Sitting of 26 October 1994

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

    Cottage Hospitals
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Tayside health board to discuss with him the future for cottage hospitals in north Tayside.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State met the chairman of Tayside health board, together with other health board chairmen, on 24 June 1994. The future of cottage hospitals in north Tayside was not discussed at the meeting.
    Mr. Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that no other cottage hospital in north Tayside will suffer the death by a thousand cuts suffered by Meigle over a period of 20 years? Will he further confirm that Meigle cottage hospital will now be used as a day care facility, and that that is now in hand and agreed?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm to my hon. Friend, whose Adjournment debate on this subject I listened to, that a new community health service using Meigle will be established. The health centre will provide a full range of community and primary care services for patients requiring day care, for out-patients and for outreach services to treat and support people in their own homes.
    My hon. Friend asks about other community hospitals in the area. The board's proposals focus on the establishment of new community hospitals in Forfar and Montrose. In Forfar, that would allow the centralisation on one site of services currently provided at Whitehills hospital and the Forfar infirmary. In Montrose, the new hospital will replace services at the outdated Montrose infirmary.
    Ministers support those proposals, and have therefore asked the health board and Angus national health service trust to prepare proposals for those community hospitals. A decision will be announced once Ministers have received and considered the detailed proposals.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Answers are getting very long.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Why was the closure not discussed by the Minister of State and the chairman of Tayside health board? The closure of Meigle represents the loss of yet more acute beds in Tayside, and other hospitals, such as the Dundee royal infirmary, are closing, thereby
    874
    putting even more pressure on acute beds. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give us that the model being used by the Scottish Office will ensure that there are enough acute beds in Tayside after all these hospitals are closed?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It will of course be a priority for the health board to ensure that there are. There has been full consultation in respect of Meigle, and the news that it will be used for health purposes will be welcome.

    Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss local services.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend and I will meet representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 11 November as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters.
    Mr. Graham: In his discussions with local authorities, will the Secretary of State raise a question that is causing incredible problems for my constituency and others in Scotland—the demand for the release of green-belt land for building? Many people are spending a fortune trying to stop the onslaught on the green belt. It is costing local authorities and local folk a fortune to pay QCs to fight their case. Surely this nonsense must be stopped and people allowed the peace of mind of knowing that the green belt is no longer under threat.
    Mr. Stewart: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new slimline image. I do not believe that there is a significant difference of approach between what he has said and the position that my right hon. Friend and I take. We are vigorous defenders of the green belt.
    Mr. John Marshall: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of COSLA, will he raise the question of corruption in local government? Did he see the headline in yesterday's Daily Record—scarcely a Conservative party publication—suggesting that there is to be a second inquiry into Monklands?
    Mr. Stewart: Of course, I always read the Daily Record. I understand that the police are conducting two inquiries: one into allegations about taxi licences, and the other into more general allegations of corruption. I further understand that it is now in the public domain that a third inquiry is being conducted into allegations of expenses fraud in the Monklands area, but that does not involve elected councillors of Monklands district council.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister admit that the private financing of public water services will add between 50 to 100 per cent. to borrowing costs, which the consumer will have to meet in higher bills? Why is he replacing a low-cost, high-quality local government service with a high-cost quango system, which no one in Scotland wants?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. I am aware of the allegations to which he refers, which understate the cost of finance in the public sector,

    875
    overstate the cost of finance in the private sector and ignore the financial benefits of being protected from financial risk.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Minister agree that one of the most important local services is residential accommodation for frail, elderly people, whether it be in local authority homes or hospitals such as Lochgreen in my constituency, which is threatened with closure and where, even now, the management are stopping new admissions? Will the hon. Gentleman intervene to instruct the management of Lochgreen that they must not pre-empt the Secretary of State's decision on the matter? Will he ensure that adequate resources are given to the trust to ensure that Lochgreen remains open and is able to make the improvements necessary to modernise its facilities, so that its excellent staff can carry on their work for patients?
    Mr. Stewart: I certainly can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I will look into the specific constituency matter that he raises. I emphasise the Government's commitment to care in the community through the transfer of £106 million from the Department of Social Security, with an extra £55 million in 1994–95. An extra £15 million will be available under the bridging finance scheme, and for long-stay hospital patients, to whom he referred, there is an extra resource transfer of £10 million in 1993–94. The Government's general commitment to care in the community is without question.
    Mr. George Robertson: Anyone who has studied the figures produced by Strathclyde regional council on the future of water services, and its view that, under the Government's preferred financing objective, water bills will rise by twice as much as they would have under local councils, will believe Strathclyde regional council, not the Government. Is the Minister willing to give a guarantee that, after quangoisation, water bills in Scotland will not explode to English levels? Why are the Government still hell-bent on going ahead with their plans, which face almost universal hostility in Scotland and which would take water out of locally elected control and place it, like so much else, in the hands of unelected appointed Government cronies?
    Mr. Stewart: For the very simple reason that it will result in a much more cost-effective system. I have made it clear why I believe the Strathclyde figures to be misplaced. On the more general question, it is perfectly clear that Strathclyde regional council has more than adequate finance. I understand that it is taking out a full-page advertisement in tomorrow's edition of The Daily Telegraph. I think that that shows that Strathclyde regional council has money to burn.

    Hospital Beds
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future provision of short stay and respite care hospital beds in the north-east of Scotland.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Planning of health care services to meet local needs is a matter for health boards, in discussion with local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors, as appropriate.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there is total outrage at the consultation process
    876
    relating to the closure of Woodlands hospital, which follows the closure of the House of Daviot in Kingseat in my constituency? People are not confident that adequate long-stay and respite care beds will be provided, and people are outraged that they were not given sight of the options until after the consultation process had been completed. Those options included developing the Woodlands site in accordance with a written promise given to me three years ago by Grampian health board. If the Minister receives a reference for the closure of that hospital, will he refer it back for further consideration and proper consultation?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In deciding whether to approve closures relating to those or, indeed, any other hospitals in Scotland, we would want to be convinced that alternative arrangements were in place for patients that were every bit as good as—and preferably better than—the previous arrangements.
    Woodlands is running well below capacity as a result of developments in community care; it is proposed that it will care for fewer than 50 mentally handicapped people by early 1995. We shall bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the parents of the vulnerable and special patients involved are devastated by the way in which the whole matter has been handled? Does he understand that the consultation process that is currently under way is fatally flawed, because a decision has already been made? If there is to be consultation, it should involve proper discussions with the parents of the patients involved long before any final decision is made. Will the Minister give a categorical undertaking that there will be no transfer until the matter has been thoroughly aired and examined?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As far as Scottish Office Ministers are concerned, no decision has been made. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that these matters will be considered thoroughly, as will his point about dissatisfaction with the consultation process.

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the most recent figures for waiting lists for operations in trust hospitals.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): More people are being treated in NHS hospitals than ever before. In the year to June 1994, the number of out-patients treated rose by 2.6 per cent., the number of in-patients treated rose by 1.6 per cent. and the number of day cases treated rose by no less than 18.4 per cent. I am arranging for all the most recent figures for waiting lists to be sent to the hon. Member and published in the Official Report.
    Mr. Griffiths: If the Government's record is so good, why are patients with chronic heart disease having to wait for up to 13 months? Why are heart pacemakers being rationed to 750 a year in Lothian? Will the Secretary of State hold an inquiry into the fact that heart patients are dying because of long waiting lists for treatment?
    Mr. Lang: On 30 June this year, Edinburgh Healthcare trust had a total waiting list of nine in-patients, and no day-case patients. Waiting lists in Lothian are very short

    877
    indeed. There has been a substantial increase of 6 per cent. in Lothian health board's budget. As for waiting lists for individual treatment, it is for each health board in Scotland to find the best and most effective way of obtaining the ever-increasing range of treatments that are now available for the health service.
    Mr. Wallace: How many patients in NHS hospitals and trust hospitals in Scotland have been operated on at the Health Care International hospital in Clydebank? Does the Secretary of State accept that there is considerable public concern about the amount of public money that has been invested in that hospital, and would he welcome a National Audit Office investigation of the use of public money for the project?
    Mr. Lang: Any investigation of any such organisation that any official body considers it appropriate to conduct would certainly receive full co-operation from the Scottish Office and from me.
    I believe that the figure for which the hon. Gentleman asks is small. I see no objection, however, to giving any health board that has the necessary resources and feels the need to benefit patients on its waiting list the opportunity to do so. I think that health boards should be entitled to take advantage of such opportunities.
    Mr. George Robertson: Does the Secretary of State not recognise that concern about future hospital waiting lists has a good deal to do with the scandal involving Health Care International in Clydebank? Does he not recognise that, in the light of the long-standing public concern about HCI—which grows with every daily revelation—and his silence on the issue, until and including today, has been seen as suspicious and sinister?
    What precisely has been the Secretary of State's role in the whole affair? Will he now tell the House exactly how much public money the Government have allocated to this shaky project? Is it not true that £40 million may be just the tip of a financial iceberg? What will happen to a hospital that was specifically designed solely for overseas patients, and which now threatens to swamp and damage the national health service?
    Mr. Lang: The idea that a private sector health care service set up in Scotland, bringing great expertise in specialties that are not readily available around the world, should damage the interests of the health service is preposterous. The Labour party is blinded by its own ideology. It will not accept health care of any sort unless it is offered through the national health service. If health service patients are able to benefit from Health Care International, or from any other private sector hospital, and health boards decide that they can afford to use services in that way, thus shortening their waiting lists and helping patients to receive treatment, those services should be available.
    Financial help of about £30 million has been offered for that inward investment project. That should be seen in the context of the fact that some 346 inward investment projects have been secured in the past five years, bringing or securing some 47,000 jobs and attracting more than
    878
    £2.5 billion of investment to Scotland. HCI is the sort of successful initiative that is creating new enterprise, new activity and more jobs in Scotland.
    Mr. Worthington: The Secretary of State should take account of the fact that in 1987, when he and his predecessor authorised the project, HCI said that
    "it has been and will"—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentlemen that it is not in order to quote during Question Time; perhaps he will paraphrase.
    Mr. Worthington: I speak in words that are remarkably similar to those used by HCI, which said that it has been and will continue to be the policy of HCI not to market its services to citizens of the United Kingdom. That was its pledge, which the Secretary of State accepted. Its chief executive is now saying that he sees nothing wrong with offering its services to health boards and that it would be "bizarre", to use his word, if the west of Scotland were the only place not to receive its services. Does the Secretary of State intend to keep HCI to its pledge in 1987, and will he give an undertaking that no activity of HCI will damage any hospital in the Greater Glasgow area?
    Mr. Lang: I see no likelihood of any activity of HCI damaging any health board hospital. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that patients who could be treated by HCI and whose health boards would like them to be treated by it should be denied the opportunity to have treatment earlier than they would otherwise just because of the ideological blockage of Labour Members? That would be preposterous. Labour Members should express support for an enterprise that brings 400 jobs to Clydebank and Milngavie. The hon. Gentleman welcomed the initiative when it was announced, saying that
    "the development is bringing much-needed employment to a jobs-starved community."
    Labour Members should express the wish that the venture should succeed.

    Drift Nets
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from angling organisations regarding the use of drift nets; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): Various angling organisations, as well as individuals, have made representations recently against the continuation of the salmon drift net fishery off north-east England.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that that salmon drift net fishery is doing great harm to rural economies in Scotland, to say nothing of the damage to other marine species such as porpoises and dolphins? What representations has he made to his colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to have the nets bought out, obviously with full compensation? There are moves in the European Community to have drift netting banned. Is it not time that the United Kingdom supported those moves?
    Sir Hector Monro: I note my hon. Friend's strong feelings. I have certainly received strong representations from many organisations and individuals in Scotland

    879
    concerned about the poor salmon and sea trout returns from the east coast rivers of Scotland. The Scottish Office certainly bears those representations in mind, particularly as it banned drift netting in Scotland in 1962. It will, of course, continue to discuss the matter with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We require scientific evidence, which is provided by the National Rivers Authority. There have been discussions in Europe about banning drift netting, but the European Parliament and the Commission disagree on whether a ban should include salmon. We shall have to wait to see how that is resolved.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: May I turn the Minister's attention from the east coast to the west coast, where, as he will know, there has been a serious decline in the numbers of salmon reaching the rivers, especially in Argyll? Does he attribute that, as many do, to the operation of the Irish net fishery off the north-west coast of Ireland, which is catching large numbers of salmon returning home to breed? If he believes that that fishery is responsible in some way, is there anything that he can do about it?
    Sir Hector Monro: I note what the hon. Lady says. There has been a general condemnation of drift net fishing, whether off the north-east coast of Scotland or the Irish coast. However, any condemnation has to be balanced with scientific evidence and, as usual, we are holding discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the matter and will consider whether we should make further representations to the Irish Government.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: Is my hon. Friend aware that if he would like to tell the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the sooner the north-east drift net fishery is ended the better it will be for Scotland, he will find many hon. Members representing English constituencies willing to support him?
    Sir Hector Monro: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. I know that that view is strongly held by many keen anglers, including himself.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) the scientific study commissioned by the Government, which showed that there was no evidence for the claim that the angling take of fish would be increased by ending the north-east drift net fishery, which is, in any case, being phased out? Will he direct his attention to the need to improve river quality and river flows instead of taking away the livelihoods of working fishermen?
    Sir Hector Monro: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. As he knows, the decision to phase out drift nets through a net limitation order was based on scientific evidence. That is how things stand.
    Mr. Kynoch: I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the importance of salmon fishing on the River Dee to my constituency and especially to royal Deeside, but does he agree that the current critically low level of stocks was perhaps caused by, among other things, north-east drift netters? Does he accept that the reduction so far, under the phasing-out process, has come only from the smaller drift net fishermen? Will he urge the Ministry of
    880
    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to speed up significantly the phasing out of north-east drift nets to save the economy of royal Deeside?
    Sir Hector Monro: I know that fishing on the Dee has been especially disappointing this year, and I can give my hon. Friend the facts. In 1993, the last year for which we have figures, 73,614 salmon, grilse and sea trout were taken by north-east drift nets, which must have had an impact on the east coast rivers. I am aware, too, of the importance of fishing to the economy of Scotland, in terms of tourism and other activities, and we have to bear that in mind as well as the scientific evidence.
    Mr. Dalyell: Following his letter to me, reflecting his genuine concern and that of his expert advisers, can the Minister do anything to protect the turtles that are coming to Scottish waters in increasing and significant numbers?
    Mr. McMaster: Answer that.
    Sir Hector Monro: I am not sure what the salmon fisheries in Paisley have to say on the matter, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for the point that he makes.

    Concessionary Travel
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to encourage single tier local authorities to co-operate to provide cross-boundary concessionary travel schemes for pensioners and disabled people.
    Mr. Stewart: I trust the new councils to use their discretionary powers to decide whether to act jointly to establish a concessionary travel scheme in whatever way best serves the interests of their areas.
    Mr. Home Robertson: As local authority accounting rules will not allow the new city authorities in Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen to subsidise concessionary travel schemes for people living in neighbouring districts, will the Minister acknowledge the immense importance of maintaining co-ordinated concessionary travel schemes to ensure the continuing mobility of pensioners and disabled people, and will he, even now, amend the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, or will he become the Minister who flings Scotland's grannies off the buses?
    Mr. Stewart: I was about to be very courteous to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to remind the House that 16 years ago today he was elected at a by-election and congratulate him on his anniversary, but in the light of his unsporting comments I am not sure that I should do so.
    However, the hon. Gentleman raised a perfectly genuine point. Under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 the new local authorities will have full discretionary powers to act jointly to establish concessionary schemes in so far as they believe that that would be in the interests of their electors.

    Deprivation And Poverty
    Mrs. Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of voluntary organisations to discuss deprivation and poverty.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Issues of poverty and deprivation could be raised by a range of voluntary organisations that my right hon. Friend and I meet in the course of our ministerial duties.
    Mrs. Adams: Does the Minister not find it disgusting that while his party has reigned over ever-increasing poverty and deprivation, one of his colleagues appeared on "Kilroy" this week to tell us that he could not live on his parliamentary salary? Will the Minister deplore that statement, and give us a guarantee that the charity commissioners' plan to silence the campaigning voice of charities will not apply in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly look into the specialised point that the hon. Lady raised about the charity commissioners, but I must tell her that our record on voluntary organisations in Scotland is good. They receive about £48 million through the urban programme. Indeed, the hon. Lady's local district council, Renfrew, receives about £6.8 million, and during the last few days, on 13 October, it received a supplementary allocation for the housing revenue account and non-housing revenue account—several hundred thousand pounds altogether. That shows that her constituency has not been forgotten. With regard to the House of Commons matter that the hon. Lady mentioned, my view is that Members of Parliament are perfectly well rewarded; however, that is a matter for the House to debate in due course.
    Mr. Wray: Is the Minister aware that the average adult wage in Scotland is £300 per week? Why are 36 per cent. of the Scottish work force earning less than £220 per week? Is it not a shocking state of affairs that 543,000 people, with 342,000 dependants, are on income support? That means that 885,000 people–17 per cent. of the working population—depend on income support. Are the Government considering restoring benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Earnings in Scotland are higher than those in most of the rest of Britain, with the exception of the south-east. Overall disposable incomes have risen by an average of 36 per cent. since 1979. Increases have not been confined to the wealthiest; there have been increases in average income for all economic status groups and all family types. It is significant that this year housing benefit in Scotland will probably amount to more than £800 million. That is evidence of substantial funding for those who need it.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the voluntary bodies, will he remind them that the safety net today is much better than it was in the period of real poverty and deprivation of the 1920s, 1930s and earlier, and that every pound spent with voluntary bodies is better spent, because society gets a far greater reward for that money than for money spent on, for instance, social work departments?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I confirm that there has been substantial extra help for low-income families.
    882
    Extra help worth more than £1 billion more a year in real terms than that available in 1988 is available for low-income families with children, and the vulnerable have been protected. For example, after housing costs, the family of an unemployed person with two children is 24 per cent. better off on income support than would have been the case in 1979. The safety net is extremely important, and we regard it as such.
    Mrs. Fyfe: If the Government care about children, particularly those living in poverty and deprivation, and about the need for changes in the law to safeguard them and to enshrine rights on which they should be able to rely so that they do not have their childhood taken away from them, why have the Government still not responded to our offer to assist the passage of a Children Bill, for which we have been waiting for the past 14 months, since the White Paper was published? What is the Minister waiting for?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was a member of the Committee that considered the most recent significant Children Bill. It is a very important subject and we shall obviously consider it fully in the context of the next Session.

    Scottish Enterprise
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Lang: I plan to meet the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise next month.
    Dr. Reid: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the chairman, will he tell him how disappointed we were that Samsung did not come to Lanarkshire? More importantly, will he tell him how disturbed we are by the reports now beginning to filter out that the package that attracted Samsung to the north of England was not the reported £58 million, but £71 million, the extra £13 million given in stealth being meant to counteract our enterprise zone status and financial assistance? Does he accept that if that was done at the behest of the President of the Board of Trade, it is an absolute scandal which counteracts completely the financial assistance given by the Government, and the implicit and explicit promises of the Prime Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that he will investigate the reports if I send him the information relating to them?
    Mr. Lang: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that Samsung chose not to come to Scotland. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the fact that this extremely important new inward investment was won for the United Kingdom in the face of worldwide competition, because of the competitiveness of the United Kingdom's economy. It is competitive because we resist, for example, such measures as the social chapter and the minimum wage.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman will also agree that it is extremely satisfactory that Lanarkshire came so close to winning the Samsung project. That is a reflection of the progress that has been made in making Lanarkshire an attractive place in which to invest, just like the rest of Scotland.

    883
    On the figures, the hon. Gentleman knows that the regional selective assistance scheme operates on a level basis across the whole of the United Kingdom, subject to standard criteria. If he can let me have details of any components of the package offered to Samsung which differ from what has been published, I will of course give them close attention.
    Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that over the summer months there was a series of historic and massive boosts to the Scottish economy from massive inward investment in the central belt and new oilfields off the west coast of Shetland? Does he agree that under a tax-raising Scottish Assembly, all of that would be put in jeopardy and at risk? A tax-raising Scottish Assembly would drive out investment, force up unemployment and create misery for every taxpayer in Scotland.
    Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why Scotland is so attractive to inward investors and so successful economically is precisely that it is within the United Kingdom, operating in the stable economic environment that exists right across the United Kingdom. Not only have we been extremely successful in inward investment, but we, as a Scottish nation, are now manufacturing more than ever before in our history and exporting more than ever before in our history.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that the enterprise zone sites in Lanarkshire are not filling up rapidly with this inward investment? Will he not only investigate the positive discrimination about which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) has informed the House, but examine whether there are positive measures which could be taken to get the investment flow going into the enterprise zones?
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that last year inward investment coming to Scotland was at record levels in terms of the number of projects, the capital invested and the jobs created and protected. This year, the effort is even more successful, with Lanarkshire securing a substantial proportion. An example is the recent further expansion of Motorola at East Kilbride. I will, however, investigate further any specific points that the hon. Gentleman cares to bring to my attention.
    Mr. McFall: When the Secretary of State next meets Scottish Enterprise, will he discuss with the chairman the question why that body put £4 million of public funds into one particular hospital and why Scottish Enterprise took £1.4 million in equity in the company involved? Is he willing to see a further £5.4 million poured into this black hole of a project, which is radically different from the one announced and welcomed in 1987? Is there not a question of bad judgment in this? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?
    Mr. Lang: The application for financial assistance was, of course, appraised in all the normal and conventional ways—and very thoroughly—before decisions were taken. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that enterprise of all kinds carries with it a certain amount of risk. It is to the great credit of Locate in Scotland that it has brought no fewer than 346 projects to Scotland in the past five years, the vast majority of which are now successfully established, and expanding and generating extra resources. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will
    884
    support the prospects for Health Care International and will hope that it will succeed and continue to provide employment, which is badly needed in Clydebank.

    Health Boards (Finance)
    Mr. Donohoe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the chairmen of health boards to discuss finance.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Minister of State meets chairmen of health boards regularly to discuss a wide range of strategic issues, including those involving finance, affecting the management of the national health service in Scotland. Next week it will take place on 4 November 1994.
    Mr. Donohoe: If the Minister was at the Tory party conference and was able to stay awake during his leader's speech, he would have heard him say that the national health service was safe in his hands. Can the Minister therefore tell us why in Ayrshire most patients who go to dentists now have to pay the full price for their treatment? Will he also tell us why in Ayrshire, and in my constituency at Ravenspark geriatric hospital, patients have been transferred to the private sector, which is clearly taking them for profit? How is it possible for the Prime Minister to say that the national health service is safe in his hands?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The new trusts are perfectly free to buy in services if they are in the interests of the patients concerned, are reasonable and are of the necessary quality. There have been significant developments at South Ayrshire hospitals trust, which have been greatly in the interests of the patients. The new magnetic resonance imaging equipment is used, there is a helicopter landing pad to help with patients, a new nurse-led glaucoma clinic, lip-reading classes for patients with impaired hearing, and improved accessibility and choice for patients. With regard to charging, I shall make inquiries into the particular point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman; I will look into the exact circumstances and send him a letter on the matter. Overall, however, the range of services has widened and there have been substantial improvements carried out by the trusts.
    Mr. Galbraith: When the Minister's noble Friend meets the chairmen, will he discuss again the issues of poverty and deprivation in Scotland? Does the Minister realise that the major causes of ill health in Scotland are poverty and deprivation and that it is not only the absolute levels, but the relative levels? In other words, the greater the discrepancy between rich and poor, the greater the ill health. Will the Minister discuss with the health board chairmen the Government's role in reducing the gap between rich and poor, which has grown greatly during the Government's reign?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: One effective way of being of assistance is by substantial funding of the national health service in Scotland. I can confirm that for every £100 spent in England on the national health service, £122 is spent in Scotland. Of course, health problems are considerable in areas of grave urban deprivation. That is why a record sum has been allocated

    885
    through urban aid this year to areas of particular deprivation. Those areas are considered with great care whenever applications come in.
    Mr. McAllion: More than £4,000 million has been spent on the Scottish national health service, most of it by the Secretary of State's appointees on health boards and NHS trusts. Does the Minister accept that while the establishment of an independent committee to advise on those appointments is a welcome step in the right direction, it nevertheless leaves a yawning democratic deficit at the heart of spending on the NHS in Scotland? Quangos are not made more accountable or more democratic simply by setting up a super-quango to watch over them. Does the Minister accept that only the establishment of a Scottish Parliament, elected by the Scottish people, will close that democratic deficit and that it is not for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but for the Scottish people—and only the Scottish people—to decide how their money is spent on their health service?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Opposition spokesman. On the previous major housing Bill, we were the only Scots Members of Parliament sitting in on proceedings so, for me, he is continuing an old role which he occupied in the past. In Tayside, some £245 million is being spent. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, so far as we are concerned, appointments are made on merit. That is why we appointed two persons who claim no affiliation with the Tory party—Campbell Christie and Lord Ewing, who is well known to the hon. Gentleman and who was a Scottish Office Minister a few years ago under the Labour Government. Persons are and will be appointed on merit.

    Defence Diversification
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with Scottish Enterprise to discuss defence diversification in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stewart: On my right hon. Friend's behalf, on 17 October I met Fife interests, including the chairman and chief executive of Fife Enterprise, together with representatives of Fife regional council and Dunfermline district council, to discuss the implications of defence and other industrial changes for the region. Fife Enterprise is now to put forward proposals to the Scottish Office for a task force to tackle these issues and it has been agreed that the Scottish Office will be represented on the task force.
    Mr. Salmond: Has the Minister responsible for industry had time to read Fife regional council's submission to the Rosyth consultation process, which indicates that the Government have underestimated by 500 the job losses as a result of the proposals and that the total impact of job losses in the defence industry since 1991 in Fife alone will be no fewer than 7,000? Does the Minister accept those figures? Does he accept that job losses on that scale strengthen the argument for taking the savings in the defence budget directly into the industry and training budget in Scotland to evolve a proper defence diversification strategy as opposed to just losing the money in the Treasury morass?
    Mr. Stewart: I have read the documents to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The major difference is that the
    886
    Fife document refers to direct military personnel, who I do not think can reasonably be regarded as full-time residents of Fife although there is an indirect consequence to the Fife economy of a rundown involving personnel moving elsewhere.
    In relation to the hon. Gentleman's general point, the consequences of "Front Line First" for Scotland are much less than they are elsewhere in Britain. For example, there will be a reduction of 8.2 per cent. in those employed in Scotland compared with a reduction of 13.2 per cent. in the south-east of England and 20.7 per cent. in the south-west. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will include those figures in his speeches. I can also confirm that Scottish Enterprise has a defence initiative to ensure that the consequences of the defence rundown are widely studied; a co-ordinated strategy, involving £25 million over three years, is in place and I believe that it will be highly effective.
    Mr. Kynoch: In discussions with Scottish Enterprise, has my hon. Friend had any feedback from Scottish industry about the implications for Scottish industry of a Scottish Parliament as proposed by the Labour party? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is extreme concern in my part of Scotland about the fact that we shall become the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom which will be detrimental to existing industry and inward investment?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I understand from the press that the Labour party is likely to finance its plans by an increased tax on business in Scotland—[Interruption.] If that is not the intention, let us have it confirmed in writing. Let us have confirmed in writing the 20 answers to the 20 questions from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). The trouble with the Labour party is that it is apparently committed to a body on which no Labour Members are prepared to serve and—[Interruption.] Well, there are three. How many more? It appears that there are four or five. Is that all? There are only five. What about the rest of them? Labour Members will not answer any detailed questions on how a Scottish Parliament would work or how it would be financed.
    Mr. Connarty: When the Minister meets Scottish Enterprise, will he try to get down to some facts about the level of employment in Scotland? In research that I carried out over the summer, Government statistics reveal that there are 55,000 fewer people working in the Scottish work force in 1994 than there were in 1992 at the last peak of employment. Will the Minister discuss with Scottish Enterprise the fantasy of what happens to the young people on Government-related work training schemes? On average, there were 48,000 young people on such schemes last year. When the Department of Employment carried out its survey, after six months only 10 per cent. of survey forms were returned. That means that 43,000 young people have been lost; we do not know what has happened to them.
    Will the Minister discuss with Scottish Enterprise, which I believe has now taken on the responsibility, how we can get round the table and design a survey which will follow every young person and discover whether that

    887
    person obtains employment as we suspect that the vast majority do not get employment after wasting time on Government training schemes?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has not sent me details of his researches over the summer, but, broadly, there are 155,000 more people in the work force than there were 10 years ago. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the proportion of those on youth training schemes going on to full-time employment is steadily rising.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do not the examples of Fife and Rosyth demonstrate how unrealistic it is to rely on the market to achieve defence diversification, not least because the market has only one customer, the Ministry of Defence? Is it not time for a properly co-ordinated Government strategy to manage the industrial change which has necessarily come about as a result of the ending of the cold war?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. and learned Member was not listening to what I said—[Interruption.] Hon. Members would benefit from listening to my responses. I said very clearly that we are not relying in any sense on the market alone and that we have a clear and co-ordinated defence initiative run by Scottish Enterprise to assist in a variety of ways, through the local enterprise company network, with companies in Scotland to meet their needs, and to have a more diversified customer base.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on levels of unemployment in the west highlands and islands.
    Mr. Stewart: The latest unemployment statistics indicate that the downward trend in unemployment in the highlands and islands enterprise area is continuing and has indeed fallen in seven of the past 12 months. In the western isles, the fall in unemployment over the past year exceeds the Scottish average.
    Mr. Macdonald: The Minister will know that tackling unemployment in the highlands and islands requires good transport links, particularly for island constituencies and islands such as Barra in my constituency. Many islanders work on the mainland and in the offshore oil industry. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are continuing to monitor the Loganair service between Barra and Glasgow? That service is continuing to cause concern. Does the Minister agree that the bottom line is that that service must be at least as reliable or as good as the previous service?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of that service. Indeed, he has made strong representations to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), on behalf of the local community about the reliability of the Glasgow-Tiree-Barra service. I confirm that my hon. Friend and his civil servants are in close touch with the company as a matter of urgency. I am aware that Loganair is working hard on measures to improve reliability. As for the bottom line, I give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that the Government agree fully with him.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister confirm the crucial contribution that the oil-related fabrication
    888
    industry makes to employment prospects throughout the west highlands and islands? In that context, will he redouble Scottish Office efforts and Department of Trade and Industry pressure on the European Commission, following this week's merger of Highlands Fabricators at Nigg with McDermotts at Ardersier, to ensure that we have a level playing field for fabrication contracts within the single European market? Many of us still believe that the unfair competitive practices in other EU member states are not being adequately policed by the Commission.
    Mr. Stewart: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, first, on the importance of the industry to the part of the country that he represents and, secondly, on the crucial importance of maintaining pressure on the Commission to ensure the level playing field to which he refers.

