersed or misused.

  Mr. Atkins
  The accumulation and disposal of radioactive waste are regulated under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and, as appropriate, under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will agree to the request by Lewes district council for a representative of his Department to attend a public meeting in Lewes to explain the proposals to allow the disposal of low-level nuclear waste on council landfill sites.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes.

  Water Disconnections
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of disconnections in water supply in the Rotherham metropolitan borough council area for each year since 1990 and so far in 1994.

  Mr. Atkins
  Data on disconnections by local authority district are not available centrally. The Director General of Water Services publishes data on disconnections twice a year, by water company area.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he supports the comprehensive
  1151
  approach interpretation of the framework convention on climate change article 4 commitments.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom's response to the commitments in the framework convention on climate change is set out in our national programme under the convention, published in January. The programme sets out measures aimed at returning emissions of each of the main commitments contained in article 4.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in securing the voluntary controls on the release of HFCs described in section 6.38 of the Government's report "Climate Change: the United Kingdom Programme".

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department has held preliminary discussions with HFC producers and representatives of the aerosol, refrigeration, fire protection, solvents and foam manufacturing industries, to explore the scope for voluntary agreements to minimise emissions of HFCs.

  Government Offices
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 38-40, what is the total cost of the refurbishment to properties at (a) Montrose house, Glasgow, (b) Station road, Kettering, (c) Lambert house, Talbot street, Nottingham, (d) Crown Building, 55 Norfolk street, Boston, (e) Crown Buildings, 1 Queen street, Wellingborough and (f) Ladywood house, 45-46 Stephenson street, Birmingham.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  (a) Montrose house, Glasgow—planning on this project has not yet started and, consequently, no figures are available;

  (b) Station road, Kettering—this refurbishment and fit out for government occupation, including the provision of full disabled access, cost Government just under £40,000 plus VAT;

  (c) Lambert house, Talbot street, Nottingham—refurbishment did not take place;

  (d) Crown building, 55 Norfolk street, Boston—this scheme, which did not proceed, was designed to accommodate a Government Department expansion which, in the event, did not materialise;

  (e) Crown building, 1 Queen street, Wellingborough—Employment Service, the occupant of this building, is dealing with the refurbishment and improvements, however, planning is at a very early stage and no costs are yet available;

  (f) Ladywood house, Birmingham—the Department's landlords, at their own cost, paid about £2·75 million to refurbish Ladywood house.

  Local Government
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Local Government Commission's proposals for Cleveland would require joint arrangements between authorities and contracting of functions to maintain services;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that any new authorities created as a result of local government reorganisation should be capable of directly providing the full range of public and support services within their own resources;
  1152
  (3) what assessment he has made of the effect of the non—directly elected joint bodies requiring under the proposed local government reorganisation for Cleveland on local democracy.

  Mr. Curry
  Every local authority, existing or new, should be capable of securing the provision of the full range of services for which it is responsible. Except for the fire service, we do not consider that statutory joint authorities will be necessary for any local government functions in Cleveland following reorganisation. It is for the local authorities themselves to consider the most suitable means of service delivery, including whether voluntary joint arrangements or contracting out are desirable for particular functions. In any event, the elected local authorities will remain democratically accountable.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that all the proposed orders for new local government structures should be laid before the House(a) at the same time and (b) the conclusion of the entire review process.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated number of jobs which the Local Government Commission has calculated would be lost if its proposals for the Cleveland area were implemented.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission's financial estimates of costs and savings associated with reorganisation in Cleveland, which were made publicly available in November 1993, incorporated the assumption that 336 staff would become surplus if the present local government structure were replaced with four unitary authorities. The staffing levels of the authorities are, however, ultimately a matter for them.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy that there should be fresh all-out elections to shadow authorities to supervise the changes in local government structures; and what consideration he has given to the creation of shadow authorities for the Cleveland area.

  Mr. Curry
  Our policy is that wherever possible there will be all-out elections to shadow unitary in the May preceding the April start-up date. In Cleveland all-out elections to the four district councils will take place in May 1995. The councillors who are elected then will plan for the transfer of functions from the county council to the districts and will continue at reorganisation in April 1996 as councillors of the unitary authorities.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will ensure that, in the current local government reorganisation exercise, a package of staff protection and compensation measure will be available which will be at least as comprehensive and beneficial to staff as the arrangements made available during the last two previous reorganisations;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to create a mandatory national framework to maintain continuity of employment for those affected by changes in local government as a result of the local government review, together with full protection of pay and conditions of service; and if he will provide sufficient resources in addition to those required for the maintenance of services, to ensure that such protection is available for all of the affected employees

  Mr. Curry
  Protection of rights of employees upon transfer is already afforded by employment law and will
  1153
  not be affected by reorganisation. The Government will ensure a suitable package of staff protection and compensation measures for employees in local government affected by the current reorganisation. We have consulted on proposals for redundancy compensation and hope to make an announcement on other elements of the package in due course. Since local authorities will benefit from the savings arising from reorganisation, it is right that they should manage the transitional costs without additional resources from central Government.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy not to implement changes in local government structures which are likely to put jobs at risk.

  Mr. Curry
  No. Local government reorganisation is intended, among other things, to achieve greater efficiency and long-term savings in the cost of providing services. There will inevitably be some effect on staffing structures. The changing role of local government is bound to have implication for the skills and numbers in the local authority work force whether there is structural change or not.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Local Government Commission's proposals for Cleveland have been demonstrated to have the clear support of an absolute majority of the residents of that area.

  Mr. Curry
  The commission's final report on Cleveland, published in November 1993, included the results of opinion research which showed that a clear majority of local residents want change, and that the structure proposed by the commission is the most popular option for change.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what importance he attaches to public opinion as expressed in responses to the Local Government Commission's consultation period.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Local Government Act 1992 requires the Local Government Commission to have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and to secure effective and convenient local government. Public opinion is one important test of this.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes were provided through the Housing Corporation in 1993–94; and how many he expects will be provided in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In 1993–94 the Housing Corporation provided 56,500 new lettings through its approved development programme. In estimates published in December 1993, the Housing Corporation indicates that on current plans it will be able to provide over 58,000 new lettings in 1994–95 and some 52,000 in 1995–96 through its ADP. Plans for 1995–96 and beyond are, of course, under consideration as part of the current public expenditure round.

  In addition, 8,334 new lettings were provided in 1993–94 through the Housing Corporation funded by local authority housing association grant. The level of output from this programme in future years will depend on decisions taken by individual local authorities.

  Cites
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of, State for the Environment if he has consulted fully with Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over resolutions to be considered at the forthcoming conference of parties to the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species which may affect the convention's listing of marine mammals and fishes.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Yes. We have consulted all other Departments with an interest in proposals and resolutions to be considered at the CITES conference, including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Overseas Development Administration, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Forestry Commission.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects decisions to be announced on bids made to the single regeneration budget, with particular reference to those applications relating to education projects; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We expect to announce decisions on bids for funding from the single regeneration budget, including bids involving education projects, in January 1995.

  International Station, Ebbsfleet
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a map of the area covered by the approved urban development around the planned international station at Ebbsfleet showing ownership of principal areas of leasehold and freehold interests.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on planning permissions and land ownership are not held centrally. Details of planning permissions which exist for development in the area around the site of the proposed international station at Ebbsfleet will be available from the planning registers of Dartford and Gravesham district councils. Records of land ownership are held by the Land Registry.

  Planning Application, Whitechapel Moor
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will decide whether to call in the planning application in respect of the leisure development at Whitechapel moor, South Molton, Devon.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's policy to deal expeditiously with requests that he call in planning applications for his own determination. He expects to issue a decision shortly after North Devon district council has reached its conclusions on it.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes in circumstances occurred between 16 September and 21 October to cause the Secretary of State to require the local planning authority to resolve the planning application in respect of the leisure development at Whitechapel moor, South Molton, Devon.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 16 September my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State exercised his powers under
  1155
  article 14 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 and directed North Devon district council not to grant planning permission for a golf and leisure development at Whitechapel moor, South Molton, Devon. The direction was issued because the application would not otherwise be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan. In effect, the direction provides an opportunity to consider whether the application raises the type of issues which would justify call-in.

  On 20 September the North Devon district council planning committee deferred making a decision on the application pending the outcome of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision on call-in. On 21 October the Government office for the south-west requested the council to resolve the planning application which remains before it and explained that it was important to know what the council's decision would he. If the application were refused, the substantial additional expense associated with a public inquiry would he avoided.

  Move-to-buy Grant
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations are made to ensure that a housing association tenant who proposes to apply for the move-to-buy grant is able to meet his mortgage commitments; how much is the move-to-buy grant; whether a recipient of the move-to-buy grant whose property is subsequently repossessed is regarded as intentionally homeless; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The tenants incentive scheme is available to housing association tenants seeking to buy a home on the open market. Grants of between £8,001) and £16,000 are available, depending upon the geographical location of the property.

  In applying for a TIS grant, tenants are required to declare details of their income and savings as part of their application, and housing associations are entitled to take this information into consideration as part of their assessment of the application.

  In responding to an application under the homelessness legislation from a former HA tenant who is subsequently repossessed, a local authority will take account of all factors relevant to a particular case.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites which are currently used for the disposal of low-level nuclear waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what account will be taken of public opinion when the decision is made about the level of nuclear waste at the Milton tip;

  (2) what plans he has to introduce further sites for the disposal of low-level nuclear waste in East Anglia;

  (3) on what date he expects to publish the findings of his review of waste management disposal;

  (4) when he will take a decision about the level of nuclear waste disposed of at the Milton landfill pit near Cambridge;

  (5) what representations he has received on his plans to allow the dumping of low-level nuclear waste on council landfill sites;
  1156
  (6) what further consultation he intends to carry out with the councils and the residents in the Lewes area before deciding whether Beddingham landfill site is to be approved as a site for the disposal of low-level nuclear waste; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  One of the proposals in the Department's consultation paper, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions", published in August, was that waste producers should be encouraged to make greater use of the controlled burial of low-level radioactive waste in landfill sites. The Department has received a large number of responses to the review, which are being given full consideration. A statement of future policy will be made in due course.

  There are no proposals in relation to specific sites. However, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution consults the relevant waste regulatory authority, local councils and water undertakers, before issuing authorisations for controlled burial.

  Waste Water
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions he has had with the European Commission under its urban waste water treatment directive for the classification of all waters south of the Humber bridge as coastline;

  (2) what part the National Rivers Authority plays in classifying rivers and coastline for the purposes of the urban waste water treatment directive;

  (3) what discussion he has had with Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. concerning the designation of the city of Hull as a coastal city for the purposes of the EC directive on urban waste water treatment;

  (4) with whom he had discussions before the classification of all waters south of the Humber bridge as coastline;

  (5) what estimates has his Department made of the savings in capital costs arising from the classification of Hull as a seaside resort for the purposes of the directive on urban waste water treatment.

  Mr. Atkins
  The EC's urban waste water treatment directive provides for waters to be identified according to their sensitivity to inter alia eutrophication—sensitive areas—or according to their natural dispersion characteristics—high dispersion areas. It also requires that the seaward limits of estuaries should be identified for the directive's purposes.

  After public consultation on the criteria for the identification of sensitive areas and HNDAs, the NRA proposed that, for the purposes of this directive, the seaward limit of the Humber estuary be drawn at the Humber bridge and that the coastal area to the east of that be identified as an HNDA. The NRA advised the Department that no further environmental benefit will accrue from the provision of levels of sewage treatment in addition to the minimum requirements for HNDAs in the directive at the locations so identified.

  Following discussions with English Nature and the water companies I announced on 18 May 1994 the identification of 33 sensitive areas and 58 HNDAs. These decisions were communicated to the European Commission.

  The Director General of Water Services published on 28 July 1994 his estimate of £6 billion for the cost of

  1157
  implementation of the UWWTD in England and Wales. This estimate took account of the decisions taken on sensitive areas and HNDAs.

  Water Prices
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage change in the price of water in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Atkins
  The most complete available historical data on water charges from 1979 are contained in"Waterfacts" published annually by the Water Services Association, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Bolton Council
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive a reply from Bolton council to his letter of 9 September, reference PNW/5080/147168.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Bolton borough council has advised that if hopes to reply to that letter within a week.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of whether there is a connection between respiratory diseases and vehicle emissions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department takes advice from the Department of Health on the effects of pollutants on human health. The Government take very seriously evidence that high levels of some traffic-related pollutants can have adverse effects on those suffering from respiratory disorders. On 3 October 1994 my Department, the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council announced a £5 million research programme into links between air pollution and respiratory disease. I and my colleagues will further consider issues of air quality and public health when we discuss the terms of our response to the consultation paper on improving air quality. We intend to publish our proposals later this year.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from public and private representative bodies to amend the building regulations to reduce the danger of accidents from the collapse of freestanding masonry walls; and what proposals he has in response to amend or to institute some form of regulatory control.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Apart from a request from the hon. Member's own local authority at Swansea and from HM coroner for north Buckinghamshire, following an

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Avon

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  5

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Devon

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Dorset

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  1

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1158
  inquest into a tragic accident involving a young boy, the Government have received few representations calling for freestanding masonry walls to be brought under building regulation control.

  Following its review earlier this year, the Government accepted the Building Regulations Advisory Committee recommendation that such walls should not be brought under statutory control. It was the committee's view that despite the tragic fatality cases reported, the health and safety risks associated with such walls are far less than for other hazards, such as those present in the home. The burden of control on enforcement authorities, industry and the public could not therefore be reconciled against such low risk of injury.

  The Government are, however, committed to improving the safety of freestanding walls through their continued sponsorship of the development and dissemination of technical guidance on wall construction and maintenance. NHBC registered builders already have an obligation to observe such guidance.

  In addition, the Government are encouraging local authorities to be vigilant in exercising their powers under sections 77 and 78 of the Building Act 1984 to remedy any dangerous walls.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals against banding remain outstanding in the London borough of Lambeth; and when he expects the appeals to be disposed of.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  As at 30 September, 1,788 initial period banding appeals were outstanding in respect of dwellings in the London borough of Lambeth.

  We expect four out of five initial appeal period appeals to be settled nationally before the end of this year. The remainder will be settled as soon as possible in 1995. I cannot estimate a date by which all such appeals will have been settled since a few may be affected by special factors, such as an appeal on a point of law to the High Court.

  Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many exemptions have been granted in each county to establishments keeping animals from provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act in each year since 1982; and if he will make a statement about the reasons for these exemptions in respect of the last year for which figures are available.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 October 1994, c. 292]: Between 1984 and 1991 the following exemptions from the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 have been granted.
  1159

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Herefordshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Middlesex

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sussex

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Yorkshire

  —

  3

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  No exemptions have been granted in 1992 to 1994. Exemptions from the Act are granted to collections which consist entirely of animals which are normally domesticated in Great Britain. Establishments which have been granted exemptions are not considered to meet the definition of zoo within the meaning of the Act by virtue of the fact that wild animals are not being exhibited to the public.

EDUCATION

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, on how many occasions in the past year the spouse of a Minister in her Department has travelled abroad at public expense to accompany a Minister on public duties, and what has been the total cost to public funds; and on how many occasions such travel has been undertaken at own cost.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to her reply, Official Report, 27 October 1994, c. 626]: There have been no occasions in the last year when the spouse of a Minister in the Department for Education has travelled abroad to accompany a Minister on public duties at public cost. On four occasions, a Minister was accompanied, but in no case was this at public cost.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to maintain in schools the teaching of English to ethnic minority children currently funded under section 11; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In addition to existing mainstream provision for them, initiatives to benefit minority ethnic pupils for whom English is not their first language are eligible for support from the single regeneration budget. Bids for that support in 1995–96 are currently under consideration. Support will also be available from the 1160
  rersidual element of section 11 grant, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has invited bids for next year.

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what changes she has to announce to cash limits and running cost limits on votes within her responsibility for 1994–95.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the cash limits for class X, vote 1, schools, research and miscellaneous services and vote 4, administration will be amended. The cash limit changes are as follows:

  Class and vote Current Cash limit £

  Change £

  Revised Cash limit £

  X.1

  800,269,000

  + 3,527,000

  803,796,000

  X.4

  93,032,000

  + 5,911,000

  98,943,000

  The increase on class X, vote 1 is in respect of the take up of the capital end-year flexibility entitlement of £3,538,000 announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–34, offset by a contribution of £11,000 from the Welsh Office Education Department towards the funding of the special educational needs tribunal.

  The increase on class X, vote 4 is in respect of the take-up of the end-year flexibility entitlements of £1,886,000 for capital and £4,021,000 for running costs as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 14 July 1994, Official Report, columns 729–34, and a transfer of £32,000 from the Public Services Agency, offset by a contribution of £28,000 from the Welsh Office.

  Education Department towards the running costs of the special educational needs tribunal.
  1161
  The running costs limit for the Department for Education will be increased by £4,053,000 from £90,347,000 to £94,400,000. This reflects take-up of the end-year flexibility entitlement and the transfer from the Public Services Agency.

  The increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what educational effect she expects increased levels of nursery education to have over the next two years.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Progress will be made in the lifetime of this Parliament towards implementation of the Government's firm commitment to make a pre-school place available for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take it up. Good quality nursery education should lead to improved performance at key stage 1, and the beneficial effects should last well beyond that.

  Travellers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the educational effect on gipsy and travellers' children of evictions under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The increased powers of eviction provided under the Bill are intended primarily to tackle the serious nuisance of mass trespass, raves and illegal camping. The draft circular of guidance recently issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has drawn attention to the need for local authorities to take particularly careful account of the effects of any evictions on the education of children. The guidance also draws attention to the need for alternative

  Name of member

  NDPB and Post held

  Salary £ Per annum

  Duration of appointment

  Political Party

  Mr. N. Bennett

  Futher Education Funding Council (England) Member of the Council

  4,000 honorarium

  3 Years

  Conservative

  Mr. M. Fallon

  Higher Education Funding Council (England) member of the Council

  4,000 honorarium

  2·5 Years

  Conservative

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Attorney-General how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout his Department.

  The Attorney-General
  Adjusting clocks forms part of the normal day-to-day maintenance of my Department's buildings. No separate records are kept of the time spent on this.

  Children (Legal Guardianship)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement regarding legal guardianship and adoption of 1162
  educational arrangements to be made in such circumstances, appropriate to the children's ages, abilities and aptitudes.

  Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to his answer of 25 October, what was the funding to the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute by the Further Education Funding Council in 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Boswell
  Funding of the Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute by the Further Education Funding Council was £20,974 in respect of the period April 1993 to July 1994, and £140,767 in respect of the period August 1994 to July 1995. This reflects the re-classification of some courses for English as a foreign language.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of public appointments made by her Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1993, 27 per cent. of public appointments made by this Department were held by women. The 1994 figures are still being finalised and will be made available in due course.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by her Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if she will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is given as follows:

  children when one or both parents are deceased or not able to look after the child and when friends of the parent or parents act to adopt he child against the wishes of other blood relatives of the child who may he surviving.

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

  Each case will be decided within the legal framework and according to its individual circumstances.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the law regarding legal guardianship of children by persons who are not related to the child when grandparents willing to act as legal guardian and bring up the child are still alive; and if he will make a statement.
  1163
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans to review the law.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will review the law regarding access rights of grandparents with particular reference to cases where the child is the legal ward of people who are not related by blood or birth; and if he will make a statement.

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

  The Children Act 1989 contains provisions under which grandparents can apply to the court for contact with their grandchild. These apply whether or not the child is living with its natural parents or with others. There are no plans to review these provisions.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many of those people currently holding public appointments hold more than one appointment; and if he will list those people and the appointments they hold;

  (2) how many members of public bodies have been dismissed from office since 1979.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  This information is not held centrally.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many names on the public appointments unit list currently hold public appointments.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the Government accepted the recommendations of the 1989 review of public appointments procedures that all Departments should set a target for the percentage of women in public appointments by the end of 1994; and if he will give details of targets for each Department and of current performance against it.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Departmental plans and goals for the increased representation of women on public bodies were published on 16 November 1992. A summary of these is in the Library of the House. Details of progress toward these goals can be found in "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is also available in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the public appointments which are made by Ministers are(a) full-time, (b) part-time, (c) paid, (d) unpaid, (e) full-time and paid, (f) part-time and paid, (g) full-time and unpaid and (h) part-time and unpaid.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  This information is given in the Cabinet Office publication"Public Bodies 1993" a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the public appointments made in 1993–94 were public appointments unit nominees; and if he will list these appointments.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  During 1993–94, the public appointments unit learned of 134 appointments which 1164
  were made following nomination by the unit. A list of these appointments is as follows:

  Nationalised industries and public corporations:

  Bank of England–1 appointment

  British Railways Board–2 appointments

  London Transport Board–1 appointment

  Executive bodies:

  Brent Housing Action Trust–1 appointment

  Broadcasting Standards Council–1 appointment

  Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work–1 appointment

  Horticultural Development Council–1 appointment

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission–1 appointment

  Museum of London–1 appointment

  Occupational Pensions Board–1 appointment

  Regional Flood Defence Committees–2 appointments

  Remploy Ltd.–2 appointments

  Royal Armouries–1 appointment

  Urban Development Corporations—3 appointments

  Water Customer Service Committees–2 appointments

  Advisory Bodies:

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments–1 appointment

  Advisory Committee on Telecommunications—3 appointments

  Citizens' Charter Complaints Task Force–1 appointment

  Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body–1 appointment

  Electricity Consumer Committees–5 appointments

  Farm Animal Welfare Council–1 appointment

  London Regional Passengers Committee–2 appointments

  MAFF Regional Panels–4 appointments

  National Consumer Council–2 appointments

  Post Office Users' Council for Scotland–1 appointment

  Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution–1 appointment

  Schoolteachers' Review Body–1 appointment

  Scottish Consumer Council–1 appointment

  Social Security Advisory Committee–2 appointments

  Transport Users' Consultative Committees–8 appointments

  Tribunals:

  Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal–2 appointments

  Copyright Tribunal—3 appointments

  Meat Hygiene Appeals Tribunal–1 appointment

  VAT Tribunal–1 appointment

  National Health Service Bodies:

  Regional and Special Health Authorities–2 appointments

  District Health Authorities—3 appointments

  Family Health Service Authorities–4 appointments

  National Health Service Trusts–27 appointments

  Executive Agency and other Management Boards:

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research–1 appointment

  Employment Services External Advisory Board–4 appointments

  Insolvency Service Steering Board–1 appointment

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre Advisory Board–1 appointment

  Royal Mint–1 appointment

  Other Appointments:

  British Waterways Board–1 appointment

  CAPAM–1 appointment

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority Committee of Enquiry–1 appointment

  Final Selection Board–1 appointment

  General Medical Council–1 appointment

  General Optical Council–2 appointments

  Home Office Inspectors of Constabulary Selection Panel–1 appointment

  Independent Living Fund—3 appointments

  Institute of Cancer Research Audit Committee–1 appointment

  International Development Research Centre (South African Workshop)–1 appointment

  National Board for Crime Prevention–2 appointments

  National Support Force for Children's Residential Care–1 appointment

  Registry of Friendly Societies–1 appointment

  Restrictive Practices Court—3 appointments

  Review of Government Administration in Lithuania–1 appointment

  Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons–1 appointment

  Royal Commonwealth Society of the Blind–1 appointment

  1165

  Soil Association Organic Marketing Company Ltd–1 appointment

  South African Advanced Education Project–1 appointment

  US/UK Education Commission–1 appointment

  Women's Issues Working Group–2 appointments

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will bring forward proposals for a Freedom of Information Act.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  No. Current open government initiatives plus the further commitments set out in the White Paper on Open Government, Cm 2290, will provide a more practical alternative to freedom of information legislation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Badgers
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals to amend the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 to allow police officers powers of entry on to private land.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We have no plans to do so.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those who applied for asylum(a) since 26 July 1993 and (b) since 1 January 1994, and are liable to detention under paragraph 16(1) and 16(2) of schedule 2 and paragraph 2 of schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 have been detained under these provisions.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  On 28 October 1994 a total of 702 people who had sought asylum were detained. This figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose application was under consideration or subject to appeal. Of this figure, 332 were detained under paragraph 16(1) of schedule 2, 306 under paragraph 16(2) of schedule 2 and 64 under paragraph 2 of schedule 3 of the Immigration Act 1971. Information on the percentage of those applying for asylum since 26 July 1993 and 1 January 1994, who were detailed, is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been detained under the provisions of section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993(a) since 26 July 1993 and (b) since 1 January 1994; and how many asylum seekers are currently detained under those provisions.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 refers to appeals from the immigration appeals tribunal. It has no provisions for the detection of asylum seekers, but at 31 October 1994 there was one case in detention awaiting the outcome of such an appeal.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently detained under the Immigration Act 1971; and how long, on average, those detainees have been held.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  On 28 October 1994 a total of 702 people who had sought asylum were detained. This 1166
  figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose application was under consideration or subject to appeal. Of this figure, 216 had been in detention less than one month, 118 between one and two months, 262 between two and six months and 106 had spent longer than six months in detention.

  Police
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Home Department what the actual establishment for the police was for each year since 1978 in(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) the west midlands and (e) H division, Walsall.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information for England and Wales and the West Midlands police is set out in the table. The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The setting of divisional establishments within the West Midlands police is for the chief constable to decide.

  Establishment of police service in England and Wales1 as at 31 December

  Year

  England and Wales

  West Midlands Police

  H Division (Walsall)

  1978

  118,967

  6,509

  423

  1979

  119,765

  6,509

  423

  1980

  120,261

  6,509

  423

  1981

  121,353

  6,684

  421

  1982

  121,480

  6,684

  419

  1983

  121,802

  6,684

  419

  1984

  122,233

  6,684

  419

  1985

  122,457

  6,684

  417

  1986

  123,514

  6,684

  424

  1987

  124,370

  6,684

  427

  1988

  125,390

  6,754

  451

  1989

  126,592

  6,830

  450

  1990

  127,588

  6,893

  459

  1991

  128,265

  6,958

  461

  1992

  128,972

  6,977

  460

  1993

  128,859

  6,977

  470

  19942

  128,954

  6,991

  470

  1 Includes central service, regional crime squads and inter-force units.

  2 Establishment as at 31 August 1994.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional police officers have been released to operational duties as a result of civilianisation in the past five years in each of the following areas:(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) the west midlands and (e) H division Walsall.

  Mr. Maclean
  Over the last five years–1989 to 1993—the following number of police officer posts have been civilianised thereby releasing those police officers for redeployment to other tasks. It is a matter for individual chief officers to decide how these additional resources should be used.

  England and Wales - 3,327 posts

  West Midlands police - 61 posts

  Progress on civilianisation within Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Information on H division Walsall is not readily available.
  1167
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the organisations consulted on the issues covered by the Home Office review of core police functions.

  Mr. Maclean
  Consultation is currently under way with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend will decide on the appropriate level and type of wider consultation in the light of recommendations made by the review in its final report at the turn of the year.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the nature, length of time and extent of the consultation exercise he intends to carry out in response to the recommendation of the Home Office review of core police functions.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 21 July, columns 493–94.

  Drinking Ban, Yarm
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress is being made towards imposing a ban on drinking in public places in Yarm, Cleveland.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Home Office gave provisional approval on 31 October to the making of byelaws by Stockton-on-Tees borough council prohibiting the consumption of intoxicating liquor in designated parts of Yarm and Thornaby; and to the making of similar byelaws by Yarm town council in respect of two areas under its control.

  Prisons
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will be announcing the findings of his review into prison day release and home leave procedure.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have reviewed the arrangements for home leave and temporary release and expect to be able to announce our detailed conclusions shortly.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost per prisoner place, at the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on the average cost per prisoner place.
  The average cost per prisoner place in 1993–94 was £22,712 This figure excludes exceptional items consisting of the costs of holding prisoners in police cells and compensation for abandonment of plans to relocate the Prison Service headquarters to Derby.

  Dorset Police Authority
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which police authorities police officers were seconded to Dorset police authority to police the annual Conservative party conference in 1168
  Bournemouth; and how many officers were seconded from each of those authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is not the practice to provide details of security arrangements.

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Mr. Howard
  The following former Members have been appointed to Home Office non-departmental public bodies since 1988.

  David Bellotti

  Trustee of the Community Development Foundation

  Expenses only

  Appointed January 1992 for 3 years

  Liberal Democrat

  Right Hon. Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, QC

  Chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Salary £31,350

  Appointed 1 March 1989 until 31 March 1995

  Conservative

  John Cartwright

  Deputy Chairman of the Police Complaints Authority

  Salary £44,750

  Appointed for 3 years from 1 August 1993

  SDP

  Sheila Faith

  Former Member of the Parole Board

  Fee Paid; £139 per attendance

  Appointed 1 June 1991 for 3 years

  Conservative

  Ben Ford

  Member of the Firearms Consultative Committee

  Expenses only

  Appointed 1989 for 2 years

  Labour

  Cecil Franks

  Member of the Parole Board

  Fee Paid; £149 per attendance

  Appointed 1 August 1994 for 2 years

  Conservative

  Lord Kimball

  Chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee

  Expenses only

  Appointed for 5 years from 1989

  Conservative

  Anna McCurley

  Member of the Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Salary £11,640

  Appointed 1988 for 3 years extended until 1994

  Conservative

  Michael Meadowcroft

  Trustee of the Community Development Foundation

  Expenses only

  Appointed 1986, extended until 1994

  Liberal

  Norman Miscampbell, QC

  Member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

  Fee £246 per day

  Appointed 22 March 1993 until 31 March 1995

  Conservative

  1169

  Lord Wyatt of Weeford

  Chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board

  Salary £90,918

  Appointed 1976; reappointed 1993 for 2 years

  Labour

  Information in respect of the parole local review committee is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The committees ceased to exist from October 1994.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost to his Department of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Mr. Howard
  I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), to my hon. Friend the member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 30 November 1993, column 391.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from Cleveland on the measures against crime in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  My hon. Friend has himself informed us of a number of representations which he has received about the Bill, and we have also received a small number—in similar terms—direct from members of the public in Cleveland.

  I am confident that the people of Cleveland generally will appreciate that fears expressed about the Bill are misplaced and that it has a valuable part to play in fighting crime and protecting the public.

  Film Censorship
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require that if the British Board of Film Classification finds it necessary to edit a section of a film under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill the board should state in full the reasons for the editing of the film.

  Mr. Maclean
  The British Board of Film Classification already provides the owner to the rights of a video in which it requires cuts with an explanation of those cuts. Owners who consider the decision by the board to be overly strict have a right of appeal to the video appeals committee, which has the power to vary the decision made by the board.

  If in future the board reviews a work already classified before the introduction of the new statutory criteria, the owner of the work will similarly have the right of appeal against any fresh decision by the Board.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to review or change the membership of the British Board of Film Classification following the increase in the board's powers as a result of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill;

  (2) if he will ensure that any proposals for changing the membership of the British Board of Film Classification
  1170
  will ensure that the membership reflects an accurate cross-section of society.

  Mr. Maclean
  The British Board of Film Classification is an independent body and my right hon. and learned Friend has no authority to determine its membership.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary for the Home Department what guidelines will be issued to the British Board of Film Classification concerning the editing and classification of films; and if they will include advice that before a scene is cut it will be viewed in the context of the entire film.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to issue any guidelines on the editing and classification of a video work. The British Board of Film Classification is an independent body and it alone is responsible for determining the classification given to any individual video work. If owners of the rights of works consider decisions by the board to be overly strict, they may appeal to the video appeals committee, itself a separate and independent body.

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bail hostel places exist in London for(a) men and (b) women.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In the Greater London area, comprising the inner London, south-east London, south-west London, north-east London and Middlesex probation areas, there are currently a total of 349 approved hostel places. Of these, 273 are designated for men, 28 for women, and a further 48 are available for men or women as required.

  Wheel Clamping
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish his findings arising from the consultations he received on wheel clamping following the issue of the consultation paper on this subject in February 1993, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 26 October,Official Report, column 642.

  Bail
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the most recent available statistics on the number of offences and the number of persons involved who have over the last number of years committed crimes while on bail; and what steps he is taking to deal with this problem.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on the numbers offending while on bail is not collected centrally. A Home Office research report,"RPU Report 65, Offending While on Bail; A Survey of Recent Studies", gives information on recent studies relating to offences while on bail. A copy of this report is available in the Library. The survey concludes that, on average, between 10 and 12 per cent. of defendants are subsequently convicted of an offence committed while on bail and nowhere was the figure more than 17 per cent. The inference from this and other studies is that more than 50,000 offences per year are committed by persons who are on bail.
  1171
  The Government are committed to preventing offending on bail, through legislation, and by improving the information available to bail decision makers.

  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill contains seven measures to do with bail. In particular, defendants charged with offences which appear to the court to have been committed while on bail will lose the "right" to bail, and the police have been given powers, to detain to prevent offending, and to arrest without warrant where police bail is breached. The Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which came into force in the summer, gives the prosecution a right, in certain circumstances, to appeal against the grant of bail. Additionally, the Criminal Justice Act 1993 requires the courts to consider that an offence committed on bail should be treated more seriously when sentencing.

  Serious Offences
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportions of successive male cohorts have been convicted of serious offences by the age of 15, 21 and 30 years of age.

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is drawn from the offenders index and is shown in the following table.

  Males born in 1953, 1958, 1963, 1968 or 1973: the cumulative percentage convicted1 at the given age2.

  Born in

  Age

  1953

  1958

  1963

  1968

  1973

  15

  12·2

  13·5

  12·8

  10·7

  5·2

  21

  24·2

  26·4

  26·9

  3n/a

  3n/a

  30

  32·5

  34·0

  3n/a

  3n/a

  3n/a

  1 For a "standard list" offence by the end of 1989.

  2 Percentage convicted at that age or younger.

  3 Not yet available.

  Humberside Police Authority
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation processes he proposes to undertake with representatives of the Police Federation, and other trade unions representing employees of the Humberside police authority, during his deliberations on the future of police structures in the Humberside area.

  Mr. Maclean
  Organisations representing the police service and trades unions which represent staff working in support of the police have been invited to comment on the future arrangements for policing in Humberside.

  Fire Service, Humberside
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he proposes to have with the Fire Brigades Union on the future arrangements of the fire service in the Humberside area following the abolition of Humberside county council.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As he has indicated in his reply to a question yesterday from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to establish a combined fire authority for Humberside. Before reaching this decision, he received advice from a sub-committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council on which the Fire Brigades Union is represented. He will also be considering advice from the sub-committee about the 1172
  detailed arrangements for the establishment of the combined fire authority.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of a week in(a) Her Majesty's prison Holloway and (b) a bail hostel.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The net operating cost per place per week at Her Majesty's prison Holloway in the financial year 1993–94 was £554. The average cost of a place in a bail hostel in that year was £221 per week.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) convicted and (b) remand prisoners there were in Her Majesty's prison Holloway in each of the past 24 months.

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

  Letter From Derek Lewis to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) convicted and (b) remand prisoners there were in HMP Holloway in each of the past 24 months.
  The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Population on last day of each month at Her Majesty's Prison Holloway, August 1992—august 19941

  Last Day of Each Month

  Untried

  Convicted2

  Total

  1992

  August

  160

  333

  493

  September

  156

  322

  478

  October

  145

  288

  433

  November

  134

  327

  461

  December

  111

  302

  413

  1993

  January

  120

  271

  391

  February

  124

  287

  411

  March

  126

  291

  417

  April

  127

  287

  414

  May

  134

  301

  435

  June

  150

  296

  446

  July

  160

  297

  457

  August

  161

  292

  453

  September

  167

  283

  450

  October

  186

  270

  456

  November

  183

  265

  448

  December

  155

  260

  415

  1994

  January

  167

  279

  446

  February

  192

  262

  454

  March

  188

  304

  492

  April

  163

  272

  435

  May

  153

  310

  463

  June

  183

  280

  463

  July

  197

  286

  483

  August

  193

  297

  490

  1 Excludes non-criminal prisoners.

  2 Includes remand convicted unsentenced and sentenced prisoners.

  Jamaican Visitors
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the visitors who came into the United Kingdom on charter flights KT310 and ULE966 have returned to Jamaica after the period for which they were admitted expired; what steps are being taken to ensure that those who have overstayed in tote United Kingdom beyond the date permitted for this visit are being traced with a view to deportation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Since departures from the United Kingdom are not comprehensively recorded, the information requested in the first part of the question is not available. The Immigration Service works with the police and other agencies to detect and deal with overstayers, using deportation powers where necessary. Efforts are being made to apprehend a number of passengers who arrived on the flights mentioned by my hon. Friend and are believed to have overstayed.

  CND Demonstration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Metropolitan police concerning the arrangements for the CND demonstration on 29 October.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department received a brief report on the demonstration after the event.

  Prison Service
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Wallasey will receive a substantive reply to her letter to him dated 26 May, which was forwarded to the Prison Service, reference PO 13447/94, for reply.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have asked the Director General to ensure that the hon. Member receives a reply today.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Angela Eagle, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking when you will receive a substantive reply to your letter of 26 May.
  I sent you a substantive reply on 2 November.

  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of the performance of the Prison Service and its Director General in dealing with matters raised by hon. Members on behalf of their constituents.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have asked the Director General to ensure that all Members of Parliament raising constituency cases after 17 October receive a reply within 21 days of receipt and have asked officials to introduce a new computerised monitoring system.

  Special Branch
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the existing guidelines on the work of a special branch.

  Mr. Howard
  Revised "Guidelines on Special Branch Work in Great Britain" have been sent to all chief officers of police in Great Britain. I am placing a copy of the guidelines in the Library of the House.

  Code of Practice on Financial Management
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he intends to issue the code of practice on financial management under section 28(c) of the Police Act 1964, as inserted by section 15 of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

  Mr. Howard
  I have today laid before Parliament a copy of the code of practice on financial management which I have issued under section 28C of the 1964 Act. A copy of the code has been place in the Library of the House.

  Amusement Arcades
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the law governing amusement arcades to give more power to local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: I have received some representations on this matter which I am considering.

  The law is set out in section 34 and schedule 9 to the Gaming Act 1968. The grant of a permit for an amusement arcade is at the discretion of the local authority, but a permit cannot be refused without giving the applicant the opportunity of a hearing. There is no power to attach conditions to the grant of a permit. There is a right to appeal to the Crown court against refusal to grant a permit.

  Renewal of permits may be refused only on certain limited grounds, such as that the authority has been denied access to inspect the premises.

  Strangeways Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of incidents, giving in each case the date, type of incident with brief details, and the outcome, at Strangeways prison, Manchester since April 1994 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for a list of incidents, giving in each case the date, type of incident with brief details, and the outcome, at Wolds prison, from 6 April 1992 to the latest available date.
  Incidents reported by establishments to Prison Service Headquarters fall into the two categories of "major" or "minor", as defined in Prison Service Circular Instruction 18/1988. I attach details of incidents reported by The Wold during the period in question, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those convicted of(a) possessing cannabis and (b) trafficking in cannabis were fined the maximum sum in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer on 31 October 1994]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Prisoners, East Midlands
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) remand arid (b) convicted prisoner were held in police cells in (i) Nottinghamshire and (ii) the east midlands in each month of 1994 to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 1 November 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Paddy Tipping, dated 2 November 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of remand and convicted prisoners held in police cells in Nottinghamshire and the East Midlands in each month of 1994 to date.
  To date there have been no prisoners held in police cells in Nottinghamshire or the East Midlands in any month in 1994.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to bring anabolic steroids within the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  Mr. Michael Howard
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: The misuse of anabolic steroids is a matter for concern and in view of the harmful effects surrounding their misuse, including a number of serious health problems, the Government have decided to impose further controls on them, in line with a recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

  We propose to change the law to make it an offence, without authority, to produce, supply, or possess or import or export with intent to supply, anabolic steroids and other similar drugs. In accordance with the recommendation of ACMD it would not, however, be an offence simply to possess these drugs in the United Kingdom. The necessary draft order under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and amending regulations to effect these changes will be brought before Parliament in due course.

  The proposals deliberately target illicit suppliers and traffickers. The maximum penalties will be three months imprisonment and a £2,500 fine, or both, on summary conviction and five years or an unlimited fine, or both, on indictment.

  We intend to keep under review the effectiveness of the new controls in tackling the supply and trafficking of anabolic steroids and, if it proves necessary, we shall consider even tougher measures.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an up-to-date list of all the chairs and non-executive directors of each national health service trust board indicating the gender and occupation of each individual.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am arranging for a copy of the lists to be sent to the hon. Member and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  National Parks
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of establishing national parks in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The question of establishing national parks in Scotland has been examined many times. In 1988, Ministers invited the Countryside Commission for Scotland to investigate the management of Scotland's mountain areas. In reporting, the Commission recommended the creation of four national parks and the setting up of land management forums for the management of other, upland, areas. However, public consultation found no consensus in favour of national parks and the Government concluded that they were not satisfied that a need for national parks had been demonstrated.

  In 1991, the Government established two working parties to examine the management of the Cairngorms area and of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. These reported in 1992 and 1993 respectively and neither recommended that the national park model be followed. They each recommended management structures tailored to the areas, in particular addressing the different pressures and needs found in each. Both were put to public consultation and the Government expect shortly to indicate how they intend to proceed in relation to the reports.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many decommissioning applications have been received from Scottish registered fishing vessels during 1994; how many were successful; if he will give a breakdown according to ports of registration; and if he will list the individual moneys made available per vessel.