    Youth Recruitment
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has ordered a survey of the effects on youth recruitment of the Government's proposed cuts in the civil service.
    Mr. Lang: The Government expect civil service numbers to decline in Scotland, as elsewhere. How this might affect youth recruitment will depend on the particular circumstances of individual Departments.
    Mr. Clarke: Is the Secretary of State aware that there have been cuts in the finance and insurance industries in Edinburgh and that my constituency, which is one of the catchment areas for that recruitment area, is suffering? It is more difficult now for young people to get started in a career, and many of them are being employed on a temporary basis by the civil service throughout Scotland, not only in the Edinburgh area. The job creation situation under the Government is a laughing stock. They are creating a generation gap in the civil service and unemployment.
    Mr. Lang: On the question of generation gaps in the civil service, the hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that recruitment later in life is opening up in the civil service, and that there are opportunities for entry other than at the outset of one's career. As for the financial sector, that is one sector of the economy which has expanded dramatically in the past decade or so. There are recent examples of several hundred jobs from insurance companies being brought to Scotland which were previously carried out in the south-east of England. Indeed, at present, there are more people in employment in the service sector in Scotland than ever before.
    Mrs. Liddell: Does the Minister agree that it is not only in civil service recruitment that young people are being disadvantaged? In view of the promises made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers about extra assistance to Lanarkshire to aid youth employment, can the Minister explain why the budget of the Lanarkshire development agency has been cut by Scottish Enterprise and how that is meant to assist young people seeking new jobs in new industries?
    Mr. Lang: I welcome the hon. Lady to Scottish Question Time if, indeed, this is her debut. The budget for Scottish Enterprise has been substantially maintained recently. The actual distribution among different

    889
    enterprise companies is a matter for Scottish Enterprise, but special resources have been brought to bear on the problems of Lanarkshire recently.

    Council House Sales
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Scotland since May 1979.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: By the end of March 1994, more than 289,000 houses had been sold by public sector landlords in Scotland to sitting tenants—proof of the great success of the right to buy. Before long, I hope to take part in a ceremony to mark the sale of the 300,000th house.
    Sir David Knox: What proportion of the council house stock in Scotland has been sold? If it is still less than the proportion in England, what is my hon. Friend doing to increase sales in Scotland?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The percentage of public sector stock sold since 1979 is 26.8 per cent. in England. In Scotland, it is 27.6 per cent, so we have decisively overtaken England in the sale of public sector stock to sitting tenants. As well as that, we hope some time next year to be able to say that the 300,000th house has been built since 1979. That is a substantial achievement, much of it by the private sector.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that despite direct representations by 18 Labour Members, the chairman and board of Scottish Homes have refused to allow councils to purchase houses from Scottish Homes? Is he also aware that Peter Mackinlay, the chief executive of Scottish Homes, told my Ayrshire colleagues and me that new town development corporation houses will be able to be sold to local councils as a result of a mistake by a senior civil servant in the Scottish Office? Can we not have the same sort of mistake for Scottish Homes and give tenants in Scottish Homes houses a real choice?
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The position with regard to new town tenants is different. In particular, in the winding up of the new towns that will be taking place, there is a smaller than average proportion of local authority stock within the new towns. A further important factor is the need for decisions to be taken before wind-up. That is not the case for Scottish Homes. If special circumstances exist, Scottish Homes can take them into account, but it seems that the hon. Gentleman has
    890
    not mentioned any special circumstances in this particular matter. I do not think that the civil servants have made any mistake at all.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his response to the first report from the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on drug abuse, HC 62.
    Mr. Lang: The Select Committee's report was welcomed by the Government as a helpful contribution to the debate on the drug misuse problem in Scotland. The Scottish drugs task force, led by my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State, has now produced its comprehensive report containing more than 60 recommendations for action in responding to the drug misuse problem. Implementation of the report by the Government will be given a high priority.
    Mr. McKelvey: As the task force report outlined a much-needed strategy particularly for harm reduction with regard to drugs, why on earth did the Secretary of State allow the Home Office to delay the implementation and publication of that report by three months? People who are desperately ill need assistance. Not only will their illness continue, but some of them may die while the delay continues.
    Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no delay. The report was published as soon as it was ready. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that much of what the Select Committee recommended has found echoes in the task force strategy report, which has now been published. It is important that hon. Members throughout the House should work together to implement the many recommendations in the report, which have been well received in Scotland and which we must all be determined will help us to fight the drugs misuse problem.

  BILL PRESENTED
    YOUTH SERVICES
    Mr. Tony Lloyd, supported by Mr. Bernie Grant, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mrs. Jane Kennedy, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to youth services in the community and participation by youth in community development; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]

European Community (Democratic Control)
3.31 pm
Sir Roger Moate: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to secure effective democratic control of the European Community by repeal of the European Parliamentary Elections Acts and by making provision for representatives to the European Parliamentary Assembly to be drawn from the membership of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
I gather that the chances of winning the first prize in the national lottery are about 14,000,000:1 and the chances of this Bill becoming law are not much better. That is a shame, because it is a modest Bill—indeed, I would describe it as being one of extreme moderation. It does not seek in any way to reduce the powers of the European Parliament. It does not even seek to reduce the enormous costs of the European Parliament, even though we could point out that it costs almost £1 million for each Member of the European Parliament, compared with a mere £260,000 for each Member of this House.
My Bill does not even seek to tell other nations how they should select their Members of the European Parliament. It would apply the principle of subsidiarity to the way in which each nation chooses to select its MEPs. It would allow us to return to the indirect system that worked so well before 1979 whereby Members of that assembly were appointed from the House and, if I recall correctly, from another place.
I understand that the Bill might cause some problems for the Whips Office. Naturally I am sorry about that. I also understand that sometimes we would be deprived of the presence of some of our colleagues. I am sorry about that, too. Those are matters of deep regret, but we would have to bear them with fortitude, knowing that our colleagues from both sides of the House were in Brussels or Strasbourg exercising their democratic muscle on our behalf.
Some might say that the burden would be too much for already highly overworked Members of the House, but surely in practice, with some of the modest allowances which I understand are available for administrative and secretarial help, it might be no more of a burden than that already borne by some who are members of certain Select Committees or delegates to the Council of Europe or, indeed, both. The advantages would be great indeed.
It is complained that MEPs are out of touch with Westminster. Under my proposals that would be overcome at a stroke. It is complained that Westminster is out of touch with the European Parliament. That, too, would be overcome at a stroke. It is complained that MEPs, with their enormous constituencies, cannot help but be out of touch with their electors. That, too, would be overcome at a stroke.
Some uncharitable Opposition Members might think that my proposals are sour grapes because we lost rather a lot of seats at the latest European elections.
Mr. Terry Lewis: That is the reason.
Sir Roger Moate: That is wrong. That is not the reason at all. If the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) will reflect for one moment, he will realise that next time round—if we still have such elections—we will win them
892
all back again and many more besides. So, the suggestion is not so outrageous—that is if my Bill fails and we continue to have direct elections.
In his speech at Leiden in September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—his words are very important and might even appeal to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—said:
"The European Parliament sees itself as the future democratic focus for the Union. But this is a flawed ambition, because the European Union is an association of States, deriving its basic democratic legitimacy through national parliaments."
That should remain the case. People will continue to see national Parliaments as their democratic focus.
My right hon. Friend also stated:
"Another clear message is that European people retain their faith and confidence in the nation state."
How right he was. Even the most ardent European integrationist or federalist must understand that there is a serious problem and that something has to change. The intergovernmental conference in 1996 is the time to change it.
What was the turnout in our European elections this year—36.2 per cent? What was it elsewhere in Europe? On 24 July, The Observer newspaper stated the case well:
"The proportion of Europe's citizens who vote in European elections has dropped steadily since the first poll in 1979, when almost two-thirds of the electorate did its duty. This year the official result of 56.5 per cent. was achieved only because voting is compulsory in Greece, Belgium and Luxembourg. Those who did vote were in most cases commenting on national politics rather than saying anything about Europe."
How much more remote, irrelevant and unintelligible will it all be when we proceed to greater enlargement of the Community, which is moving inexorably ahead? There are 567 Members of the European Parliament for the present Community of 12 nations. It will soon rise to 15 or 16 nations when the European Free Trade Area nations join, as I fervently hope that they will.
Most people would accept the inevitability and desirability of early enlargement to the east, incorporating Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltic countries and Slovenia. All those countries are candidates for membership and perhaps for early membership. Other people talk of the possibility of Turkey, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta becoming members of a greater European Community. How unintelligible that supposedly directly elected and democratic Assembly will be for a Europe on such a scale.
As we all know, democratic elections are much more than a means of conferring some form of theoretical legitimacy on Governments. Such elections are about the power of people to change Governments, or the threat of that power changing policies. The voter and even the largest of national groupings within a nation are impotent in a Europe-wide poll. That sense of impotence will only grow as the Community grows. The sense of irrelevance is the real judgment on the fatally flawed and failed experiment of direct elections.
In 1996, if we change the treaty to allow each nation to choose its method of sending MEPs to the Assembly, I do not believe that we will be on our own. I hear that a strong body of opinion in France, which is well rehearsed in the French Assembly, would support the proposal. Other nations—especially the new members—would see the logic of that approach.

893
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that he will be ready to say no to proposals in Europe which are against British interests. I thank heaven that it is him and not the leader of the Opposition who will lead Britain into those 1996 negotiations. The latter has made it clear that he will never say no to Europe. His route and that of the Opposition—a single currency and the social chapter—will inevitably lead to a federal and centralised Europe. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that ours is the route to a Community of sovereign nation states. I suggest that my Bill fits logically and completely into that pattern.
3.39 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedyrose—
Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Kennedy: Yes, Madam Speaker.
In opposing the Bill of the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), I pay tribute to him on one basis.In the week following the summer recess when the Government have been displaying a new cohesion and unity of purpose and getting their act together, the hon. Gentleman has once again highlighted the deep divisions and disarray within the Conservative party on the fundamental issue of Britain's future in Europe, and what its correct role and relationships should be.
I shall make a number of brief points. The first, and most fundamental, is the fact that we are in the run-up to the 1996 intergovernmental conference. That conference—it has been called "son of Maastricht"—will be the proper forum in which all the relationships, power structures and representative tiers within the European Union shall be reassessed and, in many cases, recast. I would suggest that, logically, this is not the way in which to make such a fundamental change.
Secondly, it is illogical to proceed in the way in which the hon. Gentleman seeks. The aim of the Maastricht treaty to which the Prime Minister—in whom the hon. Gentleman has such apparent confidence, which the Prime Minister will be grateful to have noted—put his name is that we go precisely in the direction in which we are moving, albeit slowly, towards making the various levels of responsibility in decision-making at Union level more representative and more accountable. Many of us believe that we should be going much further than that.
The central problem in what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is the belief that we can get greater accountability and democracy for the European Union by giving more power back to national Parliaments as a means of trying to scrutinise. That is the fundamental and honourable difference between us. We argue that the approach that we should take to the European Union is to give more, not less, power to the European Parliament and to the elected Members of the European Parliament. They are best able to hold the Commission to accountability, not the behind-closed-doors, secretive Council of Ministers, over which national Parliaments have nothing like the degree of scrutiny or accountability and where a report back on accountability by a Minister at the Dispatch Box is, as we know, ludicrous. It would
894
be much better if we had a more congressional system at European level, and if the power for that congressional system was vested in the European Parliament itself.
On all those bases—and although I pay tribute to the fact that here is a fresh example of complete Conservative disunity and disarray—the House should do the Conservative party a favour and defeat one of its Members who is seeking to cause even more problems for his Government.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Roger Moate.

European Community (Democratic Control)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (DEMOCRATIC CONTROL)
  Sir Roger Moate accordingly presented a Bill to secure effective democratic control of the European Community by repeal of the European Parliamentary Elections Acts and by making provision for representatives to the European Parliamentary Assembly to be drawn from the membership of the House of Commons and the House of Lords: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 October, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]
Orders of the Day

  Sir Clifford Boulton GCB
  3.42 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That this House requests Madam Speaker to convey to Sir Clifford Boulton GCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, its gratitude for his many services to this House and to parliamentary government throughout a distinguished career.
  In inviting the House to pay this tribute to Sir Clifford Boulton on his impending retirement as our Clerk, I rarely have been more sure that I shall command support in every part of the House, and there can indeed be few for whom such a tribute has been better earned.
  Sir Clifford has been a part of this place for 40 years and more, and he has been Clerk to our most senior Committees—Public Accounts, Procedure and Privileges. For the past seven years he has been Clerk of the House. His tenure of that office has been the longest in recent times, but it will be remembered not so much for that as for its exceptional quality, with his outstanding grasp of our often complex procedures, the scholarship he brought to the editing of the current version of "Erskine May", the contribution he has made to the Industry and Parliament Trust and—not least—his help to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and his service to the Association of Secretaries General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. As I have learned myself on visits to other Parliaments, the regard in which he is held extends well beyond our world here in Westminster.
  For my part, although I have no doubt that here, too, I will be speaking for many others, in my two and a half years as Leader of the House it has been not only the quality of Sir Clifford's advice that I have valued but the manner in which it is offered: calm, courteous and considered, and set out with a clarity which belies the complexities beneath. Above all, I have valued the impartial balance that he brings to the task and his complete commitment to the House and what it stands for.
  I am told that Sir Clifford's main relaxation, stemming no doubt from his background as the son of a Staffordshire farmer, is tending the garden at his home in what he firmly calls Rutland. No doubt in future, with his new-found freedom, he will occasionally take a few moments off to pen a note to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the reorganisation of local government.
  However Sir Clifford may choose to occupy his time, of one thing I can be sure—that he will leave the service of this House not just with our thanks and our good wishes but with our very great respect.
  3.45 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: On behalf of my right hon. Friends and myself, may I associate the Opposition with the remarks of the Leader of the House. I am sure that the whole House will be happy to support the motion of gratitude for Sir Clifford Boulton's many years of service. Sir Clifford, as the right hon. Gentleman has just reminded us, has enjoyed a long and distinguished career,
  896
  culminating in his holding the highest permanent office in the House of Commons as Clerk to the House—although he is now also known as the Corporate Officer of the House, with a new seal to match the additional title.
  All Members of the House, from the newest to the most experienced, have every reason to be grateful to all the Clerks for their advice, both in the Chamber and in Committee. We must all recognise that, in Parliament, knowledge of procedure is an important element of the work of us all, not least because knowledge of procedure really is power in the House. Members of Parliament rely on the knowledge of procedure that the Clerk has, used in an impartial way, to uphold the best traditions of the House. That is what we pay tribute to Sir Clifford for today.
  Tradition is certainly the right word. The post of Clerk to the House of Commons dates back to 1363, and it is remarkable to discover that there have been only 44 holders of the office in all those years. Sir Clifford recently received an honorary doctorate from Keele university, the citation for which referred to the Clerks of the House of Commons as
  "the invisible men and women of Parliament".
  That certainly used to be so, but one of the changes since the televising of our proceedings has been that the Clerks are now visible. I have to admit that I have been asked several times who those people with the wigs on sitting in the middle are. It is easy to answer that they are the Clerks to the House of Commons; it is far more difficult to explain to outsiders what their role involves. It is probably rather like explaining the laws of cricket to Americans.
  Sir Clifford has, I understand, been very keen to explain the workings of the House to people outside. I am sure that he has had some success—more than many of us have had—trying to explain to outsiders exactly what his role entails. I know that, in his role as editor of "Erskine May", he has tried with some considerable success to make it a much more accessible volume, and for that all hon. Members should be grateful.
  We are all grateful to Sir Clifford for his service to the House, and we all most sincerely wish him well in his retirement.
  3.48 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Sir Clifford Bolton has been in the House since 1953. Throughout that time he has been an outstanding servant of the House, carrying out all the Clerks' duties at the various levels in the Clerks Department in which he has served with an exemplary blend of the qualities necessary to that office.
  One of those qualities is devotion to parliamentary democracy, involving as it does the rights of the House itself and all Members, groups and parties within it. Sir Clifford has been unfailingly courteous to Members of the House and has maintained that courtesy patiently in the most fraught circumstances. He is also a master of procedure. All around the Commonwealth there are stories of the guidance that he has given. Indeed, there is a story that a Commonwealth legislature was suspended while Mr. Boulton, as he then was, was telephoned in London for urgent advice.
  But the duties of Clerk are not confined to procedure, and very much less so since the development of the House's own management, after the Ibbs report. Sir

  897
  Clifford has presided over fundamental changes in the management of the House, very ably assisted by the Clerk Assistant. Those changes have included the House taking control of its own buildings—a change from which I am sure he derives considerable satisfaction. But it has involved marked additional responsibility for the Clerk as the Accounting Officer of the House, and he has discharged that responsibility with very great care and faithfulness.
  My right hon. Friends and I wish Sir Clifford and Lady Boulton every happiness in their retirement in the county of Rutland, of which they are so rightly fond. Sir Clifford has exemplified, enriched and sustained for the future the best traditions of the office of Clerk of the House.
  3.50 pm
  Mr. William Ross: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends of the Ulster Unionist party, I take great pleasure in supporting the motion expressing gratitude to Sir Clifford Boulton for the service that he has given to the House. His is an office that demands clarity of thought, integrity and charm, to ensure that the advice given, even if it is not always acceptable, becomes acceptable to the individual to whom it is given.
  Sir Clifford possesses all those attributes and has discharged his duties with distinction and great courtesy to all who have gone to him for advice. We are grateful to him for all that he has done and wish him and his family well in future.
  3.51 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: The motion has the unqualified support of all the political parties in the House. I would like to add the voice of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party in thanking Sir Clifford.
  The reality is that, although the spotlight always falls on hon. Members in the Chamber, Parliament could not function without the skill and expertise of the parliamentary staff. Therefore, in thanking Sir Clifford, I would like to wish him a long and very happy retirement.
  3.51 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: There is no Committee more in touch with Sir Clifford than the Procedure Committee. It is right and proper that I should give thanks on behalf of the whole Committee—I can see one or two members of it here—for the considerable advice that he has given, the papers that he has produced, the way in which he has been cross-questioned, his willingness to be available, both officially and unofficially, at any time and, indeed, his willingness to try to assist the Committee whenever we have requested it.
  Sir Clifford has done all that with charm and an intellectual ability, which is visible in all his work with which I have been associated. Therefore, it is with sorrow that I rise to wish the best to Sir Clifford and Lady Boulton, because one would want them to have a happy retirement. He is retiring a year early. He could serve another year. I assure the House that we are not driving him out. He is going at his own choice, because he wishes to be able to plough some other furrows. The Committee wishes therefore that, whatever Sir Clifford does, he will do it with the same success as he has achieved in the House, and with the same charm and ability. My Committee and I wish him very well.
  3.53 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The House of Commons has had some remarkable Clerks in the past, but I think that we will miss Sir Clifford Boulton very much indeed. He has great wit. He has a strong and vigorous application to what is important in parliamentary justice and has never faltered in his commitment to those important facets of parliamentary life, which are so vital today. There is not an hon. Member of the House who has not at some point benefited from Sir Clifford's advice and help, which he gives equally to every one of us, irrespective of our status and problems.
  I shall miss Sir Clifford tremendously. As much as for any other reason, I shall miss him because I believe that his strong convictions about the need to defend democracy in the House of Commons are vital to every one of us; but I shall also miss him as a friend. So, I think, will many other people. He is a remarkable man, and I am very sorry that we are going to lose him. I hope that we shall at least be worthy of the real traditions that he has laid down for us.
  3.54 pm
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: A short time ago I received a message from the Father of the House, who was particularly sorry that he could not be here. He is abroad, but he wishes to be associated with our tributes.
  I am delighted to have been able to convey that message to the House, because I have a high regard for Sir Clifford, as we all do. He has served the House with immense distinction; he is a worthy successor to Erskine May and Rushworth, who took down the most famous words ever uttered in the House—when your predecessor, Madam Speaker, rebuked the Sovereign of the day.
  Sir Clifford will leave this place with the affection and gratitude of us all. There has been no more doughty or distinguished defender of Parliament and its traditions.
  3.55 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the light of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I wish to reflect on Sir Clifford Boulton's generosity to those of us who have held minority opinions from time to time, in terms of both his expertise and his time. We are deeply in his debt.
  3.56 pm
  Madam Speaker: Before I put the Question, I wish to add my own personal tribute to Sir Clifford. I know him as a man of absolute integrity, devoted to the parliamentary process, and a true friend and servant of democracy. As Speaker, I have been greatly assisted by his wise and sympathetic counsel, and by the support and friendship that he has offered me. He takes into retirement the knowledge of a job well done, and the best wishes of his many friends in the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House requests Madam Speaker to convey to Sir Clifford Boulton GCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, its gratitude for his many services to this House and to parliamentary government throughout a distinguished career.

  Public Accounts Committee Reports
  3.56 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the 55th to 63rd Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1992–93, of the 1st to 39th and 41st Reports of Session 1993–94, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm 2419, Cm 2446, Cm 2492, Cm 2493, Cm 2555, Cm 2577, Cm 2602, Cm 2618 and Cm 2677) with particular reference to the following Reports:
  Session 1992–93
  Fifty-seventh, West Midlands Regional Health Authority: Regionally Managed Services Organisation;
  Sixty-third, Wessex Regional Health Authority: Regional Information Systems Plan;
  Session 1993–94
  Eighth, The Proper Conduct of Public Business;
  Sixteenth, The British Council Account, 1992–93;
  Seventeenth, Pergau Hydro-Electric Project;
  Twenty-third, Development Board for Rural Wales: Allocation and Sale of Housing and Car Leasing Scheme.
  Our last Public Accounts Committee debate took place at almost the same time last year, when 42 reports were included in the motion. This debate relates to 49 reports and nine Government replies. As usual, a few reports have been specified in the motion, although doubtless many others will be mentioned in the debate.
  This has been another exceptionally busy and productive Session for the Committee, in which it will in due course have agreed more than 50 reports. The Committee's work continues to generate great interest. I am very much aware of the burden imposed on my right hon. and hon. Friends by the amount of time that they must devote to that work; it is a great responsibility, for the Committee meets more often than any other Select Committee. We welcome the new arrivals, as well as thanking those who have left. In particular, I welcome the right hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who has become Financial Secretary to the Treasury following the departure of the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who has moved on.
  The most valuable aspect of our reports is the fact that they are unanimous, and not concerned with policy issues. We do not examine policy; we examine certain issues in regard to which policy would deeply divide the Committee, but our task is to ask whether the implementation of that policy will produce value for money.
  The Committee and the National Audit Office enjoy a very close relationship, which is fundamental and essential. Under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General has complete discretion in choosing his investigations. It is vital that that remains the case: no one should be in a position to debar the Comptroller and Auditor General from examining any matter that he chooses. As a result of that Act, however, the Committee has the statutory power to suggest that certain matters should be included in the programme that the NAO undertakes. I was much impressed with the innovations in the way in which the NAO continues to do its work, which we see almost on a regular basis. That is greatly to the credit of Sir John Bourn and his team.
  900
  Bill Jack has retired as Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland and I should like to pay tribute to his work in that job. Committee Members visited the new headquarters of the National Audit Office in Northern Ireland yesterday for the first time and we were impressed with what we saw. We now welcome John Dowdall to the job of CAG for Northern Ireland, although, of course, we knew him in his previous incarnation as Treasury Officer of Accounts there. We give our thanks to Tim Burr, who served us as Treasury Officer of Accounts and who has moved to become a director of the NAO, and to Ian Thomson, the second Treasury Officer of Accounts.
  Accounting officers prepare assiduously for the Committee's evidence sessions. Hon. Members know full well the impact that the Public Accounts Committee has in these matters, the burden of the task that we impose on it, the way in which it must prepare assiduously for an investigation and the amount of time that it has to devote to it. That is all worth while in ensuring that public accountability is not only known, but frequently expressed.
  I have highlighted the six reports in the motion. They led us to believe that the Committee should deal with a number of serious matters. I have said repeatedly that, in general, value-for-money matters concern the Committee only because questions of probity, accountability, fraud and corruption rarely come before it. When they do, however, they take precedence over everything else. Committee Members have always held that the most important aspect of our work is to preserve standards in public life which we have been fortunate enough to inherit over the years.
  In the 1992 debate on the Public Accounts Committee's work of that year, I mentioned the importance of non-departmental public bodies. I drew attention to the fact that the Committee could not approve of the way in which a number of them were undertaking their work and I said that we might need to pursue the matter further.
  In the 1993 debate, I said that the problem had become much more serious and that the Committee would be producing a report. I expressed the view that Committee Members felt great disquiet about certain aspects. In January 1994, we produced the eighth report on the proper conduct of public business, one of the most important reports undertaken by the PAC. It is of enormous importance because it shows the need to maintain the standards that we have come to expect over the years.
  Committee Members discovered a situation that was rather different from what they had been used to. New people were taking up appointments as heads of non-departmental bodies with new responsibilities. Coming from outside the public service, they had not acquired the ethos within that service or its integrity, impartiality and objectivity, which Sir Robin Butler, in giving evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, thought was the hallmark of the civil service.
  Plenty of people came into the civil service not to make money, but to serve their country and to do something for its future. We belittle their role at our great peril. It is most important that we regard their work, in the words of Lord Callaghan, as the bulwark of our constitution. They are the protectors of so many of our rights as they continue their work for Governments of different persuasions.

  901
  Throughout this century, our economic standards have declined in comparison with other countries, but our standards of public life must not decline. That is of enormous importance. I can only go back to the early years of this century, but my room in the Committee could have been the room that Gladstone knew in the last century. Over the doorway is the marvellous Victorian word "assiduity". It is a word which constantly haunts us, because we can never be sure that we are dealing with matters as fully and thoroughly as we need to.
  One hundred and eighty-four countries are members of the United Nations, but how many of them are free from fraud and corruption? One thinks of the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, Germany, Holland and one or two others. One can think of a dozen without too much difficulty, but then it becomes very hard. We are an unusual country in having the standards that we have come to expect and take for granted. It is crucial that we retain those standards, which is why I am placing great emphasis on the task before us.
  The Treasury has a substantial role to play and produced a Treasury minute following our eighth report. It was not as satisfactory as it should have been. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that it should have said more, but I take comfort from the fact that what the Treasury did was better than what it said, because it set out to give the type of response that we wished. Of course, the Departments have gone further, and I shall deal with them later.
  The task is to ensure economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Public money is very different from private money. People coming from outside can have difficulty in acquiring the standards that we take for granted and which we regard as essential.
  I should like the accounts of all non-departmental public bodies to be audited by the National Audit Office, a body in which we all have supreme confidence. It is a tribute to that office that we all agree that it has the very highest standards; but it does not have the power to audit non-departmental public bodies. As second best, I should like the auditors of those bodies to be changed frequently. The National Audit Office's accounts are audited by a professional firm. We found nothing wrong with any of the auditors, but we change them every three or five years. If non-departmental public bodies are not to be audited by the NAO, they should have similar arrangements. One does not want too close a relationship between non-departmental public bodies and their auditors.
  The question now is how to deal with the several thousands—the number depends on definition, but one could claim a much lower or higher figure—of non-departmental public bodies, quangos or whatever one likes to call them. Appointments to such bodies should at least be subject to some outside scrutiny, perhaps that of a Select Committee. I have no particular preference, but there needs to be some external observation of how appointments are made.
  The relevant Secretary of State makes use of people whom he or she knows, but the numbers of appointees are now so large that, if he or she is using the very highest standards, it will be difficult to find people to fill all the posts. We are, therefore, forced to examine such appointments more closely.
  902
  I have already referred to the morale of the civil service. Many of us speak to groups of them and we know that their morale has declined and needs to be improved. At a time of what many people would call root and branch reform, civil servants may become anxious about their future. We need people with ability and integrity producing evidence-driven policies. It is important to ensure that the policies are evidence driven, and, for that to be done well, we need the civil service. Its morale is of enormous importance.
  The work of the Public Accounts Committee is valuable partly because every one of the 450 or so reports that I have had the privilege of bringing before the House has been unanimous. That unanimity has not been fudged; it has been genuine, even on issues such as privatisation. That is because we look to the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer who makes our reports unanimous. So many things can divide us, but that, above all else, is what unites us—and that is how we proceed.
  I shall deal with the eighth report first, because it brings in a number of aspects to which I want to draw attention. It deals with some matters that were examined in the previous Session of this Parliament. Paragraph 1 says:
  "In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of serious failures in administrative and financial systems and controls within departments and other public bodies, which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. These… represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years. This was the period following the publication of the Northcote and Trevelyan Report which condemned the nepotism, the incompetence and other defects of the Civil Service and brought about fundamental change. It is from that period that we acquired the principles and the standards which have come to be copied by some countries and admired by many more. It is our task to retain those standards."
  Paragraph 5 says that
  "we consider that any failure to respect and care for public money would be a most important cause of a decline in the efficiency of public business."
  That is not simply a question of probity. Probity leads to efficiency, and we can never do without either. The report continues:
  "But there is no reason why a proper concern for the sensible conduct of public business and care for the honest handling of public money should not be combined with effective programmes for promoting economy and efficiency."
  Our task is to achieve both of those together.
  The Committee emphasised that
  "we are not calling for any more detailed rules. Almost every case we have examined involved breaches of existing rules or guidance."
  Everything was laid down. We have inherited a splendid set of rules governing such matters. Of course, there is the question of selection, but that is a separate matter. The rules are there.
  The Committee said that the framework for those rules
  "must include effective systems of control and accountability and above all responsible attitudes on the part of those handling public money."
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but before he moves off that subject, does he agree that the problem with accountability today is that the Government increasingly put such bodies more and more at arm's length, further and further away?
  Even the Secretary of State and the Government lose control and lose their responsibility to the House for public money that is being spent in large amounts. I am

  903
  talking especially of the new universities which, as my right hon. Friend knows, have a degree of independence and autonomy that makes accountability difficult. Even the Secretary of State will agree that she has no powers to intervene, even when public moneys are obviously being misspent.
  Mr. Sheldon: Of course my hon. Friend understands that we achieved something with regard to the university of Huddersfield; I shall refer to that briefly later. My hon. Friend is right; with many such bodies, the problem is to control them. It will be up to the Departments concerned to exercise what control they can. As I have said before, I should like there to be more of a relationship between the auditing function and the procedures carried out by the National Audit Office. That could be one method.
  Those put in such a privileged position must fully accept the proper way in which such responsibilities are handled and must accept the standards of the public service in the work that they do.
  Mr. Michael Stern: The right hon. Gentleman, to admirable effect, is going through much of the work done by the Committee during the year. Before he goes too far down the road of assuming that the areas at which we have looked are failings with non-departmental public bodies, in the context of the report to which he is referring, "The Proper Conduct of Public Business", will he agree that we have found some horrifying examples of mismanagement and misuse of public funds among the traditional civil service of Government Departments? It would give a wholly false picture of the work of the Committee and of the National Audit Office if we assumed that the failures at which we have looked were solely among non-departmental public bodies.
  Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman's point is undoubtedly correct; I shall refer to the British Council, among other bodies that we examined. As I have said, most of our work has traditionally been of that kind and I hope that it will continue to be of that kind. It just happens that, this year, we came across a number of issues of a kind that we have not so commonly met. I hope that we shall be able to deal with them effectively and then get back to our normal task of looking at value for money; we shall deal with the issues as they come.
  It is most essential to maintain honesty in the spending of public money and to ensure that traditional public sector values are not neglected in the effort to maximise economy and efficiency, which we want to see working together. We shall pay particular attention in our future examination of accounts and the implementation of programmes to the successful combination of the proper conduct of public business and the energetic pursuit of value for money. Those must go together.
  We think that to assist us in that task, it would be helpful if the National Audit Office were able to examine and inspect all non-departmental public bodies and other organisations that receive the greater part of their income from central Government funds and to report the results to us.
  Following on from that, I had a meeting last week with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, together with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission—the right
  904
  hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern)—and the Comptroller and Auditor General. The meeting, which was of long standing, was intended to pursue the matter raised ever since the National Audit Act 1983—the right to pursue public money wherever it goes. At this stage, of course, we do not expect as much as that, although it may remain a long-term end. After all, that power exists in the United States.
  What we want is to pursue the issue of a contractor in a competitive bid. If there are no competitive bids—for example, for building a submarine or a tank—because there is only one supplier, the National Audit Office has the power to investigate the costs when the contract has been completed, to assure itself that the costings have been properly worked out. In competitive bidding, the NAO does not have that right. The view is held that if there is competition, there is no need for such an investigation.
  In practice, there are problems of collusion between a limited number of competing bidders and that matter concerns us. As I mentioned, greater powers exist in the United States. The European Court of Auditors has the power to come into a company at which we cannot look and it can insist on finding out where the money has been spent. The Audit Commission can follow that public money. The same powers exist in the United States, but we do not have those powers ourselves. We are not asking to see all the books; it would clearly be wrong for us to investigate all the accounts. We want the power to pursue the areas, which could be very limited, in which public money has been involved. We say that, in such matters, we should be on a par with the European Court of Auditors, the Audit Commission and the United States authorities.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer looked at the matter sympathetically and I am pleased that we had a response from him. He intends to consider the matter and we hope to get some movement here. At present, when there is a competitive tender for a road, for example, we have no means of knowing whether there has been collusion. That is a power which I think that we ought to have.
  A more immediate matter, because we have dealt with it frequently in the House, has been the way in which Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. and Swan Hunter competed for the contract to supply landing platforms for helicopters. The Committee dealt with that in its 30th report and it concluded that the best bid was accepted. That was probably true, but the difficulty was that we were never able to prove it conclusively and there was great bitterness about that. We did not have the same access as the European Court of Auditors would have gained if it had been a European sum of money. We did not want to see the whole profitability of everything that those companies did, but we wanted to ensure that the bidding had been fair and that loss-leaders were not involved.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I said, understood those arguments and the Committee hopes to hear something from him shortly. He will be consulting his colleagues to see how far he can go in that matter. Of course, we see a considerable response from the Treasury and elsewhere in the individual reports, and that may continue in other directions.

  905
  The Committee drew attention to certain matters relating to the Welsh Development Agency. One important abuse—there were a number of them—triggered the need to produce the eighth report on the proper conduct of public business in 1993–94.
  Although some aspects of the matter were dealt with in our debate last year, I shall outline again some of the abuses. For example, paragraph (ix) shows how that public sector body decided on redundancy payments and then justified the payment of those redundancy schemes by considering schemes to which it did not belong. It justified the payments by saying that in one scheme people were allowed some benefit and in another people were allowed something else. It picked and chose the standards to apply. Of course, if one picks and chooses the standards to apply, one may end up with any solution that one wants. We strongly disapproved of that.
  Paragraph (xv) shows that the WDA provided cars without drawing any distinction between cars used for official duties and cars used for private motoring, so the private motoring of senior employees was paid for by the taxpayer. Paragraph (xix) outlined the case of a Mr. Price, who had served only nine weeks as the international director before the Welsh Development Agency sent him home on eight weeks' gardening leave, as it called it. Tension arose between the chairman and that international director which ended up with a retirement package of £228,000, all because of a disagreement. That is not what the public sector should be about. The WDA went further and produced a legal agreement stating that the international director would lose money if he discussed that agreement.
  One of the related matters that the Committee is bringing before the House is the secrecy element. We have seen a secrecy element in so many such cases, where money has been given by the chairman on the basis that if anything were subsequently disclosed, there would be a loss of money to the person receiving that payment. We have found out subsequently that 48 members of staff at the Welsh Development Agency received severance packages and had been required to give no disclosure of agreements. It is clearly wrong. This is taxpayers' money. We are here to protect the taxpayers' money and we find that such agreements would have been concealed from us if we had not had the advantage of the National Audit Office and the investigation before the Public Accounts Committee.
  We then found that a Mr. Carignan, director of inward investments in North America, removed furniture amounting to more than £53,000, and the Welsh Development Agency received $15,000. The Committee's report states:
  "We do not consider that agreement… represents good value for money".
  I want now to refer to Mr. Smith, who was the director of marketing. He had a criminal conviction in the United States and there was laxity in checking his references. With regard to the appointment, I said at question 19 in the examination of witnesses in the 47th report:
  "This points to very great laxity on very important matters. We are dealing with … considerable sums of public money."
  In reference to the commissioning by Mr. Smith of Shapes Model Agency, I said:
  "This is an astonishing tale is it not? It refers to payments made to the Shapes Model Agency who had at one time had a licence under the Employment Agency Act but this had lapsed so they did
  906
  not any longer have it. It seems there was a failure to find out about the status of the Model Agency. Mr. Smith, on a Sunday, had 11 girls from the Model Agency up to his hotel to interview them to see whether they would be suitable for an advertising promotion that he had in mind. What happens in private industry does not concern us, but public money can never be used in this kind of way. Did you know anything about this beforehand?"
  The reply was:
  "No, I did not."
  That is a scandalous state of affairs. The sums of money are not the issue. What is crucially important is the way in which public money is treated. We felt very bad about what had happened.
  The WDA also examined possible privatisation of aspects of its own work. As a Committee, it was not for us to comment on that. If that was Government policy, that would be something we would take for granted. However, we found that the WDA had decided on that course of action itself. Under Operation WIZARD, £308,000 was spent examining the possible privatisation of WDA work. Nothing was formally minuted by the board and the existence of the operation was not publicly revealed, even after it was decided to shelve that programme. As the programme was spread over several headings, it was very difficult to discover what had happened.
  We state in paragraph 41 of the 47th report:
  "We note that neither approval nor progress of Operation WIZARD was formally minuted by the Agency's Board and that its existence was not publicly revealed, even after it was shelved… We are concerned that not only was Parliament denied information, but that this Committee would have remained unaware of the project's existence had it not been for unofficial revelations from within the Agency."
  That is very important. By all means, let the Government decide to privatise what they wish. That is their prerogative. However, it is not the prerogative of people to spend public money outside the control of Government and then try to conceal it.
  In this catalogue of errors and wrongdoings by the WDA, we referred to an incident in September 1987 involving Dr. Gwyn Jones. He was not chairman at that time, but he received a grant for the conversion of premises to eight craft workshops. A grant of £16,895 was paid after he became chairman of the WDA. A monitoring visit by the agency showed that there had been a change in use and the premises had been adapted for residential use. However, two years were to elapse before there was a clawback of £3,379.
  We state in paragraph 35:
  "It is clearly important that persons in high public office should ensure that circumstances do not arise which can give cause to any allegations of abuse of position. We consider therefore that Dr. Jones should have notified both of the proposed changes in use at the earliest possible opportunity."
  I shall deal with matters relating to the West Midlands regional health authority as they are dealt with in the report. They are serious matters which require urgent consideration by everybody concerned.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: For the benefit of those who are following the debate both inside and outside the House, may I ask how often the right hon. Gentleman's worthy deliberations actually lead to prosecutions which might stand as a warning to people who are cooking the books or otherwise misusing public money? It would be a comfort to the public to know that

  907
  at least some of their money is being regained from some of the bungling that the right hon. Gentleman so vividly describes.
  Mr. Sheldon: There have been prosecutions. The hon. Lady is quite right. Most prosecutions take a long time. Several have not yet been finalised. One or two have been finalised, and I shall mention them. The papers are always given to the police in due course and matters are followed up wherever necessary.
  I shall refer to the West Midlands regional health authority and our 57th report of 1992–93, and the shortcomings that we saw. I begin with paragraph 32. A consultancy service was arranged to advise the supplies branch of the West Midlands regional health authority. The authority had a supplies branch and it wanted a consultancy—there is nothing wrong in that. Many organisations have sections in which there is insufficient expertise and they therefore employ outside consultants. There has been a large increase in the use of consultants. The Comptroller and Auditor General is considering as a general issue how such appointments should be made; that is a sensible way to proceed.
  There was no tender for the consultancy that was obtained. The Government have been strongly of the view that there should be competitive tendering wherever possible—a matter on which we fully agree. We said:
  "First, it is unsatisfactory that there was no tender for this consultancy, which cost £2.5 million, and that the selection and appointment of the consultants was done outside the procedures laid down by the Regional Health Authority."
  We went on:
  "Second, it is unacceptable that the Director of Regionally Managed Services, Mr. Watney, was able to avoid submitting the agreement to the Regional Health Authority for approval."
  It was not submitted for approval. We said:
  "The omission was contrary to the Regional Health Authority's standing orders and is evidence of grave weaknesses in management and accountability.
  Third, it is unacceptable that there was no formal contract for the consultancy service since this left it in the hands of the consultants to decide what they would provide. Again, this omission was outside the Authority's standing orders."
  Mr. Watney put great effort into preparing the supplies branch for privatisation. We said:
  "Fifth, we are astonished that the Director of Regionally Managed Services, Mr. Watney, was left to pursue his objective of privatising the Supplies Branch without the knowledge of the Regional Health Authority, which had no policy for such a privatisation, and without the knowledge of the Management Executive."
  That is a terrible thing to do—somebody going off on his own in such a matter. It is for the Government to make such decisions; it is not for somebody who incurs the expenditure of public money to undertake those examinations. We said that it was
  "unsatisfactory that Mr. Davies, Director of Finance of the Regional Health Authority should have been able to make a loan of £300,000 to a company in financial difficulties without reference to the Regional Health Authority for approval and in the face of advice from legal staff."
  That is a very serious matter. Later in the report, we note that the
  "Director of Regionally Managed Services, Mr. Watney, was allowed to leave on redundancy terms after five years service with the Authority, with an immediate pension of £6,462 a year and lump sums totalling £81,387. We consider these terms quite unjustifiable."
  908
  The Carver review, which examined these matters, was set up to inquire into serious allegations of mismanagement. We said:
  "We note that the Regional Health Authority and the Management Executive agree that Mr. Watney should have been dismissed not made redundant. We think it unsatisfactory that consideration was not given to dismissal at the proper time, and regard the Regional Health Authority's explanation that they did not have the full facts until later as further evidence of their failure to know about and control what their senior staff were doing in their name".
  That is a terrible indictment.
  Finally, we say—and this is repeated in a number of our reports:
  "It is unacceptable and disturbing that the Regional Health Authority agreed to a silence clause in connection with Mr. Davies' departure."
  Silence clauses are not for the public service to decide; they are for the House to decide. The Committee does not deny that a silence clause is justified in certain instances, but it is a feature of many of the things that are wrong. The silence of people is demanded in return for a sum of money; if people break the silence vow, some of the money is lost to them.
  We said:
  "We note the Regional Health Authority's view that this was not an issue that they had wished to air in public".
  I am not surprised by that.
  "However we consider that such protection is unjustified for individuals in responsible public positions in relation to questions as to whether they have neglected those responsibilities."
  All that is deeply disturbing. I wish that we did not have this sort of thing. It diminishes the standing of the public service generally and the way in which we carry out our responsibilities. We want to return to the standards that we always expected, and I hope that that will come in due course.
  Mr. Richard Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the real tragedies of the West Midlands story is not only that some officers have had silence clauses and others have simply been overpaid, when perhaps they should have been dismissed, but that there are real human casualties in this whole affair?
  In particular, one of the areas investigated by the Committee was the case of Qa Business Services, which went bust after 18 months. The Committee's deliberations show that that probably should have been foreseen. As a result of the company's going bust, a number of employees who were not responsible for that ended up losing not only their jobs but up to two thirds of their pension entitlement. They are still suffering today, and will do so into their old age.
  In addressing these issues, it is important that we remember those human casualties, because, so far, no one—neither a Minister nor anyone else—has done anything for the pensioners of Qa Business Services and employees in other cases. They still stand to lose, and will lose in the future.
  Mr. Sheldon: Unquestionably, there are repercussions in all these matters. When a health authority misuses its money, we must also think of those people covered by the arrangements of the hospital authority, and the way in which services have diminished as a result of money being wasted elsewhere.

  909
  I now turn to a deep unhappiness in this catalogue of cases, the Wessex case. I shall deal with only some of the criticisms made by the Public Accounts Committee; unfortunately, they are numerous. I quote paragraph 1 of the 63rd report of the current Session:
  "In May 1984 the Wessex Regional Health Authority launched their regional information systems plan. This was intended to provide computer systems which would optimise the use of information to improve clinical and other health services. In April 1990, when the plan was abandoned, at least £43 million had been spent by the Regional Health Authority. District Health Authorities will also have spent money on the scheme, but it is not possible to identify how much."
  When we examined this case, one of the problems that we faced was that we were unable to find out the total expenditure involved; but, obviously, we knew that it was greater than the sums that were in front of us and which are mentioned in the report.
  I shall deal with only the conclusions, because it would take too long to go through all the matters. We said:
  "We consider it a matter of grave concern that, by the Management Executive's own admission, at least £20 million was wasted between the start of the regional information systems plan in 1984 and its abandonment in 1990."
  We continued:
  "The evidence presented to us depicted Mr. Hoare"—
  the former regional general manager—
  "as a man with a strong vision, and such a determination not to be deflected off course, that he presided over a series of actions incompatible with the proper handling of public money and without regard to clear evidence that the project was going badly wrong …
  We note with dismay that not only did the Regional Health Authority's management strenuously contest the auditors' criticisms, they were also able to conceal vital information from the Members of the Authority and from the Management Executive."
  The regional health authority involved Andersen Consulting—this is another issue—in appraising available computer software to run on the preferred bidder's systems. It had a preferred bidder, but it involved Andersen Consulting in appraising it. The report says:
  "We note that subsequently, following a retendering exercise, the contract to supply core computer systems and software was awarded to Andersen Consulting at an inquorate meeting of the Authority."
  It overturned the previous decision, gave the contract to Andersen Consulting, which had been brought in to appraise the software, and did so at an inquorate meeting of the authority. The contract contained no quality conditions and no maximum price. We point out that
  "it is clearly wrong for somebody who is tendering for National Health Service business also to be advising the National Health Service as their consultant."
  On another issue, the report says:
  "We are concerned that the Regional Health Authority allowed Mr. Tuffill, while on secondment from IBM, at the request of the Chairman of the Regional Health Authority to advise them on the purchase of an IBM computer for £3.3 million, at which time it could have been purchased for £0.5 million to £1 million less than the price paid. … We are also disturbed that the contract for the computer was signed by Mr. L. Wright, then Regional Treasurer, on the instructions of Mr. J. Hoare, then Regional General Manager, without reference to the Chairman or to the Authority and without competitive tendering, contrary to the Authority's standing orders."
  We feel that that is most serious.
  Lastly, we say:
  "It is also important in our view to ensure that all health service staff respect the fundamental principles of public business in this country, and are judged … by the standards of honesty, openness
  910
  and fair dealing that are expected in public life. Concern for these standards should play a large part in the selection, training and assessment of staff at all levels."
  Mr. John Denham: In the case of Wessex, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter for great concern that, in addition to the information that has been revealed, the auditors sent a series of reports to the Secretary of State? The earliest was sent in February 1987. Successive Secretaries of State and the NHS management executive failed to act properly on those reports.
  Is it not a matter of great concern not only that things went wrong in Wessex but that, despite the efforts of the audit service to bring those matters to the attention of Ministers and the NHS management executive, no effective action was taken until £20 million or more had been wasted?
  Mr. Sheldon: I have expressed myself, and the Committee has expressed itself, as very worried about the relationship between the NHS management executive and the various health authorities. We come across that time and again. Only a few years ago, as a result of our complaint about a certain matter, the NHS management executive sent a circular to all 192 health authorities asking them how they behaved in a certain situation. The management executive received replies from only two thirds of the health authorities. One third did not even bother to answer. That was clearly very wrong. Things have improved a little since then, but not sufficiently. We have never been in a position to say that the NHS management executive had control over, or even knew, what was happening, as it ought to have done.
  Our 16th report, on the British Council account 1992–93, deals with a serious matter that we have not come across before. It highlights not necessarily fraud but something wrong in the way in which matters were handled. As the report says:
  "In December 1992 the British Council's banking section, having received seven fraudulent payment vouchers, paid a total of £520,072 into the overseas bank accounts of bogus suppliers. Other irregularities, including a fraud and an alleged fraud involving travel and subsistence claims, were also identified during the year, bringing total irregularities identified in 1992–93 to over £589,000."
  Such fraudulent payments are a serious matter. We found out that in June 1988 the British Council introduced an electronic transfer system within its banking section. It was used to pay invoices to overseas suppliers in foreign currencies and, in some cases, to pay United Kingdom suppliers in sterling.
  In December 1992, the banking section received seven fraudulent payment vouchers and paid a total of £520,000 in foreign currency by electronic transfer into the overseas bank accounts of bogus suppliers. The supporting documents were fraudulent. They had been photocopied and in several cases the vouchers bore signatures that were not on the approved lists.
  When the council came before us, it acknowledged that the fraud could have been assisted by a member of staff who was part of the conspiracy. It could also have been assisted by a temporary employee or possibly a contractor employed overnight. It told us that police inquiries were continuing, but had not established any connection whatever with a member of the council's staff—present or past, full time or part time. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). I understand

  911
  from the Treasury minute that some arrests have been made and I hope that others might be made as the investigation proceeds.
  The report says:
  "We are concerned that the Council failed to provide for an adequate separation of duties and so allowed a member of staff to defraud them of nearly £52,000."
  That is another issue entirely. The council did not have a proper separation of duties. It relied too much on one individual. Everyone in private business or public service knows that one can never do that. There must be proper control systems. We said:
  "It is a serious matter that the perpetrator was allowed to check his own work as well as having the responsibility for controlling payments and accounting for them. We find it disturbing that an alleged fraud by another member of staff was discovered only after a change of staff and not through the operation of the Council's control arrangements … We note that the Council have taken disciplinary action against a number of their employees relating to the frauds which have taken place; and we note, in particular, that they have taken action against two members of their board of management. We regard such action as essential".
  The responsibility of those concerned for the areas of business in which the irregularities took place must be made clear.
  I now come to the report on the Pergau hydro-electric project. It was a new type of report for us. We had never made such a report before. We saw in operation the safeguard of the accounting officer's right to appear before the Public Accounts Committee. Accounting officers always have the right to claim that they received a direction; that is a safeguard for them. Clearly, the Minister is in charge and can insist on a payment being made. Accounting officers know full well that they can come before the Public Accounts Committee and say that they did not agree with that expenditure but that it was imposed on them.
  In my experience as a Minister and elsewhere, I have known of at least two other cases in which such a letter was sent to the relevant Minister. I suspect that there are many other occasions on which a permanent secretary decides that he must get a direction, but then realises that it will make his relationship with the Secretary of State or the Minister concerned very difficult, so such a disclaimer letter is never sent. There have been one or two cases, but never one at that level or one that came before the Public Accounts Committee in such a way.
  We found out that in July 1991 the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs overruled the advice of the accounting officer of the Overseas Development Administration and instructed him to incur expenditure of up to £234 million from the aid programme on the Pergau hydro-electric project in Malaysia.
  Our report continues:
  "In view of the prospective size of the Pergau project,"—
  a very large sum of money was involved—
  "we consider that it is essential that it should have been subject to a full economic appraisal. Although a number of desk studies had been previously undertaken, the appraisal visit lasted for only two days and an interim report on the project was made after only one day."
  Clearly, such an examination is not serious. One does not decide to spent £234 million during a two-day visit to Malaysia. Obviously, reaching the site would take much of the time.
  912
  We later found out the reasons. We said that
  "we share the Administration's astonishment that the contract price should have been increased from £316 million to £397 million, ie by over 25 per cent only two weeks after the agreement between the two Prime Ministers had been reached."
  It appears that the ODA was not fully informed, but it should have been and it should have discovered how the valuation and the cost was moving along. We added:
  "It is also unacceptable that this information was not available before the Government entered into what they regarded as a politically binding agreement."
  That is the important issue which should concern any accounting officer who appears before the PAC. We went on:
  "In cases where Ministers over-rule officials on matters involving propriety and regularity, the papers are automatically sent to the Comptroller and Auditor General and such over-ruling would then be disclosed to this Committee."—
  that is right—
  "Where such over-ruling concerns prudent and economical administration, efficiency and effectiveness, the Accounting Officer is not obliged to send the papers to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the National Audit Office is made aware of the Ministerial direction only if it is conducting a relevant inquiry."
  We continued:
  "We were concerned that the Committee of Public Accounts should always be in a position to know when, and in what terms, Ministers overruled their Accounting Officers on matters of prudent and economical administration."
  There may be very good political reasons, but we should know, so that we are able to distinguish between political reasons that do not involve us, and on which we should not comment, and other considerations on which we might want to comment.
  The Committee concluded:
  "We think it was right and in accordance with his responsibilities that the Accounting Officer advised Ministers that he would require a direction before spending money on this project. We accept that Ministers were given clear advice from their officials in February 1991 about the economics of the Pergau project; and were told that to support it would not be an effective use of the aid budget … We note that Ministers decided to provide aid because they did not wish to renege on an earlier commitment given by the Government at the highest level".
  We noted that the matter went from the Minister for Overseas Development to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and then to the Prime Minister. Our inquiries came to an end because political considerations that did not concern us were involved. The matter was then dealt with by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We had carried out our task. Once an issue becomes a matter of policy, we leave it to others to involve themselves, if they so wish.
  The 23rd report, "Development Board for Rural Wales: allocation and sale of housing and car leasing scheme", concerns the sort of subject that everyone can understand because many people have experience of it. The report states that, under the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, the board has
  "a stock of 1,000 houses … The provision, letting and sale of houses in their … area …is currently a major function of the Board, yielding an annual income of around £2 million."
  The board is required to publish a summary of its rules for determining priority between applicants in the allocation of housing accommodation—like local authorities.

  913
  The report continues that the housing Acts
  "also require the Board to maintain a set of detailed rules which they have laid down to govern the procedures to be followed in allocating their houses. The Board must make these rules available for inspection by the public at their principal office".
  That is a normal and standard safeguard. We added:
  "The Board published their rules for allocating houses in 1981 in response to the requirements of the Housing Act 1980."
  The board also had a secret list, however. One of the public rules was that people allocated houses had employment in or close to the town concerned. In a sample, the National Audit Office found that 22 per cent. of the people who were allocated houses did not meet the criteria in the published rules. They obtained their houses from the secret list. The National Audit Office estimates that 238 of the board's tenancies were allocated under the unpublished rules.
  Time and again, things seem to have gone wrong. Once matters are in the open, people will do things right and that is very important. Once they are in the open, no one can defend the unjustifiable. Only when they are kept secret can things go wrong on such a scale. There is no excuse.
  In the 13 years that the secret list existed, not one member of the board's staff raised its failure to comply with the housing Acts. It was clearly wrong to have a secret list for such a long period.
  Paragraph 12 of the report states:
  "Following his enquiries into a complaint by a member of the public into housing allocations made by the Board, the Ombudsman concluded that there had been gross maladministration by the Board in the allocation of housing. He also reported that the Board's Housing Officer had allocated a house to himself when he was not eligible for housing under the published rules"—
  he did so under the secret rules—
  "and had allocated his ex-wife a house to which she was not entitled according to those rules."
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's assertions throughout his speech that matters should be put out in the open. One thing concerns me about the report, however. The right hon. Gentleman said that the housing officer allocated a house to his wife. He will see from the report that it was noted that "no reference required" was marked on the wife's file. The right hon. Gentleman's Committee asked for further and better particulars. There is a note to that effect at the back of the report. Why did it not elicit the information that the wife was a prominent county councillor and the Liberal Democrat constituency secretary for the area?
  Mr. Sheldon: Party political matters are not for the Public Accounts Committee. We are interested in the presence of a secret list and the fact that 22 per cent. of house allocations did not meet the published rules. We found not only that the housing officer had been allocated a house and subsequently had been allowed to transfer to a different property without submitting an application form under the board's rules, but that allocated tenants could insist on purchasing houses at a large discount. That is fairly normal, but 55 tenants who obtained houses under the secret list were given the advantage of being able to buy houses at large discounts—some of those involved were not even tenants at the time—amounting in total to £718,000. The Committee thought that that was clearly wrong.
  914
  We dealt with the question of essential cars. In view of the question from the hon. Member for Billericay, I shall say something about the discipline that was involved. The Welsh Office decided that the discipline of the staff of the board was a matter for the board itself, but the Committee expressed its surprise that, given the nature and the scale of the maladministration, neither review of the matter concluded that disciplinary action was warranted.
  On the question of leasing, the arrangement was that essential users of cars contributed two sevenths of the cost of running of that car—a fairly standard practice—for private motoring. We noted that
  "without the approval of the Welsh Office the Board amended the scheme to reduce to one-seventh the contribution from their staff and to allow free motoring for three Directors."
  The civil service rules, which are set down for every Government Department, should have been followed, and we pointed out the weakness in financial control.
  More recently, we had a report on the Welsh Office generally and we found out that only £180 million out of £480 million of road expenditure had a clear audit certificate—a terribly low proportion.
  I now come to the situation at Huddersfield university, which I mention only to show how the Committee acted fairly quickly. We had one meeting and decided that an attempt to pay the vice-chancellor of Huddersfield university about £500,000 in a severance package went outside the standards that were set out. We said that the package appeared to be excessive and we agreed that the university may have exceeded its powers.
  We took particular exception to a request by the university that the information on the matter should not be published "unless absolutely necessary." The Committee believes that it is absolutely necessary to disclose the matter. I was pleased that the university council reconsidered the matter; that shows that things can be put right if people know what is happening. The Universities Funding Council knew what was happening, as a result of the work of the National Audit Office, and took action to see that it was put right.
  That is the message from our reports. Nobody in the House wants to see any sign of fraud or corruption, which diminishes all of us and diminishes us as a country. We want to see that matters are put right and to make sure that they do not happen again.
  I now come to a rather happier situation, because I shall talk about what the Government have done. The initial reaction from the Treasury was not promising, but the Departments have been very good and have responded through the Treasury minute. However, we all know that the Treasury minute is not quite the same as a report being addressed to the Treasury itself.
  We have seen that some major changes have taken place. First, the Treasury wrote to all Departments—the Committee was pleased that action was taken—drawing attention to the proper conduct of public business. It stressed that Departments should ensure that appropriate steps were taken to avoid similar problems arising in the future, and it used a checklist provided in the report by the Public Accounts Committee as the basis for writing to all Departments.
  Guidance has been given on non-departmental public bodies, and the Treasury issued a new memorandum for accounting officers in March this year—soon after the Committee reported—which was designed to clarify the

  915
  specific responsibilities of the accounting officers of those bodies, and their relationships with the sponsored Departments. We received a copy of the memorandum from the Treasury.
  In addition, the Treasury issued to principal finance officers detailed guidance on a code of best practice for members of non-departmental public bodies, and the Committee had no disagreement on that. That advice included guidance on the responsibilities of board members, the accountability of public funds and the declaration of financial interests by board members. The Treasury intends that the document be used as a model which public bodies should implement, with any modifications which may be necessary.
  In response to the original Committee report on the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Welsh Office commissioned a full compliance review of all non-departmental public bodies, and there were a few that we were very unhappy about. The review evaluated the extent to which bodies were to comply with their financial memoranda and other regulations issued by the Treasury and the Welsh Office, and the Welsh Office is considering further notes of guidance.
  The Department of Health produced new guidance on corporate governance in the national health service, which includes a code of conduct and a code of accountability. The Secretary of State for Health acknowledged in a letter to me on 11 April this year that those codes go some way towards addressing the concerns raised in recent reports on the West Midlands and Wessex health authorities.
  There have been some substantial changes. The Civil Service College has introduced a course for newly appointed chief executives of agencies and board members of non-departmental bodies on the subject of public accountability, and that is very important. The college's programme includes the handling of public money, all aspects of public business, and so on. I welcome that and if our report did nothing else but promote such consultation on matters, I would be pleased.
  We heard the Prime Minister yesterday going further and introducing a standing committee on those matters and others in an area much wider than that which the Public Accounts Committee was able to deal with. We must hope that the standing committee proceeds effectively; if the members of the Public Accounts Committee are asked to give evidence, we will do so.
  I hope that we now may be able to put behind us some of the things that have gone wrong and I hope that we have learnt lessons from them. If we do that, the Committee can deal with the standard fare with which we are rightly used to dealing.
  We must always take account of the fact that the proper conduct of public business comes first, but we must always insist that that proper conduct is there. I hope that matters such as I have mentioned do not come before us again.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: This annual debate represents the mechanism whereby the Public Accounts Committee draws to the attention of the House matters that it considers to be of special importance and whereby, as a result of the Treasury giving consideration to our
  916
  recommendations, changes are made of the kind to which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has just referred. Such changes can lead to our avoiding the mistakes of the past and to improving the economy and efficiency of the public service in future.
  In answer to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne made the point that it is the custom of the Public Accounts Committee to be non-political. I think that that is one of our strengths. The Committee comprises 15 hon. Members, including the Financial Secretary, who comes to the Committee once only, at the beginning of his term of office. The other 14 members work as a team in examining the evidence that is placed before us by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office. We deal with facts, not with opinions. We investigate those facts and try to unravel where things have gone wrong. Then we report to the House. Today, about 50 reports are before the House, and I doubt whether any hon. Member, except perhaps members of the Committee, has read all 50. It would certainly be a monumental task.
  In this debate I want to concentrate on only one or two reports, and especially on the one to which our Chairman referred—that concerning the proper conduct of public business. The report was published on 17 January and attracted considerable attention in the media. It has also aroused a good deal of interest in the civil service.
  The report is about a number of failures by officials in the public service and in non-departmental public bodies—in other words, by the civil servants whose job is to operate administrative and financial systems in Departments and other public bodies. Their failures have led to money being wasted or being otherwise improperly spent.
  I believe, however, that the report must be seen in the perspective of total public expenditure of about £270 billion. In the vast majority of cases, the administrative and financial systems that are in place have assured proper control over the spending of public funds. That should always be remembered when we talk about failures.
  In the past, as the report states, the Committee has dealt with a number of serious failures in the administrative and financial control systems in Departments and other bodies—failures that have led to a waste of taxpayers' money. This report was of special significance because it drew attention to the fact that there have recently been fundamental changes in the way in which Government Departments and public bodies such as the national health service carry out their work.
  The Committee has pointed out that the growth in the number of non-departmental public bodies is intended to improve the provision of public services, by greater delegation of responsibility, by streamlining and by a more entrepreneurial approach to the work. Still, at a time of change like this, the PAC took the view that it is important to ensure that proper standards are maintained in the conduct of public business.
  Mr. Sheerman: Were not the remarks by the Chairman of the PAC directed to the fact that many of the people on these bodies seem to be spending taxpayers' money as though it were their own? If that represents the