  Sir Hector Monro
  One hundred and forty-nine applications for decommissioning grant were lodged with the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department before the closing date of 15 August; 49 of these have been successful in the tendering process and the owners of the vessels have been informed.

  The following table shows the distribution of these successful bids between licence ports:

  Number

  Arbroath

  1

  Ayr

  9

  Buckie

  9

  Campbeltown

  7

  Eyemouth

  1

  Fraserburgh

  2

  Lossiemouth

  4

  Macduff

  2

  Mallaig

  4

  Oban

  1

  Orkney

  1

  Pittenweem

  1

  Portree

  1

  Stornoway

  2

  Ullapool

  1

  Wick

  3

  These offers of decommissioning grant have not yet been accepted by vessel owners. Until the vessels have

  1177
  been scrapped and the licence entitlements surrendered, individual grant offers must remain confidential between the Department and the applicant.

  Asthma
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his estimate of the number of individuals suffering from asthma in each of the past five years for each Scottish health board area;

  (2) what is the estimate for the number of individuals under the age of 18 years suffering from asthama in each of the past five years in each Scottish health board area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information required to answer these questions is not centrally available.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of deaths from asthma for each year since 1990 in each Scottish health board area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Deaths from asthma, Scotland, 1990–93

  Health Board Area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Scotland

  148

  161

  115

  129

  Argyll & Clyde

  9

  11

  4

  9

  Ayrshire & Arran

  19

  24

  15

  12

  Borders

  8

  3

  5

  6

  Dumfries & Galloway

  4

  3

  3

  3

  Fife

  9

  11

  5

  9

  Forth Valley

  8

  9

  10

  5

  Grampian

  19

  19

  16

  7

  Greater Glasgow

  24

  20

  16

  24

  Highland

  3

  10

  4

  8

  Lanarkshire

  10

  9

  9

  8

  Lothian

  18

  24

  17

  26

  Orkney

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Shetland

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Tayside

  13

  15

  10

  10

  Western Isles

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Common Services Agency (Computers)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those companies which have indicated an interest in the supply of £35 million worth of personal computers to the Common Services Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not the practice to name companies which have indicated interest since this is usually on the basis of commercial confidentiality.

  Tenders have been invited by the supplies division of the Common Services Agency of the NHS in Scotland for central contracts for the supply of personal computers over the next two years. The value of business is expected to be over £5 million per year. Tendering procedures followed EC regulations and 20 companies were invited to tender. Sixteen companies have submitted tenders and these are being evaluated. The successful tenderer will be announced in due course.

  Local Government
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his most recent assessment of the number of jobs which will be lost following the implementation 1178
  of his proposals for local government reform; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Our estimate of the reduction in posts resulting from reform of local government in Scotland ranges from 220 to 1,800, well under 1 per cent. of the total of local government employees. The eventual outcome is of course dependent on the organisational and staffing decisions taken by the new authorities, during the shadow year and beyond.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that any new authorities created as a result of local government reorganisation should be capable of directly providing the full range of public and support services within their own resources.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government's policy, as set out in the White Paper"Shaping the Future—The New Councils" Cm 2267, is that the proposed new councils should have available a range of service delivery options, including direct provision, joint arrangements of various kinds with other councils and contracting with external suppliers. It will be for each new council to decide how best it can fulfil its statutory obligations with the maximum effectiveness and efficiency.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy not to implement changes to local government structures which are likely to place jobs at risk.

  Mr. Stewart
  It has never been a policy of this Government to place jobs at risk. The reform of local government in Scotland is intended to make councils more responsive to the wishes of their citizens, and more effective in the delivery of services. With the removal of unnecessary duplication, it seems likely that fewer staff will be required in the new structure. But we estimate that the reduction in posts will be significantly less than 1 per cent. and with sensible planning by authorities most of this could be found by natural wastage and early retirement measures. Large job losses would imply that local government is currently overmanned.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent assessment he has made of the extent to which his proposals for local government reform would require joint arrangements between local authorities and the contracting of functions in order to maintain both services and facilities at their current levels.

  Mr. Stewart
  Under the proposed new local government structure, councils will, as now, have a range of options available to them in terms of how they carry out their functions. These will include entering into joint arrangements of various kinds with other councils and contracting with external suppliers. It will he for each new council to decide how best it can fulfil its statutory obligations with the maximum effectiveness and efficiency.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is his intention to ensure that, following the implementation of his proposals for local government reform, a package of staff protection and compensation measures will be available which will be at least as beneficial to staff as those arrangements which were put into practice after the last reorganisation of local government; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill provides that staff who transfer by order will do so
  1179
  on existing terms and conditions of service. In addition, there exists an extensive framework of employment protection legislation, much of which was not available at the time of the last reorganisation of local government in Scotland. The Secretary of State is currently considering what compensation arrangements should apply in the light of the advice he has received from the Staff Advisory Committee, now the shadow Staff Commission, the views expressed by local authorities in response to consultation and the proposals for England and Wales. Draft regulations are expected to be published by the end of the year.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to establish a mandatory national framework to maintain continuity of employment for those affected by changes in local government as a result of his proposals, together with full protection of terms and conditions of employment and service; if he will provide sufficient resources, in addition to those required for the maintenance of services at their present levels, to ensure that such protection is available to all of the affected employees; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  In addition to the protection afforded by existing employment law, the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill provides specifically that staff who transfer by order will do so with their existing terms and conditions intact. The Bill also includes safeguards with regard to continuity of service of local government employees. The protection which will be afforded by the Act, following Royal Assent, and by existing employment legislation will place legal requirements and obligations on new authorities which will be taken into account in the local government finance settlements for 1995–96 and subsequent years.

  Super-quarry, Lingarabay
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the likely costs to the Government of the public inquiry into the proposed super-quarry at Lingarabay in the Hebrides; and if he will consider contributing to the costs which will be incurred by the Western Isles island council in making representations to that inquiry.

  Mr. Stewart
  The latest estimate of the likely costs to the Government of the public local inquiry into the proposed super-quarry at Lingarabay is £120,000.

  The matter of contributing to the costs which will he incurred by the Western Isles island council in participating in the inquiry has been the subject of correspondence between, among others, my right hon. Friend and the convener. He has considered the request carefully but has made it clear that he is unable to make an exception to the statutory requirement for such costs to be met by the council.

  Historic Scotland Agency
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has completed the review of the Historic Scotland executive egency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  I have reviewed Historic Scotland at the end of its first three years as an executive agency and have concluded that agency status should continue.1180
  Historic Scotland's performance has been evaluated, and it has taken significant steps forward, in particular:

  it has consistently achieved almost all of its targets

  it has made significant improvements in the delivery of services to all its customers.

  Historic Scotland's framework document has been revised and I have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tourist Boards
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish an up-to-date list of all the(a) chairs and (b) non-executive directors of each tourist board, indicating the gender and occupation of each individual.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: Area tourist boards in Scotland are established by local authorities under discretionary powers. They are generally either associations or companies. Members of their committees are mainly either appointed as representatives of local authorities or are elected from within the tourism industry membership. I am arranging for a copy of the current lists to be sent to the hon. Member and placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Land Ownership and Use
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much land, in hectares, is owned by the Crown Commission in Scotland; and if he will publish a breakdown in terms of(a) forestry, (b) agricultural land in productive use, (c) agricultural land in set-aside, (d) sporting land, (e) inland waters, (f) coastal waters, (g) urban land and property and (h) crofting land.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 28 October 1994]: Each year the Crown Estate Commissioners publish an annual report which contains a schedule of all Crown Estate properties including a breakdown by Scottish regions and individual estates.

  At 31 March 1994 the total acreage of agriculture and forestry lands held by the Crown Estate in Scotland amounted to 34,947 hectares. This comprised predominantly, land let through agricultural tenancies and included areas also used for sporting purposes. Principal forestry areas amounted to around 4,290 hectares.

  The Crown Estate owns approximately half of the foreshore and almost all of the seabed around the coast of Scotland although ownership does not extend to fresh water lochs.

  The urban holdings in the ownership of the Crown Estate amounts to some 10 hectares with a further 97,500 sq ft of office space. No land is held under crofting tenure.

  Rent-to-mortgage Scheme
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total cost for(a) publicity and (b) administration of the rent-to-mortgage scheme since the date when this policy was first implemented; and how many tenants in each sector of public housing have (i) applied to take part in the scheme and (ii) signed an agreement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: Advertising of the pilot rent-to-mortgage

  1181
  scheme in spring 1991 and spring 1992 cost £381,000 and some 21,000 responses requesting further information were received. The right to buy and the statutory rent-to-mortgage—introduced in September 1993—were promoted together in campaigns in autumn 1993 and spring 1994, at a cost of £512,000, and over 12,400 responses were received.

  The administration of the rent-to-mortgage scheme is a matter for local authorities, Scottish Homes and the new town development corporations; information on administration costs is not held centrally.

  The number of applications to purchase and complete sales under the rent-to-mortgage scheme up to July 1994 by each sector is shown in the table:

  Rent-to-mortgage in Scotland

  Applications

  Sales

  Local authorities

  1,467

  457

  Scottish Homes

  1737

  346

  New towns

  38

  61

  2,242

  864

  1 The Scottish Homes application total includes some in respect of New Town houses.

  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what conditions in relation to private finance have been attached to the granting of capital consent for building the new royal infirmary of Edinburgh;

  (2) what are the general implications of the involvement of private finance in the building of the new royal infirmary of Edinburgh for (a) the public sector borrowing requirement and (b) future current expenditure;

  (3) what are the implications for private beds of the involvement of private finance in the building of the new royal infirmary of Edinburgh;

  (4) what are the implications for ownership of the involvement of private finance in the building of the new royal infirmary of Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1994]: Ministers are currently considering Lothian health board's proposals for acute services including the building of a new royal infirmary and an announcement will be made shortly. The Edinburgh Royal Infirmary NHS trust is currently exploring the scope for the private financing of a new hospital, should approval to this development be given. Meanwhile, no decisions on private finance has been taken.

  Children (Legislation)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the difficulties he has identified with introducing a children's Bill for Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1994]: Work is in hand to prepare the necessary legislation and my right hon. Friend has in mind to introduce it when parliamentary time is available.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has come to a decision on the scope of legislation for children.
  1182
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The legislation on children, which is in preparation, will be based on the proposals set out in the White Paper "Scotland's Children", Cm 2286, and will also draw on those proposals in the Scottish Law Commission's report on "Family Law", Scot Law Com No 135, 1992, relating to children.

  Health Care International
  Mr. Worthington
  to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to ensure that Health Care International in Clydebank is using national health service pay and conditions for its staff.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1994]: Since the authorisation of the building of the Health Care international hospital at Clydebank was granted in 1987, NHS trusts have been introduced with the freedom to determine the terms and conditions of service for the majority of their staff. HCI is aware of the principles which underlie the authorisation.

  Dentists
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the effect of the current national health service terms on whether dentists in Scotland are withdrawing from national health service work or seeking to increase their private practice.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 1 November 1994]: Since the current dental contract was introduced on 1 October 1990, the number of dentists on health board lists have increased from 1,626 to 1,757. General dental practitioners are independent contractors who are free to choose whether they wish to join a health board dental list to provide NHS services, and to decide whether to give NHS treatment to each individual patient. No information is available on dentists' private practices.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what projects Britain's contribution to the Liberian trust fund has been spent.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have contributed $1 million to the UN voluntary trust fund for Liberia, including

  $251,000 on a public information campaign to encourage national reconciliation and to facilitate disarmament: and

  $65,000 on generators for the University of Liberia and JFK hospital.

  The balance has been earmarked for emergency assistance to persons affected by the fighting, a demobilisation programme, trauma counselling and further support to the public information campaign.

  Conference on Women
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the leader of the British delegation to the UN conference on women in Beijing in 1995, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), will support and promote in Beijing the
  1183
  declaration of the UN conference on population and development in Cairo.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom delegation to the fourth UN world conference on women in Peking will follow Government policy in relation to the programme of action adopted at Cairo. Its composition has yet to be determined.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Overseas Development Administration's policy document"Children by Choice not Chance", will be supported and promoted by the British delegation at the UN conference on women in Beijing in 1995.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom delegation to the fourth UN world conference on women in Peking in 1995 will support Government policy, including those in the booklet"Children by Choice, not Chance—Meeting the Challenge".

  Scholarships
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the number of nationalities of students on Chevening scholarships in each year since 1985; and if he will list the number and nationalities of students funded by the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan in each year since 1985;

  (2) what was the number and nationality of students on Overseas Development Administration shared scholarships in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Baldry
  The information currently available has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  International (Atomic Energy Agency)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what uses Overseas Development Administration funding of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1992–93 was put.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1992–93 the Overseas Development Administration contributed towards 23 separate research projects aimed at encouraging the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in developing countries who are signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Bilateral Technical Co-operation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the consultants, (b) the tasks for which they were employed and (c) the payments made to them from the Overseas Development Administration budget for bilateral technical co-operation in (i) 1992–93 and (ii) 1993–94.

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of the consultants, the projects on which they were engaged with the value of the contracts, has been placed in the Library of the House. Details of the actual payments made to each consultant could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nepal (Dam)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the estimated risks to the success of the Arun III hydro-power project in Nepal from(a) glacier lake outburst flow, (b) earthquakes and (c) possible future irrigation or hydro-electric developments upstream in Tiber; and what efforts are
  1184
  being made by the projects planners to ensure that any such risks to the success of the dam and the prosperity of Nepal are fully researched and minimised.

  Mr. Baldry
  The geological risks and impact on upstream developments have been studied and taken into account in the design of the project. An independent panel of experts has been involved with the design, and in advising on safety aspects as well as geological, hydraulic, seismic, structural and environmental aspects.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence he has that the Arun III project in Nepal will contribute to the development of technical and managerial capacity in the Nepali private sector.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Nepalese authorities have drawn on local private sector expertise in preparing the project; and local staff will be responsible for a substantial proportion of the supervision contract. In addition, the Government of Nepal are committed to facilitating private sector investment in the power sector. The proposed project includes a facility to strengthen the capacity of the private sector to undertake feasibility studies and to provide partial financing in selected cases.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made as to whether the rate of return, quoted in the World bank's staff appraisal report, as expected for the Arun III hydro-power project in Nepal, is a sufficient economic return to justify a World bank decision to fund the project.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are currently assessing the bank's appraisal of this project, including the economic analysis and justification.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds the World hank has not established an inventory of the species at risk from the planned Arun III hydro-power project.

  Mr. Baldry
  One of the volumes in the environmental impact study, which was an important element in the bank's appraisal and was carried out by the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, is devoted to a survey and catalogue of biodiversity in the Arun basin.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the World bank will make a final decision on funding for the Arun III dam project in Nepal.

  Mr. Baldry
  A date has not yet been fixed for consideration of this project proposal by the bank's board of directors.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis the Overseas Development Administration and the United Kingdom executive director to the World bank decide what constitutes a least-cost approach to meeting energy needs when evaluating projects; and if he will place in the Library the cost benefit analysis and least-cost study on the Arun III hydro-power project in Nepal.

  Mr. Baldry
  The least-cost approach to generation expansion and cost benefit analysis are standard project appraisal techniques employed by the bank. A copy of the least-cost generation expansion plan, excluding the detailed technical annexes, is being placed in the Libraries of the House. Under existing rules of procedure, the bank's appraisal report remains confidential for the time being; but a copy will be placed in the Libraries after board approval of the project.
  1185
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis a comparative assessment of alternatives to the Arun III project in Nepal was performed; and what conclusions were reached regarding the suitability of small-scale and mini-hydro options for tapping the power potential of Nepal.

  Mr. Baldry
  The bank's appraisal report considers the option of smaller hydro-power schemes as an alternative investment strategy and concludes that the overall balance points in favour of the Arun project.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the World bank to ensure that the Nepal electricity authority has the institutional capacity to manage and recover revenue from a completed Arun III hydro-power project.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Nepal Electricity Authority has engaged consultants to help it adopt measures to strengthen its financial management and cost recovery, including reducing system losses and improved revenue collection performance. The Asian development bank intends to provide technical assistance to the NEA to strengthen its environmental unit.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the proposed Arun III dam project in Nepal is consistent with the country assistance strategy developed for Nepal by the world bank.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is among the issues covered in the
  staff appraisal report and is being taken into account in our assessment of the proposal.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Nepali citizens are expected to benefit from access to the power generated by the Arun III hydro-power project, if completed.

  Mr. Baldry
  The project is designed to help meet the growth in demand for power in Nepal as a whole, for industrial users and domestic consumers alike. The World bank estimates that currently only 9 per cent. of Nepal's population of 20 million has access to electricity, and that this share is expected to double by the end of the project period.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees have been provided to the World bank as to whether India will buy the excess energy to be generated by the Arun III hydro-power project planned in Nepal, and to ensure prompt payment for any electricity India undertakes to buy from Nepal.

  Mr. Baldry
  The project is not designed as a power export project, but to meet Nepal's domestic energy needs.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives the United Kingdom executive director of the World bank has taken regarding the development of the World bank's cost-accounting system for the World bank; and what input he has made to that development.

  Mr. Baldry
  The task force on portfolio management identified weaknesses in the bank's consideration of risk and sensitivity analysis in its loan appraisals. As a response to that report bank management are producing new guidelines on the use of risk/sensitivity analysis. The United Kingdom executive director has been active in 1186
  pressing the bank to undertake full and thorough follow-up to the task force recommendations.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the early retirement of Martin Karcher, division chief for the south Asia region in the World bank.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are not in a position to comment on Mr. Karcher's early retirement.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the type of cost accounting methodology now applied by the World bank to the loans in its portfolio.

  Mr. Baldry
  The World bank applies well-established techniques of economic and financial analysis on all its loans, including cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis where appropriate.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the total British contribution to the funds of the World bank was invested in the Sardar Sarova dam before the World bank withdrew finance from the project.

  Mr. Baldry
  The bank's board of directors approved an IBRD loan and two IDA credits for the Sardar Sarovar dam project and associated canal in March 1985. IBRD shareholder capital is not used to finance bank loans directly, but as a guarantee for the bank's borrowings on the international capital markets. In 1985, the United Kingdom held 6 per cent. of the IBRD's subscribed capital. At the end of June 1994, the share was 4·92 per cent. The IDA credits were committed under the seventh replenishment of IDA, the United Kingdom share of which was 6·70 per cent.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Monopolies and Mergers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what referrals to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission within his remit Her Majesty's Government have made since the creation of his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. All referrals to the MMC are a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  Departmental Finances
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes he proposes to make to his Department's cash limits and running costs limits for 1994–95.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates for class XI, the following changes will be made:

  i) The cash limit for vote 1 (museums and galleries) will be increased by £100,000 from £223,022,000 to £223,122,000 to cover the costs of the transitional funding of the Yorkshire mining museum.

  ii) The cash limit for vote 2 (arts) will be increased by £605,000 from £194,974,000 to £195,579,000. The increase provides for an additional £70,000 for research, surveys and other services and an increase of £535,000 in respect of the capital end-year flexibility scheme to meet residual Government contributions towards the costs for theatre restoration. This increase will be partly offset by savings on class XI, vote 3 (libraries), where the cash limit will be reduced by £70,000 from £139,373,000

  1187
  to £139,303,000 in respect of a saving of expenditure on the public library development incentive scheme.

  iii) The cash limit for vote 6 (Royal Palaces, Historic Royal Palaces Agency, Royal Parks Agency, historic buildings, ancient monuments and the national heritage) will be reduced by £100,000 from £195,062,000 to £194,962,000 to reflect a transfer to the Scottish Office to cover costs arising from a state visit to Edinburgh.

  iv) The net increase in provision will be charged to the reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Satellite Broadcasting
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his Department's policy towards monopoly provision of satellite broadcasting in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Any operator is free to establish a satellite service provided it meets the conditions laid out in the Broadcasting Act 1990. At present 87 non-domestic satellite broadcast services are licensed by the Independent Television Commission.

  "Multimedia in the Home"
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will obtain a copy of the Inteco report "Multimedia in the Home"; and if he will make a statement on its implications for his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department is aware of the report's findings. Reports of this type are considered on a regular basis in order to monitor developments within the broadcasting and media industries.

  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will bring forward proposals to establish the BBC in statute law and to end its status as the creation of executive power; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No. Our White Paper on the future of the BBC concluded that the BBC should continue to be established by royal charter, in line with the recommendation of the National Heritage Select Committee.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what changes to the BBC are currently under consideration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We published our proposals for the future of the BBC in a White Paper on 6 July.

  Cross-media Ownership
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Nationl Heritage if he will list those rules relating to cross-media ownership between television companies and newspapers which do not apply to non-domestic satellites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Restrictions on the proprietors of newspapers owning licensed broadcast services are set out in part IV of schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990. There are no restrictions relating to cross-holdings between newspaper proprietors and non-d0mestic satellite Stations beyond the general provisions set out in chapter 1 of part 1 of the Act.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National 1188
  Heritage when he expects to publish the White Paper on cross-media ownership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are considering the way ahead on media ownership and will make an announcement when these deliberations are concluded.

  Broadcasting and Media
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what encouragement his Department is giving to develop digital services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On 14 July, the Government announced plans for the introduction of digital terrestrial television. Together with the Department of Trade and Industry, my Department is continuing to look at how best to take advantage of the opportunities digital television offers.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when his Department expects to bring forward proposals arising from the BBC White Paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Comments on the White Paper were invited by 31 October. I will consider the comments received before preparing the new royal charter and agreement which will govern the BBC's activities in the future. I expect to prepare these documents during the course of 1995.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest information on his Department's exploration with the BBC of the privatisation of transmission services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have appointed consultants to consider the options for the future of the BBC's transmission service, and to make recommendations.

  Public Appointments
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, what percentage of public appointments made by his Department were held by women at the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The latest published figures for the Department of National Heritage—that is, those given in "Public Bodies 1993"—are: out of a total of 651 public appointees 142 or 22 per cent. are held by women. The 1994 figures are still being collected and will be announced in due course.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what are his Department's responsibilities on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in respect of freedom of information; and if he will make a statement on the current policy;

  (2) if he will list the developments in freedom of information introduced by his Department since its creation.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In common with other Government Departments the DNH is implementing the code of practice on access to Government information introduced in April 1994. In response to this the Department has drawn up its own procedural note on the operation of the code and I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

  Audio-visual Media
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what response his Department has made to the European Community Green Paper on audio-visual media; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The United Kingdom's response to the European Commission's Green Paper on EU Audio-visual Media policy was sent to the Commission on 10 August. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list all those organisations for which his Department has oversight other than the BBC and not established in statute by royal charter or other executive powers.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Most of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department were set up under statute or royal charter. The exceptions are;

  The Geffrye Museum, the Horniman Museum, the Greater Manchester Museum of Science and Industry and the National Film and Television School, all of which are companies limited by guarantee,

  The Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, set up by Royal Warrant in 1869 (reissued in 1959),

  The Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, set up by Royal Warrant in 1908 (reissued in 1963 and 1992),

  The Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England, set up by Royal Warrant in 1908 (reissued in 1963 and 1992),

  The Wallace Collection, established by Treasury Minute in 1987, and

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside, established under the Merseyside Museums and Galleries Order 1986.

  The following advisory bodies were set up by the Department under its administrative powers;

  The Advisory Committee on the Government Art Collection

  The Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck sites

  The Advisory Committee on the Public Lending Right

  The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art

  The Regional Councils for Sport and Recreation

  The Royal Parks Advisory Group

  The Historic Royal Palaces Advisory Group

  The Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee

  The Public Library Development Incentive Scheme Advisory Committee.

  Information Super-highways
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consideration his Department has given to the report by Vice-President Gore on governmental involvement in the development of super-highways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government are aware of Vice-President Gore's views, and aim to help the United Kingdom industries to be well placed to take advantage of the new technologies.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the average cost to his Department of 1190
  answering (a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave as Financial Secretary to the Treasury to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) on 30 November 1993,Official Report column 387.

  Archaeological Services
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action he intends to take as a result of the review by Capita Consultants into the provision of archaeological services on London.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department commissioned the report, in partnership with the Museum of London, English Heritage and the Corporation of London, following a request from the museum to help the parties concerned to examine the problem. Those parties now have a copy of the consultant's report and it is for them to take what action they think appropriate. In this respect, responsibility for policy on archaeology in London rests with English Heritage, while the Museum of London has responsibility for the Museum of London archaeology service.

  Clock Adjustment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many man hours were taken up by adjusting the clocks throughout his Department.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does not keep records of such estimates.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to meet representatives of the British film industry to discuss development of the sector.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: I met the chairman and vice—chairman of the Producers' Alliance for Cinema and Television on 27 September and the chairman and director of the British Film Institute on 18 October. I have no plans to meet other representatives of the industry in the near future.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if companies wishing to bid for the Channel 5 licence are allowed to do so on the basis of a digital transmission system; and if such bids will receive full consideration by the Independent Television Commission.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 1 November 1994]: The award of the Channel 5 licence is a matter for the Independent Television Commission. Procedures for awarding licences are set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990. The invitation to apply for Channel 5 issued by the ITC does not preclude an applicant from proposing the use of digital transmission. I am sure that any application made on this basis will receive due consideration.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many public appointments(a) he is

  1191
  responsible for making and (b) require his approval including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 27 October 1994]: I am responsible for making 375 appointments. In addition, a further 49 appointments require my approval.

  Of the appointments which I am responsible for making, 178 are to executive bodies, 144 to advisory bodies and 53 are other appointments. Of those which require my approval all are "other appointments" by the definition used in the question.

PRIME MINISTER

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 423, if he will provide a statistical analysis showing the (i) number of people and (ii) proportion of the total register who have volunteered information that they are members of (a) the Conservative party, (b) the Liberal Democrats, (c) the Labour party, (d) the Ulster Unionist party, (e) the Social Democratic and Labour party, (f) Plaid Cymru, (g) the Scottish National party, (h) the Democratic Unionist party, (i) the Popular Unionist party and (j) the Green party.

  The Prime Minister
  Nominees on the public appointments unit's register are not required to give any details of their political affiliation, but can volunteer it if they wish. Some 87.5 per cent. of nominees do not volunteer any information, and therefore no information about their affiliation is held.

  The analysis of those who have volunteered to the public appointments unit the nature of their political affiliation is as follows:

  Political party

  Number

  Percentage

  Conservative

  409

  8·0

  Labour

  132

  2·6

  Liberal Democrats

  50

  1·0

  Social Democratic Party

  46

  0·9

  Green Party

  1

  0·02

  Welsh Nationalist

  1

  0·02

  Total

  639

  12·5

  Total number on register

  5,095

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 423, if his Office (a) adds information concerning the political affiliation of nominees on the public appointments unit's register, when it is known but not volunteered or (b) have access to other lists that provide such information.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to revise "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so at present. If the Committee on Standards in Public Life 1192
  makes recommendations in respect of the conduct of Ministers I will, of course, consider whether "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" should be revised in the light of the recommendations.

  Mr. Ghazanfer Ali
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the current position in the case of Mr. Ghazanfer Ali detained in prison in Azad Kashmir.

  The Prime Minister
  We continue to raise this case with the Pakistani authorities and await their response. Officials discussed it informally with Sardar Qayyum Khan of Azad Kashmir on 31 October.

  Engagements
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for the evening of 28 May 1993.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: I attended a function in my constituency.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Haiti
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Haiti.

  Mr. Baldry
  We welcome the return of President Aristide, and congratulate the UN Secretary-General and the Organisation of American States on their efforts to restore the democratically elected Government.

  The situation in Haiti remains calm. We hope that conditions will continue to improve, promoting regional stability, and that the return of President Aristide will bring about an end to human rights abuses in Haiti, and engender an atmosphere of reconciliation, allowing the return home to a secure environment of the thousands of migrants who fled Haiti during the years since the coup.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  The situation in Rwanda is relatively stable, although still tense. The new Government have declared their intention of encouraging refugees and displaced persons to return home. We are doing what we can to assist this process.

  Palestine
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to assist the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian people.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the continuing negotiations and will provide £75 million to the Palestinians over the next three years.

  Russia
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to
  1193
  promote the cause of democratic reform in Russia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We shall continue to give our full support to the process of democratic and economic reform in Russia through the know-how fund and other means. The know-how fund, through its programme for democracy, has funded a number of projects this year including a symposium for newly elected Duma deputies.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters in regard to nuclear terrorism, nuclear safeguards and nuclear materials control were raised with the Russian Government on his recent visit to Russia.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 20 October 1994]: Nuclear matters were not discussed during my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's visit to Russia.

  These issues were last discussed bilaterally with the Russians in the ambit of President Yeltsin's recent visit to the United Kingdom. Since then there has been a meeting of the Group of Eight informal consultation on non-proliferation at which the question of the smuggling of nuclear material was discussed.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently made to, or received from, the main political parties in Mozambique in respect of the peace process and general election in that country.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have made continuous ministerial and other diplomatic contacts to promote the peace process. On 27 October my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker wrote to Mr. Dhlakama, the President of RENAMO to urge him to withdraw his boycott of the elections. I am pleased to say that he did so, following this and wider international pressure.

  Eastern Europe
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions this year he has visited countries in eastern Europe to discuss democratic development there.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This year my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has paid visits to Poland and the Czech Republic. He has visited Russia three times, and has also been to Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia.

  South Africa
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and South Africa.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom's relations with the new South Africa are excellent. They are built on long-standing historical, personal, economic and cultural ties. The Government are committed to supporting the revival of South Africa's economy, which is essential for its reconstruction and development, and promoting bilateral trade and investment.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to South Africa in September included the announcement of a "fellowship for the future". We have established a practical framework for co-operation across a wide range
  1194
  of activities. My right hon. Friend and President Mandela signed agreements on aid, investment protection and military assistance. Our opportunity South Africa campaign aims at expanding our strong trade and investment base. We have also proposed practical support for health care, education, community policing, small business development, agriculture, sport, science and technology, and public administration. Parliamentary and ministerial links are being established in all these areas.

  The Government are delighted that South Africa has joined the family of democratic nations and returned to the Commonwealth. The next task is to promote the stability and growth which will be essential for fulfilling the legitimate aspirations of all South Africa's people. All of Africa will benefit from that process.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on British relations with Pakistan.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our relations with Pakistan are in excellent shape. We look forward to Ms Bhutto's visit next month.

  Kuwait
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government are taking to meet the threat from Sadam Hussein towards Kuwait.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We responded rapidly to the threat from Saddam Hussein by deploying HMS Cornwall and HMS Cardiff, six additional Tornado GRI aircraft and the Spearhead battalion group to the region.

  The UN Security Council unanimously passed SCR 949 on 15 October which demanded the complete withdrawal of all Iraqi military units. Iraq should not redeploy troops or enhance its military capacity in southern Iraq. Iraq should be in no doubt of our resolve.

  European Union
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he considers it appropriate at this stage to rule out the use of a referendum to determine future questions affecting the terms of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have not ruled out a referendum, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not in general in favour of referendums in our parliamentary democracy.

  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards enlargement of the European Community.

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Union signed a treaty of accession with four EFTA states on 24 June this year. The people of Austria and Finland have voted in favour of joining: provided that the referendums in Sweden on 13 November and in Norway on 28 November are also positive, and that remaining parliamentary procedures in those countries are satisfactorily completed, all four will accede on 1 January 1995. On further European Union enlargement, the Copenhagen European Council in June
  1195
  1993 agreed that the associated countries of central and eastern Europe that so wish will join as soon as they are able to assume the obligations of membership by satisfying the economic and political conditions required. The Corfu European Council in June 1994 agreed that the next phase of enlargement would involve Cyprus and Malta.

  Former Soviet Union Countries
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with former Soviet Union countries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom enjoys good bilateral relations with all the countries which gained independence following the break-up of the Soviet Union. The United Kingdom continues to support political and economic reform in those countries as the best way to achieve stability and prosperity in the region.

  UK Foreign Policy (Far East)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the far east to discuss the implications of United Kingdom foreign policy.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand and Vietnam in September. He has no immediate plans to visit the region again.

  Kashmir
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet with groups in the United Kingdom campaigning for a resolution to the problems of Indian-held Kashmir.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no current plans to meet such groups.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of Kashmir.

  Mr. Baldry
  We believe that the best way forward on Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement; an improvement in human rights in Kashmir and a genuine political process there; and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has promoted to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in advance of its 1995 review and renewal conference.

  Mr. David Davis
  We are working hard for the indefinite and unconditional extension in unamended form of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1995. We believe such an extension will send a clear message to would-be proliferators of the international community's resolve to prevent any proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are actively seeking with our European Union partners the universality of the treaty, which, with 165 members, is the most widely adhered to arms control agreement in history.1196
  We support work underway in the International Atomic Energy Agency to strengthen the agency's safeguards system which is key to the successful implementation of the treaty.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty Government's relationship with Taiwan.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Although the United Kingdom has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we attach great importance to our commercial, cultural and educational links. United Kingdom exports for the period January to August 1994 were £448 million, an increase of over 13 per cent. compared with the same period in 1993. The British trade and cultural office in Taipei is being reinforced with additional staff to develop these links.

  Middle East
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the middle east peace process and welcome the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, recent signs of progress on the Syrian track and continuing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the likely impact of the closure of the Gaza strip and the west bank on the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Closure of the Gaza strip and west bank has a serious effect on the economy of the occupied territories. It is estimated that more than 60,000 Palestinians go to work in Israel from the occupied territories, and that about one third of the gross product of the territories comes from the wages of Palestinians working in Israel. We are pleased to hear that the closure was being lifted gradually from 1 November.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Denis MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to bring trade union law in Hong Kong into line with International Labour Office conventions.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Trade union law in Hong Kong is already broadly in line with the standards specified in international labour conventions. For example, the five ILCs relevant to trade unions which have been ratified by the United Kingdom have been applied to, and implemented in, Hong Kong, mostly without modification. The Hong Kong Government review trade union law regularly to keep it in line with international standards.

  China
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to hold discussions with the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Chinese Foreign Minister in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly last month. He has no plans to do so again in the immediate future.

  Ganges and Bramaputra Rivers
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with India and Bangladesh about their dispute about the water from the Ganges and Bramaputra rivers.

  Mr. Baldry
  None. This situation can be resolved only through bilateral negotiations between the Indian and Bangladeshi Governments. I hope that both sides can work towards an agreement soon.

  Angola
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the Angolan peace talks.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Angolan Government and Unita initialled a peace agreement in Lusaka on 31 October. The next step is for the two sides to hold talks on military issues, including a ceasefire. After these have been concluded, the parties are then expected to sign the agreement.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the average cost to his Department of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 391.

  Bombing (Tel Aviv)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Israeli Government concerning their decision to seal off the Gaza strip and west bank in response to the Tel Aviv bombing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We raised with the Israeli Government the closure of the west bank and Gaza strip. We are pleased to hear that the closure is being lifted gradually from 1 November.

  North Korea
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations or communications he had from the United States Secretary of State prior to the agreement with North Korea over its nuclear programme; and what assistance or opportunities are available to Her Majesty's Government or British companies to meet the aims of the agreement.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have been in frequent contact with the United States at both ministerial and official level 1198
  throughout the crisis over North Korea's nuclear programme. We have welcomed the framework agreement signed by the United States and North Korea on 21 October. As part of that agreement, the United States has undertaken to put together an international consortium, the Korean Energy Development Organisation, to provide North Korea with two light water reactors and to help it meet its energy needs while those reactors are under construction. We have told the Americans that we are prepared to offer technical advice to KEDO, but that no United Kingdom funds will be available. We shall, of course, facilitate the involvement of any United Kingdom companies that wish to bid for any part of the reactor project business. We understand that South Korea and Japan will play a central role in the financing and construction of the reactors.

  School Fees
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs how many members of his Department are entitled to have school fees paid from public funds; what is the total current cost; and which schools receive the payments.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff serving overseas, or expecting to serve overseas again after no more than five years in the United Kingdom, are entitled to boarding school allowance. A total of 726 diplomatic service and Overseas Development Administration staff currently receive the allowance, at a total cost of £8,690,277 in 1993–94. A list of the schools receiving payments is given below.

  Officers whose children accompany them overseas are entitled to educate them at public expense where no suitable free schooling is available. Details of the number of officers receiving this local allowance or of the schools involved are not available. The total cost in respect of diplomatic service officers in 1993–94 is £2,310,477. There are not comparable figures for the ODA.

  Abbotsholme School

  Aberlour House

  Ackworth School

  Aldenham School

  Aldro School

  All Hallows School

  Ampleforth College (Giling CS)

  Ardingly College

  Ashdown House School

  Ashford School

  Ashley Moor College

  Ashville College

  Atlantic College

  Badminton School

  Barrow Hills School

  Battle Abbey School

  Beaconhurst Grange

  Bearwood College

  Beaudesert Park

  Bedales School

  Bedford High School

  Bedford School

  Bedgebury School

  Bembridge School

  Benenden School

  Bentham Grammer School

  Berkhamsted School

  Berkhamsted School for Girls

  Bethany School

  Bishop's Stortford College

  Bloxham School

  Blundell's School

  Bootham School

  1199

  Box Hill School

  Bradfield College

  Brambletye School

  Bramcote School

  Brandeston Hall

  Brentwood School

  Brighton College

  Brockhurst

  Bromsgrove School

  Brooke House 6th Form

  Bryanston School

  Burgess Hill School

  Bushey Place School

  Caldicott

  Cambridge Arts Tutors

  Cambridge Centre

  Canford School

  Cannock School

  Cargilfield

  Carmel College

  Caterham School

  Catteral Hall

  Charmandean School

  Charterhouse School

  Charters-Ancaster College

  Cheadle Hulme

  Cheltenham College Junior School

  Cheltenham Ladies College

  Chichester College of Tech

  Christ College, Brecon

  Christs College, London

  Claremont Fan Court School

  Clarendon School

  Clayesmore School

  Clifton College

  Cobham Hall

  Cokethorpe School

  College of the Sacred Hearts

  Combe Bank School

  Cottesmore School

  Cranbrook School

  Cranleigh School

  Croftdown School

  Croftinloan School

  Crown Woods Lodge

  Cumnor House

  d'Overbroeck's

  Daniel Stewart's and Melville

  Dauntseys School

  Dean Close School

  Dollar Academy

  Dorset House School

  Douai School

  Dover College

  Dover College Prep School

  Downe House School

  Downside School

  Dragon School

  Duff Millar 6 Form College

  Duke of York's

  Dulwich College

  Dulwich College Prep School

  Durham School

  East Court

  Eastbourne College

  Edgarley Hall

  Edgeborough

  Edgehill College

  Edinburgh Academy

  Edinburgh House School

  Ellerslie School

  Ellesmere College

  Elmhurst Ballet School

  Elstree College

  Embley Park School

  Epsom College

  Eton College

  Farleigh School

  Farlington School

  Farringtons School

  1200

  Felixstowe College

  Felsted School

  Feltonfleet School

  Fernden School

  Fernhill Manor

  Ferrington Hall Prep School

  Fettes College

  Forest School

  Forres School

  Framlingham College

  Freefolk House

  Frensham Heights School

  Friars School

  Friends School

  Fulneck Girls School

  Giggleswick School

  Glenalmond College

  Godstowe School

  Gordons School

  Gordonstoun School

  Grace Dieu Manor School

  Grange House School

  Great Walstead School

  Greenacre School

  Grenville College

  Greshams School

  Grove School

  Guildford College of Technology

  Haileybury Junior School

  Handcross Park School

  Hanford School

  Harptpurey College

  Harrow School

  Harrowgate College

  Hawtreys (Prep School)

  Headfort School

  Headington School

  Heathfield School

  Hetherset Old Hall School

  Highfield School

  Highgate School

  Holly House

  Holmewood House School

  Holy Family (Convent of the)

  Hordle House

  Howell's School

  Hunmanby Hall

  Hurst Lodge

  Hurstpierpoint

  Hurtwood House

  Indefatigable

  Ipswich School

  James Allen's Girls School

  Kelly College

  Kent College, Canterbury

  Kent College, Tunbridge Wells

  Keswick School

  Kilgraston School

  Kimbolton School

  King Edward's School

  King's College, Taunton

  King's School (The), Canterbury

  King's School, Bruton

  King's School, Ely

  Kingham Hill

  Kings School

  Kingswood School

  Knighton House

  Lambrook School

  Lancing College

  Landsdowne

  Lavant House School

  Lawnside School

  Leighton Park School

  Leys School

  Licen Victs School

  Lindisfarne College

  Lockers Park

  Lomond School

  Longridge Towers School

  1201

  Loretto School

  Luckley - Oakfield School

  Maltman's Green

  Malvern College Junior School

  Malvern Girl's College

  Mander Portman Woodward Ltd.