  917
  entrepreneurial culture to which the hon. Gentleman refers, is it not another step down the slippery slope that leads to lower standards and a lack of accountability?
  Mr. Shersby: If most Departments and non-departmental public bodies were doing that, the hon. Gentleman would certainly be right. My point was that the failures reported by the PAC must be seen against the whole background of public administration in this country.
  We have drawn attention to the view expressed by some people that the drive for efficiency and economy must be held back to some extent because of the need to take care with public money. Others have argued that if economy and efficiency are to be pursued vigorously, traditional standards must be relaxed. But the PAC has firmly rejected both claims—that will be of interest to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). The Committee takes the view that the first approach is often urged by those who do not want to accept the challenge of securing beneficial change; and the second is advanced by those who do not want to be bothered to observe the right standards of public stewardship. I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield feels reassured by that.
  The Committee has stated unequivocally that any failure to respect or care for public money would be a most important cause of decline in the efficiency of public business. The Committee goes on to inform the House that, in future, it will pay particular attention to the examination of accounts and the implementation of programmes, and to a successful combination of the proper conduct of public business with the energetic pursuit of value for money. The hon. Member for Huddersfield will agree that those objectives are exactly right.
  So why, from time to time, are there worrying failures, resulting from inadequate financial controls, by officials in the public service? The PAC has identified a number of key issues that provide some good answers to that question. First, inadequate internal accounting systems and controls lead to waste and a risk of fraud and theft. That is exemplified in the case of the British Council, which the Chairman described. Government Departments and public bodies must ensure from the outset that proper financial systems are in place and are properly applied.
  The failure to ensure that financial procedures and controls are adapted in line with major changes in the organisation of business is the second key element. There can be no doubt that procedures need revising from time to time to ensure their continuing relevance and reliability, especially at times of major change.
  Another extremely important point identified by the Committee is the fact that the use of inexperienced staff who lack financial training and expertise can result in a failure to secure adequate controls, particularly at a lime of change. The Committee believes it vital that care be taken to provide staff with the requisite financial skills, to ensure that those responsible for securing big changes in accounting systems are suitably experienced.
  A regular complaint of the PAC has been that poor monitoring of expenditure on capital projects leads to overspend and waste. Any hon. Member who has served on the Committee knows that to be a continuing worry. Again and again over the years the Committee has drawn attention in our annual debates to the need for attention to be paid to major capital projects, and to the need for
  918
  those concerned with them to have specific financial and project management skills and experience. It is simply not possible for officials to deal with huge projects involving large sums of money unless they have both the skills and the training necessary to use them. We have emphasised that projects should not be embarked on unless such skills are available and used.
  The report draws attention, too, to some fairly elementary requirements, including the need to check bills before they are paid. That sounds pretty basic, but it is necessary to check whether goods and services have been provided before bills are paid. In some public departments, that has not always happened, and the problem has gone on for a long time.
  A failure to pursue money that is owed is another worrying feature that shows up in the public service. The House will agree that there must be adequate arrangements to ensure that moneys owed are properly monitored and pursued.
  The payment of grants on the basis of insufficient evidence of entitlement has also concerned the PAC in the past year. We think that that is a worrying trend, and that proper procedures must be put in place and applied so that entitlement to grant aid is clearly established and documented before any payment is made.
  As the Chairman said in his wide-ranging speech, in the past few years the Committee has become increasingly concerned about incidents involving the provision of redundancy benefits. In several cases, the delegated powers given to public bodies have been exceeded. The hon. Member for Huddersfield was temporarily out of the Chamber when the Chairman referred to the very disturbing case of Huddersfield university. There, I think, is a good example, in which the legal powers that that university has may have been exceeded. We stress in our report that such powers should not be exceeded in making provision for redundancy and other benefits.
  Mr. Sheerman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and apologise to the House for the fact that I had to slip out of the Chamber for a few moments and miss the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), particularly on Huddersfield university. Is not the real problem exemplified by the crisis in my constituency that it was not a case of fraud and theft—and no one is alleging that it was—but a case of people using public money as though it were their own and of a public institution severing contracts using a secrecy clause, about which I agree with my right hon. Friend, to make people clam up and limit their ability to speak openly and say that there is a problem?
  As a former member of the Committee, I hope that it will tackle the problem of so many public institutions with public money. Some of those institutions ensure the secrecy of the people who leave by an extra payment. That is at the heart of the problem at Huddersfield and also of many of the problems to which the Chairman drew our attention.
  Mr. Shersby: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, know the details of what happened in Huddersfield—as, indeed, do I. I agree that the so-called "secrecy clause" is not a feature of public life that we should support. But there are many universities around the country in which the governing bodies have acted with the utmost propriety and probity, and I do not think that one should conclude

  919
  from the Huddersfield case that such things are going on all around the country because obviously they are not. As the hon. Gentleman will readily agree, the whole question of ex gratia payments is difficult. It calls for the judgment of those concerned to be absolutely right. But it also means that they must act within the legal powers delegated to them, which are clear and which, I believe, are observed in the vast majority of cases.
  So often in our debates we spend a great deal of our time re-telling the detail of the individual cases that have caused us concern. The Chairman dealt with a number of those very effectively. Despite those particular cases, I believe that there can be no doubt whatever that the British civil service is still the envy of the world and that the high standards set by dedicated accounting officers deserve the thanks and congratulations of the House and of all the members of the PAC.
  As a Member of that Committee I have the greatest possible admiration for the work of people such as, for example—I stress "for example"—Sir Michael Partridge, the permanent under-secretary at the Department of Social Security, who is dealing with highly complex matters. He and his colleagues have demonstrated to the Committee how well they are doing their job. We have been also been impressed by Mrs. Valerie Strachan, who now heads Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. I think that she is the first woman ever to have headed that department, and she does so with considerable distinction.
  Then there is the infinite courtesy and expertise deployed by Sir Anthony Battishill, chairman of the board of the Inland Revenue, in answering our questions and making it clear to the PAC that the Inland Revenue is moving with the times in the quality of service that it hopes to provide to individual taxpayers. I am sure that I speak on behalf of every hon. Member when I say that we hope that that quality service becomes a fact very quickly indeed. There are many other distinguished public officials to whom we have every reason to be grateful for the work that they do but who are too numerous to mention by name in the debate.
  I am told that the report on the proper conduct of public business has had a great impact on the civil service. I am glad to know that, because the Committee has been obliged to refer to some of the failures—all of them serious—in that and in other reports. I believe that it is for the permanent under-secretaries, who are the accounting officers of the great Departments of State, to ensure that the lessons are learnt from the mistakes and failures referred to in the report, and that arrangements for all levels of delegated authority are tightened up and a higher standard secured.
  Ministers must be informed at the earliest possible time when it is discovered that things are going wrong so that corrective action can be taken in good time. I believe that that is very important and that that message should go out to those who, quite rightly and properly, are concerned with ensuring that high standards are retained in the public service.
  I refer now to the 58th report of the Public Accounts Committee, dealing with the Department of Social Security and the Benefits Agency, entitled "Combating Organised Fraud". The report describes attempts by groups of criminals to defraud the benefits system. That is a serious problem and is estimated to cost at least
  920
  £1 billion. The value of payments under investigation in September 1992 was £ 61.4 million. That fraud was both individual and organised. Methods used by criminals engaged in organised fraud included making multiple claims for benefit; using false or stolen identity documents; stealing order books, payable orders and girocheques; counterfeiting and altering such payable instruments; and buying order books from legitimate beneficiaries, subsequently encashing the orders as they fall due for payment.
  What a litany of criminal activity that is. Criminal elements are being attracted to the huge sums of money that are paid out as a result of the very generous social security system that this country has, whatever individual views we might hold about the merits of one benefit or another. Amounts recovered have increased from £100 million five years ago to a current total of £500 million. That is encouraging. It is very good indeed and the Department deserves to be complimented for the action that it has taken.
  I do believe, however, that the time may now have come to consider the possibility of introducing an identity card bearing a photograph to enable the Department to fight that large-scale criminal activity. If benefits were paid only where the beneficiary's fingerprint matched that held on the national social security computer, it is possible that fraudulent claims could be virtually eliminated. Although many people who are interested in civil liberties—many hon. Members may have reservations about the introduction of such a system, which are quite understandable—we must look at the waste and the criminal activity that results in the fraudulent loss of £1 billion. I believe that the technology is available. If it were to be used, the social security budget would be much better able to meet the claims of the people who desperately need help. That is, after all, one of our principal concerns as Members of the House.
  The report on the proper conduct of public business has in some ways been the flagship of the Committee's deliberations this year. Looking at the matter in perspective, one must recognise that, although there have been some serious failures, we still have a very fine public service. We have very fine accounting officers, people who are totally dedicated to their job. I saw that yesterday when, with the Chairman and two other members of Committee, I visited the Northern Ireland Audit Office and spoke with the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff. We were all deeply impressed with the high standards that are operating in Northern Ireland, and I take this opportunity to record that and say how much we appreciate what it is doing to ensure high standards in the conduct of public business in the Province.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). I rather appreciated the innovation of his commending certain accounting officers who impressed the Committee; although the levels that those officers have reached have been publicly recognised in the honours system and their degree and rank is the same, we—as members of the Committee—know very well that some are more equal than others. That has been especially true in the period that we are discussing.

  921
  I think it fair to say that no period during the 14 years for which I have been a member of the PAC has been more disturbing than the one that we are considering. I think that my fellow members share my feeling, and that, in large part, that feeling moved us to issue the unprecedented eighth report. Like both the Committee's Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I want to focus principally on that report. Because of the welcome comprehensiveness of the Chairman's speech, in which he described a number of the relevant reports in detail, I shall not need to speak at length.
  I read the comments of Simon Jenkins in The Times today with a mixture of amusement and dismay. He suggested that the House of Commons was to be largely ignored in our constitutional processes, describing it as an "appendix" of the system which grumbled occasionally, and he argued that the House of Lords had more clout. He may have been seeking more to amuse than to analyse, but the Committee does not simply amuse itself in considering issues and responding to them; nor are our findings generally ignored.
  I believe that the response of the public sector is also evident—that efforts are made to tighten up procedures, that our exhortations do not fall on deaf ears and that practices are modified and adapted according to our recommendations. I commend our Committee's work to Simon Jenkins, and submit that, in some modest measure, his comments undermine the institution of the House of Commons, which—for all its shortcomings, to which I am never slow to draw attention—is the basis of our democracy.
  As I have said, the period that we are discussing is a disturbing one, and I find the Government's reply to the eighth report particularly disquieting. The Chairman expressed a belief that the Government might take more action than is suggested by their Treasury minute in response to our findings; but the Government's reply itself suggests a degree of complacency—indeed, almost a rejection of the report's findings—that I do not consider worthy of the Treasury.
  I do not imagine that the incumbent Minister had anything to do with the wording of that response, and I hope that—notwithstanding the inevitability of Ministers' defending the language of government collectively—he will not feel it necessary to embrace its wording too closely. In the atmosphere of this of all weeks, it would not be suitable for the findings of a serious and unprecedented report to be disregarded so cavalierly.
  I acknowledge the truth of what Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have said this week—that Britain's ethics in public life are the envy of the world. President Mitterrand of France and President Berlusconi of Italy would doubtless marvel at the tumultuous reaction of our press and other media to the issues of "cash for questions" and corrupt quangocrats that have been displayed this week: we can almost hear them saying, "How we wish that our problems were of the same order of magnitude." The Government, however, cannot offer that as an excuse for the seriousness—in both cash terms and moral terms—of the intromissions of behaviour uncovered in the Committee's reports. Standards are indeed slipping, and I am afraid that they are slipping because the Government
  922
  have not been sufficiently strong in defending them. That is why it is important for the Minister to disavow the Treasury minute.
  Most startling of all, in my view, was paragraph 90 of the Government's response to the eighth report. It states:
  "The Government rejects the inference which has been drawn from the report that the failings identified are in some way the result of the changes in the way in which departments and public bodies carry out their work."
  The Committee did not draw such an inference; it was not an inference at all, but was stated as a finding. Let me quote a number of sentences in different paragraphs of the report, which make it quite clear what we were doing.
  We stated that the failings to which we referred, and to which the report bore eloquent testimony,
  "represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years."
  In the next paragraph, we said:
  "There have recently been fundamental changes in the way in which government departments and public bodies such as those in the NHS carry out their work."
  We went on to say:
  "But at a time of change it is important to ensure that proper standards are maintained in the conduct of public business."
  In paragraph 6, we stated:
  "At such a time it is even more essential to maintain honesty in the spending of public money and to ensure that traditional public sector values are not neglected in the effort to maximise economy and efficiency."
  I do not think that any member of the Committee was in any doubt about what had been happening: we were dealing with a new situation, the very novelty of which made it imperative for us to collate the findings of a number of reports and to present general conclusions and recommendations, going to the length of drawing up particular advices. I am pleased to learn that they have been circulated to all Departments.
  Let it not rest as a canard on the record that the Committee merely "drew an inference"; that conclusion was the core of our recommendation. I think it quite likely that we shall see similar cases in the future, but I hope that our report will lessen their number and seriousness.
  Let me remind the Minister briefly of another report that has not been specified in the debate or the motion, although it is covered by the group that we are considering. The sale of the Scottish Bus Group was influenced by the fact that confused lines of accountability and responsibility existed between the group and the Scottish Office. The Government acknowledge that fact in their reply to the 21st report.
  Wessex regional health authority wasted tens of thousands of pounds on a computer system that did not. work because the systems for checking expenditure between the authority, the national health service executive and the Department of Health were inadequate. The Government appear to accept that finding in their reply to the 63rd report.
  The Development Board for Rural Wales, a quango working under the Welsh Office, was able to amend the details of its car leasing scheme without the knowledge or approval of the Welsh Office and in a manner which violated the agreement between them. Under the amended scheme, cars were leased as perks rather than as necessities. In their reply to the 23rd report, the Government accept that that represented a failure of accountability and management.

  923
  In effect, the Government's response is a denial that the failings that Committee Members have identified in the reports represent a trend of declining standards. That response is astonishing. These are not isolated incidents. Time and again, we have discovered serious failings in management and accounting procedures which appear to flow directly from changes in organisation brought about by Government policy. They cannot be excused as the effects of change, because change is constant; nor are they merely teething problems because few were accidental, occurred in a short period or were isolated in time.
  The problems are not acute, but chronic. If we are to avoid institutionalised corruption, the Government must accept a new public ethic and that ethic must reflect standards which many hon. Members have taken for granted as being characteristic of British administration. An Opposition Member intervened earlier to express the view—and I agree with it— that the atmosphere in some non-departmental public bodies suggests that a new "get what you can, do what you want" culture exists. Perhaps it is too strong, although I think not, to describe it as the venality of Departments, which are fearful of challenging the new agencies or, at least, insensitive to the problem lest they might appear disloyal to the programme of reform.
  No progress will be made until the Government at least recognise that there is something wrong and that these are more than just a few little local difficulties. Paragraph 90 of the response to the eighth report contains even more nonsense. It states:
  "the cases which have been identified have to be looked at against a background of progressive improvement in the efficiency with which public services are being delivered."
  Are the Government saying that it is acceptable to sacrifice the highest ethical standards in the interests of efficiency? I think not, but viewed by itself paragraph 90 could be seen as a nod and a wink to the people in the quangos. It could be said that the Government are whispering, "It's all right, boys—do what you want, so long as you get results." That sort of logic produced Watergate in the United States of America, allows the French system of administration to crumble and undermines democracy in Italy. We are nowhere near those positions and I began my speech by making that clear, but insensitivity, reflected in that sort of logic, could lead us in that direction. That is why we take this issue so seriously.
  The eighth report states clearly that
  "there is no reason why a proper concern for the sensible conduct of public business and care for the honest handling of public money should not be combined with effective programmes for promoting economy and efficiency."
  That issue crosses party lines and can be generally accepted as the basis of public life.
  Public services are run with public money in the public interest. Public interest demands both efficiency in the delivery of the service and the proper use of the money which funds those services, but one cannot have efficiency of service if directors use the money for their own benefit, as occurred in the case of the Welsh Development Agency, or, unchecked by the Government, as hobby horses for their grandiose plans, as was the case with the Wessex health authority.
  924
  The Public Accounts Committee is one of the oldest—indeed, I believe that it is the oldest—and most senior Committees of the House. Since its foundation by Gladstone, it has enjoyed a uniquely privileged position in the mechanisms of oversight. Committee members have been able to draw on the National Audit Office's considerable resources and our abilities have been greatly strengthened by the National Audit Act 1983, for which the Government can take some credit. It enables us to consider issues in detail and with an authority with which few other Committees are able to compete.
  Committee Members take their role seriously and we expect the Government to consider our reports with equal seriousness. I fear that it is possible that the Minister may attack my speech later, but he should at least be able to say that the Government take the PAC report seriously, that our recommendations have elicited action and that serious failings are being dealt with according to our prescription.
  I acknowledge all of that, but in the eighth report we also requested that the Comptroller and Auditor General be given the power to investigate all non-departmental bodies and other organisations which derive the greater part of their income from central Government funds. If the Minister does not accept that recommendation or confirm that it is being given serious consideration, any statement that he may make about the attention that the Government pay to the Committee's recommendations will be seriously diminished.
  The recommendation is a necessary extension of the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The trend established by the Government is firmly in the direction of enlarging the number and authority of non-departmental public bodies. If the Government refuse to give the Comptroller and Auditor General the authority freely to investigate activities that were previously carried out by Departments under their scrutiny, they will seriously limit the effectiveness of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Permission will have to be sought on a case-by-case basis from the Department concerned, and such a process limits the effectiveness of the inquiry.
  In many cases, it cannot be known in advance where it would be appropriate to look for information. The ability of the National Audit Office to decide for itself has turned up some of the more striking cases of maladministration that we have had to consider. The Minister should allude to that issue, which is one of the most important in our reports. In the world in which we live and in the week in which Lord Nolan, a Law Lord, has been appointed to consider standards of public conduct, it is not appropriate that Ministers should be in a position to say which matters should be open to scrutiny and which should not. The whole point of the National Audit Office's independent oversight is to enable it to go where it wants, to go where the Administration would prefer it not to go, and to examine what the Administration might prefer to remain hidden. The Prime Minister said in the House only yesterday that if any Minister has been guilty of wrong doing—
  Mr. Richard Page: I have served on the Public Accounts Committee for a few years. The hon. Gentleman says that certain matters cannot be

  925
  investigated by the Public Accounts Committee because they are not within its remit. Has he any evidence for that allegation, or is he just trailing a kite?
  Mr. Maclennan: I am referring to the recommendation of the eighth report. Paragraph 7 on page vi states:
  "We shall … be paying particular attention in our future examination of accounts and the implementation of programmes to the successful combination of the proper conduct of public business with the energetic pursuit of value for money."
  The following sentence contains the most important point. It states:
  "To assist us in this task, it would be helpful if the National Audit Office were enabled to examine and inspect all non-departmental public bodies and other organisations which receive the greater part of their income from central government funds, and to report the results to us."
  Mr. Stern: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: Before I give way again, perhaps it would be sensible to refer directly to the Government's reply to that point. They state:
  "The Government has considered the Committee's view that it would be helpful if the Comptroller and Auditor General … was able to examine and inspect all non-departmental public bodies … and other organisations which receive the greater part of their income from central Government funds. The National Audit Act 1983 already provides the C&AG with the access to bodies whose members are appointed by or on behalf of the Crown and which receive more than half their income in any year from public funds. The C&AG also has access to a wide range of public bodies by agreement of the sponsor department. The Government will consider on a case by case basis the need for the C&AG to examine any other body. The C&AG, as departments' auditor, is of course able to examine the way in which departments exercise their control over all NDPBs."
  Because of the apparent doubt about what I have been saying, I felt it necessary to spell out those points in some detail. However, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who is also a member of the PAC and, if I may use the Chairman's word, an assiduous one, will know that many non-departmental public bodies do not fall into the category that I have. described.
  Mr. Stern: I do not wish to quarrel with the hon. Gentleman but I remind him of an earlier remark which, I hope, on reflection he will accept was somewhat misleading. He said that certain bodies were not open to scrutiny. The purpose of the recommendation in the eighth report is that such bodies should be open to scrutiny by the National Audit Office. I entirely agree with that. However, he left the House with the impression that those bodies not subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office were not subject to any scrutiny. That is untrue. Those not subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office frequently come under the purview of the Audit Commission or private auditors. It is wholly incorrect to suggest that they are secretive bodies that the Government are trying to hide.
  Mr. Maclennan: I should regret it if any words of mine unravelled what was a unanimous report and recommendation. We have made a powerful argument; it is one which the Government accepted and one to which I, at least, adhere. The House and our constitution proceed with incremental changes, and I can understand that we might have to fight for the right to follow public money wherever it goes. The Chairman raised that point in his important speech. I agree with him about the objective
  926
  and the means. We may have to be satisfied with less than full-hearted acceptance of the American principle, but that the principle is one that we should embrace I have no doubt. It falls to the Government, not to the Committee or to the House, to defend the exclusion of the National Audit Office.
  Mr. Sheldon: I think that I can clarify the matter. During the very useful visit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we pointed out that it was attempted in the National Audit Act 1983 but that 11 years had passed since then. Perhaps some of the anxieties that might have been present then had been put to rest by the way in which the National Audit Office has developed, and the Public Accounts Committee has gone along with it. He accepted that the changes had gone smoothly and expressed some sympathy with our aspirations. It was too early for him to reach a conclusion in time for today's debate, but we hope some progress will be made.
  Mr. Maclennan: They are very encouraging words from the Chairman and we look forward to glimmers of hope from the Minister, reflecting the views of the Treasury. I have detained the House long enough on this point but it is important. I hope that the Government will show their attachment to the principle that we have outlined.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. John Horam: For many years we have recognised the fact that at the heart of Parliament's concerns is the control of Government spending. That was never more so than now when, for 1994–95, the Government are spending about £291 billion, which is rather more than 43 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product.
  Equally, the role of the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General is central to Parliament's historic concern. I like the phrase that the NAO used in its annual report. It said:
  "The NAO's goal is helping the nation spend wisely".
  That was rather felicitously put. In fact, the NAO can boast a remarkable record over the past two or three years. It claims in its annual report to have saved no less than £266 million of public money in the past year, which adds up to more than £700 million-worth of savings over the past three years.
  As has already been pointed out, three or four successive Conservative Governments have made major improvements in the way in which public spending is controlled and managed. I am thinking of market testing, competitive tendering, the next steps agencies and the successive changes in the way in which the Government have examined the public expenditure round. The latest development is the introduction this year of accrual accounting, which will mean a big change in the way in which the Government examine their internal accounts. In addition, there have been changes in the way that the Treasury conducts its internal audits. I understand that the Department of Health has undertaken a similar examination of how effective and efficient its own procedures are.
  Indeed, the next steps agencies, or non-departmental public bodies—whatever jargon one wishes to use—have been a remarkable success story. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be aware of a recent independent

  927
  report by Price Waterhouse which examined how effective the agencies had been, most recently in 1994. It concluded:
  "Their drive to achieve better public services has been genuinely successful."
  It pointed out that agencies are good value for money for the taxpayer in that they have reduced costs and improved management but that they have also led to improvements for the consumer and ordinary citizen in the form of better public service. They have undoubtedly led to improvements in staff morale by giving civil servants and others working in the agencies more control over their own environments, and the ability to run the show as they prefer. In all those respects the agencies have an excellent track record, which is proved by the independent analysis that I mentioned. The Government can say that, in their management of public spending, there is a genuine success story to relate.
  Of course, that does not attract the same kind of publicity as other policies of the past 15 years, such as privatisation and the reform of the trade unions. None the less, it is on a par with those, at the centre of the way in which a Government should effectively conduct their affairs. The Government can take legitimate pride in what has been done.
  However, I am sorry to say that although the Government's record in controlling public spending has been good, as I have outlined, Parliament's record in scrutinising Government has not been so good. The major change, which has already been mentioned, was brought about by the National Audit Act 1983, which altered the basis for the activities of the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General and, significantly, led to the new "value for money" exercises.
  The Act led to a major improvement in the role and workings of the Public Accounts Committee. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), its Chairman, can take considerable credit for his assiduous approach, which has meant a better attendance record, and more reports scrutinised each year. All that has genuinely led to a greater interest in such matters, and to much greater activity by the Committee, partly as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's efforts but also, as he would agree, because of the 1983 reforms.
  However, other parts of Parliament's scrutiny of public spending have not worked out so well. For example, over the past 15 years the departmental Select Committees have been created, and part of their remit is to examine expenditure within their Departments and the way in which the business of their Departments is conducted. With few exceptions—the Defence Select Committee has examined such matters carefully from time to time—they have failed to do that. They continually scrutinise aspects of policy, but expenditure does not seem to come within their remit—possibly because they feel that that is the responsibility of the PAC alone. However, that has never been so. The Committees have always been able to examine expenditure, just as the PAC has.
  Parliament itself has not improved its methods of examining public expenditure. Before the unified Budget, as hon. Members will recall, we used to have separate debates on public expenditure at this time of year, in October or November, followed by the Budget debates in March or April. Now that has all been rolled into one,
  928
  and we do not have the single-minded analysis of public expenditure that we had in the past. The Budget debate is almost the only time during the parliamentary year when Parliament addresses itself to the central issues of how the Government are spending money—this year's figure is no less than £291 billion—and how they are raising the taxes to pay for it. To use jargon that may be more familiar in Europe, there is a "democratic deficit" in the way in which Parliament scrutinises the business of Government expenditure.
  The Public Accounts Committee itself can sometimes be rather counter-productive in that respect. As we know, it homes in on errors and irregularities—and rightly so. It does so in a way that is often highly exposed. The television cameras are brought in and the matter becomes news. Other hon. Members and journalists comment on it, sometimes distorting the information or getting it completely wrong. The most famous example was when ITN's "News at 10" implied that the Queen had somehow pocketed some of the money from the sale of tickets to look round Buckingham palace, because the broadcasters had mixed up revenue and profit, in a rather elementary way. The impression created was wholly out of kilter with what we had said in the report.
  I imagine that a permanent secretary or chief executive appearing in front of the Committee must find it all rather daunting. If he is a cautious man, as many civil servants are, he will ask himself, "Why should I take risks with this dreadful Committee, and all that may flow from that? Isn't it better to play safe, and not change anything?" That could make the civil service, which is already rather risk-averse, even more so.
  Danger arises if we do not balance our criticisms—I am sure that they are wholly justified, and I have never known a member of the Committee hold back on a criticism—with praise where praise is due. We must recognise that civil servants are trying to push through a wider view of controlling expenditure, and that that will sometimes lead to mistakes. If one does not make mistakes, one will never make anything, and sometimes risks are necessary and justified when trying to control the leviathan of public expenditure. We should bear that in mind as we read reports.
  Another worrying element in the way in which the Public Accounts Committee conducts its affairs is the fact that sometimes its reports become unduly politicised. Clearly, all of us in the Chamber are politicians, and we must accept that occasionally such things happen, but sometimes they go too far.
  For example, I was disappointed that when we produced the famous eighth report—which has been discussed at such length—on "The Proper Conduct of Public Business", at the next Prime Minister's Question Time the then Leader of the Opposition brought it out in that heavily adversarial point-scoring atmosphere as an example of what was going wrong with the Government. He gave the impression that there had been a dramatic decline in standards, all because of the new methods that the Government were introducing. He implied, in particular, that the non-departmental public bodies were somehow the cause of that decline in public standards.
  Yet that was not what the Committee said; it said nothing of the kind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) said earlier, the Committee was just as critical of errors and irregularities in traditional civil service Departments as in the

  929
  non-departmental public bodies. In the evidence on which the report was based there were as many criticisms of traditional Departments as of the new bodies. There was no evidence that the new bodies were any worse than traditional Departments.
  We did not make comparisons with the past. We did not say that things were worse than they were five or 10 years ago. There was no evidence whatever that the number of irregularities, or examples of overspending or misspending, that we found had escalated during the period under consideration. We simply said that clearly there had been some errors, difficulties and problems in both types of body—in fact, in all types of Government activity. We did not say that things were worse than they had been; we made the point almost as a warning that in the drive towards efficiency and greater economy in public spending, we should not allow our standards to drop. It was a shot across the bows, meaning, "Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Keep standards as high as we recognise that they have been."
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) recognised that fact, although in other respects he implied the reverse. He seemed to be doing what the former Leader of the Opposition did, and dramatising the idea that Committee had said that there had been a fall in standards. The Committee did not say that; it issued a warning that, as the drive for economy and efficiency, rightly, went ahead, there should not be a fall in standards. That would be the consensus among members of the Committee.
  Mr. Mike Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the report refers to a decline in standards over the past l40 years? That was in the opening paragraph.
  Mr. Horam: With respect, the report does not say that there has been a decline in standards over the past 140 years.
  Mr. Hall: That is what is in the report.
  Mr. Horam: No, the report clearly says that some of the incidents that have taken place represent a decline, but equally that similar incidents took place over the previous four or five years, before the report was produced. Those examples are evidence that standards are not being maintained in those instances. The report does not say, as the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) will see if he reads it carefully, that there has been an overall decline. We have no evidence about the number of such incidents. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman in that respect. The report simply says that certain things have happened wrongly in particular Departments and that they represent the sort of things that should not happen again. We are in some danger, especially in the present atmosphere, of acting in a way that is genuinely counter-productive in terms of trying to get economy, efficiency and greater control of public expenditure—aims that the Government are trying to achieve through the measures that I have outlined.
  There are two or three points of our procedures at which the Committee and the National Audit Office might look to see whether we can improve them. For example, it could consider whether to interpret its remit rather more widely. Many audit companies in the private sector, such as Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte and Arthur Andersen, have looked as management consultants at strategic issues
  930
  of financial control because they have seen from their audit work the problems that may arise in a private sector organisation and they have seen ways in which matters could be improved. Obviously, value-for-money exercises are an example of that to some extent because the idea of one may be thrown up by an audit on a Department. I should like to take that further and to see whether such organisations could suggest ways, based on their audit experience and findings, in which Departments could improve their methods to achieve greater efficiency.
  Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, for example, recently went over the Department of Health, as hon. Members may have seen in the press, and came to the conclusion that no less than one fifth of the £282 million a year that the Department spent on pay and salaries was wasted money, and that there was a waste of public money in terms of duplication, unnecessary checking arid committees meeting without any real purpose. That is the sort of exercise that the NAO could suggest to Departments. The NAO would not necessarily carry out the exercise itself; the work could be done by a private audit company. Substantial sums of public money are simply disappearing through waste and the NAO should be encouraged to go into those matters more fundamentally. That would be a valuable thing to do.
  The Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, will be aware of my next point from his long experience of such matters. He will have looked at what happens in Public Accounts Committees in other countries. In New Zealand and Australia, for example, they have tended to break away from our rather formulaic approach of having in front of us the permanent secretary and chief accounting officer, whom we then cross-examine on the basis of an NAO report. Often, for example, the New Zealand and Australian Committees have had a second or third bite at the cherry. They have called in another officer, who may be relevant to the particular inquiry, and have investigated him as well. They have often taken a month or more over one report. It is worth investigating whether we should do that.
  Similarly, the New Zealand and Australian Committees have sometimes spent a lot less time on other reports. They have sometimes, for example, decided to eschew investigating witnesses. They have simply had discussions among the members of the Committee on three or four reports that they deem to be less important or controversial than others. They have looked at them quietly, decided what they want to say about them and then issued their response. Is there a case for varying our procedures in view of what happens in other countries? We might then be able to concentrate more on what matters rather than adopting the rather straightforward approach of simply having a report and then an examination of witnesses, who are only the permanent secretary or the chief accounting officer.
  The relationship between the Public Accounts Committee and the departmental Select Committees is also worthy of further thought. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under Lyne will be aware, the Select Committee on Procedure considered that point in the 1989–90 Session and pointed out that there was an overlap which the House could consider. It may be sensible for some of the Select Committees to take greater account of public expenditure questions in their deliberations.

  931
  As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne pointed out, we have produced no fewer than 49 reports, which we are considering in this debate. That is a huge number—the average Select Committee produces three or four reports a year. There is a huge discrepancy in the number of reports from the various Committees. I am sure that some of the departmental Select Committees, such as the Select Committee on Defence, could take on board some of the points at which we have looked and could examine, for example, the permanent secretary, rather than us having to do all that work. That would enable us to concentrate on especially important issues, particularly if we have to do more work on non-departmental public bodies.
  Mr. Maclennan: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, on the whole, the existing arrangements work rather well. I draw his attention to the example of the work done by the PAC some years ago on the Stingray defence procurement issue. The PAC looked closely at the matter and expressed great scepticism about the expenditure incurred. We criticised the delays, but we recognised that we could not analyse the strategic arguments for purchasing Stingray. We felt that we had to pass that task to the defence experts—our colleagues on the Select Committee on Defence. That division of labour works pretty well.
  Mr. Horam: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is suggesting working together. He has an advantage over me because I was not in the House when that report was considered. We considered specific expenditure aspects and left it to the Defence Select Committee to look at the strategic aspects. Something similar happened with the Pergau dam issue. Both the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the PAC had a bite at the cherry. I am arguing that perhaps we should do that more often and that we should not fiercely grasp all expenditure issues to our own bosom. We should let other Committees look at expenditure issues from time to time, which might lead to more fruitful consequences. Those are merely suggestions to carry the work of the Committee forward.
  In my experience, the past 10 years or so in the history of the PAC have been valuable. The Committee has revived. Previously, it was hard to get a quorum and the Committee's work was not as well regarded as it is today. Our work, especially as a major Committee in the House, will be even more important in the future for the reasons that hon. Members of all parties have addressed in this debate. Therefore, I wish more power to the PAC.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Alan Williams: I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) and I thought that his constructive observations were typical of the attitude that prevails within the Public Accounts Committee, where there is a general wish to see the Committee working as effectively as it can. However, I am sure he appreciates that his good idea about more in-depth analysis and about calling further witnesses runs contrary to the problem that we are rather inundated with reports. I enjoyed what he said and the Committee may well want to look at his ideas—I am
  932
  sure that the Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will—and to consider some of the points at our meetings.
  It is important that we keep reiterating what the Committee's role is. There has recently been an unfortunate misunderstanding. It is felt that in some way the Committee is a general parliamentary troubleshooter, so if anything crops up, people ask whether they can refer it to the PAC or ask why it has not been looked at by the PAC. One example is the Al Yamamah deal. We have all been inundated with telephone calls about that. My right hon. Friend the Chairman will, I suspect, confirm that among the £20 billion involved in the contract, a minimal amount was within our remit. As he and Sir Michael Shaw pointed out, the Committee considered the public money. Other expenditure is not within our remit; we do not have that power. It is just as well for everyone to understand that. We do not have the power to look into private money. It may save us all some time answering our telephones if we can get that message across. Indeed, that message may also be passed on by the Treasury Minister to one or two of his colleagues who made comments about a rather wider interpretation of the report produced by the Chairman and Sir Michael Shaw in the context of Al Yamamah.
  It is typical of the problems of the House of Commons that here we are with one day's debate on 49 reports, many of which, as I am sure all of us would agree, deserve considerable attention in their own right. It is impossible to do full justice to so many reports in such a debate. The report on the conduct of public business—I do not intend to dwell on it—has been a catalyst for the way in which Government and people outside Parliament have looked at the role of accountability. It is the first time that the Committee moved from specific into general analysis, drawing on its wider experience. I congratulate the Chairman on initiating that move and I congratulate all members of the Committee, especially—this is not meant to be patronising—those Conservative members of the Committee because, after 14 or 15 or years in Government, inevitably, everything we look at involves their Administration. Therefore, one recognises that for them it is a more sensitive issue than it is for us. However, the easy unanimity with which we endorsed that report was encouraging.
  I was delighted at the positive action taken by the Government. The Chairman mentioned the check list and I think that that check list is good. Indeed, yesterday's announcement by the Prime Minister was helpful because the quangos and the civil service are to be within the remit of the standing body to be created. I am sure that our report will be part of the essential background reading for the members of that body when it starts its studies. I welcome the creation of that body and its forthcoming report. It is important that, every now and then, we stop, and that observations and assessments of how effective we are and how well we are or are not doing our jobs are made by people who are perhaps at arm's length from Parliament.
  I do not want to talk about the issues surrounding the Pergau dam because they have been trampled over substantially and in so far as they needed mentioning, the Chairman dealt effectively with some of the key points. However, what came as a surprise to me—it may not have surprised my colleagues—having been in the House a little while, was that I did not realise the limitations in

  933
  the effectiveness of an accounting officer's letter. I had presumed, like various Opposition and Conservative Members who have been in government in different offices, that the accounting officer's letter was automatically looked at and referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Many of us and certainly many people outside the House were surprised to find that, in fact, it is only in the context of fraud and impropriety that there is any automatic reference to the CAG.
  I am sure that we all welcome the Government's positive response to our feeling that the letter should be an early warning which is drawn as rapidly as possible to the attention of the CAG so that the Public Accounts Committee can consider issues of wastefulness and uneconomic use of resources when an accounting officer's letter has been considered relevant. Indeed, it is conceivable that had the new system, which I hope will apply, operated at the time of the Pergau decision-making, the existence of the accounting officer's letter may have brought matters to the attention of the House and focused the attention of Ministers earlier on the confusion that arose and that was revealed in the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about the relationship between arms and aid in the deal.
  I observed last year—hon. Members have at various times made the point—that the job and role of Parliament has been altered by the structural changes that have taken place in the machinery of Government. It is not our job as Committee members to discuss whether the policy was right or wrong. All that we can consider is whether it has made our job easier or more difficult and whether it has made the role of the National Audit Office more or less effective. There is little doubt that the proliferation of accounting units, even right down now to hospital trusts, has made it more burdensome for the National Audit Office at step one to carry out its job. At one time, there was a single department in which a relatively simple audit could take place. Now, to follow through the implications of certain decisions, one may have to go to a dozen agencies or health authorities.
  There is little doubt that the structural changes have created some difficulties. The hon. Member for Orpington said that he felt that the agencies were a good influence. I am sure that there are good and bad points to them. I have one of the biggest agencies in the city which I have the honour to represent—the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The information and technology division of the DVOIT has just been hived off. I am afraid that my experience has been somewhat different from the hon. Gentleman's because I have witnessed a fall in morale there. That is due to uncertainty, because, all too often, such hiving off is seen as the first step towards complete privatisation. In fact, that has already happened to DVOIT. I hope that now its future has been settled, morale will improve.
  The other factor that has made a difference was also dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Contracting out and privatisation mean that public money, which a year before could have been followed right through by the National Audit Office, can no longer be followed, although it is still being spent in the same amounts, possibly by the same people and, possibly, for the same purposes. We have lost our right as Parliament to monitor the way in which that money is
  934
  used. It must be recognised that we have fewer rights even than the Audit Commission, which monitors activities in relation to local authority spending.
  I intend to be brief in dealing with my other points, but before hon. Members become optimistic, I would add that that is a statement in relativity. As a Celt, my brevity may be different from the wishful brevity of some of my colleagues. My right hon. Friend referred to some of the problems that we encountered. We discovered a Welsh WIZARD in the Welsh Development Agency, and we had problems in the west midlands, where management were manoeuvring circumstances for privatisations. We have to bear in mind the fact that, if we are going down the privatisation route, desirable as in many cases management buy-outs may be, they also present dangers and temptations. Therefore, they must be monitored closely to ensure that there is no conflict of interest or that no circumstances arise in which the price is unduly favourable to those wishing to buy.
  The Scottish Bus Group, about which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) will be more aware than I because of his Scottish links, was sold for £90 million. However, just a couple of years before privatisation, the group had a profit of £9 million. By the time of privatisation, its profit was £500,000. There may be very good reasons for that, but it is disturbing that the Scottish local authority bus services operating alongside the group experienced exactly the opposite: the local authority bus services were becoming increasingly viable in what seemed to be the same market context.
  Although I cannot speak for everyone, many of us were concerned about the group's privatisation and particularly about Citylink. Two years before privatisation, Citylink made a profit of £900,000. By the time of privatisation in 1990, that profit had turned into an £800,000 loss. On privatisation, there was in effect a £1·5 million cash injection in that the Government wrote off that much debt. The company was sold for £265,000 and three years later it was sold for £5·1 million.
  We must ask whether it is just conceivable that the Government were had in respect of that operation. suppose the Government would console themselves with the thought that while they made only £90 million when they sold the group, in respect of a company which was sold for 1p, that 1p proved to be one of their best pieces of expenditure because, in finally releasing all the companies within the group into the private sector, the Government opened access to the surpluses in the pension fund. The Government may feel that what they lost on the privatisation swings, they gained on the pension roundabout, because although they made only £90 million selling the whole group, they had the £150 million from the pension fund which was in surplus.
  Committee members will remember that we had to work to obtain that figure. We were told in the report that the pension fund was £75 million. However, when one of my colleagues asked whether that figure had been revised, he was told that it was something above £100 million. When I asked precisely how far it was above £100 million, we discovered that the £75 million had become £150 million. From the Government's point of view, that was 1p well spent.
  I am referring to some of the minor reports which are important to the people involved. With regard to the sale of the trust ports, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) is not present because he

  935
  raised questions on behalf of his constituents during the hearing. There was also a management buy-out in respect of the trust ports. Once again, there was a strange situation.
  Medway was privatised for £13·2 million. That was the yield to the Government. However, within a short while, the managing director had made £12 million selling his shares to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, which, incidentally, is partly owned by the Government. The Government bought back some of the shares they had sold at a knock-down price.
  Charterhouse Development made three times as much as the Government by selling its shares for more than £35 million. Something was drastically wrong somewhere in the way in which the company was evaluated. Although I am not sure where matters stand in terms of the legal representations being made by the work force, we can observe what happened. A short time after the company was privatised, half the work force no longer worked for Medway. Under the deal, they were required to sell back their shares at an enforced price. They had to sell their shares back for £2·40 only to see them sell a short time later for £37. One can understand that there is bitterness among those ex-employees. Perhaps we can understand why they sought legal retribution.
  When we asked how the share price could rise from £2·40 to £37 if the Government had got the privatisation right, the permanent secretary told us that that reflected the increased profitability. I examined the increased profitability. Profitability had risen 50 per cent., but a 50 per cent. increase in profitability does not explain a 15-fold increase in the market value of the shares.
  I want briefly to refer to two important points relating to law and order and to reports which did not receive much consideration. The first refers to the Insolvency Service executive agency. Hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), whose background in accounting has been a great asset to the Committee, will appreciate the significance of the role of the agency and the Insolvency Service in identifying people who should be dismissed as directors and barred from being directors.
  When we examined the service, we discovered that at a time when insolvencies had trebled, the number of staff had increased by only 25 per cent. As a result, there was a backlog. It was impossible for the disqualification unit to handle the sheer volume of work it faced. That was reflected in cases in respect of which receivers had identified unfit conduct. Over a period of six years, we found that while the receivers had referred to the disqualification unit in 1987 one in three of the cases in respect of which there was unfit conduct, in 1988 that became one in five; in 1989 it became one in seven; in 1990 it became one in nine; in 1991 it became one in 10 and in 1992 it became one in 22. As I said at the time, Britain had become seven times safer for the corrupt director.
  However, the problem is more important than that. The hon. Member for Gillingham raised the very important point that there is no method of ensuring, even when directors are disqualified, that they relinquish their other directorships. In addition to finding that corrupt directors have a much greater chance of getting away with it, it is
  936
  clear that even if they do not get away with it, no one has been following up to ensure that they get rid of the directorships that they are supposed to get rid of.
  Committee members and I put it to the chief executive that if unfit directors continue to operate, they are a danger to other businesses, suppliers and customers, and that that is an undue risk for the public. The chief executive recognised that point. However, despite that clear collapse of the agency's ability to monitor those unfit to be directors, the department was being denied the extra manpower it needed in the context, to make a minor political point, of a Government who continue to talk about law and order.
  Mr. Stern: I am listening with great interest, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. My recollection of our discussion of that point in Committee is that the Committee could not conclude whether the obvious failing was the fault of inadequate staffing or of inadequate legislation in the first place.
  Mr. Williams: Inadequate legislation might have been an element, but, as it emerged in questioning, the problem was a lack of resources. The hon. Gentleman might recall exchanges in which, in essence, officials were challenged with, "Are you asking the Department for the extra manpower that you need? How much extra manpower do you need?" They admitted that they had not made even as assessment. They made the point that if extra manpower is needed, that is a job for Ministers, not them.
  The next matter is literally a one-point dip into the report on organised Department of Social Security fraud. We are not talking about the person who fiddles the odd voucher. We are talking about crooks, big money, counterfeiting, and the theft of mailbags—that is, big organised crime. There is an organised fraud branch. In discussions, it emerged that three quarters of such fraud takes place in London and that, for every member of the fraud branch in London, there was a saving of £350,000 which would otherwise have been defrauded. When asked how much it cost to employ someone to save that £350,000, we were told, on average, £20,000. Many of us might naively think that there is an obvious logical next step from that.
  I shall read a couple of the permanent secretary's answers. I said:
  "That means in London … he is saving £1/3 million, £350,000."
  The permanent secretary said, "That is right." He was then asked about taking on extra manpower, and he said:
  "However there is a limit to which you can put more and more staff into that and you cannot just do it just on cost effectiveness criteria otherwise the size of the Civil Service would be twice what it is now."
  I must admit that if it is cost-effective, it does not cause me great worry. I went on to ask:
  "As long as it was cost effective that would not matter, would it?"
  The permanent secretary said, "Yes, it would." I said:
  "Why? Why would it? As long as it was giving the taxpayer back more than it was costing, why would it matter?"
  His answer was:
  "no Government has ever proceeded on the basis that you simply staff the Civil Service on the grounds of how much money you can recover."
  It was one of the saddest interviews we had.
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise an urgent

  937
  issue which relates to courtesy to hon. Members and which might impinge upon hon. Members' rights. Several hon. Members and noble members of the other place were assembled in the Parliament street building at a meeting which I called to hear the European representative of the Kurdistan workers party.
  On his way to that meeting, between Westminster station and Parliament street, the speaker was arrested by about a dozen police officers. He is currently at Charing Cross police station. My noble Friends Baroness Gould and Lord Avebury are currently at Charing Cross police station to ascertain on what grounds he was arrested.
  Could you use your offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure that no action is taken to deport that gentleman until we have an opportunity of questioning responsible Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office? Will you urgently investigate the matter?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): If the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) is alleging, as I rather think that he is, a breach of privilege, his course of action is clear: he must write to Madam Speaker privately without delay and inquire whether investigations can be made. Apart from that, I am unable to act.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: They say that it is a sign of either old age or enjoyment if time flies by rather quickly. It seems only a few months since our previous annual Public Accounts Committee debate. It therefore comes as a shock and surprise to find that it is exactly a year and a day since we considered the excitements of the previous year.
  Once more, several excitements are worthy of note, comment and, indeed, censure. At this time of feeding frenzy, which seems to have gripped Westminster for the past week or so, it is important to keep a balance and a perspective. Although a book of horrors has been opened by the National Audit Office during the year, I put it to the House and to the country that a veritable library has been assembled during the year through the good practices and good offices of the civil service. That service has been satisfactorily delivered and standards have been achieved that are envied throughout the civilised world.
  I pay tribute to the National Audit Office not only for its work in supporting members of the Committee but for its day courses for members of the Committee, which allow them to find out how a report is worked through the system and how it carries out its investigations. That understanding helps us when we have to examine an accounting officer.
  I express my appreciation of the delicate way in which the Chairman of the Committee guided us through the year and helped us to produce unanimous reports. He ensured that we did not stray into commenting on policy, with all the chaos and confusion that would have followed. He kept us focused on examination of the effectiveness of policy implementation and value for money.
  Much of the debate has focused on the past year. The recently created executive agencies are becoming more of a regular feature of our debates. As reforms advance, the boundary between public and private "becomes open
  938
  country", to quote the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the European policy forum in July, enabling the Government to investigate how to obtain the best deal for the taxpayer's money. A responsibility goes with that freedom, and that responsibility has been accepted by the House.
  We examined the impact of executive agency status on the Vehicle Inspectorate. We produced a progress report, and undoubtedly a substantial stride forward has been taken—an initial endorsement of the Government's moves to that form of decentralisation—but one swallow does not make a summer, and other matters must be examined.
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to which the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) referred, is a case in point. Its change in attitude can be seen in the conclusion to our 34th report, which states that
  "although the Agency had not been wholly ignorant of customers' needs previously, the survey carried out for the Agency in 1992 was the first systematic attempt to consult the motoring public directly."
  Of course, the report, like most of our reports, makes criticisms, but it acknowledges the agency's new willingness to give better service to the public.
  In respect of telephone inquiries, we commented:
  "We note that the Agency acknowledge their discontent with the present system".
  Indeed, organisational changes already made in the agency enabled it to deal with some 1·2 million calls from members of the public between April and July this year–20 per cent. more than in the previous year.
  An examination of the accuracy of the agency's records reveals that quality is already improving with the increased use of computerised packages. The Department of Transport acknowledges that it does not have a sophisticated system for targets in place, but it is working on improving the process and taking account of customers' views on service quality. All that moves us forward. I should like to believe that we shall see a continual improvement in the service and value for money that the agency process can achieve.
  The introduction of competition and choice into public services brings with it the requirement of accountability. It is timely and helpful that the Committee has produced its eighth report on the proper conduct of public business—a matter that the Chairman of the Committee went into at great length, as did the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).
  It would be presumptuous to say that the report is the definitive work—that the advice is set in tablets of stone—but it is a good working document for those who move executive agencies into the sometimes murky water of the commercial world. Indeed, the Treasury has reacted to our report by producing a code of best practice for board members, which is helpful support in charting the way forward for those who serve on such bodies.
  I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said about accountability. He talked about slipping standards, a Watergate environment, chronic conditions and a general and increasing malaise. His analysis was not only gloomy but faulty.
  I take a slightly brighter view of the future. I believe that the creation of agency status will provide something that we have not had for some time. Anyone who runs a business, or anyone who knows about operating in the real world, will know that if one can ring-fence an activity

  939
  and then examine closely what is going on inside that ring-fenced activity, one can achieve a higher standard of quality, better value for money and better accountability.
  It is easier to track and report on an agency's activity than on one that is submerged in a vast Department. How often do members of the Public Accounts Committee feel that we get to the bottom of a Ministry of Defence report on what has happened and where the money has gone? Of course, standards must be maintained, and I shall be the first to insist on that. Our eighth report is a valuable guide and a valuable step towards achieving that goal.
  It is perhaps appropriate to move on to one or two of the excitements that have enlivened our year. The first was the 17th report on the Pergau hydro-electric scheme, which produced much media comment—and much of it inaccurate. I will not go through the whole unhappy saga word for word, except to show how one initial small mistake can start a chain of events. Just as a dislodged pebble will start an avalanche, the initial misinterpretation by the Overseas Development Administration and the consortium of United Kingdom companies involved in the project of a firm contract proposal with indicative costs started the chain of events.
  The position of the construction company is that
  "an application for ATP was submitted by"—
  the consortium—
  "in November 1988, giving indicative costs. This was not a 'firm contract proposal' and it was only on 31 March 1989 that the consortium was in a position to provide an estimate based on detailed specification, design and costing work."
  However, the National Audit Office report says that it was a firm contract proposal.
  It is still not fully clear how that has emerged, but, obviously, the two ODA officials who spent all of two days examining the firm contract proposal of only £316 million set the pebble in motion because they gave the project the green light, despite the consortium's submission of the real firm proposal of £397 million some two weeks later. That was after the meeting between the Prime Minister of Malaysia and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, which was too late; the rest, as they say, is history. One redeeming feature, from which I take comfort, is that exports to Malaysia were some £226 million in 1986, but £635 million in 1992. That is a small consolation for some of the difficulties that were caused.
  Last year, I trailed the saga of the Wessex regional health authority, which had not completed all its stages. That task is now complete. The report has the dubious honour of being the highest pile of paper on my desk for any project. I gained comfort from the fact that the Government abolished regional health authorities two weeks before the report was published.
  I was most disturbed by the discovery of the confidential auditor's report alongside the public one. I must thank a certain trade periodical for finding out about the confidential report. When we asked for it, we found that there was nothing confidential in it; all it did was shade and hide the blushes of some of the people involved. It was unfair that section 30 of the Local Government Act 1992 was used in such a way, and I am grateful that the Committee was able to remove the fig leaf behind which people were trying to hide.
  940
  The Chairman of the Committee touched on the report, which makes sorry reading. Despite two previous warnings from the auditors in 1987 and 1989, the regional health authority ploughed on. The executive members of the board failed in their duty. We rightly criticised the regional health authority and the management executive for allowing the board members to be kept at arm's length for more than three and a half years over the mismanagement of the project.
  There was a fundamental conflict between the regional health authority and Integrated Systems Ltd. when the health authority appointed a director of that company to act as the regional information systems manager. That is one way of getting to the heart of it. The Public Accounts Committee regarded it as a matter of grave concern that at least £20 million was wasted between the start of the regional information systems plan in 1984 and its abandonment in 1990.
  The Public Accounts Committee carries out a valuable task. It complements the National Audit Office, and the work that it produces is of a very high standard. I should like to think that the Committee acts on information fearlessly and freely without party bias. I shall take into account what the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said about the difficulties that obviously arise when party politics start to rear their head. I pay tribute to the Chairman of the Committee. I appreciate that he ensures that the Committee investigates only the effectiveness of the implementation of policy and value for money.
  I shall conclude, as I did last year, by offering another little trailer. This year, I shall trail the story of a development corporation's brainchild. It was only a small stone turned up by the Public Accounts Committee, but again a stone seems to have started an avalanche. I refer to Merseyside development corporation's Grand Regatta Columbus and Fanfare for a New World concert. The corporation's chairman had the bright idea of laying on an opera extravaganza in a yet-to-be-opened Merseyside dock to help to promote the area. The event was described in press releases as
  "probably the greatest line-up of singers ever seen in the UK".
  Whether the unique culture of Liverpool was ready for it appears not to have been considered. Evaluation of the financial viability of the event took just five weeks. It was supposed to break even. From that initial mistaken calculation, the burden fell on the taxpayer.
  It is symptomatic of the way in which events were driven by Merseyside development corporation that the deal, under which the taxpayer picked up the £400,000 debt, was signed after midnight on the day of the concert. Undoubtedly, more details will emerge next year. I shall be fascinated to receive the response to the report and to debate it next year.
  Tonight's speeches have pointed to some errors, which we must keep in perspective. Much good work is done within our civil service, but I am sure that there will be enough to occupy us again next year and another catalogue of excitement.
  7.1 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) said that the Public

  941
  Accounts Committee had had an exciting year. As one excited member of the PAC, perhaps I can give a few impressions.
  It is difficult to go through 49 reports, even briefly. I hope that I will not distort the facts: impressions are impressions.
  My first impression is that a substantial amount of public money seems to be spent on computers and computer systems by Government Departments, quangos, next steps agencies, health authorities, non-departmental public bodies and the like. I gained the impression from our work that there was little concern for value for money when Departments or quangos embarked on the installation of a computer system. I suppose that everyone has to have a computer these days. There was little analysis as far as I could see.
  The problem is that the people who take the decisions are people of my generation who know nothing about computers and therefore have to bring in computer consultants or salesmen. The computer salesman is like a double glazing salesman. He obviously knows everything about the product and his client knows nothing. Newer, better and more powerful systems are added on and the cost escalates. Once the system has been installed, no one seems to ask whether it is cheaper, more efficient or more user-friendly. Many computer systems are inflexible, as we have seen with the Child Support Agency and other agencies. No one asks whether the body has obtained value for money. The whole business just goes on and on.
  When the Chief Secretary takes his knife to public expenditure, as all Chief Secretaries must, he should have a look at the vast sums of money channelled into computing systems and into the firms that instal them.
  My second impression is that a substantial amount of public money has been paid to senior managers and administrators in what are called termination payments. This matter has been referred to already in the debate and it is perhaps more serious than the computing problems. It does not seem to matter whether the individual involved has done his job badly or should have been discharged or disciplined or whether there has been a breach of contract. Once it has been determined by other senior managers that one or more senior manager or administrator is to leave, an army of accountants, auditors and pension consultants descend and work out vast figures to pay to the unfortunate person who has to leave.
  The payments are described variously as compensation payments, ex gratia payments, termination payments, redundancy packages, accelerated pension payments or enhanced pension payments. I never know quite where the money comes from, but it comes from all directions. Some of it certainly comes from the pensions industry.
  On top of those payments, people are offered the opportunity to purchase at a low price the accoutrements of power such as the motor car, the visual display unit, the computer or whatever else they used in their office. In many cases, the lucky people leaving with enhanced payments are then offered a consultancy. So they do exactly the same work for the organisation that in effect dismissed them and paid them a lot of money. That is the impression that I received from listening to many of the exchanges in the Committee.
  Leaving aside the cost of making payments to members of the public salariat, it is my impression that the law of contract has been turned on its head. I spent some time
  942
  years ago learning the basic principles of the law of contract, which are fairly simple. If one party to a contract breaks that contract and the other party suffers damage, the party who breaks the contract has to pay damages to the party who suffers from the breach of contract. It is a simple elementary proposition. However, the law of contract in many of the cases to which I listened was different. The person who broke the contract received money from the person who was damaged as a result of the breach of contract.
  I do not know where the law of contract has gone wrong in employment within the public salariat and, indeed, private industry. I shall give a few examples to highlight the point. First, as we have been told, the regional general manager of Wessex regional health authority, sadly, was responsible in the main for losing at least £20 million of public money. In consequence of that, it seems, he received £111,000 in his pocket. On top of that, he had to pay only £750 for a desk and a pedestal, two bookshelves, a VDU table, a fax machine, an answering machine, a word processor which was apparently obsolete, a pocket organiser and a lamp. He received all that for £750 on top of the £111,000 even though he was responsible for losing £20 million of taxpayers' money.
  The second instance from Wessex regional health authority was the case of Ms Storrs. She was a good employee; we made no criticism of her. She did her work well—so well that there was no work left for her to do under her contract. Her contract could be terminated by either side with three months' notice. Her work came to an end. She could have been given three months' notice, but Wessex health authority paid her £78,000. It was described as an ex gratia payment. It is nice to be paid that amount of money. The health authority was probably a good employer, but I find it extraordinary that a public body dealing with health, facing all the pressures on public expenditure and the need to channel as much money as possible to the care of patients, should pay such a sum when the person had been paid fully under her contract of employment.
  Mr. Stern: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps one of the most sinister aspects—I use that word advisedly—of the overpayment, as it turned out to be, to Ms Storrs was that it seemed to be intended to buy her non-participation in any future activity of the health service, when she was dismissed for having done her job so well that she had worked herself out of a job?
  Mr. Davies: That seems to have been the case. If it had been the intention to debar her from competing with the health service, perhaps that should have been written into her contract. Such business arrangements can be made. The £78,000 was described as that very strange animal, the ex gratia payment.
  The director of finance of South Birmingham health authority, who probably should have been sacked, was paid £27,000 before he left and the chief executive—who, according to the report, clearly should have been dismissed—received £33,000. Those are relatively small sums. There is no legal basis for making such payments, yet an authority is writing the cheques and using public money in that way with no legal authority.