  Marlborough College

  Marlborough House School

  Marshcourt

  Mary Erskine School

  Mayfield College

  Merchant Taylor's School

  Merchiston Castle School

  Methodist College

  Michael Hall School

  Micklefield School

  Mill Hill School

  Millfield School

  Moira House School

  Monkton Combe Junior School

  Monkton Combe School

  Monmouth School

  Moor Park School

  More House School

  Morrison's Academy

  New Hall School

  Newlands Manor School

  North Foreland Lodge School

  Northaw School

  Notre Dame Convent School

  Oakdene School

  Oakham School

  Oratory Prep School (The)

  Oratory School (The)

  Oswestry School

  Oundle School

  Oxford Tutorial College

  Padworth College

  Pangbourne College

  Papplewick

  Parkside School

  Parsons Mead School

  Pennthorpe School

  Philpots Manor School

  Pierrepont School

  Pilgrims' School

  Pipers Corner School

  Plymouth College

  Pocklington School

  Polam Hall

  Port Regis

  Princess Helena School

  Prior Park College

  Prior Park Prep School

  Prior's Field School Priors Court

  Quantock School

  Queen Anne's School

  Queen Margarets School

  Queens College

  Queenswood

  Radley College

  Rannoch School

  Read School

  Reading Blue Coat School

  Reed's School

  Repton Preparatory School

  Rickmansworth Masonic School

  Ripley Court

  Rishworth School

  Roedean School

  Rosemead School

  Rossall School

  Royal Alex. & Albert School

  Royal Hospital School

  Royal Naval School

  Royal Russel School

  Rugby School

  Rydal School

  Rye St. Antony School

  Sacred Hearts School

  1202

  Sandroyd School

  Scraborough College

  School of St Clare

  Seaford College

  Sedbergh School

  Sevenoaks School

  Shapwick School

  Sherborne Sch Int Study Centre

  Sherborne School

  Sherborne School for Girls

  Shiplake College

  Shoreham Grammar School

  Shrewsbury School

  Sibford School

  Sidcott School

  Sir Roger Manwood School

  Skegness Grammar School

  Slindon College

  Southgate Technical College

  St Andrew's School, Eastbourne

  St Andrew's School, Pangbourne

  St Andrew's School, Woking

  St Antony's-Leweston School

  St Augustine's College

  St Bede's School, Eastbourne

  St Bede's School, Wolseley Bridge

  St Bees School

  St Benedict's Convent

  St Catherine's School

  St Christopher School, Letchworth

  St Christopher's School, Bernham on Sea

  St Clare's Oxford

  St Denis School

  St Edmund's College, Ware

  St Edmund's School, Canterbury

  St Edmund's School, Hindhead

  St Edwards School

  St Felix School

  St George's College

  St George's School for Girls

  St George's School, Ascot

  St George's School, Windsor

  St Helen's School

  St John on the Hill

  St John's School

  St Joseph's College

  St Lawrence College

  St Leonards-Mayfield School

  St Margaret's School

  St Mary and St. Annes

  St Mary's Convent, Shaftesbury

  St Mary's Gate, Southbourne

  St Mary's Hall School, Brighton

  St Mary's Hall, Stoneyhurst

  St Mary's School, Ascot

  St Mary's School, Calne

  St Mary's School, Cambridge

  St Mary's Wastage

  St Michael's

  St Neot's School

  St Paul's School

  St Peter's School

  St Stephens College

  St Swithuns School

  Stanbridge Earls School

  Stoke College

  Stonar School

  Stonyhurst College

  Stover School

  Stowe School

  Strathallan School

  Streete Court School

  Summer Fields School

  Sunningdale School

  Sutton Valence School

  Swanbourne House School

  Taunton School

  Temple Grove School

  Terrington Hall School

  The Blue Coat School

  1203

  The Mount School

  The Nak Centre

  The Old Malthouse

  The Red Maid's School

  The School of St Clare

  Tockington Manor School

  Tonbridge School

  Towers School

  Truro School

  Tudor Hall School

  Twyford School

  United College of the Atlantic

  Upper Chine School

  Uppingham School

  Ursline Covent School

  Vinehall School

  Wadhurst College

  Walthampton School

  Walthamstow Hall School

  Warminster School

  Wellesley House

  Wellingborough School

  Wellington College

  Wentworth Milton Mount

  West Buckland School

  West Heath School

  Westbourne House School

  Westminster School

  Westonbrit School

  Winchester College

  Windlesham House School

  Wispers School

  Wolborough Hill School

  Woldingham School

  Woodcote House

  Worth Abbey School

  Wrekin College

  Wychwood School

  Wycliffe College

  Wycombe Abbey School

  Yardley Court

  Indonesia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions he places on the type of arms that could be sold to Indonesia; and if he will join the embargo on small arms sales to Indonesia.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The export to any destination of arms and other goods listed in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 is prohibited without a licence issued by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. All applications for export licences for defence equipment are considered carefully on a case by case basis in the light of established criteria. In the case of Indonesia, we would not, for example, licence for export equipment likely to be used for internal repression. There is no United Nations or European Union embargo on arms sales to Indonesia.

  British Embassies
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total annual running cost of the British embassy(a) in Paris, (b) in Cairo and (c) in Luanda.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The total annual running costs of the British embassies(a) in Paris, (b) in Cairo and, (c) in Luanda are £16·7 million, £3·3 million, and £1·5 million respectively.

  International Atomic Energy Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 October,Official Report, column 382, if he will reconsider his refusal to release the names of the British suppliers of technology to the Iraqi nuclear programme listed in the International Atomic Energy Agency report; and what is his response to the statement by the director-general of the IAEA before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 26 October regarding the release of such information.

  Mr. David Davis
  No. I have nothing to add to my reply of 21 October 1994,Official Report,column 382.

  Secret Intelligence Service
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many compulsory redundancies have been made in the Secret Intelligence Service during the past 12 months.

  Mr. Hurd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 14 July 1994,Official Report, column 711-12. We do not intend to give detailed information on the staffing of the individual security and intelligence agencies.

  Mr. Ib Riis
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what emergency support has been given to Mr. Ib Riis.

  Mr. Hurd
  Mr. Ib Riis wrote to me on 10 June. He wrote to my hon. Friend and others at the same time. In late June he was told that officials were looking at his case. In late September he was asked to submit a claim for financial assistance. He responded in October and his claim is now being considered.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many directives of the European Union have not in whole or part yet been incorporated into law in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Commission's Eleventh Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of Community Law (1993) document reference 6697/94, COM (94) 500 Final, records that the UK had by 31 December 1993 notified the Commission of implementing measures in respect of 1,060 directives out of a total of 1,148 directives applicable on that date. This record was bettered only by the Netherlands and Denmark. The Commission report is available in the Library.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what timetable exists setting out dates for the incorporation into United Kingdom law of European Union directives which remain outstanding.

  Mr. David Davis
  Separate deadlines for implementation are specified in each directive which is required to be transposed into national law. In some cases a directive will specify a number of deadlines, each of which is applicable to different provisions within the directive.

  European Defence
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his speech to the Franco-British Council on Monday 24 October represents Government policy.

  Mr. Hurd
  It does. Because of misleading press reports, I have placed a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, following his speech of 24 October, what is Government policy on earmarking forces for a nascent European army; what options he is considering for an independent European defence structure outside NATO; and what consideration he has given to making the Western European Union a formal fourth pillar of the EU.

  Mr. David Davis
  There is no question of a European army. As agreed at Maastricht, the Western European Union is being developed as the defence component of the European Union and as the means to strengthen the European pillar of the Atlantic alliance. WEU has no standing forces of its own, but relies on NATO and other national forces, which can be made available on an ad hoc basis for WEU operations.

  Hospitality Fund
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 440, how much of the wine purchased on the advice of the Government hospitality fund advisory committee for the purchase of wine comes from any of the committee members' companies.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Members of the Government advisory committee for the purchase of wine recommend wines as being suitable for use as a consequence of "blind" tastings when they are unaware of the provenance of the wine being assessed. Nor are members involved in decisions on purchasing which are the responsibility of officials of the fund.

  One member of the committee has consultancy status with one company from which 6 per cent. of wines purchased in 1993–1994 were supplied.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report column 440, how the wine purchased by the Government hospitality fund advisory committee for the purchase of wine is used.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The wines purchased on the recommendation of the Government hospitality advisory committee for the purchase of wine are used only at functions which GHF provides for Ministers when giving official hospitality on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 440, what has been the annual cost of wine purchases undertaken by the Government hospitality fund advisory committee for the purchase of wine in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Government hospitality fund advisory committee for the purchase of wine has purchased no wine; it is involved only in recommending suitable wines for use by the fund.
  1206
  Decisions on quantities needed and actual purchases are the responsibility of officials of the fund itself.

  Purchases of wine by officials of the Government hospitality fund for the past five years are as follows;

  1989–1990 — £131,641

  1990–1991 — £132,926

  1991–1992 — £101,124

  1992–1993 — £ 97,622

  1993–1994 — £110,553

  Bananas
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the United Kingdom has given the Windward Islands over the export of bananas to the EC.

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom strongly supports the European Community banana regulation, which offers Windward Islands producers preferential access to the single market. We have support a special Community aid scheme for African, Caribbean and Pacific banana-producing states. We have also given bilateral and regional assistance to the Windward Islands banana industry. We provided emergency assistance in the wake of tropical storm Debbie and are supporting special EC measures to protect the Windwards' marketing structure.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will clarify Her Majesty's governments's policy over the 1985 Moran proposals on the future of Gibraltar following recent Spanish statements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  We told the Spanish Government at the last Brussels process meeting in March 1993 that we could not accept the proposals put to Sir Geoffrey Howe by Mr. Moran in 1985,—the "Moran Proposals"—as a basis for talks because of their precondition that sovereignty would be transferred. That position has not changed.

  Our commitment to the people of Gibraltar is clearly set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution. We will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the past year the spouse of a Minister in his Department has travelled abroad at public expense to accompany a Minister on public duties,and what has been the total cost to public funds; and on how many occasions such travel has been undertaken at own cost.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: Between October 1993 and October 1994 Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office travelled abroad accompanied by their spouses at public expense on 13 occasions. The cost to public funds was £27,338. On each occasion the guidelines in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" were followed and accord with departmental practice which has existed since at least 1955.

  There have been no occasions when such travel was undertaken at own cost.

TREASURY

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the tax treatment of small self-administered pension schemes which breach the conditions on which they receive approval for tax purposes.

  Sir George Young
  The tax approval system gives pension schemes very favourable tax treatment if certain conditions are met concerning the amount, timing and form of the benefits to be paid. The purpose of the tax reliefs is to encourage the provision of pensions to employees during their retirement.

  Arrangements are now being encountered under which the trustees of some small self-administered occupational pension schemes have exploited the tax approval system. These arrangements involve initially taking advantage of the tax reliefs but then engineering loss of tax approval when access to the accumulated funds, in circumstances not allowed by the tax approval conditions, is desired by the scheme members or the sponsoring employer. An example is where the scheme wishes to lend all or a large part of its funds to the sponsoring employer.

  The tax approval system is not intended to be used in this way. Arrangements of this kind undermine the pensions purpose for which the tax reliefs are given. Where a pension scheme wishes to take advantage of those reliefs it must accept all the conditions on which approval is granted.

  In order to discourage the misuse of the tax approval system in this way a special 40 per cent. tax charge will be levied on the value of funds held by these schemes at the time tax approval is withdrawn. The new tax charge will apply where tax approval ceases on or after today. Further details are given in an Inland Revenue press release published today.

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of 3 November 1993,Official Report, column 257, on the number of families with children with taxable incomes below the income tax threshold.

  Sir George Young
  It is estimated that in 1994–95,1·9 million single parents and married couples with children have no income tax liability.

  Number of capital gains taxpayers

  Highest rate of tax charged on individuals

  Lower rate

  Basic rate

  Higher rate

  Trusts

  All

  1988–89

  —

  51,500

  86,500

  17,000

  155,000

  1989–90

  —

  48,000

  88,000

  19,000

  155,000

  1990–91

  —

  44,000

  57,500

  13,500

  115,000

  1991–92

  —

  34,500

  44,500

  11,000

  90,000

  1992–931

  1,000

  19,500

  27,000

  7,500

  55,000

  1993–941

  2,500

  30,500

  42,000

  15,000

  90,000

  1 provisional

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1979(a) the total income,

  Tax Statistics
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1979 the total tax yield from individual taxpayers liable for capital transfer tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax; and if he will give for each year since 1989–90 the number of individual taxpayers liable for capital gains tax by their highest marginal rate of tax.

  Sir George Young
  The available information on net receipts each year since 1979–80 from capital gains tax, capital transfer tax and inheritance tax is given in the table. Separate figures on capital gains tax receipts for individuals and trusts are not available but, in terms of tax liabilities, individuals account for between 83 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the total.

  Inheritance Tax/Capital Transfer Tax1

  £ million Capital Gains Tax2

  Total

  of which charge on individuals3

  Total

  1979–80

  401

  376

  431

  1980–814

  425

  401

  508

  1981–824

  480

  457

  526

  1982–83

  499

  475

  632

  1983–84

  599

  580

  671

  1984–85

  658

  621

  730

  1985–86

  881

  857

  908

  1986–87

  988

  963

  1,064

  1987–88

  1,073

  1,052

  1,379

  1988–89

  1,067

  1,042

  2,323

  1989–90

  1,227

  1,207

  1,854

  1990–91

  1,259

  1,233

  1,852

  1991–92

  1,295

  1,261

  1,140

  1992–93

  1,201

  1,170

  982

  1993–94

  1,328

  1,307

  710

  Notes:

  1 Excludes small residual receipts from estate duty which was replaced by capital transfer tax in 1975.

  2 Excludes tax on capital gains made by companies which is included under corporation tax.

  3 Includes charges on settled property where the individual has an interest in possession.

  4 The breakdown of receipts between 1980–81 and 1981–82 was estimated as they were affected by industrial action between March 1981 and July 1981.

  The breakdown of capital gains taxpayers given in the table includes a separate column for trusts in order to reconcile with published figures on taxpayer numbers.

  both earned and unearned, (b) total national insurance contributions paid and (c) total income tax paid by (i) the
  1209
  top 1 per cent., (ii) the top 5 per cent., (iii) the top 10 per cent., (iv) the bottom 50 per cent. and (v) all taxpayers.

  Sir George Young
  Readily available estimates based on the survey of personal incomes are in the tables. For 1978–79 and 1989–90, married couples are counted as one taxpayer and their incomes are combined. Following the introduction of independent taxation, for 1990–91 onwards, husbands and wives are counted separately. The estimates of total income relate to income subject to income tax and exclude non-taxable income such as certain social security benefits.

  Quantile group of taxpayers1 Per cent.

  Total income £ million

  Income tax liability £ million

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contribution liability £ million

  1989–90

  Top 1

  24,200

  7,800

  300

  Top 5

  61,700

  16,600

  1,400

  Top 10

  93,400

  22,600

  2,700

  Bottom 50

  86,600

  8,500

  3,900

  All taxpayers

  323,400

  53,400

  14,400

  1990–91

  Top 1

  28,300

  9,200

  300

  Top 5

  68,700

  18,900

  1,300

  Top 10

  102,800

  25,400

  2,700

  Bottom 50

  95,500

  9,000

  4,300

  All taxpayers

  358,300

  60,400

  15,500

  1991–92

  Top 1

  31,200

  10,400

  300

  Top 5

  73,900

  20,700

  1,500

  Top 10

  109,600

  27,500

  3,000

  Bottom 50

  98,200

  9,300

  4,200

  All taxpayers

  373,800

  63,500

  16,200

  1992–93

  Top 1

  29,300

  9,200

  300

  Top 5

  72,000

  19,800

  1,600

  Top 10

  108,100

  26,500

  3,100

  Bottom 50

  96,900

  8,000

  4,000

  All taxpayers

  373,700

  60,700

  16,300

  1993–94

  Top 1

  29,900

  9,800

  300

  Top 5

  73,900

  20,400

  1,700

  Top 10

  111,300

  27,500

  3,400

  Bottom 50

  96,800

  8,100

  3,900

  All taxpayers

  381,400

  62,800

  17,100

  1994–95

  Top 1

  32,000

  10,800

  400

  Top 5

  78,900

  22,800

  2,000

  Top 10

  118,700

  30,900

  3,900

  Bottom 50

  99,600

  9,000

  4,400

  All taxpayers

  401,000

  69,700

  20,000

  1 Tax units for years prior to 1990–91.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the effect on the number of taxpayers in the financial year 1995–96 and on the number of higher rate taxpayers of(a) indexation, (b) raising the main personal allowances by 5 per cent. more than indexation and (c) raising personal allowances by 10 per cent. more than indexation, giving figures separately for each main allowance and a total for main allowances.
  1210

  Quantile group of taxpayers1 Per cent.

  Total income £ million

  Income tax liability £ million

  1978–79

  Top 1

  5,000

  2,300

  Top 5

  14,900

  4,900

  Top 10

  24,200

  7,000

  Bottom 50

  30,300

  3,900

  All taxpayers

  102,800

  20,300

  1 Tax units years prior to 1990–91.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates based on statutory indexation of 2·2 per cent. in line with the September retail prices index and income levels projected to 1995–96 levels using the summer economic forecast are given in the table. The levels of the married couple's allowance and linked allowances in 1995–96 were set in the Finance Act 1994 and will therefore not be subject to the statutory indexation rules.
  1211

  Estimated number of income taxpayers 1995–96

  Total millions

  Of which higher rate taxpayers

  a) Indexation

  26·5

  2·6

  b) Increasing personal allowance for those aged under 65 by 5 per cent. more than indexation

  26·2

  2·5

  Increasing personal allowance for those aged 65 or over by 5 per cent. more than indexation.

  26·4

  2·6

  Increasing all personal allowances by 5 per cent. more than indexation

  26·1

  2·5

  c) Increasing personal allowance for those aged under 65 by 10 per cent. more than indexation

  26·0

  2·5

  Increasing personal allowance for those aged 65 or over by 10 per cent. more than indexation

  26·2

  2·6

  Increasing all personal allowances by 10 per cent more than indexation

  25·7

  2·5

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the direct revenue yield in a full year at 1994–95 levels of income from restricting(a) personal allowances, (b) relief from pension contributions arid (c) other reliefs to relief at 25p and (d) 20p giving in each case the numbers of people affected.

  Sir George Young
  Estimated full-year yields at 1994–95 income levels based on a projection of the 1992–93 survey of personal incomes and other survey data are given in the table. The figures do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such changes, and show the yield from restructuring each allowance of relief separately. If two or more were restricted the total yield would be greater than the sum of individual figures.

  Restriction to

  Basic Rate

  20p

  Effect of restricting

  Yield £ million

  Numbers affected millions

  Yield £ million

  Numbers affected millions

  (a) Personal allowances

  1,490

  3·4

  5,650

  26·2

  (b) Relief for pension contributions

  700

  2·0

  1,350

  11·5

  (c) Other reliefs

  140

  0·7

  1n/a

  n/a

  1 Information on reliefs given at source is not available from the Survey of Personal Incomes so it is not possible to estimate the effect of restricting other reliefs to 20 per cent.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of 5 November 1993,Official Report, column 549 on mortgage tax relief, giving estimates for 1995–96 and for a full year.

  Sir George Young
  Estimates for 1995–96 are given in the table. The figures are based on the conventional 1212
  assumption of no changes in interest rates from current levels and allow for tax relief 15 per cent. as set in the Finance Act 1994. They exclude any behavioural effects with might result.

  Cost (yield) from increasing (decreasing) in limit on mortgage interest relief

  Limit on size of loan £

  £ million

  40,000

  400

  35,000

  200

  32,000

  100

  31,000

  50

  29,000

  (50)

  28,000

  (l00)

  25,000

  (300)

  20,000

  (700)

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1993–94 the number of self-employed who will pay no income tax, giving figures separately for those with gross incomes(a) under £5,000 a year, (b) between £5,000 and £10,000 a year, (c) between £10,000 and £15,000 a year, (d) between £15,000 and £20,000 a year and (e) over £20,000 a year.

  Sir George Young
  There are about 770,000 self-employed with no income tax liability in 1993–94. Of these, 670,000 have gross income of under £5,000 and 100,000 have gross income of over £5,000.

  The estimates are based on the projection of the latest annual survey of personal incomes and are provisional. The number with gross income above £5,000 is too small to allow any separate breakdown.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for 1995–96 or the latest year available an estimate of the yield and the number of taxpayers affected by restricting the capital gains tax allowance to relief at the(a) 25 pence rate and (b) 20 pence rate.

  Sir George Young
  Under current rules net chargeable gains below the capital gains tax annual exempt amount are totally exempt from tax. The effects of restricting this relief at the 25 per cent. and 20 per cent. rates are given in the table below based on forecast 1994–95 liabilities. The estimates assume the restriction would only affect individuals with gains above the annual exempt amount and do not allow for any consequential change in their behaviour.

  Number of taxpayers affected

  Capital gains tax yiels (£ million)

  Restricting the relief to:

  (a) 25 per cent rate

  45,000

  35

  (b) 20 per cent.

  75,000

  60

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was remitted or written off as irrecoverable in 1993; and how much of this was pay-as-you-earn contributions.

  Sir George Young
  In 1993, £1·58 billion was written off as irrecoverable by the Inland Revenue and £400 million of this was pay-as-you-earn contributions.

  Pig-producing Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will review the taxation and capital depreciation allowances available to the British pig producing industry between now and 1 January 1999 when the rules relating to stall and tether regulations change;

  (2) if he will consider allowing pig producers to carry back losses over a three-year period; if he will change the tax regulations relating to buildings used by pig producers with a design life of less than 10 years so that they are regarded as plant and machinery and attract annual depreciation rates of 25 per cent.; if he will allow pig producers to defer claiming allowances until the following year; and if he will set full-year capital allowances for pig producers at 100 per cent. before the rules relating to stall and tether regulations change in January 1999.

  Sir George Young
  The hon. Member would not expect me to make a statement on taxation matters at this time of year.

  Fraud
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to obtain an estimate of the percentage of fraud involving transactions between the United Kingdom and offshore tax havens.

  Sir George Young
  There are no steps that can be taken to obtain a reliable estimate.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions were brought in each of the last five years as the result of tax fraud; and how many of these related to false accounts and income tax returns.

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual report of the board of Inland Revenue for 1993–94—appendix, table 6—copies of which were laid before Parliament on 5 October 1994.

  Offshore Tax Havens
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional revenues obtained for the Treasury by the measures he has adopted to limit tax avoidance via trusts and offshore tax havens since 1992.

  Sir George Young
  The comprehensive system for the taxation of capital gains on those setting up, and receiving benefits from, offshore trusts which was introduced in 1992 prevented an estimated revenue loss of up to £100 million in a full year. In addition, changes introduced in 1993 and 1994 to the legislation for controlled foreign companies and to the treatment of interest payments within multinational groups were expected to increase Exchequer yield by 200 million in a full year.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Departments have produced rules of conduct for members of non-departmental public bodies sponsored by those Departments as instructed in "Non-Departmental Bodies: A Guide for Departments"; and if he will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Nelson
  This section of the guide has now been superseded. In June the Treasury circulated to sponsor 1214
  Departments a model code of best practice for board members of public bodies. Copies were placed in the Library of the House of Commons in early July. Sponsor departments are now discussing with executive NDPBs how they may adapt the Treasury code to suit their particular circumstances or whether they should adopt a different code such as the Cadbury code.

  European Expenditure
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been(a) in each year since 1979 and (b) over the whole period since 1979 the percentage increase in spending by the European Community; and what was the average percentage increase in inflation in the Community as a whole in each year since 1979 and over the whole period since 1979.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The percentage increase in spending by the European Community in each year since 1979 is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage increase in Community expenditure (Payments)

  1994

  4·7

  1993

  14·1

  1992

  8·9

  1991

  24·2

  1990

  5·3

  1989

  -0·4

  1988

  16·9

  1987

  3·3

  1986

  121·7

  1985

  2·1

  1984

  13·2

  1983

  19·0

  1982

  14·8

  1981

  29·2

  1980

  13·4

  1979

  20·0

  Source:

  Annual White Paper Statements on the Community Budget.

  Notes:

  1 Greece acceded on 1 January 1981.

  2 Spain and Portugal acceded on 1 January 1986.

  Spending by the European Community over the whole period since 1979, including additional member states from the date of their accession, has increased by 11·7 per cent. on average in nominal terms each year between 1979 and 1994.

  The average percentage increase in inflation in the Community as a whole in each year since 1979 was as follows:

  Year

  Percentage increase in inflation

  1994

  3·3

  1993

  3·3

  1992

  4·3

  1991

  5·1

  1990

  5·7

  1989

  5·3

  1988

  3·6

  1987

  3·3

  1986

  3·7

  1985

  6·1

  1984

  7·2

  1215

  Year

  Percentage increase in inflation

  1983

  8·6

  1982

  10·9

  1981

  12·4

  1980

  13·7

  1979

  10·9

  Source:

  OECD Economic Outlook.

  The average percentage increase in inflation in the Community as a whole over the whole period since 1979 was 6·6 per cent.

  EC Accounting Systems
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's progress in persuading the institutions of the EC to move to accruals and resource-based accounting systems.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are convinced of the advantages of resource accounting and budgeting for the United Kingdom public sector, along the lines of the outline proposals published in the Green Paper on resource accounting and budgeting, Cm 2626. We believe that the principles of resource accounting might usefully be applied to the finances of other institutions outside the United Kingdom, such as those of the European Community. The Government will be considering this issue further when the United Kingdom proposals have been worked out in more detail.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to apply his policy on accounting standards for stand-alone operating units within the public sector to the introduction of similar standards for units of the Commission of the European Communities, including agencies operated by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The proposals in the Green Paper on resource accounting and budgeting, Cm 2626, will apply both to the centre of departments and to their agencies, although in many cases the latter are already putting the principles of resource accounting into practice.

  Mortgages
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he has taken with his colleagues to assist borrowers from building societies to avoid repossessions.

  Mr. Nelson
  On 19 December 1991, the then Chancellor announced a number of measures designed to reduce substantially the level of mortgage repossessions. The Government agreed to make mortgage payments in income support direct to lenders, and raised the stamp duty threshold from £30,000 to £250,000 for eight months, to stimulate the housing market. The lenders confirmed that they would not seek to take possession where mortgage interest payments were covered by income support; or where a borrower had suffered a sharp fall in income but was continuing to make reasonable, regular payments. They also agreed to provide counselling for borrowers in difficulties and to examine the possibility of setting up formal mortgage rescue schemes.
  1216
  Together, these steps have contributed to a significant fall in repossessions. In the second half of 1991, 38,930 properties were repossessed. In the first half of 1994, the figure was down to 25,020, a reduction of 35·7 per cent.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he or his colleagues have had with building societies to explore ways to help borrowers and to reduce the number of defaults on mortgage repayments.

  Mr. Nelson
  Treasury Ministers meet representatives of building societies from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Commemorative Coins
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government has to issue new commemorative coins.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that a £5 coin be issued featuring a special commemorative design to commemorate Her Majesty's 70th birthday. Her Majesty The Queen has also been pleased to approve a proposal that a £2 coin be issued to commemorate the European Football Championship which will be held in England during 1996. It is not intended that these coins should go into general circulation although the coins will be available at most banks and post offices at face value and special versions will be issued in precious and base metal.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the NHS trusts which deposit funds with him; and what changes there have been in the arrangements for the deposit of funds in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Aitken
  There are 25 NHS trusts that make use of the National Loans Fund temporary deposit facility, which requires a minimum deposit of £1 million. Previously deposits had to be in units of £1 million, but the arrangements were changed on 1 April 1993 to permit deposits above the minimum to be made in multiples of £1,000. All 507 NHS trusts hold bank accounts at the Paymaster Agency, on which interest is also payable. The 25 trusts that use the NLF temporary deposit facility are listed as follows:

  Allington Trust

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital Trust

  East Gloucestershire Trust

  East Hertfordshire Trust

  East and Midlothian Trust

  Guild Community Healthcare Trust

  Gloucestershire Royal Trust

  Hastings and Rother Trust

  King's Lynn and Wisbech Hospital Trust

  Milton Keynes Community Trust

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health Trust

  Northern Devon Healthcare

  Norwich Community Health Services Trust

  North Hampshire Hospitals Trust

  Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare Trust

  Pilgrim Health Trust

  Pinderfields Hospitals Trust

  Pontefract Hospitals Trust

  1217

  The Mental Health Service of Salford Trust

  South Buckinghamshire Trust

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital Trust

  Severn Trust

  Wakefield and Pontefract Community Health Trust

  Walsall Community Health Trust

  Walsall Hospitals Trust

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average cost to his Department of answering(a) a written and (b) an oral parliamentary question.

  Mr. Nelson
  The average cost, across all Departments, of preparing an answer was assessed as £97 for a written question and £225 for an oral question in November 1993. Up-to-date costings should be available shortly.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in the past year the spouse of a Minister in his Department has travelled abroad at public expense to accompany a Minister on public duties, and what has been the total cost to public funds; and on how many occasions such travel has been undertaken at own cost.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 26 October 1994]: There have been eight occasions since September 1993 where a Minister's spouse has accompanied the Minister, of these three have been at public expense at a total cost of £1,544.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many public appointments(a) he is responsible for making and (b) require his approval including those not listed in "Public Bodies"; and if he will give this figure in terms of (i) appointments to executive bodies, (ii) appointments to advisory bodies and (iii) other appointments.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 27 October 1994]: My right hon. and learned Friend has some responsibility for making or approving the following appointments:

  Number of Appointments

  Executive Bodies

  Advisory bodies

  Other Appointments

  Listed in Public Bodies 1993 (including Royal Mint)

  —

  157

  40

  Not listed in Public Bodies2

  327

  456

  5146

  Total

  27

  113

  186

  Notes:

  1 Of these, the 44 Tay Review Body appointments require the Chancellor's approval but the Prime Minister is responsible for appointing members; the 13 appointments to the Royal Mint Advisory Committee (listed separately in Public Bodies 1993) are Crown appointments made on the Chancellor's advice;

  2 These appointments relate to the bodies listed in the answer given response to on 3 March 1994 (official report, column 879);

  3 Of these, the 12 appointments to the Public Works Loan Board are Crown appointments on the recommendation of the Prime Minister who is in turn advised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer;

  4 Of these, the 16 appointments to the Treasury Academic Advisory Panel are made by the Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury with oversight by the Chancellor of the Exchequer;
  1218
  5 Of these, the 7 appointments to the Crown Estate Commission are Crown appointments on the recommendation of the Prime Minister who in turn is advised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Reception
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the nature of the reception held on 28 June 1993 at 11 Downing street; and what was the cost.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 31 October 1994]: No reception was held at No. 11 on 28 June 1993.

DEFENCE

  Quangos
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which former hon. Members of this House have been appointed since 1988 by his Department to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations; and if he will list, in each case, the title of the post, the salary, the duration of the appointment, and the party which each represented as an hon. Member.

  Mr. Soames
  Former membership of the House of Commons is not a relevant qualification for appointment and is not centrally recorded. We are aware of only one example. Sir Antony Buck QC, the then Member for Colchester, North, served on the independent board of visitors for the military corrective training centre, Colchester from 1980 to 1992. At the date he stood down as a Member of Parliament and relinquished his appointment. Appointments are reviewed every three years and Sir Antony's last reappointment was in 1989. The post was as a member of the board and was not salaried.

  Eurocorps
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for Britain to join Eurocorps.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans for Britain to join the Eurocorps, although British forces are in principle available to the Western European Union.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for upgrading the defence-related activities of the Western European Union.

  Mr. Soames
  We remain committed to developing the Western European Union as the means to strengthen the European pillar of the NATO alliance and as the defence component of the European Union. We shall continue to contribute to the development of its operational planning, and to other aspects of its work. As agreed at the NATO summit last January, this process will include the development of separable but not separate capabilities which could respond to European requirements and contribute to alliance security.

  Puma
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 July,Official Report, columns 173–74, when the royal naval aircraft yard Fleetlands bid for the Puma NVG contract; if the bid was the lowest; if

  1219
  other contenders were invited to resubmit their tenders; and if the final bid accepted was lower than that for Fleetlands.

  Mr. Freeman
  The royal naval aircraft yard Fleetlands submitted a budgetary estimate for the Puma NVG modification which contained a number of qualifications and exclusions particularly relating to the timeliness of delivery of modified aircraft to the concurrent firm price Puma navigation update programme. It was decided that placing the work with Fleetlands or with any organisation other than the PNU prime contractor would have exposed the Department to considerable financial risk arising from late delivery to the Puma aircraft. For this reason the NVG modification was not offered for open competition. The work, including acceptance of all risks arising from NVG modification delays, was awarded at higher cost to the PNU prime contractor under single tender arrangements and priced under the Departments stringent "no acceptable price no contract" procedure.

  Hunt Licences
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those areas designated as sites of special scientific interest where his Department has issued a licence to hunt in(a) 1993 and (b)

  Mr. Soames
  The designated sites of special scientific interest where my Department has issued a licence to hunt in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 are as follows:

  Area

  Year

  Ramsey's Burn Wood, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Holystone Burn Wood, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Billsmoor Park, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Grasslees Wood, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Durtrees Burn Grassland, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Harbottle Moors, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Barrow Meadow, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Unbrigg, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Barrow Burn, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Cottonshape Head Quarry, Otterburn Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Appleby Fells, Warcop

  1993 only

  Spadeadam Mires, RAF Spadeadam

  1994 only

  Lower Swaledale Woods, Catterick

  1993 and 1994

  Foxlease and Ancell's Meadow, Minley

  1993 and 1994

  Thursley and Hankley Commons, Elstead

  1993 and 1994

  Woolmer Forest, Borden

  1993 and 1994

  Broadmoor to Bagshot Woods and Heath, Surrey

  1993 and 1994

  Ash and Brookwood Heaths, Surrey

  1993 and 1994

  Salisbury Plain Training Area

  1993 and 1994

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which hunts were issued licences to hunt on Ministry of Defence land for the 1993–94 and 1994–95 hunting seasons.

  Mr. Soames
  The hunts which had licences during the 1993–94 season and have licences for the 1994–95 hunting season are:

  Year

  The North Shropshire Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The West Shropshire Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Tanatside Hunt

  1994–95 only

  The Border Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The West Percy Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Newcastle and District Beagles

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  1220

  Year

  The Tynedale Hunt

  1994–95 only

  The Ullswater Foxhounds

  1993–94 only

  The Lunesdale Foxhounds

  1993–94 only

  The Bedale Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The West of Yore Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Wensleydale Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Zetland Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Catterick Beagles

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Blankney Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Staff College and Royal Military Academy Drag Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Windsor Forest Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Surrey Union Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Brecon Farmer's Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Sennybridge Farmer's Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Irfon and Towey Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Glyn Celyn Beagles

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Avon Dale Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The Royal Artillery Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  The South and West Wiltshire Hunt

  1993–94 and 1994–95

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total income form licences to hunt on Ministry of Defence land in 1992, 1993 and to date for 1994; when the costs of such licences were reviewed; and whether such licences are open for public tender.

  Mr. Soames
  Total receipts from annual hunting licences were £729·85 for 1991–92, £292·80 for 1992–93 and £507·30 for 1993–94. The charge for individual licences are reviewed at different times so no specific date can be given for reviews of licence fees. The licences are granted on application and are not open to public tender.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many licences to hunt on Ministry of Defence land were issued in 1992, 1993 and to date in 1994 for which there was no charge; to which hunts or bodies the licences were issued; and which area of land were involved.

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of licences to hunt on MOE) land issued in 1992, 1993 and to date in 1994 for which there was no charge were 10, 10 and seven respectively. The hunts or bodies to which these licences were issued and the areas are as follows:

  The Bedale Hunt—Feldom

  The West of Yore Hunt—Feldom

  The Wensleydale Hunt—Feldom

  The Zetland Hunt—Feldom

  The Catterick Beagles—Feldom

  The Aldershot Staff College and Royal Military Academy Drag Hunt—MOD Training Areas in north east Hampshire and north west Surrey

  The Windsor Forest Hunt—MOD Training Areas in north east Hampshire and north west Surrey

  The Brecon Farmer's Hunt Sennybridge Training Area (not 1994)

  The Sennybridge Farmer's Hunt Sennybridge Training Area (Not 1994)

  The Irfon and Towey Hunt Sennybridge Training Area (Not 1994)

  Birds and Game
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total income from licences to shoot birds and game on Ministry of Defence land in 1992, 1993 and 1994; what are the annual charges for each licence; and if these are open for public tender.
  1221
  Mr. Soames
  The total income from licences to shoot birds and game on my Department's land in 1992, 1993 and 1994 was £12,012·61, £9,582·84 and£15,349·05 respectively. The annual fees for individual licences are commercial in confidence. Licences to shoot birds and game are not generally let by public tender.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hares have been captured on Ministry of Defence land at Foulness in each of the past three years; what methods of capture have been employed; to which locations the hares have been transported; which expert bodies have been utilised to supervise the capture, transportation and release of such hares and which organisations were consulted for advice; what were the

  The Belvoir Hunt

  The Quorn Hunt

  The Cottesmore Hunt

  Date

  Number

  Date

  Number

  Date

  Number

  6 March 1993

  4

  5 March 1993

  4

  11 November 1993

  4

  20 October 1993

  1

  8 March 1993

  2

  11 January 1994

  1

  23 October 1993

  2

  25 October 1993

  2

  27 January 1994

  1

  27 October 1993

  3

  29 October 1993

  4

  8 February 1994

  2

  30 October 1993

  2

  1 November 1993

  1

  1 November 1993

  1

  5 November 1993

  1

  3 November 1993

  4

  8 November 1993

  4

  8 November 1993

  4

  15 November 1993

  4

  10 November 1993

  2

  19 November 1993

  4

  13 November 1993

  3

  22 November 1993

  5

  17 November 1993

  4

  26 November 1993

  4

  24 November 1993

  3

  29 November 1993

  3

  27 November 1993

  3

  3 December 1993

  4

  1 December 1993

  4

  6 December 1993

  5

  4 December 1993

  7

  10 December 1993

  4

  8 December 1993

  2

  13 December 1993

  1

  11 December 1993

  4

  17 December 1993

  3

  15 December 1993

  4

  20 December 1993

  4

  18 December 1993

  4

  24 December 1993

  4

  22 December 1993

  4

  27 December 1993

  5

  5 January 1994

  4

  30 December 1993

  4

  8 January 1994

  3

  2 January 1994

  4

  12 January 1994

  3

  3 January 1994

  3

  15 January 1994

  2

  10 January 1994

  3

  19 January 1994

  4

  14 January 1994

  4

  22 January 1994

  4

  17 January 1994

  2

  26 January 1994

  4

  21 January 1994

  4

  29 January 1994

  2

  24 January 1994

  5

  2 February 1994

  2

  28 January 1994

  3

  5 February 1994

  4

  31 January 1994

  4

  9 February 1994

  3

  4 February 1994

  4

  12 February 1994

  4

  7 February 1994

  2

  2 March 1994

  2

  11 February 1994

  2

  5 March 1994

  4

  18 February 1994

  2

  9 March 1994

  2

  21 February 1994

  2

  28 February 1994

  4

  4 March 1994

  4

  7 March 1994

  1

  No additional costs to public funds were incurred as a result of this activity.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which mounted regiments have participated in fox hunting in 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  Officers and soldiers of the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment and the King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery have taken part in fox hunts during 1993 and 1994. No additional costs to public funds were incurred as a result of this activity.
  1222
  costs of this exercise in 1993 and 1994 and who was responsible for the costs; and what costs were incurred by the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Soames
  Under the provisions of the Ground Game Act 1880, tenant farmers on Foulness Island have the absolute right to take ground game. This is a private matter and my Department does not maintain records relating to the capture of game.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list details and dates of when the Household Cavalry participated in fox hunting; with which hunts; and on how many occasions since February 1993.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  UN Convention on Inhumane Weapons
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ratify the 1980–81 United Nations convention on inhumane weapons.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 31 October,Official Report column 911.

  RAF Support Management Group
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel in(a) mobile and (b) non-mobile grades employed at the RAF support management group in Harrogate have moved or have agreed to move to RAF Wyton.

  Mr. Freeman
  As at 1 November 1994, some 294 personnel in mobile grades and 80 personnel in non-mobile grades have moved or agreed to move to HQ RAF Logistics Command at RAF Wyton and RAF Brampton.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans are being drawn up for market testing in logistical support for each of the armed services.

  Mr. Freeman
  The defence cost study "Front Line First" has had a significant effect upon the size and shape of the Department's competing for quality initiative. The programme has been reviewed and we are currently finalising a much expanded version which will include a broad range of support activity. The 1994–95 programme is expected to cover activities valued at some £330 million. Details of individual market tests are published in the Cabinet Office's market testing bulletin.

  RAF Runways
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many airfields and how many runways are available to the Royal Air Force in each region of the United Kingdom; and how many of those runways will be lost to the service during the next five years.

  Mr. Soames
  Details of all airfields in the United Kingdom available to the RAF, including the number of runways at each location, can be found in the RAF flight information publication—En Route Supplement British Isles and North Atlantic—a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. Over the next five years there is planned to be a reduction of eight in the number of runways operated by my Department.

  RAF Greenham Common
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evidence he has of nuclear contamination at the former airbase, RAF Greenham Common.

  Mr. Soames
  There is no evidence that RAF Greenham Common contains any nuclear contamination attributable to its former military use. The Defence Radiological Protection Service recently undertook an environmental radioactivity survey of the site. The levels of radioactivity present were similar to those prevailing throughout the United Kingdom.