  943
  I shall leave aside the Welsh Development Agency, as enough has been said about Celtic institutions. I merely point out that such problems occur in other parts of the country as well.
  The director of regional management services at the West Midlands regional health authority should also have been dismissed, and could have been for what he did. He was given an immediate accelerated pension of £6,462 a year and a lump sum of £81,387. That was quite unnecessary. It was a cavalier and irresponsible way of dealing with public money.
  Finally, the deputy regional managing director of West Midlands regional health authority received £42,000 for resigning, which takes me back to the basic principles of contract law. I do not see how one can be paid if one walks off the job. If a builder contracts to do a job and wilfully walks off the building site, thereby breaking the contract, I would not expect the employer—as described in the contract—to pay the builder for breaking the contract. Yet, that gentleman was ostentatiously described in a press release as having resigned. Because he resigned and broke his contract, he received £42,000.
  Years ago, a private steel firm moved from the west midlands to my constituency. It closed down in the early 1980s and 1,500 steelworkers lost their jobs. They never got anything like those sums in redundancy and they did nothing wrong. The most that any of them received was £3,000 for 25 to 30 years' service. They produced wealth rather than merely distributing other people's, but they received very little, yet the Public Accounts Committee finds that vast sums of money are paid to people who do not produce wealth, although they do important jobs, and who have, sadly, done something wrong.
  I am sure that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury reads our reports assiduously. He sits there looking very interested in our debate. If the Chief Secretary were to take up that knife, perhaps he should start with the higher echelons of the public salariat and leave the poor, the disabled and the unemployed for the time being.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), not least because he referred to some circumstances that we considered in the Public Accounts Committee in the past year—cases of people leaving their employment with substantial payments. I want to refer to such circumstances more obliquely, but, before doing so, I must return us to the main theme of the debate—our eighth report, on the proper conduct of public business.
  Some hon. Members, especially those on the Opposition Benches, sought to draw from that report inferences of a decline in the work and standards of the public service, caused by applying the standards that apply in private enterprise. I draw the opposite conclusion. I spent most of my life advising businesses before I came to the House and I conclude from so many of the examples listed tonight that no private business could measure down to the standards that we have seen apply in the public service. In so many of the examples, it was not a case of the public sector declining to the level
  944
  of the private sector, but of the public sector failing to reach standards that would be regarded as automatic in the private sector.
  If some of the examples of gross mismanagement and sheer carelessness with other people's money that can be quoted from our reports had been applied in the private sector, the organisations would swiftly have gone bankrupt. It is more likely, however, that they would never have had sums of money of such a size to play with in the first place.
  One of the more horrifying reports that we produced in the past year, which has not been mentioned to any great extent in the debate, was that on the Department of Employment Field system. It was an example of a computer system being installed—the right hon. Member for Llanelli mentioned that subject.
  We concluded in our report that
  "although the Department spent £48 million on the Field System, most TECs"
  for which it was intended, were using it only in part or not at all. It was developed in some ivory tower somewhere, and bore no relation to what the potential users wanted. We formed the conclusion, and were right to do so, that the system could not be regarded as any sort of success, even a partial one.
  We were given evidence that if the training and enterprise councils had been fully in existence at the time that the Department decided to press ahead with the system, after much consideration, the TECs would never have asked for it and, given its subsequent lack of success, we cannot really blame them, can we?
  The full horrors of the Field system and its total failure were not merely the decision to go ahead with a system that no one wanted, but concerned the management of the project. Even if it was a wrong 'un and no one wanted it, the system did not need to cost £48 million of taxpayers' money that would otherwise have been spent on training people to gain employment opportunities.
  We concluded that a significant part of the expenditure was totally wasted. It was not even remotely referrable to the project under consideration. In addition, the haphazard way in which the Department engaged consultants to set up the system left us questioning whether the £11 million out of £48 million spent on employment consultants to develop the system was largely a complete waste of money. I have no doubt that the money was of great benefit to the consultancies, but certainly not to the public weal.
  That is an example of management within the Department that could be said to have broken every rule that a junior Master of Business Administration student would have imbibed before being released into the business world.
  I question whether, when we compare private and public sector standards in the management of public money, we should not start from the premise that we have seen examples in which the public sector has totally failed to measure up to standards that would be set automatically in the private sector. That has occurred not just in one Department or in the management of specific sums of money in a brand-new project. Reference has been made

  945
  to the South Birmingham health authority. In our conclusions, the Committee stated its concern at the
  "Regional Chairman's finding that there had been obfuscation on the part of the South Birmingham Health Authority in the manner in which they had supplied information to the Region about their increasing deficit."
  "Obfuscation" is a long word which most people would prefer to shorten to "lying". Deliberately wrong information was passed by the management of the South Birmingham health authority to the regional authority. The regional authority's management of South Birmingham was sufficiently distant that it did not notice, and the members of staff concerned were allowed to get away with it. That is not a decline in public sector standards to those of the private sector; that is the application of standards which would be applied only—if at all—in the course of a systematic fraud, whether in public or private sector management. Frankly, those standards must be wholly deplored and the Committee was rightly charged with rooting them out.
  The problems of South Birmingham were not just those of appalling management, because there is another lesson which we can learn from South Birmingham and which is too infrequently applied in the public sector. Where there is inadequate accounting or communication between one department and another in a substantial private company, it is recognised that it is the job of one section of the company not to try to do down another section of the company. If one section has gained money at the expense of another, it is the job of the management to point out and rectify that inadequate distribution of resources within the company.
  That is apparently not the case in the public sector as applied in South Birmingham, because its accounting system was so inadequate that it was failing to bill other sectors, health authorities and trusts for money that was legitimately due to South Birmingham. Not surprisingly, the authority was running into a huge deficit and, in the end, a number of people lost their jobs. We rightly criticised South Birmingham for that failure, in accounting, but should not we look also at the other health authorities and trusts that were getting services from South Birmingham, were not getting a bill for those services and were keeping quiet about it?
  Should we not expect standards within the health service management which would be applied in any substantial company? After all, the health service is the biggest business in Europe in terms of the resources that it uses and the number of people whom it employs. A similar point also came up when we were looking at the Property Services Agency.
  Should it not be axiomatic that the job of the public service is not to try to do down other parts of the public service, but to achieve value for money? Value for money seems to have been furthest from the minds of the public sector management involved in the two examples to which I have referred.
  Value for money is not just a matter of seeing how little can be spent to achieve a certain effect. It is also a matter of measuring the effect that is achieved by a certain level of expenditure. That point was brought home to us when we were looking at—among other things—the construction of the helicopter landing platform. I agree with the Committee's conclusion that, in terms of public expenditure, the award of the contract through competition was done to achieve the contract at the
  946
  minimum level of public expenditure appropriate to the circumstances. But we indicated in our report that we would wish to return to the matter.
  The Committee also found it necessary to question whether, as a result of that competitive process, the public ended up getting value for money. It was noticeable that the definition of what the public were buying with that money was changing continually as the price went down. It was originally intended that we have a single ship which was designed to achieve a certain purpose. But, by the time the cost had been pared and, as the accounting officer concerned said, the "gold-plated taps" had been eliminated from the costing, we ended up with—I shall not hesitate to quote what I said in Committee—
  "a ship which cannot defend itself, which relies on other warships for protection, which has to waddle along in pursuit of those escorts at two thirds of their speed, which has a radar signature which was originally considered dangerous."
  If it is the job of the Public Accounts Committee to consider value for money, I question whether we sometimes have sufficient resources on our own arid without reference to other Committees to arrive at such a conclusion. In a case such as the helicopter landing platform, I would have hoped to have a reassurance at the end of our inquiry that the ship that we were buying with public money was still capable of fulfilling its original purpose. I did not get that reassurance, and nor did the Committee. That is why we indicated that we would wish to return to the subject.
  As the work of the Committee develops—as it has developed over the years—we may well need to look more at what the Government are trying to buy with the money they spend, as well as whether they are spending that money most efficiently.
  The final report to which I wish to refer is one that the Chairman referred to and which, in a way, typifies the worst examples of public management. I refer to the report into the British Council. We found in a very small organisation—particularly compared with some of the organisations that the Committee looked at—a series of management mistakes involving basic accounting techniques. I speak as an accountant. Accountancy is not everybody's cup of tea and what to me is basic would not be regarded as such by other people.
  The inability of the British Council to distinguish between what was a payment and what was a grant was so basic to the mismanagement of that body as to leave the Committee calling into question whether the organisation is capable of managing public money from within the resources that the public granted it to manage that money.
  In other words, should we look at organisations such as the British Council and say to them that they are not capable of reaching the standards that we expect for the management of public money? They have proved that they are not capable of reaching those standards. Therefore, should the Committee recommend to the Government that they take the responsibility for the management of public money away from the accounting officers of such bodies and give it to someone more capable of exercising that responsibility? The question asked in the eighth report was whether we, as a Public Accounts Committee, could contribute to reversing the decline in the public sector which we were noting in far too many cases. We produced our report as guidance for the head of the civil service, not just on how to avoid the

  947
  list of mistakes that we had catalogued but to tell him that we, as a Committee of Parliament, expected better of his work than we had so far seen.
  I should like to add a personal note that derives from my experience outside the House. The right hon. Member for Llanelli referred to the circumstances in which a number of senior public servants had left their posts and asked whether the Committee, or the head of the civil service, as the man ultimately responsible, could do anything to stem the tide of payments to people for so-called inadequate services. I believe that there is something we can do, but it will not happen until the House and the PAC have been shown more than one example of an accounting officer, confronted by the sort of mismanagement that has been described today, being required to clear his or her desk and walk. That may already have happened; we may investigate such a case next year. But until it is seen to happen and until we are prepared to apply to public servants the sanctions that are applied routinely in the private sector, we shall not attain the standards of the management of public money that Parliament is entitled to demand.
  7.31 pm
  Mr. Mike Hall: The debate takes place against a backdrop of growing public concern about the conduct of public life, from which we may conclude that there must be concern about how individuals in public life conduct themselves.
  "The proper conduct of public business", the important report published by the PAC on 27 January, reported to Parliament a series of failures in administrative and financial systems and controls in Government and public bodies. This is where I take issue with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), in whose speech I intervened, in an attempt to draw his attention to paragraph 1 of the report. I do not apologise for quoting it again:
  "In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of serious failures in administrative and financial systems and controls within departments and other public bodies, which has led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years."
  It is important that the Government respond positively to the criticisms in the report and that they reassure Parliament that they take it seriously and deal with its criticisms constructively.
  Clearly, the report deals with incompetence, with fraud and with corruption in a series of Ministries, Government agencies and quangos. It is a catastrophic catalogue of public money being wasted or improperly spent. It demonstrates the Government's failure to ensure sound financial management and probity in a large number of cases.
  I firmly believe that the Government are ultimately responsible for Departments, Government agencies, next steps agencies and non-departmental public bodies: the buck stops with the Government, so if these criticisms are valid, they must take responsibility and act on them.
  The bottom line is the straightforward fact that the British taxpayer has paid dear for the failings outlined in the eighth report of the PAC. There are startling examples of failings—failures of financial control, failures in the stewardship of public money, and failures, when public
  948
  assets have been sold, to get value for money. It is deed a staggering catalogue of mistakes and failures, affecting the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Employment, the Ministry of Defence, the Welsh Office, the Property Services Agency, the Insolvency Service, the National Rivers Authority, Wessex regional health authority, the West Midlands regional health authority, the national health service management executive and the new town development corporations—to name but a few.
  I wish to discuss two other reports by the PAC, the ninth report, published on 19 January and entitled "Grant Maintained Schools: Financial Control", and the 23rd report, published on 21 April and concerning the sale of the Scottish Bus Group. I should also like to refer to the minutes of evidence taken on the Merseyside development corporation's Grand Regatta Columbus and Fanfare for a New World concert. This matter has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), and I should like later to allude to some of his remarks.
  On 14 August 1992, the Fanfare for a New World concert took place in Liverpool, in conjunction with the grand regatta. Those two events cost the public and private purse £1.1 million and were, from start to finish, a financial fiasco. When we took evidence on the episode, we were told that it was the brainchild of the chairman of the Merseyside development corporation, Sir Desmond Pitcher. It turned out to be a rather expensive brainchild for the taxpayer.
  On 3 March 1992, the Merseyside task force gave contingent approval for the Merseyside development corporation to spend up to £400,000—£250,000 to be spent on the regatta and up to £150,000 on the concert. The letter of approval from the Merseyside task force included the following sentence:
  "My colleagues have been reassured by your estimate that the maximum possible contribution in the worst case scenario would be a £400,000 cost to the public purse."
  However, as the PAC report states, before this approval was sought and given, the Merseyside development corporation had already started to spend money on the project, to the tune of £15,000. That was the start of the slippery slope which eventually led to the loss of £1.1 million.
  Perhaps the event that concerns me most was the one that took place on 12 July 1992, when the draft budget was produced for the concert, showing that it would lose £187,840. The letter of approval signed on 3 March 1992 said:
  "I shall be grateful if you will ensure that we are informed if it seems likely that additional funds will be required for these projects".
  So we might have expected the Merseyside development corporation to tell the Department of the Environment on 12 July 1992 that the project was going to lose money, and that it would cut its losses by cancelling the concert. The corporation did neither; it went ahead. Some time in July 1992, it actually signed a binding legal agreement to pay the cost of television coverage of the concert, amounting to £50,000 out of the estimated total cost of £150,000.
  When the PAC sought evidence as to why the project, with such huge losses becoming apparent, was not cancelled, the explanation given to the Committee was that, because the Department of the Environment had

  949
  sanctioned expenditure of £150,000, losses would amount not to £187,000 but to £37,000—a more manageable sum. The corporation omitted to mention the expenditure of an additional £50,000 from outside the budget estimate.
  To make matters worse, on 7 August 1992, a week before the concert was due to take place, the Merseyside development corporation—I would be astonished if, by that time, with the information at its disposal, it had not realised that money was going to be lost—signed over the liability of the concert to a shelf company with a share value of £2 and no assets.
  When the concert took place on 14 August—and lost money—the losses were transferred to the private company and away from the Merseyside development corporation. If that move was not bad enough, on the eve of the concert, the Merseyside development corporation was faced with the fact that if it did not put more money into the concert it would be cancelled. So it put in £90,000 of public money to sponsor the event and bought £60,000-worth of tickets to ensure that people would be there when it took place. That was additional expenditure.
  It was said clearly in the letter of 3 March that if there was any additional expenditure, the Department of the Environment should be informed. The Merseyside development corporation did not do that. The concert went ahead and made a loss of £223,000 to the company, Carroll Promotion Ltd. The concert made a loss of some £419,000. The Grand Regatta Columbus lost £426,000. When all that is added up, the loss comes to £1.1 million of public and private money, because of one event. That is a complete waste of taxpayers' money.
  Just to make matters worse, £90,000 was spent on hospitality for the regatta. That is an abuse of public expenditure and cannot be condoned in any way. The PAC has not yet reported on that matter, so I will not draw any conclusions, but the minutes of evidence are on the record for people to see, and they beg serious questions about public accountability, public service, incompetence and waste.
  It is surprising to note that the chairman of the Merseyside development corporation is still in post. I find that absolutely astonishing when the Government's response to the PAC's eighth report says:
  "The fundamental purpose of the Government's programme of reform is to strengthen the management of the public sector so that waste is reduced and those who manage public services are more accountable for their actions. The Government fully agrees with the Committee's view that effective programmes for economy and efficiency must be combined with a proper concern for the sensible conduct of public business and care for the honest handling of public money."
  I should like to see how the Government will fit that response to the way in which the Merseyside development corporation conducted its affairs over the Fanfare for a New World.
  The sale of Scottish Bus was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). It is another example of the PAC being concerned to get value for money. We are not concerned with the politics of the matter or the decisions taken by the Government to sell Scottish Bus; they are irrelevant in this case. The most important thing for the PAC is to gain value for money.
  The decision to sell Scottish Bus was taken in 1988. Then, its value was £118.1 million. It was making, as we have heard, a profit of £9 million a year. Immediately
  950
  prior to the sale, those profits had gone down to £0.5 million, whereas, as my right hon. Friend said, the profits of the local authority passenger transport companies had gone up from £1 million to £4 million. The only change in circumstances was that the Government had decided to sell Scottish Bus. More importantly, they had decided that a mnagement buy-out would be preferred.
  One could be forgiven for saying that there would be a conflict of interest in that activity. The more profitable an organisation is, the more the individuals in charge of that organisation would have to pay for it. One would assume that if the profitability of Scottish Bus went down, the sale price would also come down. It may well have been in the interest of the management of Scottish Bus to ensure that it traded to a level where they could purchase it at a more favourable rate.
  The Scottish Office says that it does not see a conflict in the decision to sell Scottish Bus with a preference towards a management buy-out. If Government assets are sold anywhere else, they must put into the enterprise management who are independent of their decision to sell via a management buy-out. There should be senior managers who are independent and are not interested in the outcome of the sale, to ensure that the public get good value for money.
  The acid test for that has already been referred to—the sale of Citylink. It was making a profit of more than £900,000 at the time of the decision to sell, and went into the red by £800,000. It was given an injection of cash of £1.5 million immediately prior to its sale and generated income to the Government of £265,000. It was sold three years later for £5.1 million. That was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West. But what my right hon. Friend did not say is that if the Government had included a clawback clause in the sale of Citylink, they would have benefited from the profitability of an onward sale. That omission has cost the taxpayer a great deal of money.
  Eventually, the project was valued at £118.1 million. By the time the PAC report was published in April, the Treasury had received only £79.4 million of the proceeds of the sale and was expected to receive another £8.7 million, which brings the benefit to the Treasury to £88.1 million—a massive reduction from the £118 million that was foreseen in 1988. The taxpayer has not had value for money.
  One of the important aspects of the sale is that, out of the £88 million that the Treasury expects to receive, £56.4 million will be from a pre-sale dividend, which will not be available unless the company is to be sold. It has generated a sales income to the Treasury of £31.7 million. I feel that the Government should consider that more closely.
  My hon. Friends mentioned the fact that the sale will enable the Government to get £150 million into the Treasury from the surplus pension fund. I suspect that that was the main motivating factor behind the sale. I am very critical of the way in which that pension fund is treated. The sale of Scottish Bus emphasises once again that the Government are prepared to sell public assets at knockdown prices, which cost the taxpayer and the Revenue money. That seems to characterise a whole range of privatisation issues and has been repeated in that sale.

  951
  My final point relates to grant-maintained schools' financial control, which is dealt with in the ninth report of the Public Accounts Committee 1993–94, published on 19 January. Two aspects of the report cause me concern. The evidence received by the PAC shows quite clearly that schools that initially opted out to become grant maintained—the first tranche only—have received preferential treatment in the way in which they received their maintenance grant. The PAC clearly established, from evidence given by the permanent secretary at the Department for Education, that there was a concept called "double funding".
  Paragraph 22 says that the Department for Education
  "have not calculated the central services element of annual maintenance grant so as to reflect accurately local education authorities' delegation of central services to schools. Consequently, some double funding has occurred."
  The PAC found that the existing arrangements showed that the local authorities involved in those schools had lost out to the tune of £13.6 million. There was a central funding element. Approximately 16 per cent. of the budget was paid to the grant-maintained schools. The school budgets were greatly devolved from the centre, from county hall, and increased to something like 93 per cent. of the overall budget. The existing traditional or historic funding of 16 per cent. remained. That concept was confirmed to the Committee by the then permanent secretary at the Department for Education, Sir Geoffrey Holland. He did not disagree with our findings that double funding had taken place.
  The PAC, knowing full well that an immediate removal of that double funding would put schools at a disadvantage, called for it to be removed over two years. I am disappointed at the response from the Treasury minute, which says that it disputes the PAC's view and claims that the central services charges were calculated properly and that there was no double funding. I should like a commitment from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the Government are prepared to look again at that aspect of the PAC report on grant-maintained schools.
  The second aspect of the report about grant-maintained schools that concerns me relates to the activities of the Grant Maintained School Centre Ltd. That organisation, which is funded by central Government, is there to provide schools that have already achieved grant-maintained status with information, advice and services. In 1992–93, it received £577,000 in public money.
  The centre shares its headquarters in 36 Great Smith street with Choice in Education, which runs the Grant Maintained Schools Foundation. The two organisations are actively involved in the promotion of the concept of grant-maintained schools in advising schools that are considering their approach to the balloting of parents on whether grant-maintained status is right for those schools. They are, therefore, part of a quasi-political organisation that is involved in promoting a particular view.
  The PAC was informed in evidence that, in February 1993, the Department for Education undertook an internal evaluation of the centre's activities. That evaluation pointed to a risk that grant money might have financed non-eligible functions. In other words, an internal report clearly indicated that money voted by Parliament was
  952
  being spent for a purpose not intended in the Vote. The problem was that a single accounting system was being applied to three organisations, from which staff, office and rent costs would have to be found. It was impossible to disaggregate the three budgets.
  I accept that officials from the Department for Education have visited the Grant Maintained School Centre Ltd. and sorted out the problem; I also accept that, at the time, it was not possible to say that money voted by Parliament had been used for such purposes. However, this is an example of cross-subsidy, in which Government money was used for quasi-political activities. It is important for non-departmental public bodies to have clear guidelines, so that such instances cannot be repeated.
  The PAC has pointed out that the Property Services Agency charged itself £65.6 million because it was unable to recover the money from its customers—whom I suspect to have been Government organisations and agencies. It has also found that the Department of Employment made doubtful and incorrect payments to training providers, including training and enterprise councils, amounting to £79.5 million.
  Wessex regional health authority, we learn, wasted £20 million on an information system that was eventually abandoned. West Midlands regional health authority wasted £10 million of public money; and, as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) pointed out, the Department of Employment invested £48 million in a redundant Field system.
  I suspect that the reason behind that was that the Government had decided that training should be taken away from the regional employment departments and given to agencies and training and enterprise councils. Bureaucrats in the regional offices probably decided that they wanted some control over what was going on in the TECs, and tried to set up a computer system that would involve them in the accounting methods used by TECs; the TECs, however, saw through it and did not use the system. As a result, £48 million was wasted—as was the £11 million spent on consultancy fees, which was strongly criticised.
  We are seeing a serious breakdown in financial control at the heart of Government, in Government agencies and in quangos. I hope that the responses from spokesmen on both sides of the House will lead us to a point at which we are able to ensure that the Government take responsibility for what goes on in their Departments, agencies and quangos, and that the conduct of public business is carried out properly, ethically and with the probity that we would all consider right and proper.
  Perhaps we could start by saying that members of quangos should be accountable in some way and that when they are found to have wasted public money they should be subject to surcharges similar to those levied on members of local authorities when they lose public money in a similar way. We should also introduce some openness in the way in which members of quangos are appointed.
  I was very disappointed by the references made to my late right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East, John Smith, who raised the eighth PAC report on the Floor of the House. He asked the Prime Minister for a positive response. I do not think that he tried to make the report into something that it was not. The most disappointing event of that day was the Prime Minister's comment that there had been no breakdown in

  953
  the way in which public business had been conducted, contrary to the findings of the Committee. He said that the report was merely a useful checklist, which actually justified the Government's approach to the way in which they were running their business.
  I do not think that that response was helpful, in the context of trying to improve the public's perception of the way in which those in public life conduct business on their behalf. I hope that today's debate will lead to a massive improvement in the way in which public money is spent.
  7.55 pm
  Dr. Tony Wright: I feel a bit like an intruder: I think that I am the only non-member of the PAC who has spoken so far. That is unfortunate, because the Committee's work is supremely valuable to the House of Commons, and every hon. Member should take an interest in its proceedings.
  I pay tribute to the Committee for all its work on behalf of the rest of us. It does an outstanding job; it has done a particularly outstanding job in the past year or so, and will be seen to have contributed greatly to the development and improvement of British public administration. Well done, and thank you; I hope that Committee members will not mind if, for a few minutes, I join what seems to be a private conversation.
  As other hon. Members have said, the eighth report is clearly the one that history will remember, although all the reports are memorable. I am sorry to quote a sentence that has already been quoted, but history will of course remember that the Committee stated:
  "These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years."
  When the history of the period is written, that sentence will provide at least a footnote—possibly more. It will be seen to encapsulate the history of what was happening to the organisation of public services during a particularly important time.
  I have been reading some of the memoranda that Sir Charles Trevelyan was bunging off to Gladstone 140 years ago, on the theme that we must clean up British public services and the civil service and eradicate patronage. The PAC's language is not quite in the same vein —how could it be?—but there is nevertheless a parallel between what was said then and what the PAC has felt obliged to say in the 1990s. It is saying, as Sir Charles Trevelyan said to William Gladstone all those years ago, that a problem exists that must be addressed in the interests of the integrity of British public service.
  I note that in recent days the Government have been saying—because of the difficulties that they have run into—that they have, after all, been excessively zealous in monitoring the whole area. As has already been pointed out, however, the story is not quite like that. When the report appeared, the immediate official response was "What problem? There is no problem; do not make a fuss." Now we are told by the Chairman of the Committee— and I take some reassurance from this—that all kinds of things have been happening within Government.
  In a sense, that makes matters both better and worse. It improves matters in that the Government have clearly been activated by the findings and verdict of the PAC; the bad aspect is that the Government should want publicly
  954
  to maintain the pretence that there is no problem. There clearly is a problem, as evidenced by the Government's own behaviour. It has been a little misleading of the Government in recent days to claim credit for having introduced the National Audit Act 1983, the foundation of the modern audit system. It was not like that at all. When the Public Accounts Committee produced a special report saying, basically, that wherever public money goes, public audit should go too, the Government did not like it. The previous Chairman of the PAC described the Government's reaction as "almost wholly negative."
  Vast numbers of hon. Members got very cross during a debate at the time. Almost 300 of them signed an early-day motion and eventually, through the medium of a private Member's Bill and under the auspices of the person who now sails under the illustrious name of Lord St. John of Fawsley, the 1983 Act was passed. For the Government to claim that it was their Act and that they wanted this zealous audit of public bodies is not true. Perhaps obfuscation is the word that we could use to describe the way in which the Government have talked about the matter.
  The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Public Accounts Committee's sister Committee, published a major report analogous to the PAC's 1981 report. It said that the ombudsman should be able to go wherever public administration goes, that the framework in which the ombudsman operates should be changed and that there should be at least an annual debate on the work of the parliamentary officer.
  Again, the Government's response has been wholly negative. They say that those changes do not need to be introduced and that there should not be a debate. This, however, is a House of Commons matter and a parliamentary matter. It should go beyond the normal exchanges between the parties. Parliament is asserting itself against the Executive. That is what the issues are and should be all about.
  It is impossible to understand that historic sentence from the eighth report without recognising the sort of changes in public services that have produced that verdict. Again, the Government cannot have it both ways. They tell us that they have engineered "a revolution" in public services. They claim that they have transformed the nature of public services. They say how right they are and make claims about increased efficiency and performance. They say that they have brought a particular model to the operation of public services. The Government wanted a revolution in the way in which the state and state services are run. They have been pursuing that policy, but they must accept that it has led to the most acute problems in relation to accountability.
  If one fragments public services and disaggregates the state, if one devolves responsibility right down the line, if one sets up a contract culture and magical flexibility on, for instance, pay and patient arrangements, one will see, if one is not careful, the more unpleasant consequences of that flexibility. There will be a lack of control and a lack of accountability. When they make their claims about the revolution in public services, the Government must be serious about the implications for accountability of their actions. In every revolution, whether we like it or not, there are casualties and in a sense we have been hearing about those casualties this afternoon and reading about them in the PAC's reports.

  955
  My principle is a simple one. In any organisation or reorganisation of public services, accountability must follow. The more one fragments and disaggregates services, the more pressing becomes the problem of accountability. One cannot do it in the old way. One must find new techniques of accountability to match new techniques of organisation. That is the essential principle that the PAC is trying to underline.
  Mr. Page: I do not know what experience the hon. Gentleman has of business, but I promise him that a smaller activity that is ring-fenced is much easier to audit and investigate for misdemeanours than a large conglomerate, where things can so easily get lost. That has been shown time and time again in the PAC reports. For years, the Committee has heard those various criticisms. I suggest that, of course, there are dangers, but there are also benefits and those dangers can be quantified and monitored. The chances of getting caught by going through the agency and abusing the agency system are so much greater that that would be a tremendous deterrent.
  Dr. Wright: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am not sure that he quite understood the point that I was making, which seemed to contain an elementary truth. Hon. Members are required not to pronounce on our liking or disliking for what is being done but to recognise that the more one shifts power around the system—the thrust of what the Government are doing in relation to public service —the more one must ensure that accountability follows. That unifying principle should keep us all on the same side.
  Mr. Shersby: There is accountability and there must continue to be accountability, but that will happen only if officials and people monitoring the work of disaggregated bodies do their stuff. They have the skills and ability to monitor what is going on and to watch what is going on. Systems are in place to achieve that but the skills are required.
  Dr. Wright: I am grateful to the hon Gentleman for that intervention. If one considers the work on the accountability of these bodies, a rather different picture begins to emerge. I and other people conducted a study recently into the matter. It tried to assemble and to apply an index of accountability in relation to extra-governmental organisations, as we call them. We found that there are 5,000 of these bodies compared with 1,300 executive quangos. We can argue about the figures but it is important to consider how accountable those bodies are because their accountability will be a factor in some of the problems that they will experience.
  I shall not give all the results of the study, but let me list some of the accountability criteria involved. Were the members liable to surcharge, as members of local authorities are—an important discipline? Were they subject to an ombudsman's investigation and scrutiny? Was there effective external public audit? Did they have, again like local authorities, monitoring officers to keep an eye on what was going on? Do the public have a right to inspect a register of member's interests? Did the public have the right to attend board or committee meetings, to inspect the minutes of meetings and to see policy papers
  956
  or documents from meetings? Were bodies required to produce annual reports, to publish annual reports and annual accounts and to meet the public?
  I wish there were time to go through the list of extra-governmental organisations in the study and to show how deficient they are in those respects. We heard earlier about the urban development corporation. Under almost all the headings, the answer was no. That is not sensible. It is not democratic. There is a lack of the mechanisms that are liable to produce an avoidance of the sort of problems that we have heard about this afternoon.
  Mr. John Plummer, funded by the Joseph Rowntree trust, published a survey on quangos and accountability a matter of days ago. His verdict was as follows:
  "In terms of accountability, the quangos are operating with ill-defined, contradictory and opaque principles. Procedures vary widely without obvious reason."
  He examined in detail training and enterprise councils, housing associations and national health service trusts and found a complete mess with regard to accountability.
  We should remember the Charles Trevelyan warnings about the dangers of patronage when considering the appointment process. It is an elementary truth that if one sets up an appointive state, which is essentially what has happened—for good reasons for bad—one needs appointees, and good ones, to run the various bodies. The fact is that many have not been very good, perhaps because good ones were in short supply. Unless we tackle the nature of the appointments system, we shall have to face the consequences of patronage that were discussed 150 years ago.
  Let me cite the example from the west midlands with which I am fairly familiar. A major reason why the west midlands story continued so long and generated so much scandal was that the chairman of the West Midlands regional health authority was the friend of a Minister. He had been appointed as a ministerial placeman and it became impossible to remove him. Indeed, the more he was attacked, the more he was protected. The same is true of Ministers—they cannot be got rid of when they get too awful because it is too embarrassing to get rid of them. That was precisely what happened in the west midlands. Someone whose maladministration was at the root of so many problems could not be removed because he was a ministerial friend, the president of the university Conservative association and various other things. Patronage is bad in democratic terms but also in terms of efficiency. When the scandal was compounded by a pay-off of £10,000 for having brought the whole region to the point of catastrophe, people rightly ask what on earth is going on.
  In response to a point made a few moments ago, I believe that there is a sense in which at bottom much will always depend on the sheer good sense, honesty and probity of the people involved. Here, too, there is a difficulty. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that the culture within public services has changed considerably as a consequence of the public service revolution brought about by the Government. The strongest defence against corruption of all kinds is honest people with a sense of professional pride and service. If we undermine and corrode that defence we shall be led into the problems of which we have had an inkling today. The Government's actions have caused precisely that erosion. They have destabilised the traditional and

  957
  professional culture within public services, which was the best guarantee of honest dealings and probity and all that we consider so important.
  I add one more element to the picture. Another characteristic of the bodies that we are debating is the lack of external accountability, or certainly the lack of external democratic and local accountability. There has, rightly, been an obsession with upward financial accountability, accountability from the centre. We are now told that the Government are strengthening accountability even more because of the PAC report. However, some of the best discipline arises when people are publicly and democratically accountable to users and electors. In so far as the Government have removed those dimensions of accountability from the services, they have made it all too easy to forget responsibility.
  I conclude with an article that I stumbled on the other day. It was written in 1938 by Sir Ivor Jennings, a leading authority in the early part of the century and the leading expert on public administration. Interestingly enough, the article was entitled "Corruption and Public Services". He noted the way in which increasingly, even then, public administration was moving from the old uniform structures to the new structures of boards. He wanted to sound a warning and that warning must be compounded now. He said:
  "If it is desired to set up commissions for public services or committees for public control of private enterprise, it is essential that they should be co-ordinated with the general system of administration so as to share in the tradition of the civil service and the democratic control that maintains it."
  They were wise words 50 or more years ago and they are echoed by those of the PAC report. The tragedy is that in the intervening period, and especially in the past decade and a half, we have not put in place the structures of accountability to match the changes in public administration. We are now paying the price.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. John Denham: I shall not detain the House for long. I have followed the Wessex regional health service story almost since I was elected in 1992 when the first and rather bowdlerised version of a district auditor's report on Wessex was published. I have a few final observations to make because this is perhaps the last debate to refer to the sorry Wessex saga and what it can teach us about standards of conduct in public life and the responsibility of Government and Ministers towards public bodies such as health authorities when things start to go wrong.
  I shall not repeat the information about the Wessex saga which is already in the public domain, but it is worth noting that, if it had not been for the determination of the Public Accounts Committee, much of that information about Wessex would still be confidential. A major report in two sections by the district auditor would have remained confidential, had it not been obtained in part by journals such as Computer Weekly and The Independent and thus been drawn to the attention of the PAC which, having seen it, insisted on publishing it. The information in the report should have been made public from the outset and the Ministers who had seen it should have moved heaven and earth to make it public. I thank the PAC for doing so.
  958
  I now develop a theme which was touched on in the PAC report on Wessex but not dealt with in great detail. That is the failure of successive Secretaries of State and the national health service management executive to respond to early warnings about what was happening in Wessex. The PAC concluded:
  "It is unacceptable…that, although a series of auditors' reports were presented to the Management Executive and the Secretary of State between February 1987 and August 1989 detailing what had gone wrong in the implementation of the project, it was not abandoned by the Regional Health Authority until 1990".
  As far as I know, the PAC did not consider the auditors' reports in detail. What was in them and how reasonable was the failure of successive Secretaries of State to act?
  The tender for the RISP contract—the regional information systems plan—in Wessex was awarded in August or September 1986. The first audit report was sent to the Secretary of State as early as February 1987. In essence, that report revealed the major issues that were to be at the centre of the Public Accounts Committee investigation when it took place in 1993. The report described for the Secretary of State the role of Arthur Andersen, which was involved both in evaluating the contract and in tendering for the contract—a practice highlighted as wrong in procedure and in practice. That report, dated February 1987, also showed that the contract had been let at an inquorate meeting of the authority.
  Having had that information, did the Secretary of State respond to the auditors? The auditors had said that it should be considered whether there was sufficient justification for not accepting a different contract that had been recommended by consultants, and also that the propriety of affording one competitor access to the evaluation data should be examined. The Secretary of State had been asked to consider whether a retendering exercise should be undertaken, and even whether authorisation existed for the letting of the contract. Yet despite those matters having been drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister in 1987, nothing effective happened.
  In August 1987 the health service auditor found it necessary to issue a second interim report before the closing of accounts for the year 1986–87. That report,which also went to the Secretary of State, had no fewer than four different sections highlighting concerns about financial management in Wessex.
  The first, headed "Financial Control over Regional Information Systems Plan", revealed that the health authority was short of about £8.3 million to carry out the project. The auditor expressed his concern at the "escalating costs" of the project. The arrangements for financial control were examined, and the auditor wrote to the Secretary of State:
  "I conclude that I am unable to establish the costs of the RISP development up to April 1986".
  The second paper in the same report criticised the recruitment of staff and the use of contract staff in connection with the development of the project. The third report to be sent to the Secretary of State criticised the engagement and control of management consultants. The fourth criticised in some detail the purchase of computers.
  If the first interim report was not sufficient to set alarm bells ringing in the Secretary of State's office, surely the second report should have done so. Yet it appears that no effective action was taken. Why not? For all the wrong reasons. For the Government and for IBM, the major

  959
  computer company, RISP was a flagship project, and it was more important to keep that flagship sailing than to examine the criticisms being received from the auditors. The whole undertaking was driven by an assumption that the project must succeed, no matter what the cost to the public.
  It was also unfortunate for Wessex and for the Government that Sir Leonard Peach was head of the national health service management executive at that time. He was a secondee to that post from IBM—but IBM was the major contractor in the Wessex RISP project. I referred to Sir Leonard in an Adjournment debate on the subject and he wrote to me, quite reasonably, saying that as head of the management executive he was required to take no part in any decision-making relating to IBM contracts and had at all times signed the appropriate disclaimers. That should be placed on the record, although there is no independent record of it because when the NHS management executive moved to Leeds all the papers were thrown away; I have been told in writing that there is no record of any disclaimers having been signed and we shall take that at what is said.
  Given the failure of the NHS management executive to respond to the audit reports that it was receiving, it was surely unfortunate for the Government that that body must have been disabled by the fact that its chief executive could play no part in examining what had been happening in the major IBM contract in Wessex. He could have nothing to do with it. The person at the top of the organisation, who should have been driving through Wessex's books in 1987 and 1988 to try to stop the waste of money, could play no part in any such attempt. We must recognise that that was a direct consequence of the Government's decision to bring people from the major contracting firms as secondees into that part of the control structure of the national health service.
  The accounts were duly qualified again in 1987. The next phase was in 1988, when a further audit report was sent to the Secretary of State. We have to conclude that by that time the auditor had given up sending copies of the reports to the health authority, because it clearly did not intend to do anything about them. The next report was sent to the Secretary of State alone, in November 1988.
  That report foreshadowed the major issues involved in the second aspect of the RISP disaster —the privatisation of the in-house computer operation in Wessex to a company called CFM. In 1988 the Secretary of State was told that the procedure adopted by Wessex had serious shortcomings. That must have been so, to justify a one-off confidential report to the Secretary of State. There was no proper work specification and no demonstration that value for money was being obtained; the parameters of the work were vague and non-specific; arrangements regarding the provision of capital funding had not been determined. I could go on to detail a further four or five aspects of what was wrong with the arrangements.
  Is there any evidence that the Secretary of State responded to the report? I am afraid not—or at least, the Secretary of State did not respond effectively. Yet it was the privatisation of the in-house computer operation that created the situation in which a private company was in effect writing its own bills to the health authority for work that it was determining itself. That formed the major second plank of the criticism by the PAC.
  960
  Even in August 1990, two years later, we find that when the contract came to be renegotiated with the privatised computer operation, Wessex failed to negotiate a satisfactory new contract, despite all the apparent attention by the management executive.
  There is an interesting sidelight on those events. By August 1990—indeed, by the time of the first report in 1988—Sir Robin Buchanan, who is now chair of the NHS supplies authority, was chair of the Wessex regional health authority. I find it significant that the Secretary of State received a report criticising Sir Robin's renegotiation of the second contract before he was appointed as chair of the NHS supplies authority. The PAC took no view on whether Sir Robin was an appropriate person to be the chair of that authority. None the less, it criticised him quite sharply for his failure to get a grip on the RISP project at an early stage. I wonder whether, had the audit reports been made public at that time, Sir Robin would have been appointed to the supplies authority.
  It may simply be an unfortunate coincidence that Sir Robin is a prominent member of the Conservative party. Perhaps it is only people of a malicious turn of mind who believe that his political links protected him from proper scrutiny. However, if the Government are criticised in that manner, it is they who have invited such criticism.
  Finally, the response of the Treasury to the Wessex report, together with other Government statements, encourage us to believe that throughout the history of the RISP saga the NHS management executive and successive Secretaries of State struggled manfully for control over the errant health authority, but, despite having done their best, regrettably failed. However, the record does not sustain that view: it clearly suggests that Ministers were more than prepared to shelter behind the words of the health authority in concealing the disaster taking place in Wessex.
  I shall cite two examples from the parliamentary record. On 15 May 1987 the Minister then responsible, now the Lord President of the Council, answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about the tendering procedure. He said:
  "I understand from the regional health authority that the tendering companies were selected under the EC-GATT arrangements."
  By 15 May 1987, the Secretary of State had received an audit report which, in my view, made it crystal clear that EC-GATT arrangements had not been followed. How was it, then, that the Minister told the House that they had been followed? To quote those magic words,
  "I understand from the regional health authority".—[Official Report, 15 May 1987; Vol. 116, c. 431.]
  In other words, to give a frankly misleading impression to the House the Minister chose to use assurances of which I am told that there are no written records, but only verbal assurances, to contradict the audit report that he had received.
  In January 1988, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) asked the Secretary of State:
  "if he will indicate the extent and the reasons for the overspend by the Wessex regional health authority on its computer system".
  The Minister replied:
  "I have been assured by officers of Wessex regional health authority"—

  961
  those wonderful words again—
  "that their computer programme is not overspent".— [Official Report, 6 January 1988; Vol. 124, c. 199.]
  Again, that may not have been factually untrue. However, the Secretary of State had received the report of November 1988 telling him that the programme was in great financial difficulties and that a further £8.8 million, which had not yet been identified, would be required to carry out the programme. Ministers have been all too willing to shelter behind the words of the health authority to prevent Parliament or anyone else wishing to ask questions from knowing what was going on.
  It is a sorry story. Many of the issues to which hon. Members have referred today have occurred in quangos and in other bodies at arm's length from Government and the audit service has picked up what has gone wrong. Wessex provides a well-documented case in which successive Ministers were regularly informed about what was going on, but failed to act. To my mind, that makes that situation worse than any of the others to which hon. Members have referred today.
  That failure has led to a great and unnecessary delay in acting to improve the procedures in the health service. The Public Accounts Committee noted with reference to events that took place in 1986:
  "We are concerned that…the Regional Health Authority…involved Andersen Consulting in appraising available computer software to run on the preferred bidder's systems. We note that subsequently…the contract…was awarded to Andersen Consulting at an inquorate meeting of the Authority".
  We commented that the management executive accepted the Committee's concerns. The Treasury response stated that a new model of public procurement procedures was available for general use in early 1994. It took the Public Accounts Committee to publish the audit report in 1993 to get the NHS management executive to produce new guidelines for 1994. Ministers knew what had gone wrong in Wessex since February 1987. The fact is that no action was taken for six years to tighten up the procurement of computers until the PAC published its report. That is utterly unacceptable.
  The lesson from Wessex is that nothing changes unless the spotlight of publicity is shone on one of the problems. If the spotlight of publicity is not on it, or if misleading answers can be given to perfectly proper questions, nothing will happen. That is the real lesson of Wessex and I have yet to be convinced that that lesson has been learnt.
  8.33 pm
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) for his full explanation at the beginning of the debate and I pay tribute to his work and to the work of the members of the Public Accounts Committee. I welcome the Financial Secretary to the debate. I understand that this is his first debate on the PAC reports, as it is mine. He has had three months to consider the reports; I have had but three hours. However, I feel that in sitting through this interesting and educational debate, I have learnt a great deal already about the pathways of public money and about the odd cul-de-sac into which it finds its way.
  This afternoon, we heard explanations of what went on in the Welsh Development Agency. We have heard about its rather interesting and obscure redundancy payment schemes, its car leasing schemes and its eight-month
  962
  gardening leave schemes, which seemed immensely attractive at about 6.30 pm. We heard about the difficulty in getting information from various bodies, about the scandalous state of affairs with the emergence of the Welsh WIZARD and about the disappearance of £800,000 in privatisation discussions.
  We heard again about the West Midlands regional health authority and about Wessex regional health authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has done a great deal to bring into the spotlight for consideration the concerns about public money and where it is going. Millions of pounds of patient care money was frittered away in ways that have been wholly condemned by hon. Members of all parties.
  The problem speaks volumes about the changes in the national health service, with the development of the new accounting units and the difficulty of keeping track of all those units. The British Medical Journal of 22 January this year drew two conclusions from the Committee's findings. The first was:
  "the NHS should review its reliance on outside consultants, the most obvious beneficiaries of the changes"—
  in other words, the most obvious people to have gained from the public purse. The second conclusion was:
  "management buy outs clearly carry the danger that those participating will give priority to their own interests over those of the NHS. The two points are linked and lead to a more general conclusion. To the extent that the NHS hives off activities by contracting out managerial functions, there is a risk that it may undermine its own esprit de corps."
  The public sector ethos is an elusive ethos, which can too easily be damaged and destroyed in the changing system.
  We heard about the fraudulent payments in the British Council, about the Pergau dam proposal and spending, about the role of the accounting officers and about the lack of flagging up of the accounting officer's letters to warn that there were problems beyond fraud. I welcome the Government's proposal to change the way in which those letters are interpreted.
  We heard about the Development Board for Rural Wales, with the interesting allocation of tenancy rights, the secret hiving off of money and the maladministration. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) pointed out, the Committee has produced 49 reports, a huge amount of work, detailing time and again the problems being experienced with the accountability of public money.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) made some interesting and important points about the present and future roles of the PAC in scrutinising the spending of public money. I hope that his points and all the other contributions will be taken up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) pointed out the structural problems that now exist in pursuing public money into the places that it funds.
  There were the problems of the Scottish Buses experience and the trust ports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was right to be fascinated by computers and the apparent obsession with them in all those contracts. I was interested in his interpretation of contract law and to hear that it would appear in many cases that those who broke the contracts were those who received the compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) again returned to the question of public accountability and

  963
  how we ensure that that money is accountable, a point that was echoed powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright).
  The reports culminate in the excellent proposals in the report "The Proper Conduct of Public Business". Let us not be misled. The report tells us in the first paragraph:
  "In recent years we have seen and reported on a number of serious failures in administrative and financial systems and controls within departments and other public bodies, which have led to money being wasted or otherwise improperly spent. These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years."
  The late leader of the Labour party raised those points in the House of Commons and they have been misrepresented in some respects in this debate. The report said:
  "These failings represent a departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years."
  That departure has occurred because of the structural changes. It seems that the pursuing and understanding of those changes centre around the expansion of quangos, the next steps agencies and privatisation and contractorisation. I am not going to enter into a debate this evening about whether it is right or wrong that those organisations exist. We have made clear the view of the Labour party. Today's debate is about how the fragmentation of so much of the structure of Government has led to a lack of accountability and how we can continue to ensure that public money is accountable.
  With the proliferation of accounting units, it is now very difficult for the Public Accounts Committee, for the National Audit Office and for the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure that that money is always accountable. Parliament needs to address itself to the questions raised in the reports about how we now ensure not only that the Government take note of the proposals but that public money can always be seen and how it is spent can always be known.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) made some interesting observations about the standards of public accountability and the ability of the public sector to run institutions, and compared public—unfavourably—with private. I was interested in how he could manage that because there are no direct comparisons between the rigorousness of assessments of public and private institutions, considering how private institutions run themselves. Indeed, the PAC does not have the right to follow the spending of public money through the contracting process into private companies. In the spirit of the debate this evening, we need to look again at those proposals and the remit of the Committee.
  If public money is to be accountable, the organisations which have that public money need to be accountable and need to be called to account by the House. The Public Accounts Committee reports, 49 of them, demonstrate clearly that that is not the case. The eighth report, "The Proper Conduct of Public Business", shows how we can begin that process. It catalogues inadequate financial controls, failure to comply with rules, inadequate stewardship of public money and assets and failure to provide value for money. That is a catalogue of shame and disaster. I hope that the Government will take on
  964
  board the recommendations and ensure the proper conduct of public business and the proper accountability of public money.
  8.45 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): I begin by welcoming the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) to her new position and by commending the speed with which she mastered her brief. I must say, however, that the last two or three minutes of her speech did not carry me and, I suspect, my colleagues wholly with her.
  It has been a good debate, broadly free from partisan remarks. It shows that the House can meet on common ground and debate how it can best protect taxpayers' money and promote the highest standards in public service.
  Let me begin by adding my thanks to those of others for the dedicated efforts of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and his colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee during the past year. This month marks the 30th anniversary of three members of the Committee as Members of Parliament—an observation which says much about the personal expertise of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has been closely associated with the Committee for much of that period and in his 11th year as Chairman, he has brought great wisdom and experience—not least as a Treasury Minister—to its work.
  It is greatly to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee that the PAC probably enjoys greater respect, not only in Parliament, but in the country as a whole, than it has ever done in its long and distinguished history. That that respect is shared by the Government is demonstrated by the fact that, according to the latest National Audit Office annual report, the Government accepted 95 per cent. of the Committee's recommendations last year. In addition to thanking the Committee Members, perhaps I could also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who stepped down earlier in the year after eight years of conspicuous—sometimes very conspicuous—service.
  The achievements of the Committee are, of course, founded on the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff at the NAO. The Government wholly support the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Strong, independent auditors, serving a strong and independent Public Accounts Committee are essential to the maintenance of proper standards of public administration in this country. The Government recognise the key role played by the PAC in setting those standards and in seeing that they are adhered to. The Government pledge themselves to playing their full part in maintaining the integrity of standards in public service.
  The NAO reports that the Government pay most attention to the critical reports. But I shall mention in passing today's report, which compliments the Treasury on its effectiveness in the recent sale of BT shares.
  I have not served on the PAC before, nor, I confess, have I taken part in its debates. However, as a former spending Minister, I am familiar with its work. I used to have responsibility for the Property Services Agency [Interruption.]—one of the regular suspects rounded up by the PAC and asked to account for itself. Now, as a

  965
  Treasury Minister, I am grateful for the savings of £229 million made last year as a result of the NAO's value-for-money reports.
  No one should believe that the issues that we have debated today are new. I asked for details of the PAC's past work and I found, in 1889, that the Committee was complaining about the absence of competitive tendering for the celebration of the Jubilee of Queen Victoria's reign! My predecessor made an excuse, which I fear may have irritated the Committee, that,
  "as a rule, these things have to be done in a very great hurry".
  As a Jubilee celebration is, by definition, a predictable event, it seemed a rather weak reply. I hope to do better as I respond to today's debate.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned silence clauses, and the point was picked up by other hon. Members. Like them, I deprecate the kind of silence clause that we have heard about today. In the case of the Welsh Development Agency, such undertakings are no longer required when a member of staff leaves. In addition, the national health service executive has agreed with the conclusion that such clauses are unjustified and the NHS is now issuing guidance.
  The point raised by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne about secrecy leads to a more general point about openness. That ties in with comments made by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright). Openness is a key weapon on the part of the Public Accounts Committee and the Government in deterring, preventing and detecting abuse. Secrecy must play no part in the role of non-departmental public bodies.
  The code of best practice for board members states that public bodies and their boards must at all times comply with all reasonable requests for information from Parliament, from users of services and from individual citizens. Each year, the annual report should provide a full description of the board's activities and state the extent to which key strategic objectives and financial and other performance targets have been met. It should list the names of the current members of the board and some senior staff and provide details of their remuneration. I agree with much that was said about openness.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that the losses that are incurred are not impersonal losses with no losers. We heard about people who may have lost their pensions and there was inevitably a knock-on effect for those affected in the NHS. We have not been talking about victimless incidents.
  Another general theme mentioned by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne which was referred to by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), related to access. As the House is probably aware, the Comptroller and Auditor General is the statutory auditor of all Government Departments, executive agencies and trading funds. He is also the auditor of half the executive NDPBs and he has inspection rights in respect of all those where he is not the auditor.
  The CAG is the auditor of almost all advisory NDPBs and of the summarised accounts of the entire NHS. The National Audit Office can carry out value-for-money studies at all Departments, all executive agencies, all trading funds and all NDPBs, throughout the NHS, the
  966
  universities and grant-maintained schools. The NAO has inspection rights in universities and grant-maintained schools.
  In addition, the National Audit Act 1983 provides the CAG with a statutory right of access to any other public body whose members are appointed by, or on behalf of, the Crown and which receives more than half its income in any year from public funds.
  Access to a wide range of other bodies, including many in the private sector, has been arranged by agreement with the sponsor Department. As the Government have emphasised, the need for the CAG to have access to any other body will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  As was mentioned in the debate, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) have recently discussed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of NAO access in contracting-out cases. The guidance issued by the Treasury and the Cabinet Office states unequivocally that satisfactory arrangements for NAO access must be made when services are contracted out. However, of course, the Government will give the most careful consideration to any specific recommendations that the Committee might make on the subject of NAO access.
  Mr. Maclennan: Would not it be more appropriate for the assumption to be that the NAO has a right to intervene and to oversee the spending by NDPBs unless, perhaps, that particular NDPB seeks exemption from, as a result of a ministerial intervention, giving grounds in the public interest?
  Sir George Young: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's view is that at the moment there is no need to extend the statutory right of access and I have been through the position as we see it. However, we recognise that that is a subject on which there are strong feelings on both sides of the House. As I have just said, we will give careful consideration to any specific recommendations from the Committee relating to NAO access. I cannot say more than that at this stage.
  Mr. Sheldon: I am not sure what that means. Does it mean that the NAO will not have access until the PAC considers the matter? Obviously the first step in an investigation is taken by the NAO itself. Until it has information, it cannot say what is missing or what is not missing. If there is a competitive situation in which collusion is suspected, we are talking about a very important safeguard for the NAO. I do not believe that the private sector needs to be worried about these matters. After all, such practice is common in the defence industries, which are only too happy to tender for business knowing full well the consequences. A similar acceptance would arise in a wider area.
  Sir George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I have seen the record of the meeting that he had with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor where those points were rehearsed. We would like to reflect on the points made at that meeting and see how best we can respond. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there is not much more that I can say at this stage.
  I refer now to the detailed points raised by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and others. Clearly, the situation in the West Midlands regional health

  967
  authority described in the PAC report was wholly unacceptable. The Department of Health accepted that all areas of the NHS should be publicly accountable and subject to review of their performance. All those in the NHS concerned with the expenditure of public money should be aware of their responsibilities and the need for strict propriety.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has published codes of conduct and accountability which set out a framework against which the conduct of public business in the NHS can and will be judged. Those codes of conduct have been adopted by all NHS boards in England.
  The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) raised several detailed issues about Wessex regional health authority. If I may, I would like to reply to him in writing. However, the very thorough investigation by the PAC followed that of the district auditor which was undertaken at the request of Wessex regional health authority. The PAC report welcomed the action taken by the NHS executive and the RHA. That action will ensure that the lessons have been learnt across the NHS and that the events which the PAC rightly criticised do not recur.
  As I have just said, codes of conduct and a code of accountability have been implemented. Among other things, that requires a clearer definition of the functions of chairmen and non-executive board members of health authorities and NHS trusts. National health service boards are required to establish audit and remuneration and terms of service committees. Board directors are required to declare any private interests that are material or relevant to NHS business.
  With regard to the British Council, there was a different incident as "a criminal gang", to use the PAC phrase, was involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) asked what happened. In that case, as I believe the Committee will know, eight people have been charged and a trial has been set for January 1995.
  New enhanced control mechanisms are now in place in the British Council, new financially qualified and experienced staff have been recruited, and a new audit committee has been established. The delayed programmes were in sectors that were funded by the council's own revenue-earning activities. It is a little harsh to move to the judgment which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern)—the ultimate sanction of having the system removed—but I notice that that is an ultimate deterrent to be used only when everything else has failed.
  A judicial review of the legality of expenditure on the Pergau dam is set for 9 and 10 November. The important point that arose is that of ministerial directions to officials. The Government have accepted the Committee's recommendation in its report on Pergau that in future, where such a direction is issued to overrule official advice on matters of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, the accounting officer will pass the relevant papers to the Comptroller and Auditor General without undue delay. The Treasury memorandum on the responsibilities of an accounting officer is being amended to reflect that.
  968
  On rural Wales, I was grateful for the kind words following the issue by the Treasury of guidance to all Departments covering expenditure on staff benefits in NDPBs and the need for arrangements to ensure that NDPBs do not act beyond their delegated authority.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) put the debate in context by reminding us that most of the money that is spent is spent legitimately and properly and that one should not get the matter out of perspective. He also drew attention to the eighth report, to which I shall return. It made sense for the PAC to stand back and see whether it could identify some of the common themes that had emerged from its reports and use its influence to identify those themes, promote them and publish them to make sure that we learnt lessons from its experience. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about people at the senior levels of Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue.
  I listened with respect to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, as I always do, but he overstated his case. I listened to the quotations from the eighth report and I have read it again. I could not find the causality between reforms and failure which he asserted. Other members of the Committee were also unable to trace that causality. I defend with vigour my new Department, which said that it rejected the inference which has been drawn from the report, because I do not think that the report directly comes to that conclusion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) stressed the benefits of the programme for next steps agencies in terms of improved efficiency and job satisfaction. He made several helpful suggestions about how the House of Commons itself might more closely monitor the Executive—suggestions on which it would be imprudent for me to comment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) again stressed that, by comparison with other countries, our standards are of the highest. He also commented on the improvements in performance in some next steps agencies.
  I share the views of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about computers. There can be no excuse for treating investment in computers any differently from any other capital expenditure. There must be value for money and so on. On termination settlements, on which the right hon. Gentleman commented, detailed guidance has now been issued to health authorities and to NHS trusts on the principles and procedures to apply when considering severance payments to senior managers. That underlines the importance of having due regard to probity and value for money. Trusts have also been asked as an interim measure to provide a quarterly return to the NHS executive setting out the termination payments that they have made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West again made the point that some private sector institutions could not have survived the scale of loss that parts of the public sector have survived, because they would have gone out of business. He also made the valid point that one should not assume always that the public sector has higher standards than the private sector. What he said on that subject was particularly relevant.
  On the Field system, we accept that mistakes were made in the management of the project. The Department has learnt the lessons. The Government's view was there

  969
  was no practical alternative but to proceed with the project, because without it the training and enterprise councils' ability to manage public money would have been jeopardised.
  On Scottish Buses, which was raised by the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), the Department was satisfied that the price received for the Scottish Bus Group companies accurately reflected their market value at the time of sale. The reduction in SBG profits during the pre-sale period was the result of declining economic activity and extreme vulnerability to competition in a deregulated market.
  On grant-maintained schools, the Treasury minute, I hope, responded positively to the PAC's recommendations. The National Audit Office's report recognised that the Department for Education and individual schools had approached the change in status and the new financial regime with a large measure of success.
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, who apologised for intervening as an outsider, made a thoughtful speech with which I profoundly disagreed. It is easier to monitor public expenditure in a disaggregated system than in an aggregated system. If individual outputs are specified, put out to competitive tendering and retendered every three years, it is easier to keep track of what is going on than if it is within one simple aggregated system. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the next steps agencies. They set out and publish specific targets for their performance. They report on their perfonnance. There are annual reports, and accounts are presented to Parliament. The accounts are audited by the NAO. The chief executives are accounting officers who are summoned to give evidence before the PAC. That is greater accountability than when it was all lost within one Department. The present system can lead to greater openness, greater transparency and greater value for money.
  Finally, I turn to what was the most interesting report, the eighth report on the proper conduct of public business—a highly topical subject. Only seven paragraphs long, the report provides the right focus for the debate about the Government's public sector reforms.
  The case is sometimes made by our critics that we cannot maintain the ethos and integrity which are traditionally associated with the public service if we somehow contaminate that culture with that of the private sector. It is sometimes argued that the entrepreneurial flair of the competition-driven private sector can have no place in the public sector. I wholly refute that. What we want, and what we can achieve, is the best of both cultures, and I believe that the Public Accounts Committee endorses that approach.
  970
  Paragraph 5 of the report, which was much quoted, says that
  "there is no reason why a proper concern for the sensible conduct of public business and care for the honest handling of public money should not be combined with effective programmes for promoting economy and efficiency."
  Indeed, the Committee goes on to say in the next paragraph:
  "We believe it is important that the drive to provide improved services at reduced cost should be sustained and that this drive should not be stifled by unnecessary bureaucracy."
  That is what the Government have been doing. Improved value for money is at the heart of our programme of reform to strengthen public management. It has involved the next steps executive agencies, the White Paper "Competing for Quality", the citizens charter and the civil service White Paper. The programme is not confined to central Government. In local government, compulsory competitive tendering is providing a powerful stimulus to improve services.
  A range of private sector disciplines is being successfully transplanted into the public sector, giving it fresh vigour and testing and improving performance by using competition, franchising and better management information systems.
  However—and this is my last word—being more entrepreneurial does not mean, and must not mean, abandoning proper standards of conduct. The Government will not tolerate "wide-boy" practices in public sector bodies, and there is no room for complacency. It is for those reasons that I welcome the reports listed in the motion. Through them, the Committee has reassured hon. Members of the need and justification for the better management of public services, to which the Government are committed. I commend the motion to the House.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the 55th to 63rd Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1992–93, of the 1st to 39th and 41st Reports of Session 1993–94, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on these Reports (Cm 2419, Cm 2446, Cm 2492, Cm 2493, Cm 2555, Cm 2577, Cm 2602, Cm 2618 and Cm 2677) with particular reference to the following Reports:
  Session 1992–93
  Fifty-seventh, West Midlands Regional Health Authority: Regionally Managed Services Organisation;
  Sixty-third, Wessex Regional Health Authority: Regional Information Systems Plan;
  Session 1993–94
  Eighth, The Proper Conduct of Public Business;
  Sixteenth, The British Council Account, 1992–93;
  Seventeenth, Pergau Hydro-Electric Project;
  Twenty-third, Development Board for Rural Wales: Allocation and Sale of Housing and Car Leasing Scheme.