  European Defence
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his policy to(a) pool and (b) merge the British Army with French and other European Union
  1224
  armies, leading to the eventual formation of a European army.

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Landing Platform Helicopter
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for defence what changes there have been in the specification of the landing platform helicopter and in the contract price.

  Mr. Freeman
  In line with the assurances given to the Public Accounts Committee, my Department controls specification changes very carefully. Only a small number of essential changes to the specification have been agreed. These represent an additional cost of less than one half of 1 per cent. of the contract value.

  VSEL
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in relation to the future ownership of VSEL, with particular reference to competition for future supply to the Navy.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department will, in the usual way, be giving its views to the regulatory authorities on the competition and any other relevant aspects of the possible takeover of VSEL. These views are confidential.

  Defence Contracts
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were(a) the outturn prices, (b) the estimated prices at the time of Ministry of Defence approval, (c) the actual time and (d) the estimated time to completion of defence projects valued at over £50 million undertaken for the Ministry of Defence since 1979 by GEC, where GEC was the prime contractor or was a member of a consortium with joint and several liability.

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

  Military Survey Defence Agency
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the director general of the Military Survey defence agency for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Soames
  The Military Survey defence agency key targets for 1994–95 are:

  1. To meet 100 per cent. of operational requirements for geographic support to the required standard and on time.

  2. To achieve an operational evaluation (Opeval) status of "substantially effective" and to improve the Opeval concept by developing new Opeval criteria including two operational scenarios

  3. To meet the agreed production programme, to the extent to which operational requirements allow, which is quantified as:

  a. Originate or revise 275 maps and charts equating to 10,610 work units.

  b. Produce 763 digital products equating to 2,506 work units.
  Note: One work unit equates to five man days of effort.

  4. To achieve an efficiency target of at least 3.9 per cent.

  5. To operate within ±3 per cent. of the £53,708,000 budget, subject to in-year management direction.

  Although these targets are similar to those set last year, the way in which production targets have been set has been refined. The move to work units as the measure of performance recognises that no two products are the same with equal effort required.
  The agency performed well against last year's targets although the increase in support to operations lead to some production targets

  1225
  not being fully met. A copy of the agency's annual report will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State for Defence Procurement of 18 October,Official Report, column 240, when he expects AWE Aldermaston to obtain a safety licence.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 1 November 1994]: Experience in the civil sector suggests that preparations for licensing, including the production of prescribed documentation for assessment by the nuclear installations inspectorate, takes some time. The picture in respect of the AWE will become clearer during the discussions with the regulatory bodies to which I referred during the defence debate on 18 October 1994, Official Report, column 240, and which are now in progress. I expect to be able to give an indication of the likely timescale before Easter next year.

HEALTH

  Abortions
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if general practitioner fundholders can use their funds to purchase abortions for their patients.

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently announced that the fundholding scheme will be expanded from April 1996. Details are set out in an executive letter of 20 October 1994, a copy of which has been laid in the Library. In brief, there will be three new options: community fundholding, for those practices with a minimum list size of £3,000 patients; standard fundholding, an enlarged version of the current scheme, for which the list size requirement will be reduced to £5,000 patients; and total purchasing, where larger groups of practices will pilot the purchasing of all hospital and community health services. As part of this expansion, terminations of pregnancy will be included within standard fundholding from April 1996. Guidance will make it clear that, where a general practitioner has ethical objections to purchasing terminations of pregnancy, arrangements will be made for patients to have access to these services either through another GP fundholder or through services purchased by the district health authority.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions were linked to rubella last year and 10 years ago.

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1982 in England and Wales there were 226 legal abortions associated with rubella, compared with only 12 in 1992—a reduction of 95 per cent.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has on the risk of developing breast cancer for women who have had abortions; and what assessment her Department has made of Canadian research on the links between abortion and breast cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no information on such risks. We await the full findings of the Canadian research with interest.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the national guidance to purchasers on levels for bed occupancy for acute beds and for psychiatric beds.

  Mr. Sackville
  We do not issue guidance on bed occupancy levels.

  Supervision Registers
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities had set up supervision registers as at 1 October.

  Mr. Bowis
  Early reports indicate that supervision registers were in place in the large majority of health districts by 1 October. They were well on the way to being in place in most of the remainder. The national health service executive is taking action to ensure that the guidance HSG(94)5, on supervision registers is fully implemented in all health districts as soon as possible. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Open House Hospice
  Miss. Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what grounds the funding commitment for the Open House hospice in Manchester, for people with HIV and AIDS, was reduced in October 1993 from the figure announced in March 1993; and on what grounds no money for the hospice has yet been released by the North Western region health authority.

  Mr. Sackville
  The initial sum was approved in principle on the assumption that a full independent assessment of the need for palliative care across the region had been carried out, and that the need for an HIV specific hospice had been established. As this was not the case, a sum of £750,000 has been allocated to North Western region to carry out a thorough assessment of palliative care for all client groups in the region and to implement the report's recommendations.

  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write in more detail to the hon. Member about this matter and a copy of her letter will be placed in the Library.

  Day Nurseries
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress she has made in reviewing the system of regulation for day nurseries.

  Mr. Bowis
  The. Department monitors the Children Act through the social services inspectorate. In January 1993 we issued a circular LAC(93)1 to clarify existing guidance on the registration of day care facilities, including nurseries. Copies of the circular are available in the Library.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to reflect the special needs of elderly people in respect of community care in the next year's special transitional grant for social service authorities.

  Mr. Bowis
  An announcement on next year's grant will be made in due course.

  Burnley NHS Healthcare Trust
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will investigate and make public the circumstances at Burnley NHS Healthcare trust in which the chief executive and chairman each called for the other's resignation.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 1 November. The chief executive resigned on 28 October.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualities she took into account in deciding to appoint Mr. James Rawson as chairman of Burnley NHS Healthcare trust.

  Mr. Sackville
  Mr. Rawson was re-appointed as chairman of Burnley NHS Healthcare trust from 1 December 1993 following his performance as chairman of the trust between 1 December 1991 and 31 November 1993.

  Growth Hormone
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the responsibilities of fundholding general practitioners for the payment of the cost of growth hormone treatment for their patients;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the division of responsibilities for the prescribing of growth hormone treatment between the prescribing hospital and the patient's general practitioner.

  Mr. Malone
  As for all drug therapies, the responsibility for prescribing for a particular patient rests with the doctor who has clinical responsibility for that aspect of the patient's care. This applies irrespective of whether the general practitioner is fundholding or not. This is clearly set out in guidance to the NHS, EL(91)127, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hepatitis and Dysentery
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the percentage change in the number of cases of(a) hepatitis and (b) dysentery since the privatisation of the water authorities.

  Mr. Sackville
  The data provided are for notification—England and Wales—to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys of dysentery and hepatitis A, the form of viral hepatitis most likely to be transmitted by water, between 1988 and 1993. The data for 1993 are provisional. These notifications may be made before the diagnosis is firmly established. Notifications are therefore subject to withdrawal or amendment.

  Year

  Dysentery

  Per cent. change

  Hepatitis A

  Per cent. change

  1988

  3,692

  —

  3,190

  —

  1989

  3,278

  -11

  5,278

  +65

  1990

  2,756

  -16

  7,316

  +39

  1991

  9,935

  +260

  7,430

  +2

  1992

  16,960

  +71

  7,856

  +6

  1993

  6,837

  -60

  4,457

  -43

  Dysentery and viral hepatitis both show a periodicity in their incidence with natural peaks and troughs every eight to 10 years. The most recent peaks in the annual incidence of dysentery were seen in 1984 and 1992 and the most
  1228
  recent peaks in the annual incidence of hepatitis A were seen in 1982 and 1992.

  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what study she has commissioned regarding any correlation between the number of dysentery cases and the price of water;

  (2) what study she has commissioned into any correlation between the number of hepatitis cases and the price of water.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the income received from the Road Traffic Act 1988 charges for treatment of road traffic accident victims in each region in each of the last five years for which figures have been kept.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Asthma
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of asthma in children under five years were recorded in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Sackville
  Numbers of hospital in-patient cases of children suffering from asthma are available from hospital episode statistics for the years shown in the table. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  0–4 age group, Finished consultant episodes—England

  Number

  1988–89

  38,759

  1989–90

  32,676

  1990–91

  32,343

  1991–92

  32,177

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Blood Transfusion Service
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration is being given to donor convenience and the views of doctors and hospitals in the current review of the blood transfusion service.

  Mr. Sackville
  Donors' interests are a key feature in the national blood authority's proposals. Under the proposals, blood collection would be readily accessible to donors. Mobile teams would go out to donors in all areas whether the centres are amalgamated or not.

  The national blood authority's proposals are the result of a strategic review which included the views of doctors and hospitals. The authority is consulting with hospitals locally and drawing up a detailed plan to cover all their requirements. Views have also been sought from various bodies representing the medical profession. The National Blood Authority is undertaking a national consultation on its proposals. The results will be carefully considered before decisions are made.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much blood is currently held at the blood transfusion centre, Liverpool; what capacity it has for the storage of blood; and what capacity for storing blood exists in the hospitals served by the centre.
  1229
  Mr. Sackville
  The blood stock held at the Liverpool blood transfusion centre varies from day to day. The centre can comfortably hold between 3,500 and 4,000 units. Figures are not available centrally for blood storage capacity in the hospitals served by the centre. The proposals to reorganise the national blood service include improved blood stockholding units so that all hospitals, including those in Liverpool, have easy access to supplies.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures available for the current year for the number of reported cases of human salmonellosis in England and Wales.

  Mr. Sackville
  Data on salmonella infections in humans are published in the "Communicable Disease Report", copies of which are available in the Library.

  There was a decrease of 2·8 per cent. in the figures recorded for January to September 1994 compared with the same period in 1993.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of food poisoning notifications to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys for 1993 up the nearest available date to 7 October.

  Mr. Sackville
  Up to 7 October 1993 there were 56,428 notifications.

  Figures for 1993 are provisional. These notifications may be made before the diagnosis is firmly established and are therefore subject to withdrawal or amendment.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new patients with glaucoma were referred to out-patient departments for each year from 1985 until the latest for which current figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not collected by medical condition.

  Camden and Islington Health Authority
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholding general practitioner practices there are in Camden and Islington health authority area; what proportion of the lists they cover; and for what proportions of hospital admissions they are responsible.

  Mr. Malone
  There are two general practitioner fundholding practices in Camden and Islington serving 6 per cent. of the population. The information requested on the proportion of hospital admissions is not currently available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussion she has had with the Camden and Islington health authority concerning its level of financial resources in the current financial year.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is proposing to take to restore non-emergency health services to the people of Islington; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Camden and Islington health authority and the hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mr. Roland Everington, for details.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the names of the members of chairs of(a) the NHS supplies authority and (b) the Bromley health authority on 1 April.

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply 21 April 1994, c. 668]I regret that potentially misleading information was given in the previous reply concerning the membership of the National Health Service Supplies Authority. The reply stated that there is no statutory bar to the appointment of chairman and members of other health authorities to the NHS Supplies Authority. The reply omitted to state that the regulations governing NHS trusts do not allow individuals to be appointed to NHS trusts if they are members of the NHS Supplies Authority. One of those listed in the reply, Mr. Frederick Hoult, was chairman of the Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS trust, and has subsequently been found to have become technically disqualified from his trust appointment when he was appointed to the NHS Supplies Authority on 1 October 1991.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by name and position those chairs, members and non-executive directors of district health authorities, FHSA, NHS trusts, shadow NHS trusts and other NHS authorities which have dual appointments as chairs, members or non-executive directors of other district health authorities, FHSAs, NHS trusts, shadow NHS trusts and other NHS authorities.

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply 25 April 1994, c. 68–69]: I regret that potentially misleading information was provided in the previous reply. The reply included a list of dual national health service appointments which included five cases which have subsequently been found to be invalid. The reply also stated that appointees to other NHS bodies are permitted to be appointed as members of the NHS Supplies Authority and the Mental Health Act Commission. This was accurate in relation to some NHS bodies but did not reflect the position for NHS trusts, whose chairmen and non-executive directors may not be appointed to special health authorities.

  Corrective action has been taken and 11 individuals whose appointments were invalid now hold only valid appointments. These individuals are listed as follows. The posts in which individuals continue are marked with an asterisk:
  Mr. Frederick Hoult: Chairman of the Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, and member of the NHS Supplies Authority*.
  Mrs. Phyllida Entwistle: Chairman of the Furness Hospitals NHS Trust*, and member of the Mental Health Act Commission.
  Miss Georgina Linton: Non-executive director of Guy's and Lewisham Mental Health NHS Trust*, and member of the Mental Health Act Commission (Miss Linton resumed as a non-executive director of the Trust after her term at the Mental Health Act Commission ended on 31 October 1994).
  Mrs. Lotte Mason: Non-executive director of Ravensbourne Priority Health NHS Trust, and member of the Mental Health Act Commission*.
  Professor Elaine Murphy: Non-executive director of North West London Mental Health NHS Trust, and member of the Mental Health Act Commission*. (Professor Murphy will resume as

  1231
  non-executive director of the Trust after her present term at the Mental Health Act Commission ends on 30 November 1994).
  Ms Rosalie Szasz: Non-executive member of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster FHSA*, and member of the Dental Vocational Training Authority.
  Mr. Brian Westbury: Non-executive member of Redbridge and Waltham Forest FHSA*, and member of the Dental Vocational Training Authority.
  Mr. John Mooney: Non-executive member of Bury FHSA*, and member of the Dental Vocational Training Authority.
  Mr. Julian Bedford: Non-executive member of North Yorkshire FHSA*, and member of the Dental Vocational Training Authority.
  Mr. John Renshaw: Non-executive member of North Yorkshire DHA*, and member of the Dental Vocational Training Authority.
  Professor Alasdair Geddes: Non-executive member of North Birmingham DHA, and member of the Health Education Authority*.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for each NHS trust within the North Nottinghamshire and Nottingham district health authority areas, those non-executive directors who live(a) within and (b) outside the boundaries of each district health authority.

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 May 1994, c. 214–15]: I regret that there were errors in the previous reply.

  I have today placed in the Library a revised list of those chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts who live outside the boundaries of the health authority in which their trust is situated.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list, for each NHS trust within the Sheffield district health authority area, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live(a) within and (b) outside the Sheffield district health authority boundary;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 16 May, Official Report, column 324, if she will list, for each NHS trust in the Trent region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority area within which that trust is situated;

  (3) if she will list, for each NHS trust in the former Northern region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (4) if she will list, for each NHS trust in the former East Anglian region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (5) if she will list, for each NHS trust in the former Mersey region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (6) if she will list, for each NHS trust in the former Wessex region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (7) if she will list for each NHS trust, in the former North Western region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (8) if she will list for each NHS trust, in the former South Western region, those chairmen and non-executive
  1232
  directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (9) if she will list for each NHS trust in the West Midlands region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (10) if she will list for each NHS trust in the former Oxford region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (11) if she will list for each NHS trust in the former North West Thames region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (12) if she will list for each NHS trust in the former South West Thames region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (13) if she will list for each national health service trust in the former North East Thames region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (14) if she will list for each national health service trust in the former Yorkshire region, those chairmen and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated;

  (15) if she will list, for each NHS trust in the former South East Thames region, those chairman and non-executive directors who live outside the boundaries of the district health authority in which that trust is situated.

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his replies, 16 May 1994, c. 324, 14 June 1994, c. 374–75, 1 July 1994, c. 741–44, 4 July 1994, c. 102–4, 5 July 1994, c. 193–96, 6 July 1994, c. 219–22, 7 July 1994, c. 313–17 and 8 July 1994, c. 371–74]: I regret that there were errors in the previous replies.

  I have today placed in the Library a revised list of those chairmen and non-executive directors of national health service trusts who live outside the boundaries of the health authority in which their trust is situated.

  Allitt Report
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress there has been in implementing the recommendations made in the report of the Allitt inquiry published in February 1994.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The following progress has been made:

  Recommendation 1.
  We recommended that, for all those seeking entry to the nursing profession, in addition to routine references the most recent employer or place of study should be asked to provide at leas: a record of time taken off on grounds of sickness.
  From April 1995, there will be consistent and agreed guidelines on seeking references from the most recent employer or place of study on a record of time taken off on grounds of sickness. The English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (ENB) has issued draft regulations and guidelines which will meet this recommendation. Additionally, the University and Colleges Admission Service has agreed to harmonise their arrangements with those of the ENB.
  1233
  Recommendation 2.
  We recommend that in every case Coroners should send copies of post mortem reports to any consultant who has been involved in the patient's care prior to death whether or not demanded under Rule 57 of the Coroner's Rules 1984.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in whose area of responsibility this recommendation falls, intends to commend the principles of the recommendation in a circular to be issued to all coroners in England and Wales later this month.

  Recommendation 3.
  We recommend that the provision of paediatric pathology services be reviewed with a view to ensuring that such services be engaged in every case in which the death of a child is unexpected or clinically unaccountable, whether the post mortem examination is ordered by a Coroner or in routine hospital practice.
  This recommendation has been considered by the Strategic Review of Pathology Services which advises that more work is required on a number of detailed operational issues. A Working Group to look at the issues involved will be set up.

  Recommendations 4,5,6,7,8 and 9

  Recommendation 4.
  We recommend that no candidate for nursing in whom there is evidence of major personality disorder should be employed in the profession.

  Recommendation 5.
  We recommend that nurses should undergo formal health screening when they obtain their first posts after qualifying. We acknowledge that in Allitt's case this was done.

  Recommendation 6.
  We recommend that the possibility be reviewed of making available to the Occupational Health Departments any records of absence through sickness from any institution which an applicant for a nursing post has attended or been employed by.

  Recommendation 7.
  We recommend that procedures for management referrals to Occupational Health should make clear the criteria which should trigger such referrals.

  Recommendation 8.
  We recommend that further consideration be given to how the suggestion of the Chairman of the Association of NHS Occupational Physicians could be applied in practice.
  The Chairman suggested that applicants who show one or more of (excessive absence through sickness, excessive use of counselling or medical facilities or self-harming behaviour) should not be accepted for training until they have shown the ability to live an
  1234
  independent life without professional support and be in employment for at least two years.

  Recommendation 9.
  We recommend that consideration be given to how GPs might, with the candidate's consent, be asked to certify that there is nothing in the medical history of a candidate for employment in the NHS which would make them unsuitable for their chosen occupation.
  Guidance on occupational health is to be issued shortly which will cover all these recommendations. Together with the English National Board's new guidelines, this guidance will establish better procedures for selection of student nurses for training, the selection of staff to work on children's wards and the follow up of staff who have a history of excessive absence through sickness.

  Recommendation 10.
  We recommend that the Department of Health should take steps to ensure that its guide "Welfare of Children and Young People in Hospital", is more closely followed.
  The guide referred to make clear that hospitals themselves should determine the number of staff they require to look after the children in their care. It also made a number of recommendations about staffing levels. We have surveyed the current staffing arrangements in paediatric nursing and identified a need for further improvement in some places. For daytime shifts nearly 50 per cent. of hospitals meet the recommendations and among those units not yet there some 40 per cent. have plans in place for increasing the numbers of trained childrens nurses. The results of the survey will be made available shortly and a copy will be made available in the Library. There has been a considerable growth in the number of nurses entering training for paediatric nursing in recent years: up from 183 in 1988 to 819 in 1992–93 for pre-registration training and from 628 to 811 for post registration training over the five year period. Training commissions for paediatric nurses rose by 36 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1994–95 (from 879 per year to 1198) reflecting increased employer demand.

  Recommendation 11.
  We recommend that in the event of a failure of an alarm on monitoring equipment, an untoward incident report should be completed and the equipment serviced before it is used again.
  This recommendation has been considered by the Expert Advisory Working Group appointed by the Medical Devices Agency who have responsibility for the safety and quality of medical devices. The draft recommendations of this Expert Group go further than those of recommendation 11. The Group is expected to present its final report later this month.

  Recommendation 12.
  We recommend that reports of serious untoward incidents to District and Regional Health Authorities should be made in writing and through a single channel which is known to all involved.
  We will shortly be writing to all Regional Directors requiring them to establish lines of reporting with Chief Executives of all NHS Trusts so that there can be swift and effective reporting of any such untoward incidents.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood
Mrs. Susan Petronella Thomas, OBE, having been created Baroness Thomas of Walliswood, of Dorking in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Seear and the Lord Holme of Cheltenham.
Lord Kingsland
The Right Honourable Sir Christopher James Prout, Knight, QC, having been created Baron Kingsland, of Shrewsbury in the County of Shropshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Vivian and the Lord Bethell.

Message from the Queen
3 p.m.
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen signed by her own hand. The message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 1994 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."

European Federalism: Definition
3.1 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their definition of European federalism.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, the word "federalism", when applied in the context of the European Union, has no clear definition. That is why we fought, successfully, to prevent any reference to federalism in the Maastricht Treaty.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I wondered how the Government would answer the Question. Does the Minister at least agree that the growth of the European Union to 16, and possibly 20, members could lead, under some kind of European federalism, to rather more subsidiarity than less?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that more subsidiarity might be a rather good thing for the European Union. We do not advocate Europe a la carte, as it has been called. All member states of the Union must respect the core obligations of the single market and the competition rules, but there will be scope for differentiation in other areas provided, first, that it is
832
consistent with the Union's overall objectives; secondly, that it does not divide the Union by damaging the common purpose; and thirdly, that it does not create an exclusive hard core.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while "federalism"—
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I think there will be time enough for both questions. I suggest that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has the first crack, followed by my noble friend Lord Beloff.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that while "federalism" may not have any clear definition, those who use it are clear about their intention as to what it will mean? Let us hope that it is an intention that the Government will be able to continue to avoid following.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend misses an important point. The Maastricht Treaty reinforces the fact that the Community is about nation states co-operating together, and not about creating a European superstate. That is the core issue we should be addressing.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, as the Minister says that the word "federalism" has no precise meaning, with which I am strongly inclined to agree, and as she takes pride in saying that the Government kept it out of the Maastricht Treaty, will she explain why the Government used such an imprecise word in blocking the nomination of M. Dehaene, who was described as an arch federalist? What did the Government mean by that if the word has no precise meaning?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am well aware that the press referred to the matter in those terms, but I do not believe that my right honourable friend used the term. There is no doubt that the atmosphere the word creates is a negative one. We happen to wish to be positive and to be at the heart of Europe.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, despite the cosy relationship that exists between the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the Minister on this subject, does she agree that, regardless of the atmosphere, the majority of the main partners within the EEC are totally committed to eventual federalism, according to the dictionary definition of the word that we would all understand?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to begin with, I must protest at the allegation made by the noble Lord about the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and me. He might not want to be linked with me in that way. Secondly, in the wider European Union we have an opportunity to ensure that the nation state plays its part under the subsidiarity rules, and that the nation states come together and play their part as a European union where it is desirable that they should so do.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is Europe that is doubtful? Federalism is a precise word. It refers to a state of affairs where there is a

833
central government holding some powers and subordinate governments holding other powers as in the constitution of the United States of America? Is it not the case that the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, and the Treaty of Maastricht are building blocks on the way towards applying that formula to Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's last question is no. He talks about Europe being doubtful. The only way I can possibly agree with him relates to where the actual borders of Europe now lie. That is an interesting matter which will be debated repeatedly in this House and another place because more and more countries are asking to become members of the European Union. They regard what has happened in the European Union as being extremely positive.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if the Minister and the Government believe that the European Union should be a union of voluntarily co-operating nation states, will she give an undertaking that at the intergovernmental conference in 1996 the Government will resist any further powers being given to the European Union and will attempt to regain some of the powers already lost?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is fair to say that we are conscious of the need to respect the principle of subsidiarity which is now fully accepted. If, on examination of the powers which the noble Lord believes have been given away—I do not happen to agree with him—we find things that can better be done at a national level, we shall work to achieve that. We have a long way to go regarding our approach to the 1996 intergovernmental conference. I would underline to the noble Lord that it is an intergovernmental conference. That means a conference of the governments of the member states.
Lord Richard: My Lords, since the Government consider that the word is meaningless, will the Minister be careful not to over-define now what their attitude to a meaningless concept will be in 1996? Will the Government continue perhaps to take refuge, as they have this afternoon, in constructive ambiguity?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord had listened to what I said in the first place. I said that federalism, when applied in the context of the European Union, has no clear definition. There are competing definitions, but I do not intend to be involved in ambiguity, even with the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that we do not have, and never have had, a cosy relationship either in the other place or in this House. The Government do not appear to be able to find a definition of European federalism. However, will she confirm that the Government will be present at the IGC meetings in 1996 and that they do not rule out in advance any discussion on the issue?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can comply with the noble Lord's requests. We shall be
834
present at discussions at the IGC council in 1996, the run-up to it in 1995, and probably after 1996 too, because there is no reason why it should necessarily be concluded then.

Northern Ireland: Integrated Schools
3.10 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will guarantee the future funding and growth of the integrated education programme for Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government remain committed to facilitating the development of integrated schools in response to viable proposals from parents. To date, all proposals received have been approved. Such schools receive 100 per cent. recurrent funding immediately and 100 per cent. capital grants when viability is confirmed.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome the meeting that her honourable friend Mr. Ancram had yesterday with the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education. Does she accept that there are long-term anxieties about the future of integrated education in Northern Ireland? The first is that, despite all the efforts of the past decade, only 1 per cent. of children in Northern Ireland—that is about 4,000 children—go to integrated schools. The second is that there is a threshold of 60 pupils which must be surmounted before a new school can be started. Of course, there must be a threshold, but that makes it difficult to get new schools going.
Does the Minister agree that in the long term, if there is the prospect of accommodation in Northern Ireland between the nationalist and unionist communities, it will be extremely important that those who believe in non-sectarianism are not squeezed out? For that reason, the Government's commitment to the long-term growth of integrated education in Northern Ireland is particularly important.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, it is fair that we ask that proposals for integrated schools should be viable. Not to do so would be unfair to other education bodies. It may be hard work to reach the threshold of 60 pupils but we look for viability over a longer period. The good news is that no one has failed to achieve that. The fact that a school is not integrated does not necessarily mean that it is sectarian. We should recognise not only the high standing of education in Northern Ireland but also the high standing of some schools there.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, can the Minister say what is the total budget for education in Northern Ireland and what percentage of it is presently spent on integrated schools? Does she agree that, bearing in mind the small percentage of children who presently attend integrated schools, we need to go

835
forward with care and tact as regards the disposition of public money? We must bear in mind that on legitimate grounds a large number of parents prefer denominational education for their children.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Our policy must reflect the wishes of the parents, and that is what we aim to do. I shall let the noble Lord have the total education budget. As he appreciates, it is my honourable friend's area. Since we started working with the bodies dealing with integrated education some £15.5 million has been spent. I repeat that when we have received a proposal and it has worked up to viability we have been able to accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister says that she cannot reply about education because it is someone else's responsibility. Does she agree that Questions at the Dispatch Box are answered on behalf of the whole Government and, provided that my noble friend's supplementary question is within the scope of the original Question, she should be able to answer it?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I believe that I have previously caused the noble Lord anxiety in this area. I apologise for having done so again. It is not my subject; therefore, the figure is not in my head. I do not have the figure and it would be wrong to make it up. However, I shall let the noble Lord have it.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, as a first step in the long-term programme, will my noble friend indicate that the programme of mutual understanding within the existing framework is being continued?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, my noble friend, with his knowledge of the work in the Province, rightly draws attention to the sterling work in education for mutual understanding, which happens throughout schools. The commitment in Northern Ireland to working together begins in schools and, I am delighted to say, goes through whole new communities and groups.

Organophosphates: Epidemiological Study
3.15 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to fund the epidemiological study on the chronic effects of exposure to organophosphates in sheep dips asked for by the medical and scientific panel of the Veterinary Products Committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, on 25th August the Government announced that this study, recommended by the medical and scientific panel, would be given priority and would, in principle,
836
be publicly funded. I can confirm that, assuming suitable research proposals are forthcoming, public funding will be provided.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's Answer. I have asked for an epidemiological study for the past two years and here it is at last. When does the Minister expect the Institute of Occupational Medicines occupational health report from Birmingham University to be published; and how soon after that do the Government expect to set up the study?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the work currently being done in Birmingham is coming to a conclusion and we expect to receive the results in the next few weeks. We are currently drawing up the specification for the epidemiological study. We hope to publish that and invite proposals by the end of the year. The study will commence once suitable proposals have been identified and agreed. We are keen to see that happen as soon as possible.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the study is to include information from doctors relating to the incidence of OP sheep dip poisoning, what information has been provided to doctors in order that they can distinguish that poisoning from other conditions which have similar symptoms?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Chief Medical Officer has circulated general practitioners with a basic check list of symptoms. We believe that general practitioners are now much more alert to the condition. All reports made to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are followed up with patients' GPs provided that permission is given by the patients. There is an appraisal panel of doctors and scientists from three government departments, including the Department of Health and the HSE, who regularly meet to assess cases. Summary reports are then put to the independent Veterinary Products Committee for evaluation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, do organophosphates show up in a blood test? Does the Minister agree that this is a highly complex matter? Will the study include other problems that farmers have— for instance, depression, accidents and so forth—that are resulting in an increasing number of suicides?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not sure that the last part of the noble Baroness's question is strictly relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. Organophosphates normally show up as metabolites in the urine. I am not aware of a specific blood test but I shall find out and write to her.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the study will encompass the effects of OP sheep dip effluent in rivers? We can then see whether there are any effects on those who live near affected rivers and on those who make a living in the rivers.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the methodology used to achieve the requirements that the medical and scientific panel has set out will depend on the proposals put

837
forward by those who wish to tender. At this stage it is difficult to say what work will prove to be suitable and will be judged to be suitable.

Mr. and Mrs. Adrian Mooney
3.20 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the conditions under which Mr. and Mrs. Adrian Mooney were recently held in prison in Bucharest, Romania, and what representations they have made to the Romanian authorities about this case.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are aware of the conditions described by Mr. and Mrs. Mooney relating to their detention immediately following their arrest on 6th July. We are in contact with the Romanian authorities about it.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. In view of the extremely helpful points made in recent days by the President of Romania, I shall not pursue the matter and will not ask a supplementary question.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The report is comparatively brief and I shall be similarly brief in introducing its main points. The first recommendation is that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which until now has been experimental, should become a sessional committee and that there should be consequential amendment to Standing Orders. In view of the excellent work which the committee has already done, I imagine that that recommendation will be warmly welcomed.
The report also records that the Procedure Committee has considered the text of a thoroughly revised edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders which it is hoped will be published early in the new year.
Finally, the committee has decided to undertake a full review of the practice of the House in relation to declaration of interests. That review will include consideration of whether the House should introduce a system of registration of interests.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 92).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT:
1. DELEGATED POWERS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
In 1992 the Select Committee on the Committee Work of the House proposed that a Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee should be established "on a limited and experimental scale in the first instance" (HL Paper 35-I, Session 1991–92, paragraph 133(i)). This Committee endorsed that recommendation in its 1st Report,
838
Session 1992–93, and the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee was accordingly appointed in November 1992 and re-appointed this session.
The 12th Report of this session from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee (HL Paper 90) accordingly reviews the work of the Committee and invites this Committee to recommend that it should become a sessional committee from next session.
The Committee has been a notable success, and this Committee has no hesitation in recommending that it should become a sessional committee from next session. In consequence, the Committee should be added to the list of committees in Standing Order 62 (thus empowering the old Committee to meet at the beginning of a new session prior to the re-appointment of the Committee); and the rotation rule should be applied to the Committee (though the committee of Selection will wish to phase in its application so as to avoid a complete change of membership after three years).
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee asked this Committee to consider its recommendation "that the House seeks a mechanism to ensure that Acts passed by Parliament are brought into operation" (HL Paper 90, paragraph 38). The Committee will look at this matter and report separately to the House.
2. COMPANION TO THE STANDING ORDERS
The Committee has considered and approved a draft new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders. It is proposed that the text should be finalised this year and that the new edition should be available before the House resumes in January. New editions of the Standing Orders relating to Public Business and the Brief guide to the procedure and practice of the House of Lords will be made available at the same time.
3. PASSING BETWEEN THE LORD SPEAKING AND THE WOOLSACK
In the course of considering the text of the new edition of the Companion, the Committee noted that the guidance (on page 36 of the present edition) that "No Lord may pass between the Woolsack (or the Chair) and any Lord who is speaking, nor between the Woolsack and the Table" is frequently not observed. The Committee takes this opportunity to remind the House of these well-established customs.
4. APPLICATION OF THE ROTATION RULE
The Committee has agreed that the rotation rule should apply to the Advisory Panel on Works of Art in the same way as to sub-committees of the House of Lords' Offices Committee, and that its application to the Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee should be modified so as to require the retirement of one member each session.
5. DECLARATION AND REGISTRATION OF INTERESTS
The Leader of the House suggested in the House on 25 October that this Committee might examine the question of a register of members' interests in this House (Official Report, col. 471). The Committee has accordingly considered the existing guidance on declaration of interests (laid down by the Committee in its 2nd Report, Session 1989–90) and has decided to undertake a full review of the practice of the House. This review will include consideration of the question whether the House should introduce a system of registration of interests. The Committee will report further when its review is complete.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I welcome very warmly that part of the report which refers to the declaration and registration of interests. I believe that many in your Lordships' House will feel that it is important that we should be seen to be examining that question ourselves without waiting for any report from the Nolan Committee for any consideration by the Committee on Privileges in another place. Those matters are our responsibility and we must take them seriously from the outset.

839
I have only one quibble in relation to the wording of the report; namely, that it refers merely to the declaration of interests and to the possibility of a system of registration of interests. I hope that it is understood— I am sure it is—that the implications of a declaration of interest might be that there would be regulations restricting the power of Members who have declared an interest to take part in a debate or vote on the issue in question. I hope that that will form part of the review.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the report is extremely interesting. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the recommendation in relation to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. As to the declaration and registration of Members' interests, I ask my noble friend whether what is under consideration applies to all Members of your Lordships' House or only to those who take an active part in its proceedings. It is an open question as to why Peers who do not take part in our debates—and there are a good many of them—should be called upon to register or declare their interests. That is a difficult question. I shall be interested to hear the Government's thinking on the matter.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, following upon the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I venture to put forward some matters with regard to declaration and registration of interests which arise purely because of developments which have taken place in the past 20 years. During that time, and more particularly in the past 15 years, members of the Government and, indeed, those noble Lords who are active Members of this House have been discussing not only legislation originating in the United Kingdom but also that originating in the European Economic Community.
There are Members of the House who derive a direct and continuing benefit, often of a substantial nature, relating to, for example, set-aside receipts which entitle land owners to very large sums of money in respect of their holdings provided that they comply with certain regulations. It may be desirable (indeed, they may themselves desire) to declare an interest when matters in relation to those interests are being debated or, indeed, when legislation in relation to them is under consideration by the Government.
I know perfectly well that it has been a convention for many years that members of the Cabinet, for example, are not required to disclose interests in land or any receipts that emanate from it. There must be quite a number of members of the Cabinet who are in receipt of substantial sums as a result of CAP legislation who nevertheless do not declare their interest.
Of course, it is entirely a matter for every noble Lord and his conscience. But I hope sincerely that some consideration may be given by the Procedure Committee to making a recommendation that where any Member receives substantial benefits which result directly from legislation under consideration from the European Community he should declare it. If it is of a quasi-permanent nature, it should be on the register of interests.
Lord Monks well: My Lords, I also welcome the report and in particular paragraph 5 which relates to
840
consideration of a register of Members' interests. I believe that this House should treat the subject rather differently from the way it is treated by the other place. One of the strengths of this House is the individual knowledge noble Lords bring to the House as a result of their interests. We should bear in mind that some noble Lords have very public interests which are widely known in the public domain. Their contributions to your Lordships' House can be judged on that basis. But other noble Lords may have interests and knowledge which are not so widely known about in the public domain. We do ourselves a disservice by not necessarily knowing about that and not being able to put proper weight on the contributions which those noble Lords may be able to make.
Therefore, a register of Members' interests which includes not just pecuniary interests but also non-pecuniary interests associated with knowledge in a particular sphere might be useful and beneficial to your Lordships' House and its considerations. I make a plea that the committee should bear in mind those points and take them on board.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it would be very sad indeed if we were to accept the idea of a register of Members' interests as distinct from the declaration of those interests, which is another matter. It is vital to declare an interest when the discussions taking place affect everybody. That should be continued and, if need be, strengthened. We should find a way to deal with people who have made contributions without making the necessary declaration. But a register is bureaucratic interference with the honour of Members of both Houses. I never agreed that there should be such a register in another place.
If we reach the level at which the searchlight of a register is required because Members are not capable of declaring properly and fully their interests, they should be deprived of the prefix of "honourable" Member or "noble" Member.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if one has an interest and declares it, what is the purpose of having a register?
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question before he rises to speak again. As I understand it, a review is to be carried out by the committee. Therefore, I do not propose to argue the issue about which I feel most strongly in some respects. Can the noble Lord give an indication of the type of review which will be carried out and confirm that that will in fact enable Members of the House, on all sides, to make their views known—views which are very different and, in some cases, not simply a matter of yes or no?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have chosen to speak briefly on the matter. However, I fear that I may disappoint all of them. It would be quite wrong for me at this stage to do other than reassure the House that the investigation which is to take place will be very wide and very, very thorough.

841
Following the meeting of the Procedure Committee, I looked back to the last occasion when the matter was considered with great thoroughness in 1974. An immense amount of time and trouble was then taken to look at the two matters. Particular note was taken of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls; namely, the great difference between declaration and registration. The sub-committee of the Procedure Committee met on no fewer than eight occasions. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, may remember that he appeared before it as a witness.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Yes I do.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I believe that the noble and learned Lord is the only Member of the House present in the Chamber today who did so. It was an immensely thorough investigation. I have every reason to believe that that which will follow in the next Session will be equally thorough. I hope that the House will allow me to leave the matter there.
I also hope that I have satisfied the worries expressed most fully by the noble Lord, Lord, McIntosh of Haringey, in the Procedure Committee itself. The committee will go into the matter that he particularly mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, made the point about whose interests were involved. I can tell the noble Lord that that is a matter which I believe we can safely leave to the committee. I trust that there is no further question which any noble Lord feels that I should answer.
Perhaps I may conclude on a personal note. No matter who cares to investigate the manner in which the House conducts its business, it will be shown that your Lordships do so with the highest integrity.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he perhaps go slightly further on the matter? Since 1974, which is 20 years ago, we now have a group of Cross-Benchers of close on 280 Members who have no access to the normal channels. The committee may feel that what was a thorough-going examination 20 years ago is not quite so adequate today.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I do not know whether things have changed to that extent. However, I naturally accept the point that there are now 275—or perhaps even more—Cross-Benchers, which was certainly not the case at that time. Indeed, there were fewer than 100 when I joined the House 18 years ago. That point will be taken up by the committee. In fact, everything that has been said this afternoon will obviously be taken up by the committee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, can rest assured on that point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
3.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be considered forthwith.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS
This page and line refer to Bill 66 as first printed for the Lords.

LORDS AMENDMENT
47 Clause 48, page 47, line 10, at beginning insert—
("(1A) After subsection 14(3)(b) there shall be inserted — "(c) that there will not be any adverse effects on local environmental conditions as a result of the activities of the licence-holder."")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
47A Because the Commons do not consider an application for a PSV operator's licence to be required to refuse the application unless satisfied that there will be no adverse effects on local environmental conditions as a result of the activities of the licence-holder.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 47A.
Your Lordships inserted into the Bill at Committee stage an amendment that would require the traffic commissioner to refuse a PSV operator's licence unless he is satisfied that the licence-holder's activities will have no adverse effect on local environmental conditions. In the light of the amendment, the Government have had another look at the whole question of environmental controls on PSV operator licences. There is, of course, a difference between the HGV and PSV licensing regimes in that respect; and there are very good reasons for that fact.
The environmental aspects of the legislation on HGV operator licensing are necessarily very detailed and limited primarily to operating centres. The amendment that we are discussing in respect of PSVs, on the other hand, goes very much further than the controls on HGV operating centres. It does not go into any detail, and is extremely wide. In addition to the suitability of operating centres themselves, it might encompass the routes buses take or the vehicles that they use—matters that no traffic commissioner can be satisfied of at the time of an application. We believe that there are adequate controls on the environmental aspects of bus and coach operations and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 47A.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that explanation. Before making one substantive remark, perhaps I may make a general comment. The other place debated these matters at nearly half-past three this morning. It has been immensely difficult; indeed, it is only in the last minute or two that any record of the proceedings in the other place has become available. I have only just glanced at the report. I believe that on some occasions such a situation might be of enormous importance. I thought that I ought to place on record my concern that we are asked to respond to what

843
was said in the Commons when, as far as I know, I am the only person—with the possible exception of the noble Viscount —who has a copy of the proceedings that took place in another place. That is simply disrespectful to your Lordships. Moreover, it is not compatible with efficient government. I felt that I should place my concern on the record.
Your Lordships' original amendment was sensible. However, the Government's response seems to me to be quite absurd. Nevertheless, I have no wish to divide the House and provoke a clash with the other place and a constitutional crisis on the matter. Like so much else in the Bill we must now, in despair, let it go; but we do not look forward to the consequences.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 48, page 47, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In section 17(I) after the words "as to professional competence" there shall be inserted "and the Traffic Commissioners shall also revoke the licence if the holder has shown consistent disregard for drivers' hours regulations."")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
48A Because the Commons consider that the traffic commissioner's existing powers to revoke a PSV operator's licence where the licence-holder has contravened drivers' hours requirements are sufficient.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 48 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 48A.
I can assure the House that the Government attach great importance to ensuring that restrictions on drivers' hours are fully complied with. We are aware of the significance of the regulations in maintaining and improving the safety record of our bus industry. I can, however, also assure the House that Amendment No. 48 is not needed in order to secure compliance with the drivers' hours regulations. A traffic commissioner can already—and in some cases must —revoke a licence under his existing powers if there is evidence that an operator has been disregarding the regulations. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 48 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 48A.—(Viscount Goschen.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, noble Lords will be delighted to know that, for reasons of efficient procedure, the remarks that I made with respect to the previous amendment fully apply to the one now before the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liaison Committee: Select Committee Report
3.39 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 88).—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT:

1. The Liaison Committee has considered a proposal for a Select Committee to scrutinise legislation for consistency with the European Convention on Human Rights. The committee will consider this proposal further at its next meeting early in 1995.

2. We agree that the ad hoc Committee on Sustainable Development should be reappointed next session (1994–95) and should make its report to the House by Easter 1995. At our next meeting we will make recommendations about the subject matter for an ad hoc committee to follow that on sustainable development Before doing so, we will invite Members of the House, by means of a printed notice, to submit proposals to us for the appointment of ad hoc committees into specific matters.

3. The Committee has also considered a memorandum by the Chairman of the European Communities Committee proposing that from next session the number of sub-committees which that Committee is able to appoint should be increased from five to six. It was proposed that the sixth sub-committee would initially consider preparations for the 1996 InterGovernmental Conference (IGC). Thereafter it would consider matters arising under the Common Foreign and Security Policy. We agree that the Committee should appoint a sixth sub-committee on the 1996 IOC. This would be appointed early in 1995 and would complete a report before the end of next session. The number of sub-committees in the following session (1995–96) would be a matter for further review in 1995 in the light of other proposals for select committee work.

4. Finally, the Committee recommends that the Science and Technology Committee should be able to appoint two sub-committees next session. This will be reviewed in 1995.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I would like to thank the committee for the work it has put into this report. Normally, as would have happened in another few moments, this matter would go through on the nod. However, there is one matter which gives me some cause for concern which I wish to share with your Lordships. Paragraph 1 of the report states:
"The Liaison Committee has considered a proposal for a Select Committee to scrutinise legislation for consistency with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Committee will consider this proposal further at its next meeting early in 1995".
This question of the European Convention on Human Rights is a matter of political dispute between some members of our community and the Government. I do not think it is proper to set up a committee of this House in order to try to furnish evidence to buttress an argument which a group is having with the Government. That seems to me a gross misuse of what I consider to be the procedure of this House.
In the past few weeks we have heard a great deal about lobbying in another place, but I wonder whether we ourselves are not being lobbied in a much more subtle manner than we have heard talked about elsewhere. I wonder whether this is inspired by Charter 88. When I read Charter 88 I begin to wonder whether I am living in the same country, as it appears that we are oppressed, downtrodden and persecuted and that we live in virtually a police state where one cannot find out anything.
I recall when I was Government Chief Whip in another place that on leaving Bristol by car one day I picked up a young man to give him a lift to London. Unfortunately, he recognised me and for the whole

845
journey to London, having said that he was going to a board meeting of an anarchist newspaper, he told me that the police were corrupt, the Civil Service was corrupt, politicians were of course corrupt and that this and that edifice in society was ramshackle and should be destroyed. I took punishment for well over two hours. When I dropped him off in Parliament Square I said to him, "When you have finished your board meeting you might just reflect in how many countries in the world you could travel with a senior government minister for over two hours, telling him you wanted to destroy every fabric of society and he then drops you off without even asking your name and address".
We have a freedom in this country which perhaps we do not appreciate enough. I think we should cherish it more. Because of my suspicions, having seen this document, I got hold of some Charter 88 literature which refers to the formation of a parliamentary group to be composed of a number of MPs and Peers, experts in lobbying and activists. The Charter 88 document states:
"From this group would flow a continuous programme involving the use of varying techniques such as:
A programme of Ten Minute Rule Bills around the aspects of the Charter.
Monitoring and feeding into the other proceedings at Westminster and Strasbourg"—
that is, feeding off each other—
Debates in the House of Lords".
It is heartening to see that we are sufficiently important to be considered by the charter for this privilege. The document continues:
"Early Day Motions on particular issues—for publicity, to further lobbying and to identify support".
The lobbying which is talked about elsewhere is talked about frequently in terms of commercial advantage. This seems to me much more invidious. If my suspicions are right, it is based on intellectualism and almost a contempt for ordinary people.
I raise this only in order that the Liaison Committee can be on its guard when the matter is considered. If I may be so bold, I would be happy to speak to the Liaison Committee about this if it feels that that would be helpful, and I would be happy to speak to it in private or in public.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for introducing this report. I wish to touch on a slightly different matter to the previous speaker. In paragraph 2 of the report there is a reference to the ad hoc Committee on Sustainable Development which has been doing some sterling work. There is an invitation to Members of the House to submit proposals,
"for the appointment of ad hoc committees into specific matters".
I hope that I may take this opportunity to lobby for a subject which is dear to my heart and on which I think the House has unrivalled expertise and could perform a useful service, and that is a committee on the democratic structures for the global village.
846
I have just one thing to say on this. We have expertise in this House ranging from parish councils through local authorities to our national Parliament, the European Parliament and the United Nations. It is on the basis of that, I suspect, unrivalled expertise in one body that we could perform a sterling service in that area.
But the question I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is whether there is any mechanism by which Members of this House could identify specific subjects and register their support for a committee on a particular subject. It appears that individual Members can suggest a topic but it is not clear how other Members of your Lordships' House could register their support for a particular topic.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may make a comment on paragraph 3 of the report. I am perfectly happy with the idea of the sixth sub-committee discussing the 1996 inter-governmental conference, but I am disappointed that the matter of the number of sub-committees should be held over for discussion in 1995. I served for a year on Sub-committee C when social policy and human affairs were linked with the Environment Committee, and I do not think that that was a success at all. Present Members of the committee perhaps feel the same. So I would hope that consideration can be given to setting up the seventh sub-committee again when this is discussed next year. I believe that that is important. I know it is being considered that environment and agriculture might be joined together, but the environment is so important that it deserves a sub-committee of its own.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I hope I may address a specific question to the House about paragraph 1 of the report. The wording of the report of the Liaison Committee suggests that it may be the intention to set up a committee which would scrutinise all legislation from this point of view on a permanent basis rather in the way that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee operates. I, for one, feel that that would be unnecessary and undesirable. I would also suggest that, as a substantial report was prepared under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale some years ago on the broader aspects of this question, we ought to treat this particular suggestion with some reserve.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this brief debate, but in view of the point raised by my noble friend Lady David it might be of help to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House if I were to say a word or two on that point. It is, of course, for the noble Viscount to respond to the point that my noble friend made about an additional sub-committee being further considered at the end of next Session; for the Liaison Committee to deal with that in due course; and then of course for the House to deal with it.
But so far as my noble friend's point about the Environment sub-committee is concerned, the European Communities Select Committee of your Lordships' House has been considering, and has accepted, some restructuring of the policy matters for which the existing five sub-committees are responsible. Although this is not a matter which need trouble either the Liaison

847
Committee or your Lordships' House directly, I can say that those proposals which have been accepted by the European Communities Committee include a proposal that Sub-committee C should deal solely with environmental matters and that the other matters which have been dealt with by it on the social side over the past Session should be reallocated to other sub-committees. It might be helpful for your Lordships to know about those details.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, before the noble Viscount the Leader of the House rises perhaps I may put one question to him. If at the end of the debates in your Lordships' House a format for dealing with business is decided on and that is then found to be inadequate to deal with the volume of business which comes from the other place, and the other place makes that known, what is the constitutional position of this House?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have commented on this brief first report of the Liaison Committee. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for his remarks, which assist me in answering the noble Baroness, Lady David.
Perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said. The reports of the Select Committees of your Lordships' House, whether sessional or ad hoc committees, rightly have acquired a considerable reputation, both within this country and internationally. It is important that we should try to maintain the very high standards and the remarkable quality of those reports, because that is what gives them the weight and reputation which they enjoy.
We ought at least to give some consideration to the question of quality versus quantity. We know that, although more of your Lordships are now prepared to serve on Select Committees of your Lordships' House than three years ago, nevertheless what I am told is rather unattractively called in the jargon "the Peer resource" is still somewhat limited. I merely say to the noble Baroness that it is for the Liaison Committee to make recommendations to your Lordships about the balance of the committees and the work that they should undertake, to take decisions about their priorities and to try to estimate the best use of their resources. However, I am sure that the Liaison Committee will take careful note of what is said by your Lordships.
It may be worth while emphasising to your Lordships that less than two years ago the House decided—after some argument, I understand—that the European Communities Committee should be able to appoint five sub-committees. However, at its meeting last month the Liaison Committee considered that there was one subject which justified the temporary reversal of that decision—the inter-governmental conference scheduled to take place in 1996. That is clearly an extraordinarily important matter in this country. Therefore, in the Liaison Committee's view it was justified for a sixth sub-committee to be appointed in the next Session in preparation for the inter-governmental conference only.
848
The number of sub-committees in the following Session would be a matter for the Liaison Committee at that time.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for the interesting question that he raised. Certainly we expect that noble Lords will be encouraged in the near future to put forward suggestions to the Liaison Committee. It would be for noble Lords to write to the clerk to the committee with any suggestions they may have on appropriate subjects for the committee to study.
The noble Lords, Lord Cocks and Lord Bridges, both addressed themselves to the question of the European Convention on Human Rights and whether there should be a committee which scrutinised such legislation. I am well aware of the formidable reputation which the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, enjoyed in another place as an upholder of liberty among his troops, of freedom of speech and all the other important human rights which he rightly said we value so highly in this country. Therefore, particularly in the light of his notable record in that respect, I take very seriously what he said. I am sure that members of the Liaison Committee also listened with great seriousness to what the noble Lord said with such great force and from great experience. We shall indeed consider the points that he made and are certainly grateful for his kind suggestion that he may be able to come to speak to the Liaison Committee. We shall consider that suggestion in due course.
I have answered the questions that have been asked this afternoon, except for that of the noble Lord, Lord Dean. I was not entirely clear whether the noble Lord would prefer me to endeavour to answer his extremely important question in this series of exchanges or in the debate which is to follow on the sittings of the House. It may be for the convenience of the House if I address myself to that question of the volume of legislation and how we deal with it in the context of the: report made by my noble friend Lord Rippon who, I believe, has borne that problem very much in mind in framing his recommendations. However, if the noble Lord wishes to intervene I shall be pleased to hear his views.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. That is a factor which has to be at the back of our minds in our deliberations.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, noble Lords will be well aware that, among other things, I stand here as a representative of the party of less legislation. We know all too well that that undertaking is too often honoured more in the breach than in the observance, and I admit to considerable sympathy for the point which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, makes. All of your Lordships should be, and I am sure are, aware of the importance of that point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sittings of the House: Report
3.56 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

849
I am all too conscious that I am rather inflicting myself on your Lordships this afternoon and therefore I rise with rather more trepidation than usual to introduce the report which we are considering this afternoon; namely, the Report to the Leader of the House from the Group on Sittings of the House, chaired with his usual ability by my noble friend Lord Rippon. I am sure that, like me, your Lordships are grateful to my noble friend and his committee for their most valuable report and to my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, for his initiative in suggesting that they should consider this most important subject.
In March this year my noble friend Lord Wakeham appointed the group chaired by my noble friend:
"To consider the practices and procedures of the House in so far as they affect sittings of the House".
My noble friend was responding in characteristically well-judged fashion to the feeling of a number of your Lordships that the House was sitting too long and too late. In particular, the prospect that recommendations from the Jopling Committee could lead to another place sitting for fewer hours prompted a wish to examine our own procedures.
I am sure that it will come as no surprise to your Lordships that my noble friend and other members of the group carried out that examination most thoroughly. I believe that their report is thoughtful and considered, and I hope that it will provoke a useful debate this afternoon and also in the Procedure Committee.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I indicate briefly how I think we might best act on the report's recommendations. Above all, today's debate gives the whole House an opportunity to consider and comment upon the contents of the report. When I have had the opportunity to reflect on all that your Lordships say this afternoon I should like to invite the Procedure Committee to consider what changes, if any, should be implemented on the basis of the report's recommendations. The report of the Procedure Committee will then be laid before the House for approval in the usual way. I am prompted to suggest this course of action because I understand that it is the same as that adopted in 1987 by the then Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, in respect of a similar report, and I hope that that procedure will meet with the approval of your Lordships.
It is right that I should emphasise that my primary purpose this afternoon is to listen to the views expressed in the House and to let those views inform such proposals as I may eventually make to the Procedure Committee. However, it may assist your Lordships if I make a few observations on the recommendations which the report contains which, as I am speaking first without having had the benefit of listening to the views of the House, must be of a provisional, preliminary and even tentative nature.
Perhaps I may say, first, that in my view the report presents us with an opportunity that we should not overlook. In his inimitable way, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, made an important point this afternoon. If by small adjustments to our proceedings we can achieve early hours of rising, we should be very happy indeed. If
850
we can do so without resort to selection of amendments, selection of speakers, or use of guillotines, I am sure that your Lordships would be as happy as I would be. Such procedures seem inimical to the work of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber and without them I doubt that we can ensure that the nature of the work of this House and its spirit could be preserved. As a result, from time to time we may, unavoidably, sit late into the evening. Nevertheless, any movement in the direction of shorter sitting times within the spirit and well-established practice of your Lordships' House is much to be welcomed.
Your Lordships will be aware that the report makes five key recommendations. First, the idea of informal meetings between Ministers, officials and Peers seems to me sensible. I understand that already that takes place occasionally, perhaps even often, in the most informal manner. Indeed, I know how valuable such meetings can be in ironing out uncertainty or misunderstanding and in airing concerns which Ministers can then seek to meet. However, I am less convinced that such meetings serve to shorten Committee stages which, after all, are the occasions when your Lordships, and not only noble Lords opposite, wish to be seen to be taxing the Government over a given piece of legislation. I have doubts, too, about the wisdom of extending the minimum interval between Second Reading and Committee since our minimum intervals are perhaps already quite generous; but I shall, again, be guided by your Lordships in this matter.
The group's second main recommendation is that Bills might be referred to Committees of the Whole House off the Floor. While this might give rise to some timetabling difficulties, since I have no doubt that your Lordships would resist having two major or contentious Bills under consideration simultaneously, it would certainly save time in the House. However, I suggest that the group's related recommendation —that such a Committee should not vote—is crucial, were it to be adopted, if we are to uphold the principle that, on the whole, your Lordships vote after hearing and considering the arguments.
There are some difficulties arising from this proposal, however. For instance, this House's function as a revising Chamber means, perforce, that the Committee stage is a central part of its legislative proceedings and as such belongs, if I may put it this way, in the mainstream of our consideration of Bills. It follows that if the committee's recommendation were adopted, the Bills selected for this new procedure should be chosen with the greatest of care and that, initially at least, that innovation should be treated very much as an experiment. I shall be particularly interested, if I may say so, in your Lordships' views on this section of the report.
The third main recommendation is the one with which, I confess, I have most difficulty of all. The carrying over of public Bills from one Session to another would give the Government of the day an unprecedented advantage. The principle of taking one Session at a time, it seems to me, is fundamental to the way in which our parliamentary business is arranged,

851
and provides the Opposition with one of their most useful tools—perhaps their only useful tool apart from the power of argument—that of delay.
The fourth recommendation is that all Unstarred Questions should be time-limited to l½ hours. I have to say that I find this an attractive idea. However, it might be that there is also a case for retaining the one hour Unstarred Question which may be taken in the dinner break, since this, it seems to me, has the advantage of a more or less fixed starting time, and is suitable for debate of fairly discrete topics or, indeed, those which are of specialised interest.
The fifth main recommendation which the group has made is that Friday sittings might, when appropriate, be used for Private Members' business.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, that is not on.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says from a sedentary position and I suspect from representations that I have already had—
Noble Lords: We did not hear it.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat what my noble friend said for the benefit of those i who did not hear it. He said, "That is not on". I believe that I quote him exactly. But there is clearly an advantage in not sitting on Fridays. It is that there is one weekday—perhaps I should declare an interest — on which Ministers can undertake other ministerial duties and on which others of your Lordships can pursue other responsibilities. I am not entirely persuaded that taking Private Members' business on Fridays would result in legislative business being completed at an earlier hour on other sitting days which, after all, is the objective of my noble friend's committee. We know from long experience that Parkinson's law applies to parliamentary time at least as much as to any other field. That no doubt is a matter which the Procedure Committee will wish to take into account when it considers what changes to recommend.
I do not wish to delay your Lordships. My job today is to listen to the views of your Lordships and to take careful account of them. However, I thought it might be useful if I sought to give a brief indication of my provisional views. In conclusion, perhaps I may again thank my noble friend Lord Rippon and his colleagues for what seems to me to be an extremely thought-provoking and useful report.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report to the Leader of the House from the Group on Sittings of the House (HL Paper 83).—(Viscount Cranborne.)
4.8 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, perhaps I may start in the same way as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and his committee for the work they have done and the report they have presented. If I may say so, it is a thoughtful, worthwhile document. It is a useful starting point for our discussions on the subject, as I am sure it was meant to be. In that respect, I certainly welcome the report.
852
The subject is clearly a matter for the House and not for the usual channels. If ever the usual channels were there to act as a conduit, I would say that this is the time. My function today is to listen to, and ponder on, what Members of the House say to see how fax we can move the position on.
Like the noble Viscount the Leader of the House I, too, wish to say a few words and give some indications of how I approach these matters. It is I who speak and not my party. Therefore anything that I say is essentially in my capacity as a Member of the House, although as part of the usual channels I undertake to ensure that what is said is channelled in the appropriate direction.
It is important that we are clear at the outset about the nature of this House. If we do not get the nature of the House right and are not agreed on the kind of House we are and what we are supposed to be doing, it is difficult to get the procedure right. We are not a House of full-time, paid, professional politicians. If we were, then matters might be different. But we are not. Therefore, our times of sitting and the way in which we organise our business are bound to be somewhat unusual. However, while they may be unusual, I do not think they have to be downright eccentric It is basically wrong, absurd and thoroughly unwelcome that this House should be considering serious and major legislation at two or three o'clock in the morning or later. We had an appalling example of that on the Education Bill in the last Session of Parliament. We have also had it in this Session.
As a starting point, we should try to view the proposals and any others in relation to procedure against the proposition: will it actually help the House to consider major legislation in a sensible way at a sensible hour? Although it is not spelt out in the report, I think we should aim for a 10 o'clock rising of the House when it considers normal business.
Perhaps I may turn to the topics in the report, starting, as did the Leader of the House, with the proposals in relation to committees off the Floor. First, if Fridays were to become genuinely a Private Members' day, that should release some time for Committee stages on the Floor itself. I do not think we should ignore that possibility.
Secondly, the principle that every Peer can participate is one which clearly should be preserved. It is a valuable right that we have. Prima facie, I have to say that my instinct and inclination are that Committee stages should take place on the Floor of the House rather than off the Floor of the House. That is only a personal view and I make certain exceptions. I do not think that the use of Public Bill Committees has been properly and fully explored. I served on the Public Bill Committee which considered the Charities Bill. It was not entirely a non-political Bill; it had some political content but not a great deal. It was fairly technical, quite thick and hefty, and required a fair degree of examination. However, I have to say to the House, as I have said before, the consideration in the committee of that Bill was a success. It worked. The committee consisted, on the whole, of people who were interested in it. It was given proper consideration. Also, although I am not entirely sure how, we managed to avoid a situation in

853
which everything was debated in the committee and then re-debated in the Chamber on Report and at Third Reading. That is obviously a great danger of Public Bill Committees. If we want to reserve the right of the House to consider a Bill on the Floor of the House and we take it off the Floor, people may feel that they have to do the Committee stage again when it comes back here. On the Charities Bill, at any rate, I believe that we managed to avoid that because it was a fairly technical and relatively uncontroversial piece of legislation.
I do not believe that the Public Bill Committee would necessarily work the same way in relation to major pieces of legislation where there is a political content and where perhaps more Members of your Lordships' House would be interested in the topics being discussed. On the other hand, the procedure is useful. It is a piece of our machinery which deserves to be used more, and that would help.
Special Standing Committees are, for such matters as Law Commission reports, an admirable device and, I hope, will be used. Much worthwhile legislation is pushed to the end of the queue when it could and should go through. With something like a Special Standing Committee, there is a fair chance of getting it through.
The more controversial recommendation, or suggestion, of the informal committee is interesting and one I have thought about. I say this: do not expect too much from it. It would be useful for getting rid of detailed technical issues —getting them out of the way. But one cannot ignore the politics. The dilemma is that for the procedure to be effective it has to apply to the big Bills. And the bigger the Bill is, the more political and therefore the more controversial it becomes.
I believe that if the procedure were to be introduced, either in the form proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, or the variation proposed by the Rippon Committee, there is a slight danger of over-cosiness which would perhaps not be good for the working of Parliament as a whole.
Secondly, how would one enforce the understandings reached in the informal committees when the Bill returns to the House without eroding the principle of universal participation? If the Bill has been discussed outside, off the Floor, and if there is an understanding— I believe that the report uses the phrase "by convention"—that it will not be re-discussed when it comes back to the Floor of the House, it seems to me that there will be a number of stages. There will be the Second Reading of the Bill; the informal committee, negotiation or whatever we like to call it, as a result of which certain matters are cleared out of the way; and the Bill then comes back to the House for the Committee stage. I do not see how we could prevent people speaking when the proper Committee stage takes place or prevent their raising matters which, on the face of it, had been cleared away in the informal committee. So I am not sure that we would save a great deal of time.
It is probably worth an experiment to have a committee at which advisers, civil servants and draftsmen would be present. While it is obviously important that we should address our remarks to Ministers, those who have been involved in politics
854
know that frequently such remarks are addressed to anonymous people sitting elsewhere in the Chamber. Frequently, one sees the rush from the ministerial Bench to the Box and back again with the answer coming just in time to save the Minister. If one could actually get at the people who are really doing the thinking—and I mean no disrespect to the Minister in saying that—those who do the nuts and bolts thinking when it comes to a Bill, it would be helpful. I would be in favour of an experiment along those lines.
I am not in favour of a Committee of the Whole House off the Floor. It seems to me the worst of all possible worlds. It would involve some Peers but perhaps not as many as would take part in the proper Committee stage if the Bill were on the Floor. If there were no Divisions, the process would have to be repeated; the issues which were important would have to be repeated and Divisions take place when the Bill came to the Report stage and Third Reading.
Nor do I like the proposal regarding amendments being deemed to be negatived unless accepted without a Division. That is a very difficult proposition for any Opposition to accept whether the committee is on the Floor of the House or off the Floor of the House. I am a little doubtful about it. In the words of the report, if it is only,
"a forum … for rehearsing the arguments comparatively informally",
it is not very different from the informal committees with which the report deals earlier, either in the Aberdare form or in the Rippon variation thereof, if I may put it that way. So the proposal is well worth looking at. But, frankly, I am not convinced that we have got it quite right in either of the existing proposals.
I follow the Leader of the House on Unstarred Questions. To retain the practice of taking Unstarred Questions during the dinner hour is thoroughly desirable. It has worked, and seems to be working, quite well. Also, to have a time limit of an hour-and-a-half on Unstarred Questions outside the dinner hour would again be a good idea. I find the wording of the last sentence of paragraph 30 of the report a little surprising. The paragraph deals with an Unstarred Question where speakers would have a three-minute limit
"but for the fact that the main business of the day was concluded without a dinner break and speakers on the unstarred question suddenly found themselves subject to no time limit. This kind of occasional mishap"—
I thought that the "mishap" was serendipity of the highest order, at least for people taking part in the debate. Obviously that can happen, but by and large I support what the report says.
As regards Friday sittings, I am sorry that the Leader of the House—perhaps repeating the views of his noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls—was not more enthusiastic about them. It seems to me that one could establish as a general principle in this House—as is done in the other place—that there normally is business on a Friday, that it consists of relatively uncontroversial Private Members' business and Unstarred Questions; that Divisions do not take place; and that as a matter of normality government business is not introduced. I

855
would have thought that that was desirable. It would clear the Order Paper of a fair amount of other business and, frankly, leave the House free to get on with what—
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, we know that "government business" develops into business other than strictly government business. Should we not keep in mind that it would be convenient only for people whose main house is in London? In this House, as indeed in the other place, Members perhaps derive the information which enables them to play a part here, not from London but from their own areas. Unless there is one weekday when one can feel with some certainty that one is able to go away and refresh one's mind, I do not believe that the contributions to our debates would be anything like as effective as they are.
Lord Richard: My Lords, that is the contrary argument. It is a fair point, and it is worth considering. It seems to me, however, that it is worthwhile having an experiment on Fridays to see whether or not the sort of thing that is proposed in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, makes sense and indeed helps to unclog the Order Paper so far as the rest of the business is concerned.
I share the view of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on carrying over Bills. I do not believe that that is a practical proposition. In some ways it is so far away from normal parliamentary procedure that I personally would have some difficulty in accepting it. I fear, however, that I have to agree with the report in denying to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the variation that he has sought for a considerable time in relation to timed debates. The Procedure Committee went round and round this point, as the committee members will know, on a number of occasions. It is very difficult to see how it can be done, unless the number of speakers is restricted, or alternatively debates are open-ended. But once it has been decided to have a debate of three hours on a particular subject, one really cannot, on the morning of the debate or the day before, suddenly adjust the whole time limit.
I am sorry that I have spoken for rather longer than I had intended. I conclude by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and his committee. The report is helpful and useful. Some of its thinking is innovatory, and I hope that we shall have one or two experiments along some of the lines proposed.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I join with the two previous speakers in expressing our gratitude to the committee, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, in particular, for its speedy and succinct report. Perhaps I may express my thanks by being, on some issues at least, a little more positive towards the recommendations than the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal sounded on some of them, particularly towards the end of his speech.
856
In my view, the most striking sentence in this report is:
"The House of Lords sits for more hours each year than any other Parliamentary chamber in the world apart from the House of Commons".
That is a rather remarkable fact in relation to an entirely amateur Chamber. It is in incredible contrast with the position, say, almost exactly 100 years ago, when half the sittings in this House took less than half an hour. There were, broadly, no more than about a dozen Members who habitually participated in debates at that time of year. Mr. Andrew Adonis produced a little book called Making Aristocracy Work, which I read during the summer. It contains some very interesting facts and figures relating to that period.
It may be thought that that was just a function of the much more leisurely parliamentary politics of Victorian times. But I do not believe that that is by any means the full explanation. It is an illusion to think that the parliamentary regime in another place was leisurely at that period. It was leisurely in one sense, in that it was concentrated into six months of the year, with a six-months' Recess. But within the six months, at any rate for the principal participants in the political process, the regime in the House of Commons was more strenuous and more demanding than it is at present. The House invariably sat for a full day—which often meant a full night—on Fridays. It quite often sat on Saturdays, 10 or 12 times a year being quite habitual. The short day was Wednesday. And it transacted an incredible amount of its business, including some of the most major orations of the period, between midnight and 2.30. The regime was very strenuous. There was, however, a much greater contrast between the regime in this House and that in the other place than is the case now. After 1886, this House became for a period almost a one-party Chamber. That reflected itself in the low level of interest and activity.
Most of us in this House would probably prefer the pressure on time of today to the moribundity of the 1890s. But that of course does not in any way excuse us from trying to use the time as effectively as possible and to avoid hours which can certainly be oppressive and may even be ridiculous.
The most serious and central recommendations, of which there are several, are clearly those that relate to holding Committee stages, or some approach to Committee stages, other than on the Floor of the House. The experiments that are suggested are moderate and cautious and I in no way oppose them. Indeed, I support them. But it is important that we keep in the centre of our minds the extent to which dealing with Bills in Committee is the absolute core and heart, the cutting edge, of the work of this House. That is true in this Chamber in a way that is not at all the case in the House of Commons. One can argue as to what are the true functions of another place. In my view, the British House of Commons has always been remarkably ineffective in subjecting the Executive to full parliamentary scrutiny. What it does, and this House does not do, is that, initially, by its composition, it determines the basis of the Government for the next four years. It can make or break the reputation of Ministers,

857
and sometimes of those who aspire to be Ministers, in a way that rarely, if ever, happens in this House in exactly that form—indeed, in my experience I do not think that has ever happened here.
The other place can hold important debates on Second Reading, whereas our debates on Second Reading lose some of their impact by the fact that the Bill always receives a Second Reading. Also, in another place Supply Days, votes of censure and other matters are of importance. In this House we are to a much greater extent dependent on our central hard function—there are many softer functions in the penumbra—of amending Bills when we think it right to do so. Our amendments may or may not subsequently live, but at any rate they have a validity for a time and sometimes have a permanent validity. I therefore think that our approach to this very important issue should essentially be based on keeping sight of that fact and not weakening our ability to discharge that task.
I shall touch very briefly on a few other issues. First, I turn to the question of Friday sittings. I do not believe that Friday sittings are wholly desirable in themselves. However, I think it is much better to have Friday sittings than to conduct important government business late at night when there is hardly anyone in the Chamber and when the atmosphere is totally unsuited to the issues that are at stake. I would not necessarily use Friday business exclusively for Private Member's business. It would be better to use it for public Bills than it would to have some of the excesses of late-night consideration that we have seen in recent years.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, seemed to indicate, as did the noble Viscount, that a Friday sitting meant every Member of your Lordships' House had to cancel his engagements if they were anywhere other than in London. Sitting on Friday does not mean that all your Lordships must sit on every Friday that a sitting takes place. Indeed, attendance here on Fridays, and frequently on other days, indicates that that is far from the truth. While I do not want to see a situation in which Friday sittings become habitual, I do not believe that they should be ruled out. Sitting on Fridays would be much better than the alternative of doing important business far too late at night.
In relation to Unstarred Questions, by all means we should keep the hour in the dinner break; but I believe also that the one-and-a-half hour limit is desirable. That touches on the question of the length of speeches referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The habit of your Lordships' House of favouring and usually providing short speeches is a beneficial one. In the House of Commons I rarely spoke for less than 20 minutes. In your Lordships' House I have rarely spoken for more than 10 minutes. That brings an all-around benefit both to me and to your Lordships' Chamber as a whole. I am therefore in favour of the tradition of shorter speeches.
On the other hand, for an opening speech of a fairly major subject there is a critical minimum and that critical minimum time is around seven minutes. A debate on a major subject in which Peers are restricted to speeches of two, three or four minutes is certainly
858
unsatisfactory in some ways. While I cannot say that it is easy to find a way to do that, we should endeavour to avoid that situation. We should have in mind speeches of under 10 minutes but perhaps not under seven minutes, that being a critical minimum below which the debate loses a large part of its usefulness.
For the moment I shall confine myself to those comments and sit down, again thanking members of the committee for what they have done. I hope that in the Procedure Committee we will follow up the debate with constructive consideration of what should in practice be carried out.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I welcome the way in which the Leader of the House opened the debate and I am grateful for his generous comments on the work of the Committee. I also appreciated what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. Their observations are obviously of relevance and will no doubt be carefully considered both by the House and in due course by the Procedure Committee.
As your Lordships will appreciate, the working group was an ad hoc body set up by the previous Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, to take a broad brush approach and not in any sense to be a substitute for the deliberations of this House or of the Procedure Committee. Our purpose was to concentrate on certain limited areas where there seemed to be scope for reforms which could have a beneficial effect on the sittings of the House.
We therefore put forward some ideas to be considered in the first instance by the Whole House, then by the Procedure Committee, and then again by the House as a whole. We did not make specific recommendations, though we hope that some of our suggestions may find general favour albeit perhaps with modifications. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, pointed out, this House sits longer than any other parliamentary chamber in the world except the other place. That is partly because we have more legislation calling for detailed amendment. But as the Leader of the House said, its increasing quantity has led on some occasions to decreasing quality. So there have been more late sittings.
We are not alone in facing the problems of the need for change. The Australian House of Representatives recently made changes in procedure, some of which are relevant to our situation; for example, more consultation during the legislative process and more proceedings off the Floor of the House, though there, as elsewhere, ultimate control remains with the House as a whole. It seems that the Canadian Parliament are contemplating similar changes.
I do not want to take up the time of the House in going through the whole report. It was printed on 20th July and the time has now come to hear the views of noble Lords other than the members of the committee. But I hope that some points in the report will prove to be relatively uncontroversial. That seems to be the flavour of the observations I have heard so far. Some parliamentary Bills could be taken off the Floor of the House including, in particular, technical Bills and I would hope also a larger number of Law Commission

859
Bills. That would help to provide fewer late sittings. But again, it must be emphasised that the House retains ultimate control in regard to any of the suggestions contained in the report.
In connection with the greater use of the Moses Room, my noble friend the Leader of the House may be aware that my noble friend Lord Salisbury wrote to me wanting a rider added to the report saying that if that was to be done, steps should be taken to improve the acoustics. I wrote to him and promised to raise the matter if he was not present. For one reason or another the Leader of the House may feel that it would be right and proper to accede to that request in any event.
Clearly more controversial may be the suggestion for greater use of Fridays. I should say that the committee did not have in mind any sort of substitution for the present use of Wednesdays. It may be felt that no Whipped business or certain legislative business should be taken on Fridays. Nor did we contemplate in any way using every Friday. But in regard to Motions and Unstarred Questions—not Starred Questions—it may be thought that debates raising such issues as the constitutional role of the House of Lords or the independence of the judiciary where the debate continued until 1.30 a.m. in the morning may be dealt with in a different way.
We had difficulty in offering any further observations on matters already fully considered by the Procedure Committee in relation to the length of time given to Unstarred Questions or Motions. But your Lordships may feel that there are matters where time constraints may not be appropriate. In such cases one would expect noble Lords to use their usual self-restraint to ensure that the House did not sit late on Fridays.
As we conclude, no proposals for improving the pattern of sittings of the House are likely to be effective unless all sides want to make them work. We hope that there will be some will in that direction. As the late lamented Lord Emsworth might have said if he had known the Russian proverb: it is no good trying to make a pig sing; it will not work and it only irritates him! We have tried to put forward some practical proposals. But we recognise that change needs general agreement. I hope that your Lordships will agree with the Leader of the House that the opportunity should now be taken to ensure that we fulfil our constitutional role in better and more efficient ways.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and it was a privilege to be invited to join his committee. I am certainly not an expert on procedure in your Lordships' House but I do know a certain amount about procedure in another place. I must tell your Lordships that I start with a prejudice against so-called "reform".
In the course of the coercion Bill in 1883, when the House was in uproar—incidentally, the behaviour in those days was much worse than it is today—Speaker Brand leaned forward and whispered to his learned clerk: "What do I do next?" The clerk just had time to
860
give him some wise advice, which was: "Sir, I should be very cautious". I approach reform of parliamentary procedure with that sentiment.
Every reform that I have seen in another place has always cured one disease and created others—frequently worse. On the whole, they have been designed to make life slightly easier for Ministers and for the government and thereby slightly more difficult for Back-Benchers. But, having said that, and against the background of all the inexperience of two years in your Lordships' House, I do commend the changes recommended by our committee.
It is true that they would make life slightly easier for Ministers during the course of the week anyway, but it may mean, as the Leader of the House said, that some will have to come in occasionally on a Friday. But they would not diminish the right of Back-Bench Peers— specifically the right to speak. The right to speak was enjoyed by the other place until the coercion Bill, when the House was held to ransom by the Irish. After some 36 hours of debate, Speaker Brand got up at about six o'clock in the morning, came down to the House, took the Chair and said: "I have had enough. I put the Question".
Every abuse of conventions leads to the introduction of rules. On the one hand, we do not have the closure here, and I hope that we shall never have it. On the other, the hours which we sit in this place are getting longer and longer, as previous speakers have already said. So I hope that your Lordships may agree that we should look at how we use that most precious of all commodities, time, before rules are forced upon us.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, has spelt out in some detail our recommendations and I shall not repeat them. Indeed, as he said, they are in the report. But I believe that we should have regard to the Australian experience in taking business off the Floor of the House and setting up what they call the main committee, instead of a Committee of the Whole House, sitting concurrently in another room. Our committee has recommended a similar—perhaps more correctly—a parallel, procedure. I have discussed this with the Cross-Bench Peers. I believe the suggestion broadly meets with their agreement, but they were concerned about how we would deal with votes in committee; and that matter will have to be addressed.
I hope that your Lordships will agree too with the suggestion of an informal committee—I refer to our report, page 5, paragraphs 11 to 14—to forestall probing amendments and to make the passage of Bills, when they get back to the Floor of the House, easier and speedier. I have long been in favour of pre-legislation committees and of the Special Standing Committee procedure, which would, I believe, lead to better legislation.
As regards Friday sittings, I note what the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. I also note the comment from a sedentary position of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Our committee does not recommend that Friday sittings should be used for government business but for Back-Bench business. Your Lordships have wide-ranging interests. The wealth of knowledge and experience in this House is very great.

861
Incidentally, there would be another bonus. Political news on a Saturday morning is usually pretty thin and I believe that debates in this place might well receive wide press coverage, to the credit of your Lordships' House.
I have only one reservation about all this and that is that the Government might just be tempted to take over Wednesdays, which are currently used for short debates, or possibly take over more Fridays than they already have. We would need to have a care about that temptation. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that all this was a matter for the House, and I hope that it will be, rather than just for the Government.
The suggestions are experimental. I believe that they would be sensible and that we should give them a try. If they do not work—as the Crossman reforms in another place some years ago did not work—we can always go back. Years ago when I was a Whip with the noble Lord, Lord Pym, I did the late stint one night at about three o'clock in the morning. I found a piece of doggerel left in the Whips' folder which said this:
"Absolute evidence have I none
But my aunt's charwoman's sister's son
Heard a policeman on his beat
Say to a housemaid in Downing Street
That he knew a man who had a friend
Who thought he knew when the sitting would end".
I suspect that that is a sentiment with which a lot of your Lordships might agree.
Our report gives an opportunity to do something about that. As has already been said, legislation by exhaustion is no way to proceed. It does not lead to good legislation. I believe too that in the eyes of the public it brings our proceedings into disrepute. I know that it is difficult for all of us to agree to change when we reach a certain age. I used to keep a list of Back-Bench speeches which had pleased me when I was in the Chair in the other place. I remember Mr. Frank Haynes, the Member for Ashfield, in a debate on new technology concluding his speech with the phrase: "Mr. Speaker, Sir, I am all in favour of progress as long as it does not mean change". I believe that a lot of us would agree with that, but these are modest changes. I believe that they are sensible and I hope very much that they will commend themselves to your Lordships' House.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, like the House, I welcome the initiative of the Leader of the House in bringing this report before Members prior to it going to the Procedure Committee. There is very little which is new within the report. The proposals and possible solutions have been considered over a wide number of years. But it was because of the conservative reluctance which is within us all that we were hesitant. We had an experiment and then we allowed it to drop.
I hope that this report will permit a new initiative to be taken. But it is well worth recalling why we are in the present difficulties. Of course in the past we have sat late at night. What I believe the House is concerned about is not the odd nights sitting late but the successive nights in a sitting week and perhaps in the following
862
week. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, that is not the way in which we should handle major, controversial legislation.
I believe that we should give great credit to the usual channels. When one considers the changed nature of this House, it is remarkable that we are able to retain our present flexibility and our general give and take. Like the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, I hope that that will always be maintained.
Obviously change has to be brought about. Because this is a matter of government, I think that there are two points for the Leader of the House to take away and consider. First, the legislative load is becoming heavier. I am not referring necessarily to the increased number of Bills but to the way in which the subject matter of some Bills really encompasses two or three Bills. That adds to the time that is needed for the piece of legislation to be considered by the House. Secondly, I have a suspicion—I am not a lawyer, but I have listened to many lawyers speak in your Lordships' House—that the quality of the drafting of the legislation is not as good as it used to be. It appears to be hurried. I believe that in their own interests the Government should seriously consider the quality of legislation.
Perhaps the most significant reason for the need for change is the increased membership of this House. The Life Peerages Act has worked in a way that those of us who were present when it was enacted had never really contemplated, and the House has become richer as a result. It has Members with wide experience of government, business, the social services and the like, all of whom want to make their contributions. That means that this House has an even more valuable role to play in its revising capacity.
One is also beginning to feel the effect of professional lobbying. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I am amazed at the amount of paper that comes through my postbox nearly every day about the legislation that is before the House. We are thus receiving new fuel with which to maintain and develop our debates.
So far, we have worked well, but I believe that 1995 and the new Session will be particularly difficult. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House must recognise that the problems of the Chief Whip in seeking to get his legislation through at a reasonable hour may well increase. That will happen unless the Government reduce their legislative programme.
We are now faced with the effects of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. Orders may well come before the House to replace primary legislation. They may not be politically controversial—some will be but many will not be—but all will have to be scrutinised with the greatest possible care because orders and statutory instruments tend to have a greater effect on ordinary people than primary legislation. Therefore, we shall need to consider how to handle orders in this House. There is a rather cumbersome procedure for amending orders, so we shall also need to consider how such procedures can be adapted for orders of, say, five, six, 10 or 20 pages. I think that change will be pressed upon us if we are to retain our rights to speak, to deliberate and to make decisions.

863
Friday Sittings would be a move in the right direction. We have done that in the past. When we started that many years ago when I was Leader of the House, there were grumbles such as those that we have heard from noble Lords directly opposite, but in the end the move was welcomed. However, I should not like to see private business being shunted off on to a Friday, as was perhaps suggested in the report. Some private business is very important. Some private legislation may be very important and it should therefore be treated in the same way as public legislation. If I were the Government Chief Whip I would want to be able to use a Friday to relieve the burden of having to sit until a very late hour on a Thursday night.
However, I would not support Friday Sittings as an ad hoc arrangement. The House should be entitled to at least two or three weeks' notice before a Friday Sitting and should know the purpose of the business to be considered. Whether or not that appears on the Order Paper is another matter, but we should at least know (officially or unofficially) what business will be considered on a Friday. I believe that Friday Sittings offer a very important opportunity for the Government to overcome some of the problems of late-night Sittings.
I have always supported the idea of taking Public Bill Committees off the Floor of the House, but we have always treated such moves as experiments, with gaps between them. That has meant that we have lost the momentum and the lessons learned from previous meetings. Taking Committees off the Floor of the House is not our usual practice. Therefore, we must maintain the momentum. We should have the courage to take Committees off the Floor of the House. Major legislation could be considered in that way, although not politically contentious pieces of major legislation.
I see no difficulty on the question of Divisions. Let us be honest: how many noble Lords come in to the House to vote during a Committee stage who were not present to hear any of the debates? Therefore, if noble Lords attending a debate in the Chamber were to vote in a Committee, I do not see that that would be any different from what happens now in our Committees. We could then go straight to Report stage. The House could change its rules to allow a little more freedom with regard to the way in which our debates are conducted on Report.
My noble friend was quite right in regard to carry-over Motions. That is not practical. I would certainly not consider that if I were in government—or even in the government in waiting. I think that that proposal should go.
I believe that the proposals with regard to Friday Sittings and taking Committees off the Floor of the House should be adopted permanently. I do not mean that we should necessarily sit every Friday. We could sit on two Fridays before Easter when there is a bit of a log jam. We could sit for four, five or six Fridays in the latter part of June and in July when the real pressures are upon us.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, I treasure our freedom in this House. I should not like to see any change in that. Again, like the noble Lord, I would be bitterly opposed to moving what are now our
864
Wednesday debates to a Friday or a Thursday. Those debates are important. This House is something more than simply a legislative Chamber. This is a House in which the big issues should be debated and Wednesday is the day on which that should be done.
I hope that the Procedure Committee will consider the proposals. I hope that the Government and my noble friend will have the courage—certainly in terms of taking Public Bills off the Floor of the House—to make any such changes permanent as opposed to experimental. If such changes are permanent, they will work.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I too welcome the report, which is brief, sensible and constructive. I hope that it will be followed by some experiments to put its proposals into practice. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Rippon and his colleagues on having produced it.
My noble friend was also the chairman of the Hansard Society Commission Report on the Legislative Process, Making The Law, which was published two years ago. That report was a thorough-going examination of the whole of our legislative process. It was extremely well argued and met head-on all the criticisms that are often made about legislation, such as the point about drafting that has just been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It dealt also with the question of previous consultations and with the fact that neither this House nor another place has sufficient time in which to consider all the various proposals that are put before us. If that report had been accepted it would have had some helpful advice to give us and enormously improved our legislation. Unfortunately, it comes up against the difficulty that, as the commission realised, to achieve the ideal requires more time in the legislative process. The commission's answer was to put forward a two-year cycle of legislation rather than the present one year.
As the report before us today points out, this is not popular with business managers. I include my noble friend the Leader. He was not too happy about a two-year cycle, although he did make the point that it would deprive the Opposition of the opportunity to impose some delay on the Government at the end of the Session. Of course, that would be for only one year, because thereafter the two-year cycle would come to a head every following year and the Opposition's powers of rejection would be restored. I was encouraged that the group whose report we are considering today recommended that continued attention be paid to this idea. Although it is an ideal, we can make some progress towards it, as indeed I believe the suggestions of the group offer a way of improving our legislation.
In paragraphs 8 to 17 the proposal that I made to the Hansard Society Commission is repeated. The suggestion is for an informal meeting between the Minister in charge of the Bill and various Peers to take place after Second Reading and before Committee stage. As is made clear in the report, since 25 per cent. of our time is spent in Committee, that is the point at which we may perhaps save time. My idea arises from a practice that has crept in and is now quite general.

865
Between Committee stage and Report the Minister in charge of the Bill holds a meeting with those Peers who have put forward amendments in Committee. That is done with a view to ironing out difficulties and perhaps persuading critics that they have no grounds to fear what the Government are doing, or, even if they do not satisfy the critics, at least they hope to clarify the issues so that when the matter is debated again at Report stage those issues are clear and not much time is wasted. That was the reason why I thought up this proposal.
Perhaps I may endeavour to explain the points that I believe may be brought up at such a preliminary meeting. First, although probing amendments are not intended to be pressed, they can sometimes take up a fair amount of time. They are only for information. Nobody ever divides on a probing amendment. There is nothing politically sensitive about a probing amendment. I should have thought that in an informal meeting before the Committee stage the Government could explain exactly what they were doing and what their clauses meant and then there would be no need for a probing amendment at that stage.
Secondly, there are some Motions in Committee to oppose that a clause shall stand part of the Bill. It may be that the proposer wants to cut the clause out of the Bill. That is perfectly understandable and is a political matter. In no sense will that be covered by the preliminary committee that I have in mind. But there are Motions to oppose that a clause stand part which are probing amendments, and are said to be so by their proposers. In those cases the matter could be ironed out before the Committee stage.
Thirdly, there are drafting amendments. These are minor amendments and are not politically sensitive. I should have thought that drafting amendments could be sorted out at that point.
There may well be other possibilities. One source of delay arises from time to time from the fact that Back-benchers do not have the services of a draftsman. Very often they put down an amendment which does not make very clear what they have in mind. Judging from the amendment itself, the Government's advisers do not get hold of the right end of the stick. When the proposer of the amendment speaks, he makes clear what he proposes but the Government Minister has a speech that is geared to something quite different, simply because the amendment has been misunderstood. That is a point of misunderstanding which I believe can be ironed out before the Committee stage is reached.
So I believe there are ways of saving time. It may be that not an awful lot of time can be saved, but it would allow the Committee stage to concentrate entirely on those matters of political import which, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has emphasised, are so important at Committee stage. I have no intention of suggesting that anything of that kind should be discussed before the Committee stage itself, but when I was in the Army there was an old saying that time spent in reconnaissance was seldom wasted. My suggestion is something along those lines. A little bit more reconnaissance before the Committee stage would not be wasted. I should add that I fully accept the
866
modification to my proposal suggested in paragraph 12 that any Peer should be able to attend such a preliminary meeting.
As far as the other recommendations of the report are concerned, I fully support the limit of one-and-a-half hours for Unstarred Questions. However, I must confess that I am far from enthusiastic about Friday sittings. I look with some nostalgia to the past, when we did not always sit on Mondays.
In general, I believe this to be a valuable report. I hope that eventually, through the Procedure Committee and further consideration by the House, an experiment on the lines suggested will take place.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the report; and so far I have found the debate useful and interesting. As power has tended to slip from Parliament and the Cabinet to unelected bureaucrats, whether they be in Whitehall or Brussels, this is certainly no time for either this House or another place to relax scrutiny of legislation and of the conduct of the Government, nor to make it easier for the Government to force even more legislation through Parliament, especially if that legislation is bad, ill thought out and badly drafted, as so much of it has been.
In paragraph 4 of the report it is noted that both Houses of Parliament sit longer than any other parliament in the world. Since our history is different from the rest of the world and our Parliament has grown through centuries of experience rather than by imposition, it is not surprising that government need constant scrutiny and often serious check.
I refer again to paragraph 4. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Parenting. He apparently wrote to the committee drawing attention to the importance to relationships between children and parents of the time between the end of school and bedtime and to the stability of parental relationships in the period after the children's bedtime when social activities may be enjoyed together. I do not know what that means. Is it suggested that Parliament should sit from nine to five on four days a week? That seems to be completely out of touch with parliamentary reality. What about Members of both Houses whose families live in parts of the country distant from Westminster? Is that once again a suggestion from the London-based elite rather than from the whole of Parliament? What about the people who live in Scotland, the North of England or the West of England? We must consider also their convenience.
We know that being a parliamentarian is not a nine-to-five job. It is a position which confers privilege and demands constant attention. One cannot base democratic accountability on putting baby to bed. It is much more important than that. It may well suit the Government to have a less watchful and tame Parliament. I suppose that it does. The real need is for government to bring forward less legislation and legislation that has been researched and tested thoroughly and drafted properly.

867
Perhaps I may comment upon one or two matters dealt with by the committee where it has made suggestions. First, Committees off the Floor of the House: I would treat that with the utmost caution. I am glad that most speakers so far, including the noble Viscount the Leader of the House and my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, have urged caution about any suggestion that might take the focus off the Chamber of the House. It would tend to make Members feel far less involved and might result in fewer noble Lords taking part in the proceedings of the House. That would be unfortunate. Pre-legislative hearings to iron out drafting difficulties are one thing; small committees to discuss and decide policy matters are another. The committee has taken a middle course, but even so its suggestions might lead to an unstoppable trend towards the Commons system of transferring Committees off the Floor of the House to Committees upstairs.
In relation to Unstarred Questions, it is sensible that they should be limited to one and a half hours, and, wherever possible, as now, should take place during the dinner period.
One suggestion that worries me greatly is to have Private Members' business on Fridays. First, we should note that the other place is trying to reduce the number of Fridays that it sits. I hope that we are not suggesting that we should increase the number of Fridays upon which we sit. It would be bad if Friday were to become a Private Members' day as in the Commons. First, the Government would be relieved of the responsibility of finding Private Members' time in what I term to be prime time—between Monday and Thursday. All the deficiencies of the Commons system would undoubtedly sooner or later be imported into the House of Lords. For example, Bills would be talked out so that other Bills would not be reached. Everyone who has served in the Commons knows well what the system is. Eventually such Bills would go to the bottom of the pile and be killed. That would do the House of Lords no good at all. I hope that in due course such an arrangement will be rejected by your Lordships.
The suggestion that controversial business should not normally continue after 10 p.m. sounds all right and would give the Government a much easier ride, but the Opposition would be made less effective by such a means. As my noble friend said, he does not want any cosy understanding between the Front Benches. He is right. The Opposition are here to oppose not to assist the Government to get their business. They are here to oppose the business that they do not like. If we had such a system, any Back-Bencher who broke the informal rule would be pressurised into submission to the informal convention which would undoubtedly grow up. Time is the enemy of government and the friend of opposition. In our parliamentary system we should never forget that. I cannot believe that the Government or the Opposition would agree to such an arrangement. After all, the Conservatives are likely to be in opposition after the next election. Such a system would lessen their effectiveness. The Labour Party, which has been in government for only 21 of the past 94 years, would be taking a great risk in the long term if it agreed to that
868
principle, even though it probably will form the next government. It might suit it in the short term but not in the long term.
The committee referred to the informal arrangements adopted in relation to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill in 1993 to support its contention, but that is not a good example. With the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, I had something to do with those arrangements. They arose because the Government and the Opposition were at one in wanting the Bill to be rushed through the House in the shortest possible time. An unofficial opposition—it was called the Maastricht Study Group—was formed on an all-party basis. It negotiated the arrangements. It had nothing to do with the Official Opposition, as a matter of fact. It did so on the basis that the House of Lords should have adequate time to discuss the far-reaching proposals of the Maastricht Treaty. It did not have the status or the authority of the Official Opposition, nor did it seek it. It was a one-off issue—a vital one of course—but nevertheless it does not serve—I emphasise this—as an example to be followed generally.
The real solution for saving time in the House is less legislation. The Government are interfering too much in the nooks and crannies of peoples' private lives. We want less legislation. We want better legislation, which is being discussed, thought out and drafted properly. That is the main requirement, and I hope that the Government will listen to it.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise for the state of my voice but I wish to put one or two points, even baldly, before your Lordships. I hope that if my voice gives out entirely the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, will be ready to rush in as I sit down.
The background to the debate is that, like most second Chambers, your Lordships' House is largely an elderly House. Unlike most second Chambers, it is unsalaried. It is therefore extremely difficult, to put it mildly, to achieve a representative House after eight o'clock. That is virtually impossible with a Committee stage going on after eight o'clock.
The result is that an enormous burden falls on one or two Front-Benchers who are prepared to assume that burden. It also means that we are abnegating our task not merely to be a revising Chamber but, as seemed to be suggested on 25th October, a Chamber which can make tentative suggestions for revision to be accepted or brushed aside at will by the Government—and that is our last word. We cannot even do that after eight o'clock. No worthwhile Division can take place; no Division representative of the views of your Lordships' House as a whole. Why is that? I agree so much with what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Shepherd. We have far too much legislation and its quality is defective.
Obviously, every Minister is anxious—and his officials are even more anxious—to push through a measure which is conceived as improving the law. But it is not always so. There are two recent examples among many others. When we embarked on the deregulation Bill, Opposition Peers gleefully pointed out

869
that practically every measure which we were engaged in deregulating had been enacted in the past 14 years. Then we had the annual Education Bill. Its object was to control student unions and to improve teacher training. As was pointed out by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, and recently reiterated by the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, both those objectives could have been performed in the universities. I do not doubt for one moment that the Department for Education preferred to do it its way. It is a very restive, intrusive and aggrandising department. However, those two examples show how much unnecessary legislation we have.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House is a member of the Future Legislation Committee, which is the initial sieve. He is in a minority there with his opposite number in the other place subject to the enormous pressures of departmental Ministers supporting each other for a slot in future legislation. In addition, there is the Cabinet Committee, which prefers the Queen's Speech. Both could be more rigorous in determining whether a measure is strictly necessary or merely on balance desirable. Then there is the question of the drafting. It is a little misleading to say that the legislation is badly drafted, but it is drafted over-elaborately. The parliamentary draftsmen are men of high intellectual calibre and they compound the desire of officials to cover every conceivable situation.
Perhaps I may read an extract from the Renton Report, which was published in 1975. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition was a member of that committee. I quote from the memorandum submitted by the two senior Scottish judges; my noble and learned friend Lord Emslie and the late Lord Wheatley, who were then the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk. Their memorandum was quoted with approval. They stated:
"Most of the problems encountered by the Courts flow directly from the tendency of Parliament to ignore the virtue of enacting broad general rules".
They go on to state that the official and the draftsman will try to cover every conceivable situation. In the nature of things, the vital situation that will come before the court will be missed.
It seems to me that not only do we need less legislation but less elaborate legislation. Year after year since 1975 the statute books have been getting longer. I have quoted statistics on previous occasions and I shall not repeat them today. Unless we can have less legislation, and less elaborate legislation, we are bound to have trouble, however we tinker with our procedures.
There is a famous rule of law that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman will know well. It originated in the 16th century. It was called "the rule in Shelley's case", and Shakespearian scholars take note of it too. During the centuries it became more and more elaborate and more and more encrusted with different precedents. When in 1925 the law of property was codified and consolidated, one section ran simply:
"The law in Shelley's case is hereby abrogated".
870
In primary, and even more in secondary, legislation we have page after page of consumer protection. How much of that could be avoided if we had a simple provision stating:
"The rule of caveat emptor is hereby abrogated".
If only officials and draftsmen could be instructed to draft in that way, our task would be much easier. In order for that to happen, parliamentary counsel must come under the aegis of the Law Officers, as recommended by Sir Robert Andrew. At present they are responsible only to the Prime Minister, which means that they are responsible only to themselves. If they were responsible to the Law Officers, they would be subject to greater control and they could be told that they must follow the recommendations of the Renton Committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Rippon of Hexham and Lord Renton, have on many occasions described the former role of the Legislation Committee of the Cabinet. That was a committee which scrutinised the drafting of legislation and also its constitutionality. Today that committee is no more than a business committee. If it were reconstituted in its former role, that again would help greatly with the quality of legislation.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, we are all glad that the voice of the noble and learned Lord did not give out, as he feared it might, because we enjoy listening to him. I enjoyed his speech in particular because I agree with his views on the quantity of legislation, a matter to which I shall return in a few moments.
I wish to concentrate on two points made in this extremely interesting, indeed fascinating report of my noble friend Lord Rippon. The first is the question of informal committees off the Floor of the House. I believe that was originally thought of by my noble friend Lord Aberdare and enlarged upon by my noble friend Lord Rippon.
I believe that for two reasons that idea, as outlined in paragraphs 11 to 14, has a great attraction. The first reason has already been touched upon; that is, it would avoid some of the discussions on probing amendments which take place in Committee. Those matters could be dealt with informally before they ever reached the formal Committee stage on the Floor of the House. Therefore, those discussions would not be necessary.
Other matters could also be clarified and dealt with. One major problem with regard to Committee stages on the Floor of the House is that an amendment is tabled by a noble Lord which is taken away into the department and looked at by the civil servants and the Minister. In principle, they do not like it because they reckon their Bill is perfect anyway and they do not wish it to be altered. Moreover, they look at the amendment before they have heard the returns in relation to it. They say, "We do not like this", and the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box with the word "resist" written on his brief. I believe that a great deal of time is wasted because the Minister comes forward with that brief with the word "resist" written on it and with some reasons as to why the amendment should be resisted. Those reasons have been prepared without having heard the arguments in

871
favour of the amendment. That seems to me to be very silly. We should try to find a way to address such matters beforehand without the need for a Division or the formality of proceedings on the Floor of the House. If the amendment is considered in that way, the Minister and the civil servants may even consider that there is some merit in the amendment; that would be an advantage.
A problem with too much of our legislation is that not enough account is taken of the effect that it will have on people outside. I am sure that that is a difficulty. It is thought up by political parties, with the best intentions in the world; it is discussed by civil servants and sent to parliamentary draftsmen. Those civil servants and parliamentary draftsmen are seeking to comply with the desires of their political masters, as they must do. But they all live in Whitehall. They do not live in the country where it will have an effect. They are locked up in Whitehall all day. They do their best; of course they do. But it is very important to bring to bear on legislation the knowledge of people whom it will affect and who will have to put it into operation.
That is where your Lordships' House has a particular part to play. We are a voluntary, part-time House and we all have lives outside it. Increasingly, and I think regrettably, Members of the other place have less and less of that because more and more they have to become full-time politicians. Just as the civil servants are locked up in Whitehall, so, to almost too great an extent, are Members of the other place locked up in Westminster.
Among our number we have experts on any subject you care to name, and usually several of them. Certainly Members of this House will realise the effect of proposed legislation. Members of this House are not outsiders and they should be brought into the discussions at an early stage. If that is done, not only will the legislation be improved but less time will be required for discussion on the Floor of the House. I very much hope that we can proceed with those informal committees on an experimental basis to begin with, because I believe that that is an experiment which is worth pursuing.
I wish to turn now to the subject of Fridays. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, say that he thought it would be a good idea not to have Private Members' business but to have government business on a Friday; and that we should not sit too often on a Friday. That is exactly what we do already. Therefore, I do not believe that any change is needed, because, as the report says, we spend anything between five and 10 Fridays a year doing exactly that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that part of the problem in the current Session has been that there has been a significant reduction in the number of Friday sittings? A number of us found ourselves at half-past one and half-past two in the morning discussing issues of great significance with regard to the criminal law simply because, at that stage, we were not sitting on Fridays. That is part of the problem.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The number of Friday sittings has come down this
872
Session. However, I was referring to the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we should sit on perhaps six or eight Fridays.
The proposition made in the report is that we should sit on a Friday for Private Members' business. That is a trap into which we must not fall. Several noble Lords — in particular the noble Lord the leader of the Opposition—have said that that should provide more time for Committee stages to be taken on the Floor of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said that. It will not, you know. My noble friend the Leader of the House referred to Parkinson's Law. He is right and I know exactly what will happen. For a few weeks we should discuss public legislation and we should rise at a reasonable time. Everyone would cry, "Isn't this nice?" And then one day the Government would come along and say, "A matter has arisen which must be passed by Parliament by next Thursday and it must be fitted in. The House will have to sit late on Tuesday". We should do that. A week would go by and the same thing would happen again and again and again. Before we knew where we were, we should be sitting just as late every night as we do now, and on Fridays as well. The only beneficiary of that will be the Government because they will get more legislation through, which all governments want to do. I honestly believe that the proposition to take Private Members' business on a Friday is a trap into which we should not fall.
The only remedy is that put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale; namely, to have less legislation. I have been arguing for that for years and years without any success whatever and I shall continue to do so for as long as I have breath. It is the only way in which we shall be able to achieve sittings of a reasonable length. It is no good us saying that we shall stop at 10 o'clock on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday and that will be that. The other place has many rules and one of them is called the Ten o'clock Rule. It provides that the House shall not sit after 10 o'clock. Do they do that? Of course they do not. Night after night a Motion is passed suspending the Ten O'clock Rule. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, will know better than I how often the House of Commons actually ceases to sit at 10 o'clock, but I believe that it is very seldom. It cannot be done. That can be achieved only by having less legislation or by the House simply refusing to sit. But governments have majorities and that will not happen.
People say that sitting late is terrible and! that it is all wrong. In many ways it is. However, it has one beneficial effect from the point of view of noble Lords opposite: it is the only way to stop the Government producing even more legislation. I say that because there comes a time when the Government's business managers say, "We really can't ask the House to sit again later and later; we must hold back". Ministers do not like that. In fact, they hate it. They say to the business managers, "Don't be silly, of course we can". I know that that is true because I was one of them and they did say that to me. There comes a moment when you have to stand up to Ministers and say, "Look, you

873
can't ask people to do this because it is not fair. You must drop this or postpone it". That is the only weapon that the Opposition have. I spent a good many years in Opposition. They must have some weapons, although not too many; and that is one of them.
While I do not like sitting late at night, I do not believe that the proposition for us to sit on Fridays will make the slightest difference. I hope that the Government will recognise the fact that no one likes to sit late at night. However marvellous they may think their legislation is, it would not do them any harm to put some of it by for a bit.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with a provisional apology. I very much hope to hear the whole of the debate, but I have to catch a train later this evening in order to meet an unavoidable commitment tomorrow morning in another part of the country. It is an illustration of a point made by some speakers in today's debate. If I have misjudged the timing and I have to leave the House before the end of the debate, I beg your Lordships' forgiveness.
I intervene simply to invite the attention of the House to one matter in the report. As some speakers have mentioned —and as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, just reminded us —the group referred to the recently introduced experiment of the Special Standing Committee. Last week, your Lordships debated the third report of the Procedure Committee. In its report, the committee said that the experiment,
"has already proved a valuable addition to the scrutiny function of the House".
The committee recommended a change in the nomenclature because, technically speaking, it is not a Standing Committee. It was recommended that the committee be called a Special Public Bill Committee. But however we name the rose, it promises to contribute to the more expeditious dispatch of suitable business.
If it fortifies him, I wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Stoddart that it is not the function of the Opposition to assist the Government in getting business through. I respectfully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that there is a plethora of legislation at present. However, I should like to add, as a rider, that there is legislation which some of us would like to see introduced. Indeed, we wish the Government would introduce it. If they will not do so there ought to be some provision for ensuring that we have such an opportunity. I take the point made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that it would have to be suitable business—in other words, it would have to be business which is not substantially controversial.
I wish to refer to the fact that the group suggested specifically that that procedure might provide a solution for the appalling back-log of unimplemented reports by the Law Commission. That matter was referred to by my noble friend Lord Richard and the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. I intervene simply to make a plea that that
874
suggestion should be adopted. The Law Commission exists, as expressed in a recent speech to the Bar conference by its chairman Sir Henry Brooke,
"to make the law simpler, fairer and cheaper to use".
All those objectives are very much in the public interest and would help to resolve many of the complaints about which we read daily in press reports.
Yesterday, in his maiden speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead—a speech which I respectfully commend to those noble Lords who were not privileged to hear it—said:
"Procedures and provisions that were necessary and valuable … in a less sophisticated and non-technological society … now in some instances, overall [are in danger of doing] more harm than good".— [Official Report, 1/11/94; col. 792.]
Equally, the noble and learned Lord pointed out that well intentioned proposals for reform must be thought through. There could not be a better way of encapsulating the purposes of the Law Commission.
The Law Commission harnesses the talents of its distinguished members and of its hard working secretariat to produce what one can only describe as suggestions for improving the law, many of which are not at all controversial. Yet, when they have been produced, they disappear into a secret cavern from which they never seem to emerge.
I do not believe that the problem is the fact that the Government do not want to see such suggestions implemented or that, for some reason, the Government are against them. The problem is one of parliamentary time for the necessary legislation. The difficulty is that they are not of the sexy category which would reflect in a Minister's standing in the popularity stakes. Therefore, they do not find a way into a highly competitive legislative programme.
Between 1967 (when the Law Commission was established) and 1981, 40 Law Commission reports have been wholly or partly implemented—about half on the initiative of the government of the day and about half on the initiative of private Members in one or other of the Houses. Since 1981 only 33 have been wholly or partly implemented. Moreover, since 1989 there has been what Sir Henry Brooke has described as a grade one disaster area: only one Bill has been implemented on government initiative since that time.
In 1981, 13 reports were awaiting implementation. That figure had doubled to 26 by 1985. The figure now stands at 36 reports and represents the hard work of some of our most talented people—hard work which has borne no fruit of any kind. There are reports on the sale and supply of goods, on the grounds for divorce, on the law of domicile, on obsolete restrictive covenants on land and on land registration. Indeed, one could go on but your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to do so. Those are just some examples.
Even with our existing procedures, such measures would not be very time consuming. Apart from four examples which, admittedly, did tackle controversial areas, the last 15 Law Commission Bills required an average of less than two hours for all their stages in your Lordships' House and only 71 minutes in another place. When the noble Viscount responds, I hope that he will have some good news for us. Obviously he cannot

875
forestall what will be said in the committee; but I hope that nevertheless he will have some good news for us both about the Government's intentions in sponsoring some of those Bills and about the availability of the experimental procedure for that purpose. I also hope that he will have some good news for those of us on the Back-Benches who may wish from time to time to sponsor such Bills. Of course, our function is to scrutinise legislation, but it really would be a tragedy if, instead, we were to paralyse it.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, the only topic upon which I should like to address your Lordships is the question of referring public Bills to a committee off the Floor of the House. I had the honour of serving on five such committees and of chairing three of them. In my opinion, more use could advantageously be made of such committees, with the object of producing better Bills, more informed debates and, I believe, of saving time on the Floor of the House.
Perhaps I may summarise the present position. There are three committees which accept public Bills off the Floor of the House. First there is the Select Committee procedure. I have had experience of three public Bills which have been referred to such a committee: the parochial charities Bill, and the small charities Bill which went to a Select Committee in 1983, and the infant life preservation Bill which went to such a committee in 1987. The advantage of that procedure is that evidence is taken. Any Peer can attend the meetings of such a committee, speak and examine witnesses if he desires to do so. Then there is a written report to the House followed by an ordinary Committee stage on the Floor of the House. It is therefore appropriate for a controversial Bill because the Committee stage on the Floor of the House is not supplanted. I take just one small example of a Bill which, in my humble opinion, could usefully have been referred to such a Select Committee—the Dangerous Dogs Bill. If evidence had been before your Lordships when that Bill came to its Committee stage on the Floor of the House many of the agonies which followed the Bill might have been avoided.
Then there is the Public Bill Committee procedure. No evidence is taken but any Member of your Lordships' House can attend and speak and move amendments. However, only Members of the Committee can vote so that the Committee stage on the Floor of the House is supplanted. I think your Lordships may feel that because the Committee stage on the Floor of the House is supplanted that procedure is not really very appropriate for a highly controversial Bill. The Pilotage Bill was referred to a Public Bill Committee in 1987. I think it is universally recognised that it was not a success because the Bill turned out to be highly controversial and all the arguments which had been deployed before the Public Bill Committee were again rehearsed at the Report stage. However, as I think has already been said by one of your Lordships, the Charities Bill was referred to a Public Bill Committee
876
in 1992. Again, I think it is recognised, that was a great success and a lot of time was saved on the Floor of the House.
Further, I would mention what I venture to call the highly successful Special Standing Committee introduced following the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The committee was originally called a Special Standing Committee but I believe it has now been renamed the Special Public Bill Committee. However, to avoid confusion, it is perhaps better to leave it with its old name just for the time being. Under that procedure evidence is taken and any Peer may speak and move amendments but only Members of the Committee can vote. It supplants the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. Again, I think it must follow that it is not suitable for a highly controversial Bill. So far it has been used for only one Bill, although I hope it will be used for many more. I refer to the recent law of property amendment Bill. That, I think, was a success. The time occupied on that Bill upstairs in deliberation, the taking of evidence and the Committee stage, was seven-and-a-half hours; the time occupied on the Floor of the House at the Report stage and Third Reading was 23 minutes. It is significant to observe that when that Bill came before Standing Committee A in the other place on 19th October last the Labour Party spokesman on that Committee stated that his party wished it to be understood that the procedure should be used more readily.
What I am leading up to is this. I ask your Lordships to consider whether it would be useful for Bills, perhaps most Bills, to be looked at before, or during, Second Reading to see whether the Bill could with advantage be referred to one or other of these three committees in order, first, to produce a better Bill and, secondly, to save time on the Floor of the House.
All I should like to add in conclusion is that I entirely agree with everything said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and I do not think there is anything that I could usefully add to his words.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is only on three or four occasions over the past 20 years that there has been a "take note" debate on reports on procedure sought by the Leader of the House. On this occasion we acknowledge the initiative of my noble friend Lord Wakeham. Some time ago, I believe following the previous occasion we had such a debate, timers were installed in the Chamber as an aid to self-regulation. Today, self-regulation hovers in the shadow of the lingering but elusive spectre of imposed reform.
The even-handed manner in which my noble friend introduced the debate, with the candour of an open mind, is much appreciated, as other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Rippon, have said. That is a benign augury and an earnest of his own declared style of leadership. But taken by and large, in one way or another, whether directly or indirectly, on some occasion or on some other occasion, any single one of our practices or our procedures could have an effect upon the sittings of the House. It is therefore suggested that the perspective for this debate should be set by the

877
wider dimensions of the terms of reference rather than the framework within which the report is constructed. As my noble friend Lord Rippon said, that was a narrow construction, namely, to identify certain options for reform which had a beneficial effect.
As to the substance of the report, I have similar reservations to those expressed by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. Is it not much to be doubted whether the double burden of attendances at a formal and informal committee, as proposed in paragraphs 11 to 17, would be honoured by observance? Would many noble Lords be unwilling or unable to find the extra time to take two or three bites at the same cherry?
As regards the proposal to take Committee stages of government Bills off the Floor of the House, as proposed in paragraphs 18 to 23, that would appear to be wholly impracticable save for the exceptional circumstances to which the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brightman and Lord Archer of Sandwell, referred—technical Bills and Law Commission Bills. In respect of such Bills there is no reason why that practice should not continue and be broadened.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook that some machinery should be devised for gathering up probing amendments. However, with the greatest respect to him and his experience, it is much to be doubted whether the informal committee which is proposed would be the appropriate vehicle. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, that the Committee stage is the core and the cutting edge. I believe that the procedures of the House demand that it should always be seen as such.
Even if the carrying over of public Bills, as referred to in paragraph 24 of the report, would enable your Lordships' House to benefit from the two advantages identified in the report, surely the situation has to be considered in the light of government business, the gracious Speech, the attitude of another place and in a far wider context than what is convenient to your Lordships. I suggest that it would be unacceptable.
I oppose Friday sittings for every reason given by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook. He opposed the proposal set out in the report for a Private Members' day for taking Private Members' business or Unstarred Questions. It is true that we have to grapple with the problem of sitting early in the mornings if we can. But Friday Sittings, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, would hardly be appropriate.
It is possible to mitigate the problem of long sittings by improving legislation. But surely this is all merely a proverbial whistle in the wind; likewise, reconstructing the ethos of the old Legislation Committee. We have been talking about that ever since I have been in the House, which is more than 10 years. Nothing will ever be done about it. The only effective way of dealing with the problem—it depends upon the man—was that adopted by Lord Dilhorne. He personally went through Bill after Bill. He summoned Ministers. He said, "It's gibberish. Take it away. Do it again". He knew how to deal with the problem. Under his aegis there was a form of sane direction.
878
I do not see how Friday sittings can be improved beyond the manner in which they now take place when there is occasionally government business to be dealt with. The matter is arranged through the usual channels. There are Questions. I suggest that we retain the existing procedures.
As regards the limitations on time, I support the recommendations of paragraph 31 as to Unstarred Questions and defer to the series of decisions of the Procedure Committee at paragraph 42 of the report.
Another place imposed reform in one direction under Lloyd George and in another under Macmillan. One day it may be ordained by another place that we move again in another direction. However, the hope is that that will not be as soon as certain noble Lords may wish or, indeed, as is proposed.
The survival of this House as a self-regulating institution along traditional lines has been achieved largely by that remarkable exercise of self-discipline and restraint, the Salisbury convention, and by other exercises in restraint which have maintained comity and have stood, or withstood, the test of time.
If the time is ripe for fundamental reappraisal and comprehensive review of our practices and procedures by the Procedure Committee, then those should be treated as a composite whole in which each component interacts upon the other components so as to affect the sitting of the House. It assuredly would not be possible to single out any particular item and treat it as having no effect.
I conclude by making a few suggestions. We have reversed the usual process. It is beneficial that we consider this matter before the Procedure Committee considers it. It is a process which I hope will be repeated. I also hope that when the matter is referred back to the House the same procedure may be considered by the usual channels. There should be a list of speakers and the House should have more time to consider the reports of the Procedure Committee.
My second suggestion concerns the Companion, which is now five years out of date and is to be revised soon. It would be to the advantage of all noble Lords if we could have annual supplements, perhaps compiled by the Table and made available in the Printed Paper Office. Although the Table does a fantastic job of work in helping us to understand what is the current position, we should be able to go to the Printed Paper Office to discover the position. I am sorry that I have spoken for so long.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal and the whole House for the fact that, most unusually, I shall have to leave before the end of the debate because of a long-standing prior commitment. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and his colleagues on producing a well reasoned and pertinent yet wonderfully concise report.
I begin with the report's first recommendation. The suggestion of informal committees off the Floor of the House is excellent provided that all Peers are allowed to

879
attend (not the restricted number originally suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare) and that the experiment is strictly experimental and genuinely informal. It is curious that Committees off the Floor of the House tend to be more formal and even stilted, less relaxed and spontaneous than Committees on the Floor of the House. It is difficult to know why that should be so, but perhaps the layout of the Moses Room, the positioning of the microphones and, above all, the high ratio of experts to non-experts on the subject being discussed have something to do with this. It is not right that legislation should be considered only or even mainly by experts. We also need the voice of the sceptical or commonsensical non-experts. We also need the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to point out drafting defects, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to bring grammatical defects to our attention and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale to castigate undue prolixity in Bills and subordinate legislation. For that reason, I am less happy with the suggestion of taking formal Committee stages off the Floor of the House. The notoriously poor acoustics of the Moses Room—they have already been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon—are another reason for caution.
I agree wholeheartedly with the rebuttal in paragraph 16 of the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that we should take Report and Third Reading stages together. That would be a great mistake; I shall give another reason later.
The notion in paragraph 24 that Recess dates could be fixed further in advance is undoubtedly seductive but not so seductive as to justify Public Bills carried over from one Session to the next. That would encourage yet more legislation—both government and Private Members' legislation—being piled on to our already overloaded statute books. The present system helps to discipline the government of the day. It helps to ensure that they heed both the Opposition and their own Back-Benchers. Indeed, the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal already referred to that.
Like so many other noble Lords, I endorse wholeheartedly the recommendation in paragraph 31 that Unstarred Questions should be limited to an hour and a half. Paradoxically, that would almost certainly encourage a greater attendance at and participation in those Unstarred Questions. At present people are reluctant to put their names down when they know that they will have to be in their seats at eight o'clock on an empty stomach, not knowing whether they will be able to have dinner at 10 o'clock, 10.30 or even later. When they know that they will be able to dine at 9.30 it will encourage much greater interest. Limitation to one and a half hours will be necessary if the recommendations about Friday morning sittings are agreed to. On the latter, I reserve judgment. I fear that it could be yet another avenue for overloading the statute book.
I have some sympathy with the complaints of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about timed debates, even though I cannot agree with him that seven minutes is invariably too short a time to make one's point. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: it very much depends on the subject being discussed. When we have a single five-hour timed debate, there is
880
no solution to the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. But where one has two debates which are allocated a total time of five hours, could not the problem be solved in the following way? Instead of having to agree a formal resolution over 24 hours in advance, allocating, say, two hours to the first debate and three hours to the second, or the other way around, could not the movers of the Motions meet together with the usual channels between, say, 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. the previous evening when the lists of speakers would be more or less complete? There might be one or two additions and deletions but not many. Then, for example, if seven speakers have put their names down for the first debate and 25 for the second, one and a half hours would be allocated to the first debate and three and a half hours to the second.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. That is exactly what happened between the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and myself. He had six speakers to his debate and I had 18. Therefore we made an arrangement to allocate the time between ourselves. But we could not implement the arrangement because the Procedure Committee had ruled that such an arrangement could not be made; and the Table so informed us. I made representations to the Procedure Committee. I raised the matter on the Floor of the House and, frankly, I now defer to the ruling of the Procedure Committee. I can see both sides of the problem.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am interested to hear what the noble Lord says. I urge the Procedure Committee to think again because such a solution is excellent. The matter could be fine tuned still further: there is no need for the timing of debates to be in multiples of half an hour. One could have one debate of one and three quarter hours and another of three and a quarter hours. However, the House should be entitled to consider the matter again because I suspect that most people would approve of such a change. It would not inconvenience speakers, who as things stand do not know how many minutes they will be allocated until the last moment. They would be able to have a rough idea of how long they would have by glancing at the list of speakers in the Whips Office the previous evening.
In paragraph 45 the suggestion that controversial business should not normally continue after 10 p.m. is over-optimistic. We cannot ignore the political dimension to our deliberations, with the element of gamesmanship which it implies. Perhaps the understanding might be 11 o'clock; 10 o'clock is too early. I remember that in 1975 or 1976, when Labour was in power, it was common practice for this House to sit until 11 o' clock, 11.30 or even midnight. People did not complain much then, even though I do not believe that the average age of Members of the House was very different from now.
Having said that, I entirely agree that we should never legislate after midnight. People become too tired after 11.30 or so and dreadful mistakes can occur. As a relative new boy, I attended the House on 23rd October 1967 when, most unusually, the Report stage and Third Reading of a Bill were taken on the same day. The Bill in question was Mr. David Steel's Abortion Bill. Great

881
pressure was put on us to rush the Bill through before the end of the Session. Even more unusually, a manuscript amendment was moved on Third Reading just before midnight by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—father of the present Viscount. I immediately spotted that the amendment—it seemed at first glance technical—was more significant: it would make the Bill more permissive. However, as I had not at that time made my maiden speech, I could do nothing about it. One or two other noble Lords also spotted that point, notably the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I am sorry to see that he is not in his place. But most people in the House were weary, we had been sitting on the Bill since the early afternoon and there was a general sense that it should be got out of the way as soon as possible. Accordingly, the amendment was passed without a Division.
The consequence was that the Abortion Act 1967 on the statute book is rather more permissive as regards the status of the two medical practitioners who have to testify that an abortion is needed than had been intended when the Bill came to this House, as the result of a compromise between the sponsors of the Bill and what might be called its moderate opponents. I am positive that that would not have happened if we had considered the matter two or three hours earlier in the evening. At midnight that is just the kind of thing that happens.
Finally, I come to something that touches only obliquely on paragraph 4 which refers to the emphasis given by my noble friend Lord Northbourne to the relationship between parents and children, if I have got it right. School holidays now start and finish earlier and earlier, besides which, statistically the weather is much better in Britain in July than in August. Many noble Lords have children of school age, and that applies with even greater force to another place: the average age there must be 15 years younger than it is here. Should there not be a concerted attempt by both Houses together to shift the entire parliamentary timetable so that it starts and finishes two or, better still, three weeks earlier than at the moment, so that we are able to rise for the Summer Recess on 14th July or, better still, 7th July? The gracious Speech could take place in mid or late October and the party conferences could start earlier, if need be. I am sure that the public would be delighted if all the party conferences took place in the same week. But I do not believe that the BBC, ITV or the parties themselves would like that. It is too much to hope for. However, there is no technical reason why they should not start earlier. I believe that a majority of parliamentarians in both Houses would welcome such a change.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, certainly found an echo with me in referring to times from 1975 to 1978 when I was on the Opposition Front Bench. I remember two or three all-night sittings here. We did not just sit late. That was because the government of the day felt they had to get their business through with the Committee and Report stages of the Bills in the House.
882
This is a very helpful report and I wish simply to comment on two or three of the proposals. Paragraph 3 raises comparison with another place. We have to co-ordinate with another place and each House controls its own procedure. But this House naturally takes into account the convenience of the other place, as we hope too it takes our convenience into account. I assume that this is the reason why we are sitting at 9.30 tomorrow for Prorogation, because that is now the time for the other place. It used to be 11 o'clock for morning sittings in the past.
Paragraph 3 also refers to the Jopling Committee report. One aim of that report was clearly that most sittings should end well before the small hours in another place. We should, of course, take into account any changes that are made in the programme of meetings in the other place, but they are unlikely greatly to affect us. However, I remind your Lordships that the late Richard Crossman introduced morning sittings in the 1960s in another place and that they duly took place. But the experiment was deemed unsuccessful and was discontinued. Noble Lords who were in the other place at that time will remember it well.
It was not just due to Parkinson's law, which has been referred to. The main reason was that Members of the other place still occupied the available time, or insisted upon more time, until about midnight, which was when the media normally stopped reporting. In a competitive Chamber that is to be expected. Of course, governments do not wish to appear to be applying a gag, in that case at about seven or eight in the evening. The result was to impose a greater burden on Members of the other place: they had morning sittings and were sitting till the same late hours in the evening. So one has to remember what happened in the 1960s.
I now come to the suggestion that Public Bills be taken in Standing Committees upstairs. Occasionally that is done now and it is useful, I suggest, in particular circumstances; for example, where there are specialised Bills of a broadly non-controversial nature. A successful example took place in the 1975–76 Session. There had not been one for some time before that. It was one of the earliest post-war ones. I remember it because I was asked to lead the Opposition in the small committee which was selected. It was on the Scottish Liquor Licensing Bill. The bonus from that occasion was that the points and arguments in the committee upstairs were not all trotted out again at the Report stage in the Chamber. Of course, it was a specialised subject of particular interest to Scots and visitors to Scotland.
There was one difficulty—that most, if not all of us, had our homes in Scotland. It was difficult for the committee clerk to find times for meetings which were possible for most of the members, so we did not have a weekly routine. The meetings had to be arranged on an ad hoc basis because, of course, Divisions could take place. I do not remember any, but a Division was possible and one had to make sure that there was not just a quorum but that the Government had enough support. We were the Opposition and we recognised that. As there is no system of pairing in this House, that raises a difficulty.

883
I consider the proposal in paragraph 18 that there could be committees of the whole House off the Floor a very difficult one for reasons which other speakers have already mentioned. I think that it is possible only for Bills which are entirely non-controversial and perhaps on specialised subjects. I should add to what I said just now about the Scottish Liquor Licensing Bill that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman said, unfortunately the later Pilotage Bill did not have the same success. All the arguments seemed to be trotted out again on the Floor of the House.
The attendance of any Peer would not require new arrangements under the suggestion in paragraph 18. In the past a Peer could attend any Lords committee but could not vote. He did not need to be selected or nominated. I hope that the Leader of the House will write to me about this. I do not expect an answer this evening, but I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether the situation has been restricted by any changes in procedure following our internal examination of the Select Committee system on the report of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. My understanding is that the situation is the same, even for private meetings or deliberations, not just for questioning witnesses. I hope that that is still the case because it is a great help in an unpaid, voluntary House. I remember that when I first came to this House I would be telephoned to ask whether I could go to a Select Committee the next morning because so few other Peers could be there. I was not a member of the committee but I was available and was asked whether I would also examine the witnesses. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was the Leader of the House at the time and he will remember that.
Attendance at Select Committees is now much greater and the problem does not arise in the same way. Nonetheless, it is a useful facility. I repeat, however, that it is not suitable for controversial Bills, as speakers have said, or particularly important government Bills which need to be subjected to the cutting edge of Committee examination in the whole House.
I turn now to the subject of time-limited debates and at the same time I should like to consider the proposals for Unstarred Questions. I note that paragraph 40 of the report states that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested that it was wrong for a debate on the constitutional role of the House of Lords to be limited to two-and-a-half hours. I was a close observer on that occasion, and I would remind noble Lords that that was a balloted debate. The subject had been on the green Minute and had been known for weeks beforehand. The initiator must have thought it an appropriate subject for two-and-a-half hours. The initiator was no less a person than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for whose parliamentary knowledge and skills we all have the greatest admiration—not least some of us who served in the same government with him over 30 years ago in the other place when he was Solicitor-General.
I know that the noble and learned Lord would have liked more than two-and-a-half hours. He would have liked five hours or more. But, clearly, he must have put the subject down because that time was better than
884
nothing. If anybody says that it could have moved into the other debate and the business could have been split up—I had won the ballot for the other debate. I am therefore in a very good position to remember that on 13th April my debate, on the employment of disabled people, was also attracting a full number of speakers. There is already provision for five-hour debates. But they are allocated to the political parties and to independents on days which are known well beforehand.
What emerges from all this is the magnitude and importance of subjects. Who is to decide whether a subject is so important that two-and-a-half hours will not do justice to it? Is it the Clerks who should tell somebody who tables such a Motion? Is it the office of the Leader of the House? Should guidelines be submitted as to the kind of subject which should be put down for balloted Motions? I do not know the answer to those questions, but I believe that that is what is being raised by paragraph 40.
On the matter of Unstarred Questions, the recent change to—
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the concept of the two-and-a-half hour debate as a consequence of ballot was introduced to break the power of the Whips in respect of Motions that they would have liked to have had debated on a Wednesday but could never get. So the two-and-a-half hour debate was introduced to allow Members of the House to debate subjects. I do not believe that it was ever considered then that there would be, shall we say, a vetting as to whether the Motion that was before the House was right or wrong in terms of importance or interest in this House. So far—broadly, anyway—it has worked very well.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that background. That was all done before I moved here from the other place 20 years ago. Certainly my experience is exactly as the noble Lord has said; namely, that the practice has been beneficial for noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Turning to the matter of Unstarred Questions, I personally welcome the new system of having Unstarred Questions in the dinner hour. But that means that debate on them is limited to an hour. Initiators of these Questions should not drum up, through the post, several speakers weeks beforehand, as happened to me recently. Of course, it was new, and the noble Lord concerned did not realise that the debate would be limited to an hour. It is quite clear that no more than four speakers, besides the opener and the Minister, can reasonably be fitted into one hour. I am sure that this matter will right itself as we become more familiar with the dinner hour Unstarred Question. One would hope that noble Lords, when they saw that three or four names were already down, would not go on adding their names too.
I feel strongly that noble Lords should still be able to ask Unstarred Questions and initiate debates at other times to allow longer debates with more speakers when it is appropriate. Worthwhile debates have been arranged starting at five or six o'clock in the evening by which time the other business has predictably ended. Some such cases arise normally in November and

885
December and early in the New Year; that is to say, at the end of a Session or in the early weeks of a new Session.
I must admit to having myself made use of that procedure. Noble Lords may remember that in November three years ago I was able to have a full debate on the future of the Scottish regiments, which was a very topical subject. The debate started in the early evening. It was a full debate with several speakers and had no time limit, but the House did not sit late. No similar debate was possible at that time in the other place. One adjournment debate in the small hours of the morning was, I believe, the only time that could be arranged. It is only right that I should record that the Government later carried out nearly half of what was urged by the speakers in that debate; namely, one amalgamation of Scottish regiments was cancelled.
Other occasions, I should mention, arose during the 1979–80 Session which followed a change of government. I was able to obtain several debates starting at about five or six o'clock in the evening because the new Government simply did not have Bills ready to come into Parliament—of course, this House always has fewer Bills than the other place at the beginning of a Parliament.
I do not anticipate an early election, or indeed a change of government. But, nonetheless, the same opportunities occur after a general election, because Bills are not immediately ready to be presented to Parliament. So, again, there are opportunities in this House for ordinary debates starting at about 5 p.m. when the other business is thin.
To put it briefly, I think it would be a pity if opportunities were to be curtailed of having normal debates on topical subjects, at a normal hour, on days when the other business is thin. Those opportunities, which have been utilised through the Unstarred Question procedure, have been envied by Members in the other place. If Unstarred Questions at any time of day are to be limited to an hour-and-a-half, I hope that there will still be the opportunity, as is mentioned in the report, of noble Lords being able to table Motions with no time limit, as proposed, which would take the place of the Unstarred Questions to which I have referred and which do not keep anyone up late.
6.37 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said that the only way to reduce the hours that the House sits was to reduce the volume of legislation. How I do agree with him! But how is that to be achieved? I am afraid that I do not have very much faith in the self-restraint of governments of any political complexion as regards the amount of legislation that they bring forward.
In 1978 in his book, The Dilemma of Democracy, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, advocated, among other things, regional assemblies for Scotland, Wales, Ireland and various parts of England. I am beginning—albeit very, very reluctantly—to think that that may be the only solution for the future. It would leave central government fewer areas on which to
886
legislate. The noble and learned Lord also advocated a drastic reduction in the number of Members of Parliament and reform of this House. I would not advocate reform of this House, but I do wonder whether it would be possible to have a little restraint in the number of life Peers who are created for a few years, in order perhaps to "thin the ranks" a little bit.
The noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said that he had received a letter from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, complaining about the acoustics in the Moses Room. I entirely endorse that. If Committees were to take place in the Moses Room some arrangements would have to be made for improving the acoustics. One committee on which I sat, and on which the noble Marquess sits at present, decided almost unanimously that, for that reason, it no longer wishes to sit in the Moses Room if it is possible to sit elsewhere. But it is not only the acoustics about which I complain; it is also the climate. I remember attending one meeting last winter when it was so cold that I was obliged to wear a fur coat. I should have been glad of a pair of fur boots as well. I would be glad of a pair of fur boots now, but that is not the point.
Recently a suggestion was made to me by a fellow Peer which seemed to me to be eminently sensible. In that regard I must declare an interest as one of the Peers whose home is furthest from London. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, lives further north than I, but it would be fair to say that there are certainly no more than two Peers—and possibly only one—living north of us.
If government business were to take place on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and debates on Thursdays, or debates were to take place on Mondays and government business on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, then, unless there was a Friday sitting, those who were not involved in debates would need to spend only three days a week in London instead of four. That would give them one more business day a week to attend to their private affairs and to be with their families, which would be a great advantage to them. I do not know how that would affect Ministers and Whips; I should not have thought it would present a great problem. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be horrified at that suggestion, but for many Peers who live a considerable distance from London and who cannot travel home each night it would make quite a difference to their lives.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness Faith full: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who spoke of the quality of Bills. I hope that my noble friends the Leader of the House and Lord Rippon will forgive me if I go somewhat outside the report. I wish to speak about the birth of a Bill. If I may I will give three short anecdotes and from those anecdotes will draw conclusions.
Long ago—in 1942 to be precise—I was working in Leicester. The then Mr. Rab Butler was preparing his Education Bill, which later became the Education Act 1944. The then Mr. Butler saw members of the

887
education committee; he saw the outstanding Director of Education, Mr. Brockington; he visited schools and talked to teachers, and he spoke to parents. He carried out that procedure in many parts of the country and took three years to draft the Bill. Those of us who remember the 1944 Bill—particularly as we realise that he did that consultation during wartime—recognise that it was a particularly good Bill, which went through both Houses fairly quickly without a great deal of acrimony or discussion. It therefore saved much time.
The Children Act 1989 took many years to come to fruition. It was based on the work of a Select Committee which looked at social services. As a result of a report on children in care, there was a report on the review of the law relating to children. There was wide consultation throughout the country with local authorities, with people, with voluntary organisations and with the statutory services. It was a good Bill; it is a good Act of Parliament and it went through both your Lordships' House—where it started—and the other place without long discussions. I suggest therefore that, if Bills are to come before this House and before the other place, the people of the country should be consulted. The Bill should be based on opinions garnered by either a Minister or perhaps senior civil servants.
I am not an educationist and was not concerned with the education side of the recent Education Bill. But I was concerned with Part III, which dealt with the special educational needs of children who were mentally or physically handicapped. As chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Children, I invited as many voluntary organisations as I could to participate; I invited magistrates; I invited teachers and all those concerned with that side of children's education. My noble friend Lord Wakeham suggested that I should also invite civil servants and therefore civil servants from the Department of Education attended those meetings, of which there were three or four.
That meant that the people involved in the work were consulted and gave their views. That did not altogether mean that the Bill was changed or that anything was altered to any great extent. It meant that there was understanding and acceptance. And if the participants did not obtain everything they wanted, at least they had been consulted and knew what was happening.
I would ask whether the Bills that come to your Lordships' House have really been thought out in a democratic way; whether people really have been consulted. I suggest that, if we were to adopt a better procedure at an early stage—that is, at the birth of a Bill—much time and trouble would be saved. Equally, a lot of paper would be saved, because there would be no need for all these tremendous reports to be produced that come to us from throughout the country.
What I deduce from those anecdotes is that, first, we do not want "knee-jerk" Bills. They cause more trouble in this House and the other place than many of us realise. A knee-jerk Bill is not a good Bill and it smacks of dictatorship. That is one thing that I learnt. I learnt also that the people of this country want to be consulted; they need to be consulted and, in a democratic society, they should be consulted.
888
I agree with paragraph 8 on page 4 of the report that there should be informal Committees off the Floor of the House. My noble friend Lord Colnbrook made that point. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made a plea for family life to be considered. As a woman Peer—I believe that there are only two women Peers speaking this evening—I can say that we women need to prepare if our families and friends are to have a good weekend. We must shop; we must plan; we must cook, and we must get home. Speaking from the domestic point of view as a woman Peer, therefore, I would not want to sit on Fridays.
I finish as I started. I believe that legislation should represent the feelings, ideas and views of the country and that being the case, I believe that, if we spend more time on the birth of Bills, we shall spend less time in your Lordships' House.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we have just heard a very good contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and a marvellous exposition. If I can summarise it, I believe the text was "Legislate in haste and repent at leisure". We know that that has been prevalent for some time.
I would like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for timetabling this debate. It is salutary that, instead of the report going to the Procedure Committee and coming to your Lordships' House for us to accept or reject the report of the committee, we have the opportunity to debate the report before decisions are made. I believe that that is very important. I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and his group for the report itself.
It is with some trepidation that I make this contribution, but I am sustained by two factors. The reason for my trepidation is that when I saw the list of speakers I realised that this debate was going to be dominated effectively by what I would describe as real heavyweights in your Lordships' House speaking from all sides of the Chamber. We have heard speakers this evening whom I would describe as Members of eminent stature: I do not mean physical stature, but in terms of presence in this House. As a relatively new boy with only nine-and-a-half years in your Lordships' House and with no major qualifications to my name, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak.
I am sustained by two factors. The first is that one of the glories of this House is that every Member has the opportunity to speak and we all have different expertise to bring to the deliberations of your Lordships' House. That is a great strength. The other factor which sustained me arose from conversations which I have had today with a number of fellow Members from all sides of the House. When I explained the remarks that I was to make, their reaction was, "Yes, you must make those remarks as strongly as possible because you are not only speaking for yourself, but probably also for a significant body of opinion within the House which may not necessarily be able to contribute to the debate this afternoon".

889
While welcoming the report from the group led by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, I would like to identify a number of aspects. The first is the idea of informal committees off the Floor of the House referred to in paragraphs 8 to 17 of the report. It is a very good idea and fits in with the ideas which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was articulating as regards taking a more leisured view and getting information. I believe that that was very ably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, when he said that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. The idea of reconnoitring Bills with the aid of the Government, civil servants and parliamentary advisers for the Opposition will be enormously beneficial to the further deliberations of your Lordships' House on the Bills.
I am not very keen on the idea of formal committees off the Floor of the House. My limited experience, as I say, goes back a little less than 10 years. During that time there has been a sustained argument from some quarters of the House; namely, that we need to take business off the Floor of the House and to deal with it in committees off the Floor of the House. I note that one of the suggestions is that committees off the Floor of the House would be available for attendance by all Members of your Lordships' House. But the difficulty is that we cannot be in two places at once. At page 6, paragraph 21, of the report, there is particular reference to,
"requiring the presence of different ministers and opposition front-Benchers".
It is all very well to take into account the Front Benchers of this House, but we must recognise the importance of Back-Bench contributions as well. That is something which we must not lose track of.
Time-limited debates are a continuing problem, with the speaking times, if my memory serves me right, ranging from three minutes to something like 18 minutes per contributor. I am sure that in the best traditions of this House and its flexibility we should be able to arrive at a situation where, if one debate has too few speakers and another debate has too many, then some arrangement is capable of being reached.
When one looks at the thrust of the report and the need to try to prevent late night sittings and to accommodate government business, if I may put it like that, one of the factors which we need to recognise is that over the past year or so the parliamentary timetable has changed significantly. We now have a situation where the Budget, which used to come forward in the spring, now does so in the autumn. That has had significant effects not only in the other place but also here. One of the beneficial effects of the changes which have affected this place is that the evenness of our parliamentary timetable has broadened, in the sense that before this change we tended to have a log-jam situation in the summer. We tended to sit five days a week and sometimes push the sittings of the House into late July and, in one case, early August. That is in recent memory.
That situation has changed and one of the significant reasons for that is that the Government have seen fit, because of the changed date of the Budget, to introduce
890
major legislation in this House early on in the parliamentary Session. There have been two benefits arising from that: the first is that in this House we do not have to deal with all the major pieces of legislation in the summer. The second benefit, which is enormously beneficial and which really strikes at the kernel of our existence, is that we must recognise that in a democratic society we can only act in an advisory capacity to the House of Commons. By considering government legislation in this House first, we have the opportunity of providing unfettered advice. I am sure that that benefits not only us but the Government and the other place. That unfettered advice can then go forward to the other place for its consideration. We are not challenging its will, but effectively offering it advice.
The idea of Friday sittings has been queried in some quarters. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and other speakers were exactly right when they said that Private Members' business should not be relegated to Friday sittings. It is important that we should have regular Friday sittings and that they are available for the consideration of major business as well as private business. One of the arguments against ad hoc Friday sittings is that Members of your Lordships' House will not know when those sittings will take place and therefore will be unable to plan their own timetables. The solution is to ensure that we always sit on Fridays. However, varying types of business could be taken on Fridays, which could be open for the consideration of Select Committee reports, for private Bills and for government Bills when the pressure on parliamentary time so dictates. Regular Friday sittings would be beneficial in helping to even out the business throughout the week. They might help to prevent late night sittings, but I suspect that that is more in the hands of the Government and Opposition Front Benches than of the House as a whole.
I leave this thought with your Lordships: one of our great strengths is that all Members are able to contribute to our proceedings. That strength is reinforced when it is recognised that among the Members of your Lordships' House are individuals with enormous knowledge and expertise across a whole range and in almost any subject under the sun. If we allow our procedures to be changed in such a way as to prevent all our Members from being able to contribute, we shall diminish the House as a whole.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not think it presumptuous of me, as a relatively new Member of your Lordships' House, if I contribute to this debate. I do so because during 10 years as Deputy Speaker in another place I had to know the nuts and bolts of procedure and, as a consequence, I now have an abiding interest in the subject.
I echo the tributes that have been justly paid to my noble friend Lord Rippon on the work of his committee. I am particularly glad that the committee restricted its suggestions to limited reforms in specific areas. Both Houses are conservative when it comes to considering the reform of procedure. Our procedures, conventions and customs have developed over the centuries to meet

891
changing needs. They provide flexibility and continuity and should not be changed lightly. I suggest that a clear need for change should be established and that there should be widespread agreement in all parts of the House before we embark on reforms.
I must admit that as a new Member of your Lordships' House my very early impression of your Lordships' processes when dealing with Bills was that they were perhaps a little repetitious. I realise that that impression was a mistake. I recognise that, if we are to be effective as a revising and amending Chamber, it is sometimes necessary to take more than one bite at the cherry. I have been very impressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House who have moved amendments to Bills and then, at the end of the debate, have withdrawn their amendments saying that they wished to consider the debate and the Minister's reply. That can be done in the knowledge that if, on reflection, they are still dissatisfied, they can bring forward the same or similar amendments on Report or Third Reading. Furthermore, if another place is to take our revising role seriously, it needs to be satisfied that our amendments have been debated thoroughly.
I am very interested in the committee's suggestions about shortening our procedures in Committee and subsequent stages, and about ways of improving the quality of debate. The suggestion about having an informal committee off the Floor of the House is valuable and well worth a trial. However, I very much agree with what has already been said in the debate that it is very important for all Peers to have an opportunity to attend such proceedings: otherwise we may very well find that the informal procedure merely adds another stage to our consideration of Bills. We might find that that consideration was lengthened rather than shortened. The noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Monson, made that point effectively.
Another reform that is likely substantially to influence our procedures is contained in Chapter I of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I realise that that was not covered in my noble friend's report, but it seems relevant to this debate. I warmly welcome those suggestions because I believe that they could strengthen parliamentary scrutiny. As I see it, that pre-legislation procedure for deregulation orders could be of immense significance for our future procedures. I note that Clause 3 states that a Minister must lay,
"a draft of the order",
together with a full explanation. I emphasise that the provisions do not refer to "a draft order" but to,
"a draft of the order".
I believe that I am right in saying that at the moment neither House has a formal pre-legislation procedure. The government of the day may produce Green Papers; they may produce White Papers which may or may not be discussed before legislation is produced, but all too often the first that Parliament sees of government proposals is when a Bill is published, when, to some degree and inevitably, it is set in concrete. If any parliamentarian does not agree with it, we have the uphill task of persuading the government of the day that they have got it wrong and that they should accept amendments. Therefore, I believe that the new
892
procedure that we are introducing for deregulation orders in the first instance is valuable. I realise that it will mean much more work for the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, but I note from that committee's report that it is prepared to accept the additional workload.
Friday sittings have received pretty rough treatment in your Lordships' House today. I have: some doubts, but I am rather more friendly to the suggestion than some noble Lords. My first doubt relates to the additional workload for Ministers, Officers and officials of the House. I am very impressed by how extremely hard Ministers in your Lordships' House work—and perhaps I should add in parenthesis, for very poor pay. They often have to answer not only for all the work of the department to which they are accredited, but for other departments also. If they are dealing with something with which they are not wholly familiar, inevitably that means that their work in briefing themselves to make adequate replies in this House is that much greater. I am not suggesting that that is an overriding factor against having Friday sittings, but it is a matter to which we should give serious consideration.
My main doubt, however, arises on a question which has been referred to many times during the debate: would Friday sittings really mean that we would rise earlier on other days? That is the key question. I believe that, unless there was strong will to rise earlier on the part of the usual channels—and, indeed, in all parts of the House—we should get into the position that was described by my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, who drew on his experience in the House of Commons. In theory, another place finishes its main business at 10 o'clock at night, but time after time governments of all political colours put down suspension Motions for 10 o'clock. Those Motions are not debated but can be; voted upon. Usually, they go through on the nod. The effect of those Motions is that, instead of finishing at 10 o'clock, the business can continue until any hour. I trust that if we decide to go for Friday sittings we will not use that escape route, which is used in another place to prolong business to any hour.
In conclusion, I believe that the House owes a great debt of gratitude to my noble friend and his group for the interesting and valuable proposals that they have brought forward. I am grateful to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House for giving us this opportunity to discuss the proposals. I look forward to my noble friend's reaction to the debate.
7.10 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, on a most concise and helpful report, I should like to make just two short points on specific issues addressed in it, and one general one.
The two points concern Friday sittings and time-limited debates. I have a fear, as a relatively insignificant Cross-Bencher, that to convert Friday to a "kind of private members' day", as described in paragraph 33, would inevitably devalue it. In a sense, of course, that is the point. And yet to have: a separate second-class citizens' day, if that is not putting it too

893
strongly, might be unfortunate, not least for the second-class citizens. One of the charms of your Lordships' House has always seemed to me to be the mix in mid-week of the fairly sublime with the moderately ridiculous. Separate them out, and you may easily find a separation also in the quality of the attendance, I think to the slight impoverishment of business in general. I can see the virtues of the proposal, particularly for the Front Benches and for those who live far away, as my noble friend Lady Saltoun (who is not in her place) eloquently described, but still it makes me a little uneasy. I was fortified in this and glad to hear a number of noble Lords—notably, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, Lord Shepherd, I think, and Lord Stoddart—who also felt that they were not necessarily in favour of confining Friday to private business.
On time-limited debates I realise that I have missed the bus in the past in not putting something in writing to the Procedure Committee. I have also had the wind taken to some extent out of my sails by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Monson, because I jotted down a very similar suggestion to his which I nevertheless think is perhaps worth putting on record. It has occurred to me that at least some of the problems referred to in paragraph 41 could be alleviated if the two debates which took place end-on were regarded as one for the purpose of allocation of minutes per speaker. At present, as has been said, you can have one two-and-a-half hour debate for which 20 of your Lordships have put down your names, followed by another which attracts, say, only eight speakers, resulting in a great imbalance in speaking time in favour of possibly the less weighty topic. Division into, say, three hours and two hours is still largely an exercise in guesswork, though it may produce an improvement. But if instead you divided the five hours by the total of the 28 speakers, imbalances would be ironed out by the fact that each debate would, like water, find its own level, and this would be more satisfactory for all.
The objection, of course, which we have heard, is that you would not know long in advance at exactly what point the second debate would begin. Now, for some this may be important to know. I suspect that for many others this is no more important than knowing for how many minutes they are going to be allowed to speak. Both these matters can be gauged approximately from the Government Whips' Office some time in advance, although not precisely until the late morning of the day of the debate. In any case it may be a small price worth paying for ensuring fair allocations of speaker time throughout, and a proper balance between the two debates, as an alternative, or even in addition, to leaving the final finishing time open-ended, as touched on in paragraph 31.
I attended a presentation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's recent report on Transport and the Environment on the same day that I first read this report on sittings of the House. I was struck by the argument there, which I think is increasingly accepted, that in building more motorways you actually increase the total volume of traffic on the roads. Create more
894
space, and more things will come along to fill it. We may be in the same position here: is there any reason to think that a version of Parkinson's Law, as foreshadowed in paragraph 43 of the report itself, and as mentioned by one or two other noble Lords, will not similarly afflict your Lordships' House, and that business will not expand to fill the space available? Maybe we have to bow to the inevitable pressures on parliamentary time. But there is perhaps something a little ironic in making it any easier to accommodate a legislative programme which a great many Members of both Houses already judge to be excessive.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, by this time in any debate the central context tends to become obscured by practicalities. It also becomes increasingly difficult to find anything new to say. I hope that I can, like a well-known beer, refresh the parts that other speakers have not reached. In the context of today, perhaps I should say that I do not have an interest to declare.
I start from two standpoints. The first is that when I took my seat almost 20 years ago I joined an amateur House of Parliament. I mean "amateur" in the best possible sense. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, used the same expression. Experts were available from the ranks of noble Lords to advise the House on every possible subject from academia to zygotes, perhaps from agoraphobia to xylophones. A surprising example of this arose in 1980 on the Second Reading of a government Bill. I wonder how many of your Lordships now in the Chamber remember the Bees Bill which sought authority for the Ministry of Agriculture to destroy swarms of bees in private ownership when there was no hope of treating them for such diseases as varroa. My noble friend Lord Ferrers certainly does. I believe that he suffered the first defeat of the new Conservative Government. Clearly, it was a subject on which we needed an expert to advise us, and one came forward to speak on Second Reading. He was the son of a an ex-chairman of Rolls-Royce who, in retirement, had become a very efficient amateur bee-keeper. That noble Lord was sitting next to me earlier this afternoon. I refer to my noble friend Lord Hives.
Since then, I believe that, although it has been dented to some extent, the House has retained its amateur status, always eventually bowing to the will of another place. That does not mean that we do not influence it. Of course we do. The Bill that gets Royal Assent is seldom the same as the one that we receive, whether the Bill starts in this House or another place. Wednesday debates and Unstarred Questions are a valuable part of our ability to persuade government for or against a particular course of action. We should do nothing to damage that aspect of our activities. If we do not have enough time to pursue our paying activities, the House—even the country—will be the poorer for it. That is what worries me about Friday sittings, for example. They are all very well for those Members who are totally retired. I am glad to say that that covers very

895
few of us, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said. Friday sittings have nothing to do with the central issue.
My second point concerns the saving of time of your Lordships' House. Not only will we spend more time on average in a week, but it will probably mean that fewer Members will be available to be persuaded, or otherwise, by the arguments advanced in a Friday debate. I am afraid that it could easily lead to an "us and them" situation: those who could and would organise their lives to be here on Friday, and those who could not. My noble friend Lady Faithfull gave an example of a reason why not. There is a money cost in terms of Clerks' time, the Official Report, doorkeepers and all the staff of the House. There is also a psychological cost in having to find more deputy Speakers and deputy chairmen.
As has been pointed out, we are the second longest sitting parliamentary body in the world. I would not be surprised to learn that we are also the cheapest in terms of cost per member of the population of the country being governed. That said, I believe that we need more time for non-government business, some of which can come from time saving on government business and some from occasional sittings on Friday, such as we have at the moment, which can be slightly—but only slightly—more in number.
I like the idea that when the Government require Wednesdays, as they always do at some time soon after the Whitsun Recess, Fridays should be given over to major debates. In passing, why Wednesdays? The business of the House should be organised for your Lordships' convenience rather than that of the Government. Here I am greatly surprised, but have great pleasure, in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
I am therefore grateful to my noble friend Lord Rippon and his committee for producing the report. I am especially glad that in considering the use of valuable time it has swung marginally towards my suggestion of getting more business off the Floor of the House. Doing that for affirmative statutory instruments has always seemed so obvious that I wonder that it has not figured in the debate. That said, slightly over 50 per cent. of such instruments arouse no interest in the House. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to arrive at a situation where some orders do not need to be debated at all if the House does not want to do so.
We already have a precedent. How often have we heard the words, "My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged".
With a slight change in our arrangements, it would be possible to have a formulation which would go something like this: "My Lords, since this Motion was set down for debate no noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak. Unless, therefore, any noble Lords object, I beg to move that the Paralytic Shell Fish (Scallops) Order 1997"—or whatever it is—"be agreed to". That
896
would enable us to spend more time debating fully those orders that the House feels need to be debated on the Floor of the House or off it.
Like my noble friend Lord Colnbrook and other noble Lords, with whom I agree 100 per cent., I am excited by the idea that there should be a quasi non-voting Committee stage off the Floor of the House so as to do away with probing amendments when the Bill returns to the Chamber. I must, however, enter a caveat. As the Government's intentions will be exposed, the proceedings will need to be reported fully because nowadays the courts can take the Government's intentions into account in their judgments.
Once the Bill returns to the Chamber, I am not sure whether we would move straight to Report stage or have a conventional Committee stage. If the former, more time would be saved. If the latter, my next point becomes even more important. Like other noble Lords— this has barely been referred to—I have been concerned at the growing practice of running essentially the same amendment through Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. When I first joined your Lordships' House that practice virtually did not exist. Third Readings were for tidying up and for amendments from a government committed to produce them by promises given in earlier debates.
Today it seems that any noble Lord determined to have a Division can pick the moment whenever he or she believes that the vote can be won. In terms of time on the Floor of the Chamber, that is as wasteful as it is unproductive. It is a sine qua non that time wasted in repetition is time that cannot be used for a new subject whether in relation to that Bill, another Bill, an Unstarred Question, or whatever.
I should like to take a step backwards and ask the Procedure Committee—your Lordships agreed just a few hours ago that it should have a look at Standing Orders with a view to reprinting them—to consider the matter. Then page 111, or whatever it turns out to be, instead of saying about amendments on Third Reading,
"It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated and decided upon at a previous stage of a Bill should be re-opened by an amendment on Third Reading",
would say:
"It is considered undesirable that an issue which has been fully debated at a previous stage of a Bill should be re-opened by an amendment on Third Reading".
In other words, the phrase, "and decided upon", would be left out.
I suppose that I shall be accused yet again of being radical and that I shall be criticised by the Opposition for reducing the power of their main weapon—delay. I do not believe that that is a valid criticism. It merely means that they would have to find other ways of exercising the valuable weapon of delay which is at their disposal and which has already been referred to.
Another thing I hate about the normal planning arrangements is that the time allowed for stages of a Bill is halved. In other words, it seems to me, looking these days from the outside, that if the House spends eight days in Committee, one can bet one's bottom dollar that it will spend four days on Report and two on Third Reading. I cannot see the rationale for that, and I believe

897
that the matter should be dealt with. I have tried to be brief. I hope, like Horace, I have not ended up by being obscure.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I apologise most sincerely for coming in on the gap. I had very much hoped to be able to take part in the debate but I have been at a conference of Food from Britain all day, and I shall be extremely brief. I have read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, with tremendous interest, and to me there is, I am afraid, one glaring omission, and that is the length of our Summer Recess.
Last year we were consistently kept up, particularly with the Education Bill, until three o'clock in the morning. Then we had three months off. To me that seems the most crazy way of conducting parliamentary business. Living as I do in Scotland, although none of my children is educated in Scotland, Scottish schools now go back at the beginning of August. It does seem that we have a very good case to look completely again at the whole parliamentary timetable. Once again, I apologise for intervening in the gap.
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I have found this afternoon and this evening's proceedings interesting. I am all the more grateful therefore to those of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate for the trouble that you have taken to comment upon the report of my noble friend Lord Rippon. With your Lordships' permission, a great many people have spoken, a great many wise things have been said, and after a long debate it would not be altogether valuable were I to attempt to answer all the points made by your Lordships. I should like to try to be as brief as possible and to follow the example that so many of your Lordships have set this afternoon.
I should like to make just a couple of points which seem to me to arise out of the debate. First, it is clear that the Procedure Committee will read the Official Report of the debate with great profit and will note the suggestions that have been made. I have drawn already a number of conclusions from the opinions that have been expressed. First, it is clear that my noble friend has produced an extremely valuable report. Not only has he made some suggestions which have found favour with a majority of speakers, he has stimulated a number of formidably well thought out suggestions of the kind that we have heard, for instance, from my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale.
I deduce also from what I have heard that a number of the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Rippon have commanded overwhelming support. There appears to be unanimous support—if my head count is correct—for my noble friend's suggestions on Unstarred Questions. It also seems as though there has been overwhelming support for his idea of informal committees. I take great pleasure in being able to say that there has been pretty much of a thumbs down for
898
the idea of carrying over Bills from one Session to another. I apologise to my noble friend for putting it in that way.
As regards Friday sittings, my head count leans against that suggestion. However, there has been eloquent support for the idea of Friday sittings, not only for the idea that they should be for Private Members' business but that the Government should use some Fridays for their own business. I agree with my noble friend who pointed out that that already happens when the Government are running towards the end of the Session. It is a well-established practice in your Lordships' House. We try to avoid having to do so, but inevitably in the course of a Session it occasionally happens.
I was also interested by the suggestions made in the wake of my noble friend's proposal that a Committee of the Whole House should sit off the Floor. I took particular note, as is only right, of the practical suggestion made by my noble kinsman the Marquess of Salisbury, who clearly is even harder of hearing than I had realised. However, fortified by the support of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, I am sure that the authorities of the House will have noted the complaints of both noble Lords.
Nevertheless, I was struck by the substantial support for that suggestion from several quarters of the House, in particular when taken as a more general point with those made by my noble friend Lady Faithfull about the importance of consultation. The references to the suggestion of informal committees and the Committee of the Whole House off the Floor should be taken by the Procedure Committee in its consideration in conjunction with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. He gave us a characteristically crisp account of the existing procedures for taking Committee stages off the Floor and a number of reasons why some of the procedures would be more suitable than others for controversial Bills. I am sure that the Procedure Committee will be minded to consider those suggestions with care. I note that at the same time considerable scepticism has been expressed about that suggestion.
Finally, I turn to what has been an underlying drumbeat to the debate. A great number of noble Lords mentioned the quality of legislation as being one of the main causes of the length of time your Lordships have to spend sitting in the Chamber. Before dealing with that matter, I wish to mention the remarks made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brightman and Lord Archer of Sandwell, about the Law Commission. I am well aware that there is a worrying backlog of Law Commission reports that have not yet received the attention that is their due. The distinguished people who make up the Law Commission and the practical spin that they put on their reports deserve the attention of this House and of the Government. I am sure that the noble and learned Lords will appreciate that I am unable to be more specific at present. However, I hope that I can give them some encouragement. I have also noted that the use of special procedures may help us to speed the transition from recommendation to legislation of these most valuable reports.

899
I return as briefly as I am able to the question of the quality of legislation. It is a subject that I have been constrained to try to begin to take a little interest in since my appointment as Leader of your Lordships' House and, therefore, ex officio one of the Government's business managers. The difficulties of those who occupy that onerous position have been ably described by a number of my noble friends and I have nothing to add to their considerable experience. I am already beginning to understand the full justice of their remarks.
I have no doubt that the old axiom that to legislate in haste induces us to repent at leisure is as true today as it ever was. I merely refer your Lordships to a most illuminating piece, in particular to a tiro like me, written by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. It appeared in a periodical which, I am ashamed to say, because I am not a lawyer I had not come across previously entitled the Statute Law Review. My noble and learned friend published the text of a lecture that he had given on trying to improve the quality of legislation. It is a most elegant statement of what I am increasingly coming to believe. I hope that your Lordships' advice to Her Majesty's Government and to all legislators in this context, as well as my noble and learned friend's, will increasingly be heeded. I am also persuaded that one way, and perhaps the best way, in which your Lordships can get home earlier at night is to ensure that legislation is drafted not in a hurry but with due deliberation—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we must ensure that policy is agreed in time and that instructions are able to be issued in time for the professionalism of the parliamentary draftsmen to be given full play.
Anyone who has been a member of any government—including, dare I say, noble Lords opposite—will know that in the real world this is almost always a counsel of perfection. However much we may try to achieve perfection, all of us, of whatever party, always fall short of it. Nevertheless, that is not a reason for not trying. I hope that we shall all be able to take your Lordships' strictures to heart.
It may well be that the Procedure Committee will be able to return to your Lordships' House with a series of modest proposals for your Lordships to approve or disapprove. I hope that it will and that those modest proposals will reflect the approach of my noble friend's report. However, it is perhaps wise for me to end my few remarks by repeating a comment made tonight by my noble friend. In the end the House must want to make this work. If your Lordships believe that these modest reforms, or any modest reforms that are adopted, should succeed, it is up to us to show our usual modesty, wisdom and restraint in applying them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Mentally Ill and Ex-Offenders: Treatment
7.39 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to call attention to the treatment of mental offenders and ex-offenders; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am told by those who have listened to the previous debate that it was a debate of much distinction, but I believe that the quality of our debate will be at least as high find, in my supposition, still higher.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords, and in particular to the noble Baroness and to the noble Baroness the Minister, for lingering so long. I shall just mention the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, because I am sure that she will make a contribution filled with great wisdom. I shall not go over all her qualifications but as a feminist I venture to think that the quality of the speeches made by the female Members of the House is, on average, of an even higher quality than the others; but I may be mistaken about that. I am sure that my noble friend will add to that glory and to ours.
This is a very complicated subject and I shall not speak in a partisan or dogmatic way. The Minister who is to reply is particularly well qualified, as we all know, to cope with these immensely difficult problems but I am sure she will agree with me on the complications. It is impossible to simplify matters.
A little while ago I was talking to a young man aged 28 who, when he was 16, was diagnosed to be a paranoid schizophrenic. He has been in minor trouble of various sorts ever since. It is no good pretending that any government, however wise or full of munificence or money, would be able to cope with his problems at all easily. And so it goes on.
I first became interested in these problems in the late 1930s when I became a prison visitor at Oxford. One of the people who I was trying to help then was a young arsonist. Sometimes he was sent to prison and sometimes he was sent to Littlemore, a mental asylum. It was not possible to decide which he needed. There are a great many people about whom it is not possible to say whether they should be punished in prison or treated as a patient in hospital.
Last week I was sitting in court when a man was being charged with kidnapping and holding a librarian for 14 hours. He has been convicted since and I do not know how he will be dealt with. I have known him for a good many years. He is man of humourous charm. He has written a book which I hope will be published. But he is subject to fits of rages and he is immensely strong, which makes him somewhat fearsome. I visited him in prison and he is obviously greeted with awe by the prison officers. In the room next to the one where I was sitting with him, there were five prison officers. They thought it needed five men to cope with this Samson. Who is to say how he should be dealt with? I do not know what his sentence will be but I mention him merely to illustrate how difficult are these problems.
Another man that I am visiting in prison I have know for many years. He has been a patient in mental hospitals for short times. He is a very intelligent man. He has been in mental hospitals and prison quite often. He is now in his late forties. When he appeared in a television programme not long ago he was the star really and compared well with the other members of a panel of experts. On this occasion when he was arrested on a charge of stealing many thousands of pounds from the DSS, he took an overdose. Before he was due to appear in court, he took another overdose. Now he is in the psychiatric ward of a general hospital.
It is no good trying to find a label for these people. We are dealing with very difficult human cases. Those people need, if not a great deal of hard thinking, an extra dose of human sympathy if we can conjure it up.
Where do we look for solutions? There are a number of voluntary bodies which are doing splendid work in this field. One thinks straight away of the Mental Health Foundation which has recently published a remarkable report on mental offenders. One thinks of the Mental After Care Association, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, the Effra Trust and one thinks in particular of the Matthew Trust with which I have been associated for many years.
I have one question to ask in relation to the Matthew Trust. I have given the Minister notice of this question. The Matthew Trust is a kind of home of last resort for some of the most difficult people and it does not receive a grant from the Government, although other excellent bodies do. I understand that is because it gives assistance to individual people. The Minister has had time to look at this matter and I wonder whether she is ready to say anything about why the Government refuse to give help to the Matthew Trust. That is one particular case.
Speaking generally about those bodies, one is bound to ask what it all amounts to. I am sure that noble Lords will deploy their wisdom on the subject in the course of the debate. But in general terms—and I have been in touch with those and other organisations—the answer is twofold: more resources and more co-ordination are needed.
It is easy to ask for more resources but in this field there is an urgent need for more resources. I am sure that other noble Lords will labour that issue. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how she sees the future, even if she cannot announce this evening that more resources are available. We are told that we are now coming out of the recession and that the country is doing extraordinarily well. In that case, how does the Minister see the extra resources, which surely now are becoming available, being deployed?
Everybody agrees on the need for more co-ordination. I give one old example, although it has not been mentioned here. Many years ago I tried to help Ian Brady who had been convicted of the terrible Moors murders. He was treated as a prisoner and was in prison for a number of years. Ronnie Kray and Peter Sutcliffe, called "the Ripper" have eventually been transferred from prison to special hospitals. Likewise, very soon after the Moors murders case, the Home Office agreed,
902
after taking psychiatric advice, that Ian Brady should be transferred to a special hospital. That was agreed by the Home Office at the highest level, but was refused by the Minister for Health; presumably on the advice of Broadmoor. That is an example of where there is a total difference of opinion between the Home Office and the Ministry of Health about a particular man. That happens all the time.
I have given notice to the Minister that I should be raising the matter of co-ordination. She has not had very much time but she has had time to think about it. I strongly urge the Minister to consider the proposal which all the voluntary bodies seem to favour—that there should be some kind of Cabinet Committee to co-ordinate the work of the departments. That involves the Home Office and the Department of Health in the first place but other aspects such as education and housing are also involved. That is the first proposal which I put before the Minister. A Cabinet committee sounds innocuous enough but it would certainly give a great deal of encouragement to the voluntary bodies.
How do I point the way forward? In the book Prisoner or Patient which I published two years ago, and which the Minister was kind enough to praise in this House, I concluded with half a dozen proposals. I refer to those proposals now, not necessarily in the same terms but in the same general sense.
To start with, nothing will dissuade me from saying— and my noble friend Lord Ennals will be able to speak with much more authority on this and other matters— that the Prison Medical Service should be included in the National Health Service. I say that because a number of people in prison are suffering from psychiatric problems. Some of them, if you like, ought to be in hospital; but even that would not cover the whole field. Many of those people just have psychiatric problems. Indeed, it has been said that one-third of them have such problems. I do not know the correct figure. That is the first thing that I would ask for, although somehow I do not expect the Minister to concede that tonight. Nevertheless, I felt that I should put it on the record.
There is then the question of how to ensure that people who ought to be in hospital are actually in hospital and not left in prison. I have two general ideas in mind in that respect. First, one wants to make sure that in the courts, for example, psychiatrists are much more readily available and, that, in general, the machinery for assessment is improved. The Minister can hardly say that it is perfect at present. If that were so, how was it that the three gentlemen to whom I referred—namely, Mr. Brady, Mr. Sutcliffe and Ronnie Kray—were in prison for several years before being sent to special hospitals? No one can say that they were not mental cases until they had been in prison for a time. If you like, they were just diagnosed incorrectly in the beginning. How does one arrange such things? Well, the Minister has all the facilities at her disposal. How does she suggest the system could be improved?
I return to the case that I mentioned earlier of Ian Brady not being transferred soon after imprisonment. How does one deal with that situation? It seems to me that we should give the courts power to ensure that, in some cases, they and the Home Secretary can make sure

903
that such transfers are made. However, in that case, the request was simply resisted by the Ministry of Health. When I talk of co-ordination, I do realise that the Minister who is to respond to the debate tonight is a Minister in the Department of Health. So, although we are talking generally about health matters, much of the time we are actually talking about Home Office responsibilities. That is where co-ordination ought to come into the matter.
I turn now to a most difficult subject. Indeed, I gladly wait to hear what the Minister has to say without trying to lay down the law. Two years ago, I suggested that the special hospitals should be broken up and much smaller units established. Well, something of that kind seems to have been suggested by that highly expert committee under that remarkable man who is an expert—if there is such a person in the field—Dr. Reed. He would like to break them up. However, I also know someone else to whom I listen with much deference and who does not agree with the Reed report. I refer to Peter Thompson, who was himself a patient in Broadmoor many years ago. He went into Broadmoor with nothing and started the Matthew Trust, which has been a great success over the years. Recently he was received with acclamation when he visited Broadmoor and actually preached a sermon. I have been with him to Broadmoor and have seen the respect with which he is treated.
From a purely practical and economic point of view, I believe that the Minister might find it easier if the Government were trying to secure degrees of security within the hospitals and setting up separate units on the same spot. That might be more economical. On the other hand, Dr. Reed and those who think like him—a very expert body —want to try to spread those places around so that they are nearer the homes of the patients. It is a very difficult question and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some idea of her thinking tonight.
One would hope that the original target laid down years ago of 2,000 places in regional secure units will be achieved. I hope that that is part of the Government's target. I should like to know what is the Government's target for such units and how soon it will be achieved.
I turn finally to the question of community care, which I must leave to other speakers. It is a colossal subject. In my book I described it as a farce, and I do not run away from that wording now. Community care is a very ambiguous phrase. It could mean simply moving people out of hospitals and hoping that the community or the local authority will look after them. It could mean almost anything. However, until now it has certainly not meant much as regards the case of mentally disordered offenders.
During the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill I moved an amendment, that I subsequently withdrew, which would have placed a statutory responsibility on the Government to try to help all those people who come out of prison. I should certainly say the same about special hospitals. However, I shall listen with deference to other opinions as to how community care could be expanded, remembering always that it does mean an increase in resources. I believe that we can at least ask the Minister to say, as time goes on, in what direction she hopes to see such resources applied.
The subject of mental offenders is, to say the least, not very popular. Indeed, they are not a popular community. Their lot is a poignant one and always will be. There is not much public sympathy for such people. So far as concerns prisoners and sick people, I remember the words in the Gospel:
"I was sick and ye visited me:
I was in prison, and ye came unto me …
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of
the least of these my brethren,
ye have done it unto me".
That was a reference to sick people and prisoners. Well, mental offenders seem now to suffer from the pains and penalties of both. I urge the public, through this House, to give much more attention to these people in the future. I have no qualifications for speaking on such matters. I am only sorry that the right reverend Prelate is not present this evening to help us on the matter. I have a lurking suspicion that, if Jesus Christ were to return today, he would make a beeline for mental offenders. I beg to move for Papers.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for drawing our attention to such an important matter. It is rather a pity that we are discussing it as the last item before Prorogation at the end of a very long parliamentary Session. When dealing with the mentally ill, it is worthwhile, first and foremost, remembering that such people are ill. They require treatment of some description and help from the medical profession. That is what makes the problem so difficult. It is not a permanent set of conditions; it may well change.
Moreover, we are not talking about one group of people; we are talking about a vast number of types of problem and the usual eternal degree of severity. We must try to discuss a system which will help such people in the various stages of the problem. I refer to those who have problems before they go into prison and those who acquire them while they are serving prison sentences. There are also those who suffer from mental after shocks as a result of being in the prison system.
There is another factor we should all bear in mind. The vast majority of people with mental health problems may disturb other people, but they are only a risk and a threat to themselves, not to other people. They may well be in prison for a variety of, say, annoyance offences. However, it is worth remembering that something like one-third of the people who commit suicide in our prisons—an appallingly high figure—have a history of mental health problems. Moreover, if I remember correctly, something like 21 per cent. of those who commit suicide in prison actually had mental health problems when they committed the initial offence.
We are talking about people who ultimately threaten and damage themselves. Such people are suffering from an illness which needs treatment. Perhaps I may use figures provided by NACRO and taken from the Gunn report produced for the Home Office in 1991. A sample was carried out of 1,365 prisoners serving long term sentences, that is, of over six months. The conclusion reached was that 40 per cent. had a disorder of some description. One arrives therefore at a figure of over

905
9,000 members of the then prison population who had mental problems. The document also established that 3 per cent. of the prisoners should not be in prison at all but should be in hospital to enable them to receive the appropriate level of help and assistance. That amounted to over 1,000 people who were in the prison system when they should be in hospital. We must try to establish some means of preventing these people ending up in custodial institutions because it is not helping them; and if it is not helping them it will not prevent their re-offending. Effectively we are creating a turnover of members of the prison population because we are not addressing their needs.
The prison service cannot address such needs. A prison is not a hospital; it is a system designed to detain people for a length of time and to restrict their liberty. Prison officers may, and often do, skilfully practise first aid on those with mental problems in that they administer drugs and make sure that prisoners do not damage themselves. However, prison officers are not doctors or trained nurses and in the vast majority of cases one cannot expect them to fulfil that role. It would be unfair to expect them to undertake such a job as, if they did, the prisoners concerned would end up by disrupting the prison.
The most effective way forward is undoubtedly some form of screening before sentencing for those prisoners who appear to have mental problems. This can be done, and has been done successfully, in the magistrates' courts at Peterborough, Clerkenwell, Bow Street, Marlborough Street, Horseferry Road and other London magistrates' courts. Two days a week psychiatrists are present to carry out assessments before someone is sentenced. As the psychiatrists attend regularly, people are not kept waiting before they are sentenced. The most up-to-date figures I have received date from 1992. According to the figures people were being assessed in under a week as opposed to over a month. Another result has been the awarding of appropriate sentences; for example, cautions or suspended sentences with conditions attached whereby the person concerned had to receive a certain level of care or had to take certain medication. Such sentences attempt to deal with the underlying problem and do not merely put prisoners into an already overburdened prison system.
As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, rather damningly said, community care has a long way to go in this area. Many people may be socially inadequate and may not wish to be assisted within their own community as they cannot appreciate the fact that someone is trying to help them or cannot organise themselves to enable help to be given to them. We require more staff to tackle this problem and possibly more secure housing units or at least sheltered housing units to make care in the community more of a reality. My expertise is not sufficient to enable me to speak for longer and I believe
906
that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, knows far more about the subject. I shall not delay her maiden speech.
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, may I say first of all how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Longford for providing the opportunity for me to address your Lordships on this extremely important topic. He has a long and distinguished record in caring for the interests of prisoners; I would say a record which is recognised well beyond the confines of this Chamber.
I start from the position that in a truly civilised society prisoners' needs are treated humanely within a requirement for punishment for crimes committed and rehabilitation prior to release. Mentally disordered prisoners need suitable provision either in hospital or a secure unit and ex-offenders may need care in the community. Indeed, such provision is needed from the time when someone is arrested on suspicion that he has committed an offence.
On a personal note, I have been a member of Lancashire County Council since 1977. During that time I have served in the past as a member of the police committee and as a Lancashire Police Authority lay visitor. In that capacity I have always taken the view that we must listen and respond when police officers express the need for appropriate provision for people whom they detain when police station cells are clearly inappropriate. This experience, if I may say so, has also highlighted the need for more facilities to help people overcome drug and alcohol dependency problems.
Furthermore, my experience since 1981 as a member of the Council of Europe Standing Conference of Local and Regional Authorities is relevant. During that time many warnings were given by colleagues from other countries, especially speakers from the United States of America. They warned that greater demands would be placed on law enforcement agencies due to the spread of drug dependency and abuse. In my capacity as a county councillor, especially chairing the education committee from 1981 to 1991, it has always been my view—and it has become increasingly clear—that such warnings were accurate.
I refer to the Department of Health local authority social services letter, Guidance on the Discharge of Mentally Disordered People and their Continuing Care in the Community, and in particular to paragraph 41 regarding mentally disordered offenders. I would remind your Lordships that it refers to the requirement for National Health Service authorities to work with local authority personal social services and criminal justice agencies to develop strategic and purchasing plans. These are to be based on the Reed review of services

907
referred to by my noble friend, which was produced jointly by the Department of Health and the Home Office. These services must include,
"An effective range of non-secure and secure services—including those for patients with special or differing needs such as people with learning disabilities or psychopathic disorder, ethnic minorities young people and women
—Arrangements for multi-agency assessment and, as necessary, diversion of offenders from the criminal justice system
—Meeting the mental health care needs of transferred or discharged prisoners
—The placement within six months of special hospital patients who no longer require high security".
The ideals lying behind care in the community are unexceptionable; indeed they have all-party support. It cannot be right for anyone whether, for example, they are frail, elderly, have learning difficulties or are recovering from or suffering from mental illness to be institutionalised unnecessarily. Many ex-offenders could stay in their own homes if their needs could be met in the community, although for some people their needs will always have to be met in specialist residential accommodation.
The problem facing local authorities in fulfilling their obligations is the high level of need and expectation arising from present policies for care in the community. If the idea behind care in the community was simply to save money by closing large, long-stay institutions, it was never a starter. My noble friend has, however, identified ex-offenders whose needs may be met in the community. It is quite clear that in the current year many local authorities are unable to meet the level of demand for care in the community. In passing, I would note that many county councils face a particularly acute problem due to the way funds are allocated.
As your Lordships are aware, national decisions are difficult, with competing priorities. The problem of meeting care in the community needs becomes even more difficult when it is a question of individual cases at local level. For example, often elderly people are cared for by elderly husbands, wives or even children who themselves are over retirement age. The families of those with learning difficulties need day care and respite care. The families of mentally ill people, sometimes children coping with mentally ill single parents, need support. All these are important and heart-rending cases. Nevertheless, within those competing demands the needs of mentally disordered prisoners and ex-offenders also need to be met, and met urgently.
I should like to pay tribute to the dedication and skill of professional staff, including those who have worked or continue to work in long-stay institutions. Such expertise must now be used increasingly within the community as well as within needed hospitals and secure units.
My noble friend Lord Longford has made a compelling case, citing individual examples. The House will be aware from what I have said that that is linked with the problem of care of the mentally ill generally. Prisoners and ex-offenders are a particular example of that general problem.
908
I have tried this evening to present my views based on my own experience on how we may improve the quality of life—if I may use that expression—of those: who, through no fault of their own, are among the most disadvantaged in society. I am privileged to have the opportunity to do so. I hope that my noble friend's Motion will encourage further debate on these matters. I am sure that your Lordships will understand that on a future occasion I may be more controversial in the points that I make on care in the community.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, it has several times been my privilege to welcome a maiden speaker. However, no doubt by accident, I have never had the pleasure of welcoming a maiden speaker from my own party. I do so today with great joy and satisfaction because of the enormous breadth of experience which my noble friend Lady Farrington brings to this House. I believe that we are inadequately provided with people with local authority experience. In my noble friend's outstanding maiden speech we could see the value of having with us a chairman of the Association of County Councils, a Labour Member of Lancashire County Council since 1977, the chair of the Education and Training Committee of the Regions, and member of the Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, and so on. She brings a welcome experience. That was apparent in her speech, and I know that it will be apparent in other speeches which she makes during her stay in this House, which I hope will be very long, and which I hope will be contentious until such time as she finds herself, with me, sitting on the other side of the House.
I also want to say some very friendly words to my noble friend Lord Longford. I call him my friend in a sense of deep personal admiration. My noble friend is one of those people for whom I would do anything he asked, if I could. He is a most persuasive man. On the subject of the debate tonight, there is no one who has been more persistent, more loyal, more constant and more caring, because of his own personal experience. He is not one to make speeches and stop at that. He is a man who knows people and visits them in prisons and hospitals, and wherever they may be. He is an example to this House. Therefore, it is an honour for me to take part in a debate in which he is involved.
We are dealing with a very difficult subject. The term "mentally disordered offender" is used to describe a broad group of people within the health and social services and the criminal justice agencies. It includes people with mental health problems who have come to the attention of the courts or forensic services. Mental disorder is defined in the Mental Health Act 1983 as:
"mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder and any other disorder or disability of mind".
It also includes people who have committed drug offences. It covers a wide variety of our society, almost all of whom deserve and need our sympathy and understanding.

909
As your Lordships know, there is a high level of suicide among such people. That level seems to be growing, although the Minister may say that it is merely that the publicity concerning such cases is growing.
The Mental Health Act 1983 contains provisions whereby a person can be detained against his or her will. I sat on the Standing Committee which dealt with that Bill. I believe that there is an obligation under certain circumstances to detain against their will people who cannot know what is best for them.
One of the forms of mental disorder is psychopathic disorder. This is defined as:
"a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including significant impairment of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the person concerned."
The government policy applies in the community and in prison. Once someone with a mental disorder is in prison it is all the more important that that person is transferred to NHS facilities given the inadequacy of health care in the prison service. My noble friend Lord Longford referred to that issue, which we have touched on many times. It is important that medical services within prisons should be brought within the confines of the National Health Service. I am sure that that would improve the quality of treatment within the prison service.
As your Lordships will know, I have the honour to be President of MIND. My noble friend Lord Longford referred to the many voluntary organisations which are closely involved in this field, not only in policy formation but also in helping people up and down the country, in their 230 local associations.
MIND's concern is that the law, and appropriate provision of services, are inadequate to the task, with the result that people with mental disorders remain in prison.
Research commissioned by the Home Office on the remand population and the sentenced population within prisons established that, for example, 37 per cent. of men serving a prison sentence of six months or longer suffered identifiable mental health problems. For women, the figure was 56 per cent., which is very high.
There are many examples of inadequate treatment facilities, and sometimes an inadequate approach. A recent MIND publication on physical treatments states:
"Where distress is seen as mental illness, drugs or ECT are likely to be prescribed. Yet the social roots of distress, the impact of poverty on mental health, the far-reaching effects of childhood trauma, particularly sexual abuse, are known. The majority of people who hear voices can identify a traumatic or emotional event when the voices started. Life stresses can provoke, prolong or worsen mental distress. Major frustrations of mental health service users are the services' failure to address the hidden roots of distress, and to meet the pressing needs for income, satisfying work and someone to talk to".
Under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, where a defendant is found guilty and the court believes the defendant is suffering from a mental disorder, a psychiatric report must be obtained. The court can request information. If the regional health authority does
910
not have a bed available, it is empowered to purchase facilities elsewhere. If it says that it has no funds to do that, the court cannot require funds to be made available.
The issue was raised at the Central Criminal Court (the Old Bailey) on 27th October this year, when a defendant named Hart was convicted and the court felt that a hospital order was the appropriate disposal. No bed was forthcoming and the judge stated that Virginia Bottomley, the Secretary of State for Health, would be brought before the court to explain why that was the case. We do not have Virginia Bottomley present, but we have the Minister. I do not suppose that she will make a statement on that case. I invite her to do so in case she can be persuaded. That is an immediate example of a real shortage of facilities.
Recent reports by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Audit Commission, the Mental Health Task Force and the Mental Health Foundation have all stated that there is a lack of appropriate resources for the care and treatment of people with mental illness—that covers those who are mentally disordered—and that there is inadequate provision in the community of services such as appropriate housing. That means that in-patient facilities contain patients who could leave hospital but do not have suitable accommodation and services in the community. That is grossly wasteful in time, money and human lives. As a result, in London some wards have an occupancy rate of up to 130 per cent. Some people will become involved with the police and the courts and possibly will be remanded to prison because of the lack of adequate services in the community. Regional secure unit facilities are overcrowded with patients who have been transferred from prison and with those who could be discharged into the community. Special hospitals are unable to transfer many patients to less secure facilities because of the blockage of regional secure unit beds in this way. Therefore we are faced with a problem.
I give one further example. I read a report in September of excruciating delays in Crown Court hearings which are jeopardising a pioneer project aimed at keeping mentally ill offenders out of prison. The Bentham Unit, funded by the Department of Health and North West Thames Regional Health Authority, is based at Ealing Hospital, West London, in a locked ward on the St. Bernard's wing, a former Victorian mental asylum that I know well. Set up in February, it aims to relocate suicidal or mentally ill prisoners into hospital for more appropriate care. After the initial assessment, the unit expects to refer them to longer stay facilities within a month. However, beds are being blocked by patients forced to stay on the ward for up to six months waiting to come to court. Kevin Murray, consultant forensic psychiatrist, stated:
"It puts a major strain on our unit. People remain in a state of anxiety until their court cases are finalised, and the possibility of doing therapeutic work with them is compromised".
It is not enough to understand the problems. The last speech—it was a brilliant maiden speech—indicated how well the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, understands the situation. There must be more resources. The absence of more resources is expensive. It is

911
expensive to keep people in hospital when they should not be in hospital. Example after example demonstrates where money is wasted because it is not properly used.
I again thank my noble friend Lord Longford. I look forward with great interest to what the Minister says.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, it was a pleasure to listen to my noble friend opening this short debate, carrying forward what is a truly personal crusade on behalf of those who, rightly or wrongly, have fallen foul of the law. His views remind me of Samuel Butler's Erewhon in which criminals are regarded as sick and in need of help. However, I do not suggest that he believes in the other half of the Erewhon code which regards ill people as criminals!
I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Farrington on her elegantly presented and cogent maiden speech. It has not taken her long, non-controversially, to break her duck. But I am delighted that she will be playing an active part in our proceedings, duly hitting controversial fours and sixes around the House.
As I knew at only rather short notice that I would speak tonight, I have to apologise to my noble friend for the fact that I have not had a chance to read his book Prisoner or Patient. It probably says everything that I shall say and answers the questions that I shall ask. The noble Earl and others drew attention to the report by the Mental Health Foundation describing the 12 regional conferences on mental offenders, promoting care and justice. It is an impressive document and gives the consensus views of thousands of professionals throughout the country concerned with mentally disordered offenders who met at those conferences. The only disappointment for me as a doctor with an interest in epidemiology—that is, the study of the health of communities—is that the report leaves us not much wiser with regard to the actual size of the problem. However, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Ennals have given some figures indicating what an enormous proportion of our prison population is comprised of people who have mental health problems.
Many offenders sent to prison or community service are in fact mentally ill or handicapped or have a personality disturbance—that is the modern word for a psychopath; one has a personality disturbance. An article in the British Medical Journal about three weeks ago entitled Who's Psychopathic Now? indicated how difficult it is to define that group of people. However, it is also clear from the report that many involved in the whole criminal justice system are not well informed as to how to identify, handle or refer mentally disordered offenders.
It is sad to read that the conferences did not always attract enough defence solicitors, senior social service managers or senior police officers. What a shame it is— and I regret the fact—that no noble and learned Lords are taking part in the debate tonight because they could have thrown some useful professional light on the problem, which is very much a socio-medico-legal one. As other speakers have said, the subject requires the co-operation of the caring professions, the legal
912
profession, local government and central government. I agree that solicitors, social service managers and senior police officers are busy people. However, they hold key positions and are in a position to influence those under their direction. It would have been useful for them to have been at those conferences. That fact illustrates that there is no doubt that this client group—the mentally disordered offender—is several pegs down the priority list for many decision makers.
In that group I do not necessarily include the Home Office or the Department of Health, which I know are concerned about the problem. But are training packs and circulars, however good, the answer? My noble friend quoted one publication which has recently been produced. I believe that two more are planned. Perhaps I may repeat what every speaker, without exception, has so far said and which comes out over and over again in the report. It is that the real need is to strengthen community care for the mentally ill and handicapped as a whole.
Most mentally disordered offenders are not dangerous. They can and should be contained in the community. The report says:
"The consensus is that services for mentally disordered offenders should be part of mainstream mental health services and seen in the context of contemporary community care policies. However, community services for the mentally ill are the least developed of all services and continuous effort at both professional and political levels is needed to improve them".
As the noble Baroness knows, community care is not a cheap option. Again, nearly every speaker has mentioned that. However, the noble Baroness also knows and believes, as I do, that it is the best way to care for most mentally ill people, other than perhaps the most acutely disturbed, for whom there will always be a need for hospitals and secure units. Although there are now excellent examples of community care around the country, there are too many cases where the reverse is true. As my noble friend Lord Ennals said, if suitable, well-staffed community care placements had been available in the Hart case, Judge Laughlen would not have had—theoretically—to threaten the Secretary of State for Health with a subpoena to be brought before the court to explain why no suitable hospital place was available.
My noble friend quoted the recommendations and the statement of the problem which MIND—of which he is president—put forward, so I shall not repeat them. The Mental Health Foundation report usefully points to a range of steps which would help the care of that group of unfortunate people.
However, behind all that looms the question of lack of resources. Forty-one per cent. of participants in the series of conferences—all professional, experienced workers in the field—felt that their own organisation was inadequately resourced. Only 6 per cent. said that they were satisfied with their resourcing. Until that problem is addressed, we shall be left with the present worrying situation in which expensive prison places are occupied inappropriately. Mentally sick people, some of whom are potential offenders and some of whom are

913
past offenders, are left inadequately cared for or supervised in the community. That is dangerous for them and for you and me.
8.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My
Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating this debate and for his customary courtesy in giving me advance notice of his questions. His extensive knowledge and continuing interest in offenders and ex-offenders is well-known, respected, admired and it has been paid tribute to tonight. Mentally disordered offenders are not a group who inspire great public affection. Working with them is hard and often unrewarding. But, through his writings and work with individuals and organisations, the noble Earl has done much to ensure that their special needs are not forgotten, especially by those who have a responsibility in both health and social services.
On behalf of these Benches, I should also like to extend a very warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, and congratulate her too on a remarkable maiden speech. I know that she had and indeed still has a distinguished career in local government. I share a little of her background but I have to say that I never reached the dizzy heights of chairing the Association of County Councils. I very much look forward to other contributions that she will make in your Lordships' House, which we know will be well researched and based on experience.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reminded us, the needs of mentally disordered people who come into contact with the criminal justice system are complex. They often require intervention over a period of months or even years and almost always involve contact with several different agencies. The task of planning and providing services includes the probation and social services and housing departments as well as the NHS and informal carers. But, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, reminded us, voluntary bodies also play an important part—both locally and nationally.
An important principle underlying government policy and reiterated in the report of the joint Home Office and Department of Health review—the Reed review— showed that mentally disordered people should receive the care and treatment they need from the health and social services rather than through the criminal justice system. Care should be provided under conditions of security commensurate with, but not exceeding what is justified by the degree of danger they present to themselves or to others. That policy can be traced back at least to Victorian times, but in the wake of the Reed review we honestly believe that we have made greater strides in the past two or three years than ever before.
Many of the review's recommendations relate to good practice and must be led by the people who work with offenders on a daily basis. I have been encouraged by the many changes which have taken place, often in very difficult circumstances.
914
I certainly do not accept the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, that community care for mentally ill people is a farce. But I do agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, that the vast majority of people with a mental illness can live and indeed are living successfully in the community without posing any threat to themselves or others. Perhaps I may assure her and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that the objective of community care is not to save money but to offer more appropriate and acceptable care. Research shows that overall costs are broadly comparable between a service based on a large hospital institution and a more local service.
Research evidence, both here and abroad, strongly supports the conclusion that mentally ill people, including chronic and severely ill patients, can be successfully treated in the community so long as hospital services are available when needed. The policy has the support of the vast majority of professionals and, according to a recent government survey, is supported by three out of four people in the general population. Recent reports by the health Select Committee, the Mental Health Foundation, the Audit Commission and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have all endorsed the principle of community care for mentally ill people. I share some of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that until now mentally disordered offenders have not been seen as a high priority. But that is changing. This year we have specifically made it a first order priority for health authorities to assess their needs and to commission the range of services necessary to meet those needs. This means that the NHS must work with other agencies to develop supported housing and community services as well as specialist hospital care. In a number of areas, health commissioners have established formal links with criminal justice agencies and social services to develop joint plans.
Effective co-operation between agencies is one of the keys to success. I agree with the noble Earl on that. I think it is the key to success for community care generally, but more especially for this particular group of people. Probably the single most important criticism in the report of the inquiry into the care and treatment of Christopher Clunis was that the various agencies did not act in a co-ordinated way. Mr. Clunis was not denied services—indeed, he received hundreds of hours of professional interventions. But again and again he was allowed to slip through the net. If we are to avoid future tragedies of this kind, agencies and those who work in them need to be clear about each other's roles and responsibilities.
To help to ensure that, we have prepared a guide to arrangements for inter-agency working. The guide was issued for consultation last month. It is designed to provide a point of reference and it gives examples of good practice for people who work across agency boundaries. I understand that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intends to issue similar guidance to those working in the criminal justice system.
Over the past four years we have provided pump-priming funds for 96 multi-agency schemes. A number of them involve housing associations and

915
voluntary agencies, which often play a vital role in maintaining mentally disordered people in the community.
In August last year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health announced a 10-point plan. This plan incorporates our hope to introduce a power of supervised discharge as an amendment to the Mental Health Act as soon as there is space in the legislative programme. The new power would apply to a small number of the most vulnerable people, typically those whose symptoms are well controlled by medication but who have a history of relapse after discharge from hospital. In proposing this we are very aware that legal powers can never be a substitute for properly planned and delivered services. Use of the power would need to be matched by a commitment to provide the services identified in the individual care plan.
Priority mental health registers, or supervision registers, were introduced in April this year to include patients who are judged to be potentially at significant risk of seriously harming themselves or others. The registers will provide a point of reference for relevant and authorised health and social services staff, will make clear whether individuals are at risk, and will help plan the facilities and resources needed by this group of patients. The new registers will complement existing systems for supervision of restricted patients who are conditionally discharged from detention under the Mental Health Act.
Guidance on the discharge of mentally ill people and their continuing care in the community was issued in May. The guidance is based on application of the care programme approach and puts special emphasis on the importance of risk assessment before patients are discharged. The guidance was highlighted effectively this evening by the noble Baroness.
It is very important that those working in the community with mentally disordered offenders have the knowledge and skills to respond appropriately to their needs. Last year we funded the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NACRO) to develop a training pack for social services staff. Copies have been provided for all social service and probation departments and chief officers of police in England. A series of six seminars have been held to promote its use. The department is funding further work to develop forensic social work training this year.
A number of recent reports—from the Mental Health Foundation, the Mental Health Task Force in London, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Audit Commission—have drawn attention to the current pressure on NHS mental health services. I am afraid that some of them have failed to give proper credit to positive achievements.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lords, Lord Ennals and Lord Rea, were concerned about resources for mental health services. A total of £1.8 billion is spent each year within the NHS. Gross expenditure on local authority social services for mentally ill people increased by 171 per cent. in real terms between 1978 and 1991 to £179 million.
916
We have also set aside £45 million to support the development of medium secure psychiatric facilities in the NHS. This will increase the number of beds available from 600 in 1991 to over 1,150 by 1996— going a long way towards meeting the needs for medium secure places identified in the assessment exercise undertaken by regions last year. The important thing is that health authorities have clear strategies to meet their population's assessed needs for all types of secure places, and this is what we are requiring them to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, also cited the need for sufficient professional expertise. We agree with her. In the past four years we have increased the number of forensic psychiatric posts in England from 50 to 82 for consultants, and from 11 to 29 for senior registrars. For this year alone, 22 additional senior forensic registrar posts have been agreed. This adds up to a substantial programme of initiatives to improve services for mentally ill people in general and mentally disordered offenders in particular. We have also been playing our part to ensure that mentally disordered people who have found their way into the criminal justice system get the treatment and care they need.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, highlighted the value of having psychiatric assessments available in the courts. We agree with them very strongly, and it is a growing area of provision. Eighteen months ago I was able to tell your Lordships that 40 court-based assessment schemes were in place. The number has now increased to over 100. I am sure that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, will also be pleased to learn that the number of prisoners transferred to the NHS for treatment under the Mental Health Act has increased from 325 in 1990 to over 750 last year.
Like noble Lords, we are concerned that prisoners who have some degree of mental disorder but who do not require transfer under the Mental Health Act should receive high quality care in prison. The health care directorate is working closely with the NHS to develop the services they provide and to ensure that the health and social care needs of prisoners are assessed and met on discharge.
We welcome the fact that the health service is responding so well to the needs of prisoners but also recognise that, as a result, there are additional pressures on staff and resources. As I said, we are responding through the expansion of medium secure services. But meeting the needs of mentally disordered offenders remains among the most challenging tasks faced by health and social services. I take this opportunity of acknowledging the hard work and commitment of the people who work in those services.
The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, raised the question of greater power for the courts to enforce hospital orders. The Mental Health Act allows such an order to be made only if arrangements have been made for the patient's admission to hospital; in other words, the hospital must be prepared to take the patient. Strictly, this does not apply when the Home Secretary directs the transfer of a prisoner to hospital although in practice it is unheard of for this to be done

917
without the hospital's co-operation. However, the court also has the power under Section 39 of the Act to require a report from the regional health authority on the availability of hospital places, which can be quite an effective sanction. On the whole we think this is a fair balance and are not persuaded that hospitals need to be placed under greater constraint, especially considering the increase I have just mentioned in the number of prisoners transferred to hospital.
The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to a particular recent case. Perhaps I should explain that the problem was not that a bed was not available but that the judge did not accept the doctor's advice that hospital was not necessary. As soon as it became clear that the court required a bed to be available, both a place and the necessary funding were made available.
The Reed review was a watershed both in ideas about mentally disordered offenders and in practical action to help them. In the two years since it completed its main task we have continued to act energetically on the issues it raised.
In July this year we published two reports on the important and difficult issues of high security psychiatric services and psychopathic disorder. The latter was issued for consultation and we shall be looking very carefully at the comments we receive on the proposals, which are due by the end of this month.
As to high security services, which are at present concentrated in the three special hospitals, it is very important that decisions about their future take proper account of the important issues they raise about public safety and the relationship of the services with the rest of psychiatry. We have commissioned further work by officials who will be reporting back in January next year. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consider the future development and organisation of the services, including questions about the size of the present special hospitals, in the light of this assessment.
I should also briefly like to mention two further reports on race, gender and equal opportunities, and services for people with learning disabilities or with autism which we published in February this year. These represent the final phase of the Reed review proper but to keep us on our toes we have set up an advisory committee for mentally disordered offenders to advise Ministers in the Department of Health and Home Office on taking forward the recommendations of the Reed review. The committee is made up of distinguished outside people involved in work with mentally disordered offenders. Although, I appreciate, it falls short of the proposal for a Cabinet committee, suggested by the noble Earl, it plays a very valuable role in ensuring that these issues remain a high priority for both departments.
I know of the noble Earl's continuing interest in the Matthew Trust and I should like to pay tribute to the practical support the trust is able to give to individuals in crisis situations and for its other work. As the noble Earl is aware, we have to apply strict criteria to the grants we give to voluntary bodies and I am afraid that the work of the trust, valuable though it certainly is, does not meet these. Rather than take up your
918
Lordships' time with a detailed explanation perhaps I could write to the noble Earl and also place a copy of the letter in the Library.
The debate this evening has been pertinent, relevant and productive. It has demonstrated the considerable interest, depth of understanding and expertise among Members of your Lordships' House. Work in this field will never be easy; there are no simple answers. But I am encouraged by the momentum of current developments and pay tribute to those in health, social services and voluntary organisations who have worked so hard to achieve real improvements in the care of mentally disordered offenders. We also owe much to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose ever watchful eye ensures that the needs of mentally disordered offenders remain high on the Government's agenda.
8.50 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, after many years I have at last discovered that tabling a Motion instead of an Unstarred Question means that I get the last word. It took me 49 years in this House to learn that and I nearly missed it. But I can assure everyone that my final remarks will not only be short, but also friendly.
We are bound to be impressed by the reply from the Minister. It needs careful study. However, anyone who is deeply involved in these matters—as we all are tonight—must feel that not only is an immense amount of work being done on this issue, but also that in the Minister those with mental disorders have a real champion. I am sure that she would gladly do much more for them than government finances appear to permit.
I forecast that we should have a debate of high quality. I even ventured to imply that it would be of a higher quality than that preceding it. As I did not listen to that debate I cannot make a comparison. However, I can surmise that our debate came out better. No doubt if I had listened to the first debate I should not be so confident.
I am glad that I was followed by a spokesman for youth. People sometimes talk of this House as being a place for oldies. In the noble Lord, Lord Addington, we have a spokesman for youth. As far as I am concerned, anybody who is still playing first class rugger must be regarded as a young man and I was particularly glad to hear from the noble Lord.
I am sure that everybody present tonight realises that in my noble friend Lady Farrington the House has acquired an exceptional addition to its number. She speaks with the authority of real distinction in local government. I may be wrong but I am not sure that any other Member of your Lordships' House has ever been the chairman of the Association of County Councils. I am told that one has been; but that one has long since been forgotten, at any rate by me. So far as I am concerned, therefore, my noble friend is unique.
My noble friend Lord Ennals was so kind about me that it may be thought that there is some kind of mutual arrangement between us whereby I repay the compliment. But my noble friend too is unique. Not only has he directed MIND, but he is now its president. I do not believe that anybody has ever run a large

919
charitable organisation and become a Cabinet Minister—if anyone tells me otherwise, I shall not believe it—and that certainly makes him unique. I am sure, therefore, that my noble friend is unrivalled in that way and we listen to him with special respect.
My noble friend Lord Rea is a doctor and doctors are the people we rely on in the end. We turn to them and ask whether a man is mentally ill or otherwise. It is people like my noble friend Lord Rea who make those terrible decisions and from what he said tonight we understand that he is well qualified to make them.
920
I am grateful to all the speakers. I hope that somehow or other the suggestions will bear fruit. I can see from what the Minister tells us that a tremendous amount is being done. And if we can obtain the extra resources there will be something like triumph at the end. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at six minutes before nine o'clock.

  UN SECURITY COUNCIL AND USE OF FORCE
  UN SECURITY COUNCIL AND USE OF FORCE
  INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
  INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
  STATE TERRORISM
  STATE TERRORISM
  IRAQ: UN RESOLUTIONS
  IRAQ: UN RESOLUTIONS
  BAGHDAD MISSILE ATTACK, 1993: JUSTIFICATION UNDER UN CHARTER
  BAGHDAD MISSILE ATTACK, 1993: JUSTIFICATION UNDER UN CHARTER
  HOUSE OF LORDS: DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  HOUSE OF LORDS: DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  POLICE: CODE OF PRACTICE ON FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
  POLICE: CODE OF PRACTICE ON FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
  CHANNEL FERRY PASSENGERS: FRENCH TAX
  CHANNEL FERRY PASSENGERS: FRENCH TAX
  A.92: IMPROVEMENT
  A.92: IMPROVEMENT
  HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES PENALTIES FOR MISUSE
  HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES PENALTIES FOR MISUSE
  SHIPYARD PRODUCTION AND DESIGN FACILITIES
  SHIPYARD PRODUCTION AND DESIGN FACILITIES
  PUBLIC UTILITIES: STANDING CHARGES
  PUBLIC UTILITIES: STANDING CHARGES
  MR. PHILIP PINK
  MR. PHILIP PINK
  CARAVAN PITCHES
  CARAVAN PITCHES
  STRUCTURE PLAN MODIFICATION
  STRUCTURE PLAN MODIFICATION
  PRIVATE GIPSY SITES
  PRIVATE GIPSY SITES
  LOCAL AUTHORITY GIPSY SITES
  LOCAL AUTHORITY GIPSY SITES
  DEFENCE SITES IN WILTSHIRE: CLOSURE
  DEFENCE SITES IN WILTSHIRE: CLOSURE
  IMMIGRATION OFFICERS: TRAINING
  IMMIGRATION OFFICERS: TRAINING
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL
  MISS EMMA HUMPHREYS
  MISS EMMA HUMPHREYS
  NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD SCHEME
  NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD SCHEME
  IMMIGRATION OFFICERS: POWERS
  IMMIGRATION OFFICERS: POWERS
  CUSTOMS OFFICERS ACTING AS IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
  CUSTOMS OFFICERS ACTING AS IMMIGRATION OFFICERS
  IMMIGRATION: RESPONSIBILITY
  IMMIGRATION: RESPONSIBILITY
  IMMIGRATION OFFICERS: TRAINING
  IMMIGRATION OFFICERS: TRAINING
  MEDICAL RESEARCH AND HUMAN BEINGS: COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATIONS
  MEDICAL RESEARCH AND HUMAN BEINGS: COUNCIL OF EUROPE RECOMMENDATIONS
  PRINCESS ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL, WROUGHTON: CLOSURE
  PRINCESS ALEXANDRA HOSPITAL, WROUGHTON: CLOSURE
  DEFENCE RUNDOWN, WILTSHIRE
  DEFENCE RUNDOWN, WILTSHIRE
  PESTICIDE MISUSE: TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTIGATION OF REPORTED INCIDENTS
  PESTICIDE MISUSE: TIME LIMIT FOR INVESTIGATION OF REPORTED INCIDENTS
  JOBSEEKER'S ALLOWANCE AND AGREEMENT
  JOBSEEKER'S ALLOWANCE AND AGREEMENT