  Legal Aid and Advice
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the draft Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the draft Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) Regulations 1994 and the draft Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) (Scotland) Regulations 1994.
  9.7 pm
  Ms Dawn Primarolo: First, I congratulate the Minister; it is his birthday today, which probably explains the speed with which he moved the motion.
  We are happy to confirm our support for the parental orders regulations. Basically, they provide a fast track for the adoption of children where surrogacy, which is not legally enforceable at present, has been part of the arrangements. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 clearly states that a woman who gives birth is the mother and, while I find this term difficult, the "commissioning couple"—that is, the natural mother and father; the parents who have donated the egg and the sperm—must adopt the child. The Act does not provide for that. The parental orders will speed up the adoption process.
  The system of a guardian ad litem being appointed by the court is aimed at ensuring that the Adoption Act 1976 does not cause any difficulties or problems. The legal aid provisions —the only legal aid extension that the Government have provided recently—will assist in that process where there is a challenge.
  We welcome the regulations. The issue was debated at length when the Bill was originally before Parliament. I understand that it is a complex issue which has now been settled. I hope that the House will have no hesitation in giving its full support to the regulations so that we can regularise a situation that has been unacceptable for many.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I am glad to welcome the remarks that the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) has made from the Opposition Front Bench. I am also glad to add my good wishes to the Government and to thank them for bringing the matter on.
  I think that I ought to say that those of us who have pressed for the matter to be dealt with for a long time have been extraordinarily patient. After all, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was put on the statute book four years ago. As the Minister knows, I have pressed both him and his predecessor for a long time for the regulations to be produced. I hope that the Minister will say something about why it has taken this unconscionable length of time to bring the regulations before the House. It is not good government practice. The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves for the amount of time that it has taken. I hope that it will not happen again.
  972
  I remind the House of the reasons why the regulations are before us. It stems from an amendment that I suggested to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, as I recall, on Second Reading and to which I spoke both at that stage and on Report. The House might be interested to be reminded of the circumstances that caused me to become interested in the matter.
  One of my constituents and her husband told me their story, which was an extremely sad one. The lady had been born without a uterus, but she ovulated in the normal way. Therefore, taking advantage of modern science, they had some ova taken from her and fertilised with the husband's sperm. The resultant embryo was implanted in a surrogate mother who had agreed to bear the child. No payment was made.
  Ultimately, after the normal period—not the period that it seems to take the Government to move from an Act to regulations—the surrogate mother produced two bonny twins, whom I have met. Everyone was delighted. It was a joyous moment. My constituents were presented with the twins by the lady who had borne them. She said, "Look after them well. I have looked after them well for nine months. Take them away with my love and best wishes." That is what they did.
  The couple returned to Cumbria and attempted to register the children as their own. The registrar said, "I am afraid that will not do. You will have to adopt them." They replied—I shall not repeat the words that I imagine they used—"Don't be so stupid. These are our children genetically. What are you talking about? There is no question of adopting them." Apparently the law said that in those circumstances the children had to be adopted to be taken into the care of their genetic parents. It was at that stage that I came to understand the case and moved changes in the law which ended up as section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. May I pay tribute to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was extremely helpful and understanding at that time?
  Provided the House agrees to the regulations, as I passionately hope that it will, that couple, who are no longer my constituents, will be able to use the arrangements under those regulations. I hope that the Minister will confirm that one has to apply for a parental order, so that one can be deemed the proper parents of children in such a case. As I understand it, the regulations state that that must be done within six months; in the case of children born before the regulations came into play, the parents will also have six months to apply. That will mean that my constituents, whose twins were born five or six years ago now, will be able to apply and to be deemed the parents by the court under a parental order—similar to an adoption order, but crucially different—and that genetic parents will not have to apply to adopt their own children. That seems to be a sensible way out.
  With the passing of the regulations, there will be much joy among parents who have the control and care of their genetic children although the mother may not have borne them. If it is passed, it will bring much happiness to a significant number of families.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: From conversations with the Minister and fairly lengthy ministerial correspondence, especially on the submissions of Sir

  973
  Malcolm MacNaughton, professor of paediatrics at the university of Glasgow, I think that the hon. Gentleman can anticipate my concerns.
  My locus in this matter is that I am one of the lay members of the biological sciences advisory committee at the university of Edinburgh, which is distinguished in the medical field not least in reproductive biology, as the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office knows.
  One does not criticise the Clerks of the House or its authorities so, in one sentence, I cannot comprehend how the amendment, which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) moved late at night, got into the Criminal Justice Bill. Some hon. Members who were in Committee dealing with totally different matters were taken completely by surprise. In the circumstances, we did not wish to divide the House because we thought that, in the atmosphere that pervaded it at the time, ii would simply result in a humiliating vote, which would injure the cause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and I interrupted the debate. I asked the hon. Member for Edgbaston a straight question as to whether her proposals would in any way affect research. When we talk about research, we are not talking about things which people do for fun. As the Minister knows, the research is into the very essence of Down's syndrome and other extremely crippling diseases.
  What are the reflections and the position of the Department on the issue? How was it that decisions were made before the report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority? At the very least, one would have thought that the Secretary of State would wait until such time as the very expert organisation which she herself set up and in which there has been general trust had reported and until one had heard what it had to say.
  My question tonight, which I think is relevant to these orders, is: what is the latest thinking of the Department on this very delicate and sensitive matter? What can be done to safeguard research into crippling diseases involving foetal tissue which, as I say, is very important and could stop a great deal of human and family misery?
  9.20 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): First, may I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) for her good wishes and for the skilful way in which she did my job and described what the Government are proposing tonight?
  I must say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that, while the subject that he raises is somewhat outside the scope of the regulations, I am familiar with the point that he is making. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was not intended to ban research, and she has made that clear. The fact that it was passed is a matter for the will of the House on a free vote.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Sackville: I am sorry, but I would like to gel on.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Sackville: No, I would like to proceed on the subject of the orders.
  974
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who described his interest in commissioning couples and how he became interested in that subject. It was due to my right hon. Friend's impetus that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was amended so that the interests of couples who had commissioned a surrogate birth were taken into account, and the mechanism has been proposed under the regulations for them to achieve parental rights with a much simpler system than a full adoption.
  My right hon. Friend pointed out the time that has elapsed. It is regrettable, and it is the product of matters being considerably more complex than they first appeared. They have involved not only consultation between Departments on very delicate points of law, but consultation with outside bodies. A mixture of those procedural matters and some complicated policy decisions over matters to do with the guardian and curator ad litem have meant that it has taken longer than we would wish to bring the orders forward.
  I say to those couples who been waiting for these regulations that I am aware of the anguish that they must have suffered during this time of anticipation and expectation. I hope that we see shall the regulations go through the House. They are also, I understand, to be discussed in another place tonight, and I very much hope that they will soon become law so that we shall have a system by which those couples can achieve the parental rights that they have so long sought.
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the Minister given way?
  Mr. Sackville indicated dissent.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) (Scotland) Regulations 1994, which were laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Sir Anthony Grant be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. David Amess be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Bates, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  LIAISON
  Ordered,
  That Mr. John Watts be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Sir Thomas Arnold be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Bates, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should just like to register the fact that I think it unfortunate that a Minister would not answer a question politely put to him at 9.25 pm, when we were not exactly short of time. I can well understand it when Ministers are winding up and have a great deal to say in a short time;

  975
  they may not wish to give way in those circumstances. But what happened this evening was, I repeat, somewhat unfortunate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for many years, so he knows that the Minister is responsible for his own speech. I was very tolerant with the hon. Gentleman while he was speaking, even though he strayed rather far outside the narrow motion under discussion.

  Kevin Williams
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  9.25 pm
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: The House will be familiar with the tragic events at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989, when 95 people died, a couple of them my constituents. The House will also be familiar with the fact that the events leading up to the disaster have been well rehearsed and were reported on by Lord Justice Taylor. It is not the purpose of this debate to go over that ground again or to rehash the arguments that were dealt with in some detail by the Taylor report.
  Tonight's debate is narrowly and tightly drawn. It relates only to the death of one of my constituents, Kevin Williams. It is not my purpose to talk about events before 3.15 pm, the cut-off point that the coroner decided should be set at the inquest. His suggestion was that all who died that day were brain dead by that time. Therefore the evidence from that day was dealt with only up to that point.
  I should like to put firmly on the record the events relating to Kevin Williams which occurred after 3.15 pm and which, because of the coroner's decision, were not deemed admissible as evidence. The chronology of what happened to Kevin that day is broadly speaking as follows. At 3.28 pm Kevin was lifted out of enclosure 3 and helped on to the pitch by PC Michael Craighill. There is visual evidence of that fact from BBC tapes. At 3.32 pm Kevin was rushed across the pitch on an advertising hoarding—there is a timed photograph of that taking place. Also at 3.32 pm, an off-duty Merseyside policeman, a Mr. Bruder, who was in the north stand spotted Kevin lying on the ground and left his seat to go to attend to him. There is also visual evidence of that incident, as a set of photographs is available from The Times.
  At 3.35 pm, there is visual evidence of a second ambulance entering the ground. There is a timed photograph of that incident. It appears also on video. At 3.37 pm, Mr. Bruder says, an ambulance passed while he was attending to Kevin and he asked the St. John's ambulance man present to stop it and to put Kevin in it. The ambulance would not stop. Mr. Bruder said that it looked as though it had orders not to.
  Since then, Mr. Tony Edwards of the ambulance service has confirmed that he was the assistant to the driver in the ambulance and that he would have passed Mr. Bruder at 3.37 pm that day. Mr. Edwards also says that he had orders to go straight to the Leppings lane end of the ground, as there were fatalities.
  At 3.45 pm, special WPC Debra Martin came across Kevin lying on the ground in the recovery position. She says that she saw life in his face and found pulses in his neck. Miss Martin and the police constable who was with her ran with Kevin to the gym. Miss Martin was told by her superiors to stay with Kevin and to carry out resuscitation and heart massage. After resuscitation, Kevin started to breathe again, his ribs were moving. Miss Martin picked Kevin up in her arms. It was then that Kevin opened his eyes, murmured, "Mom", then closed his eyes and died. Miss Martin said that Kevin turned grey and then went quickly blue. The time would have been about 3.55 pm.

  977
  At 4.6 pm, Dr. Curpen certified life extinct.
  Those are the bare facts of the chronology of the death of Kevin Williams.
  I turn now to the medical evidence. At the inquest, Dr. Slater, giving evidence of his findings concerning Kevin, said:
  "My examination of Kevin showed that the main finding was that of asphyxia … This had also resulted in four fractures to the small bones in the actual voice box… the compression of the neck or chest has occurred here and unconsciousness occurs very rapidly, certainly within a few seconds … Following unconsciousness then there is no discomfort and no pain. Death then occurs after approximately three to five minutes."
  Further evidence came before the judicial review, which has since taken place, from the specialists who were asked to provide their opinions. In his evidence, Dr. Iain West, from the department of forensic medicine at Guy's hospital, clearly said:
  "I do not believe it is possible to say how long consciousness would have been retained, but he certainly would not have become unconscious between 3 and 5 seconds of being crushed. Again I would not agree with Dr. Slater in estimating how long the deceased would have survived… he could well have survived for a considerable period, well beyond 3.15 pm.
  He suffered convulsions as the result of anoxic brain damage. Whether Mr. Bruder saw convulsions or twitching is irrelevant. A dead body neither convulses or twitches."
  He goes on further to say that that apparent twitching is seen
  "in individuals who are maintained on a respirator but whose heart is still functioning… This phenomenon only occurs for a very short period after death unless muscles are electrically stimulated. Twitching movements, however, suggest that one is much more likely to be dealing with a live body than a dead one."
  Dr. James Burns, a forensic scientist from Liverpool university, commented as follows on Dr. Slater's evidence:
  "Dr. Slater suggests that Kevin lost consciousness very quickly and I see no reason to disagree with this. However, Dr. Slater then goes on to generalise and state that death occurs after approximately three or five minutes in these cases of traumatic asphyxia. While this may be so, in the vast majority of instances, it is by no means certain that even in a severe case Of traumatic asphyxia, death necessarily ensues three or four minutes after the compression begins. The all important factor, in my opinion, is whether the severe compression is sustained. If the pressure is intermittent, then death may not ensue for a considerable length of time."
  My concerns arise from a detailed examination of the evidence that was presented to the inquest. The off-duty policeman from Merseyside, Mr. Bruder—who was present as a Liverpool fan—clearly stated in his original evidence that he had seen and taken a pulse in Kevin, and that Kevin was convulsing. That was the opinion of an experienced police officer who had had some first-aid training. Subsequently, Mr. Bruder changed his mind, and suspected that they had not in fact been convulsions.
  I have to say that that change of mind came after Mr. Bruder had been interviewed by West Yorkshire police and had been asked to reflect on his evidence. He has since spoken to Kevin's mother, Anne Williams, and has confirmed that his original evidence was the evidence to which he would adhere.
  I want to make particular mention of Debra Martin, the special WPC who was on duty. She was a trained dental nurse and, in her own words, had probably had more experience of dealing with first aid than most of her colleagues who were there that day. She is convinced in her own mind about what had happened; yet the way in
  978
  which her evidence was treated at the inquest is little short of scandalous. It provoked the specialist pathologist whom I have already mentioned to say, in a letter to Mrs. Williams:
  "It strikes me that WPC Martin has been the victim of unjustifiable adverse criticism amounting almost to ridicule. I am amazed that the evidence of Miss Martin, a Dental Nurse, by training, and a Special Woman Police Constable of five years' standing, is treated with such incredulity, amounting almost to hostility. From what I have learned from the post-mortem examination of Dr. Slater, and from the evidence given by Dr. Slater at the inquest, I see no reason to doubt the evidence of Miss Martin when she states that she picked Kevin up in her arms, that Kevin opened his eyes, moved his mouth and said 'Mom', flicked his eyelashes, closed his eyes and died."
  The questions that I should wish to stress and that are the central issue of the debate are these. Why has it proved necessary for the evidence to be presented to a judicial review, where it was given only scant attention? Why has it proved necessary for the evidence to be the subject of a television programme? That served only to extend further the agonies of Anne Williams and her family. Was it an attempt to try to lay blame for something that occurred a long time ago?
  I suggest that little in the way of preparation or training could have helped once the disaster at Hillsborough had occurred. Almost inevitably, people were bound to make some mistakes. It was inevitable that judgments would be made on the spot which perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight and of considering the matter after some years had passed, should not and certainly would not have been made. But what is there to hide? I cannot understand why the evidence of Mr. Bruder and WPC Martin should be called into question.
  If Kevin were dead by 3.15 pm or if he were brain dead and died very soon thereafter, the events that took place between 3.26 pm and 3.55 pm are irrelevant. As Dr Iain West said, however, dead bodies do not twitch. In this case, prima facie evidence shows that Kevin Williams was still very much alive at that time.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman object if I speak for a couple of minutes at the conclusion of his speech, and before the Minister replies?
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: Of course not.
  The matters that I described are the cause of my concern. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has been courteous in the extreme in dealing with this case. He has considered it very fairly. I have corresponded with him. He has spent probably more time on the Kevin Williams case than on any aspect of the cases of the other victims who died at Hillsborough on that day. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that and I know that Kevin's mother, Mrs. Anne Williams, thanks him for it, too.
  In our most recent exchange of correspondence, my right hon. and learned Friend said that he had considered the matter in the light of the judicial review and that he felt that, although he has powers under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, he could not find sufficient new evidence that would warrant his intervention on this occasion. However, he left the door open for full and further consideration of any new evidence.
  I have read the transcript of the judicial review. Scant attention was given to the reports of the pathologists Iain West and James Burns. Scant attention was given to

  979
  anything that did not appear at the original inquest. An examination of all the documentation that is available and that I shall make available to the Attorney-General tomorrow will show clearly that there is a need, in the Kevin Williams case, to consider the circumstances again.
  What can possibly be changed by re-examining this tragic case? It will not bring back Kevin or change what occurred. I have already referred to the Taylor report and the hope that lessons will have been learnt from that day to ensure that such tragedies can never occur again, so why reopen the case?
  Since that day, I have spoken to Anne Williams many times. I and other colleagues who have had to meet their constituents—the families of those who lost their lives that day—have all been made aware of the grief that they still feel to this day and the uncertainties that they still face, but it is not the object of this exercise to talk about other cases.
  The one thing that impressed me about Anne Williams was her desire to know the truth. Somewhere in Sheffield there is a death certificate that relates to Kevin; it does not relate to the circumstances of which Anne Williams is now aware. In other words, the cut-off point of 3.15 pm does not relate to Kevin, and I believe that the evidence shows that clearly. She has told me more than once that, until the truth is known, neither she nor Kevin will know peace. I believe her. It is not my purpose, or hers, to expose errors that may have been made that day because of human frailty. That exercise has already been undertaken. I have already said that I find it difficult to understand why evidence that was freely given was somehow altered afterwards. The purpose is not to point the finger; the purpose is to find out the truth.
  I can best finish by quoting Anne Williams. She said:
  "He was just a little boy that went to watch a football match and never came home. There is nothing that I can be told now that will make the agony any worse. I just want to know the truth."
  For those reasons, together with the evidence that I shall certainly give to my right hon. and learned Friend—it will be with his office tomorrow—I urge him to re-examine the case, to exercise the powers available to him under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 and to hold a full inquiry. The House can then show mercy to a family who have suffered for far too long.
  9.47 pm
  Mr. George Howarth: I wish to express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) for allowing me to speak for a few minutes and for the assiduous way in which he has pursued this case for a number of years on behalf of his constituents.
  In raising this matter, the hon. Gentleman has also raised many concerns common to the families of those who died at Hillsborough—people from Merseyside and beyond. On one occasion, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and I met to discuss the problems arising from Hillsborough.
  My concern is simple. There have been times since the disaster when I felt that it might have been right to draw a line under the incident. There are times when I have felt that it might not be in the best interests of the bereaved families to reopen the process and go through all the
  980
  traumas again. But what impresses itself on me is the fact that those families do not feel that all that needs to be said has been said. I could quote particular constituents, but I shall not.
  The difficulty is caused by the fact that there was a cut-off point of 3.15 pm for the events considered by the inquest. Things that happened after that time were not taken fully into account. Consequently people feel, probably rightly, that despite everything that has been said and all the conclusions that may have been drawn, exactly what happened in those individual cases has not been properly covered.
  I do not want to go into the technical detail, as the hon. Member for Crosby has done so exhaustively and with such great skill. But until people feel fully satisfied that every stone that can be turned has been turned to find out exactly what happened in every case, even beyond the cut-off point of 3.15 pm, they will not feel satisfied that everything that can be done has been done.
  In congratulating the hon. Gentleman on bringing the matter to the attention of the Attorney-General and of the House, it is important to say that we have not yet gone all the way with the process. That is not because of what I may think, or what the Attorney-General or the hon. Member for Crosby may feel, but because the families feel that even if justice has been done, it has not been seen to have been done. Until they feel that justice has been done, we cannot let the matter rest.
  9.51 pm
  The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) for the careful and comprehensive way in which he has brought before the House the very real and understandable concerns of his constituents. Nobody can fail to understand or to sympathise with the deep and continuing anguish of Mrs. Williams and the other families, both from the Liverpool area and from anywhere else in the country, who were affected by the disaster, and with their wish to have as much information as possible about the circumstances in which their loved ones—and Kevin in particular—so tragically died.
  I am grateful, too, to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) for his brief contribution to the debate. Rightly, he drew attention to the fact that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) came to see me to discuss the matter. I have discussed it with other hon. Members, too, and I recognise that it is a matter of the greatest concern to the families.
  I hasten to make it clear that from my point of view—indeed, from anyone's point of view—there is nothing to hide here. That said, I know that my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Knowsley, North recognise that my role in the matter has to be that of Attorney-General, and has therefore focused primarily on the consideration that I gave in 1992 to an application by relatives of six of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, including Mrs. Williams, for my consent under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to the making of an application to the High Court for an order quashing the inquisition and directing a fresh inquest. When I have to use legal phrases I do not intend them to be as dry as dust; I simply mention them to put them into context.

  981
  After careful consideration I felt it right to decline to authorise such an application, because I had concluded that there would be no reasonable prospect of establishing before the High Court that it was
  "necessary or desirable in the interests of justice"
  for a fresh inquest to be held. That is the statutory test. Subsequent litigation has tended to confirm that assessment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and a number of hon. Members have brought to my attention the broadcast on ITV of "The Cook Report". I have seen that broadcast and I have studied it. I have thought about what I am saying in the context of this debate and in the context of that programme. It relates to the Hillsborough disaster, with particular reference to the case of Kevin Williams.
  No further formal application has yet been made to me under section 13 of the Coroners Act and if I am formally to consider the matter, such an application would need to be made. In saying that, I can reassure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that I shall look carefully at the evidence and information that my hon. Friend has said he will put before me tomorrow — and I welcome that.
  I have made it clear to those who have written to me—many have—that I remain willing, as is my duty, objectively to consider any further application under section 13. A proper application, of course, has to be supported by evidence in proper and admissible form. That is not a legal technicality. Obviously, if I considered an application appropriate, I should sooner or later have to put it before the court.
  I make no criticism of "The Cook Report". It was an absorbing, fascinating programme on a tragic subject, but it is not evidence in itself. I have more to say about some of the topics with which it dealt. It will be well understood by the House that a media report cannot be the basis for a legal decision in itself. A proper view must be based on an analysis of the underlying evidence and it is in that spirit that I approach the matter tonight.
  Before I deal with the matter in detail, I must issue a slight caution. The matter has been looked at enormously carefully; we shall look at it again. I do not want to give false hopes. I do not have a closed mind; I have an open mind.
  The scale of the Hillsborough tragedy was enormous. The then Home Secretary responded by establishing a public inquiry chaired by Lord Justice Taylor, now the Lord Chief Justice. It was a painstaking and thorough inquiry which examined not only the events which led to the 95 deaths, not to mention the many serious injuries, but wider issues including safety at football grounds and the need for changes in public order law. The Taylor report placed the blame for the tragedy fairly and squarely on police handling of crowd control at the event. The police have admitted fault and paid compensation.
  The Government have responded positively to the report. By August 1994, the vast majority of the 46 clubs in the premier league and first division had all-seater grounds or had closed their last remaining standing accommodation and were working on its conversion to seating. The Government have also set up the Football Licensing Authority which is responsible for keeping under review the way in which local authorities discharge their functions under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.
  982
  The thoroughness of that wider inquiry did not, however, dispense with the legal requirement that an inquest be held in respect of each person who died. That inquest was conducted by Her Majesty's coroner for South Yorkshire in difficult circumstances because of the complications that flowed from the sheer number of deaths; the fact that the Taylor inquiry was proceeding; and the fact that its interim report caused the Director of Public Prosecutions to request a criminal investigation into the police handling of the events.
  Two points need to be emphasised in relation to inquests generally. First, inquests are not intended to be wide-ranging public inquiries, but serve a specific statutory purpose. The position was carefully explained by the Master of the Rolls in his judgment in the Court of Appeal earlier this year in Regina The Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe ex parte Jamieson. The Master of the Rolls said:
  "An inquest is a fact-finding inquiry conducted by a coroner, with or without a jury, to establish reliable answers to four important but limited factual questions. The first of these relates to the identity of the deceased, the second to the place of his death, the third to the time of death. In most cases these questions are not hard to answer but in a minority of cases the answer may be problematical. The fourth question, and that to which evidence and inquiry are most often and most closely directed, relates to how the deceased came by his death. Rule 36 requires that the proceedings and evidence shall be directed solely to ascertaining these matters and forbids any expression of opinion on any other matter."
  The Master of the Rolls went on to add:
  "It is noteworthy that the task is not to ascertain how the deceased died, which might raise general and far-reaching issues, but 'how…the deceased came by his death', a more limited question directed to the means by which the deceased came by his death."
  Secondly, coroners are independent judicial officers. Although the Home Secretary has responsibility for the substance of the law relating to coroners—
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  The Attorney-General: Although the Home Secretary has responsibility for the substance of the law relating to coroners, neither he nor any Minister has power to interfere in their decisions. It is for the High Court and the other appellate courts to determine issues relating to proceedings before coroners courts.
  One route of access to the High Court is by way of application under section 13 of the 1988 Act and the legislation provides that my authority is required for such application. The existence of that filter reflects the statutory requirement that, in order to justify directing a fresh inquest, there should not only be made out one of the specific grounds mentioned in the statute, such as fresh evidence or irregularity, but circumstances such that the interests of justice require a fresh inquest. The quashing of an inquest verdict and the directing of a fresh inquest is a serious step which may have implications for many persons and organisations whose competing interests therefore have to be considered and balanced. It is not every irregularity or piece of fresh evidence which will justify an application to the High Court.
  In recent years—I now come to the question of judicial review—the High Court has developed the doctrine of judicial review so that the vast majority of issues arising from the conduct of inquests may also be considered by

  983
  the High Court, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, without resort to the procedure under section 13 of the 1988 Act. There is a substantial overlap between the two procedures and that is very sensible.
  As I indicated earlier, Mrs. Williams was one of those who, in 1992, made an application under section 13 of the 1988 Act. All the points raised on her behalf were carefully considered. The application on her behalf was thoroughly prepared by a barrister, by counsel. There were three general and procedural matters relied upon. First, it was relied on that the coroner wrongly failed to direct the jury as to the verdicts of lack of care or accidental death due to or "aggravated by" lack of care relating to the negligence of the police which caused the tragedy.
  Secondly, it was relied on that the coroner wrongly excluded evidence of lack of care in the emergency services—that is close to what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was saying—and the police's reaction to the deceased's initial injuries, wrongly insisted on a cut-off point of 3.15 pm for the evidence heard at the main inquest, and wrongly failed to direct the jury on the availability of a verdict of accidental death by lack of care or lack of care based on the failure of the various responsible agencies to provide the deceased with adequate medical attention after they had sustained their original injuries.
  It was also asserted in relation to Kevin Williams that there was evidence to justify the coroner in concluding that he was alive beyond the 3.15 pm cut-off time adopted by the coroner. I pause to emphasise that because anyone who has seen "The Cook Report" knows how important the cut-off time was. I emphasise that that matter was very much before the High Court when it considered the judicial review. Moreover, evidence had emerged subsequent to the inquest to suggest that considerable pressure had been put on two witnesses to retract or qualify their evidence about the signs of life that they described in Kevin Williams after 3.15 pm.
  The conclusion that I reached was that none of the matters raised afforded a realistic likelihood of successful application to the High Court. In the event, the applicants proceeded by way of application for judicial review which I have described. It is clear from the judgment of the divisional court that all these points which would have been relied upon in an application under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 were canvassed in those proceedings.
  In giving the judgment of the divisional court, Lord Justice McCowan ruled that none of the procedural or technical points raised justified the intervention of the divisional court and then he went on—and I hope that this will be of some comfort—to deal in the following manner with the evidence relating to the death of Kevin Williams:
  "We were told that some while after, Mrs. Williams, the deceased's mother, made contact with PC Bruder and WPC Martin and they alleged that they had been pressurised into changing their stories and that they now stuck by their original versions. Where does the truth lie? I see no fault in the coroner in this matter. He made full inquiry. He was not asked by the applicant's representative to do more. There was overwhelming medical evidence that the deceased was in fact dead by 3.15 pm. In my judgment it would not be right to quash the verdicts and order a new inquest on the strength of these allegations made against the investigating police officers."
  984
  Those allegations are of course the same ones which were subsequently repeated in the ITV programme to which my honourable Friend has referred. The divisional court, however, went further and examined a letter written by the pathologist, Dr. Ian West, who also provided an interview for the ITV programme.
  The divisional court did question its own authority to look at fresh evidence of that nature on an application for judicial review, but, having done so, it commented that it found the evidence to be of far too tenuous a nature to justify ordering a new inquest.
  At the conclusion of his judgment, Lord Justice McCowan concluded that the inquest was correctly completed and the coroner's directions to the jury as to the manner in which they should approach the case were impeccable. He added some comments which the House may wish also to consider:
  "If I had found such reason and had to exercise my discretion the following matters would have weighed with me. What would be the purpose of fresh inquests? To get a verdict criticising the police? Such criticism has already been firmly levelled by the Taylor Report. The police have admitted fault and paid compensation. To get a verdict criticising the emergency services? I see no evidence to justify such criticism, and in any event it would be irrelevant if all six were brain dead by 3.15 pm. To obtain further examination of the last minutes of their lives? I doubt that anything more would be learned, but the process would be a very harrowing one involving large numbers of witnesses and lasting if not for 96 days, for not far short. Moreover, irrespective of whose fault, if anyone's, it is, the fact is that four and a half years have already passed since the tragedy occurred. As to the alternative suggestion of a mere quashing of the existing verdicts leaving nothing in their place, I would regard that as absolutely valueless.
  Mr. Jones says that the families are pursuing this matter because they have a deep instinct to know the circumstances in which their relatives died. I am perfectly prepared to accept that that is their motive and I respect it, but I hope they, for their part, can understand that I have to take an objective view and I have to consider the interests of all concerned including those of all the witnesses who would have to come along five years later and try to cast their minds back to events that they must have been trying to forget. Taking that objective view, and considering the interests of all concerned, I would in my discretion conclude that this was not a case in which it will be right to order fresh inquests."
  All that adds up to the fact that it will require really cogent and persuasive fresh arguments if they are now to result in an order by the High Court that there should be a fresh inquest. So far as I have been able to ascertain before today, the evidence referred to in "The Cook Report" did not bring matters forward beyond where they stood at the time of the application for judicial review. Moreover, the court would not have regard, as I have indicated, to "The Cook Report" itself, but it will need to see the evidence in proper form. However, I have made that point.
  Sir Malcolm Thornton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that at the judicial review—I am referring to paragraph D, page 29 of the judgment—the court was restricted in the main to consideration of evidence available at the time of the inquest and that that meant, for example, that scant regard was paid to the evidence of Dr. West? At paragraph D, page 29, the court simply agreed to look de bene esse at Dr. West's report. The court also admitted the restrictive nature of judicial review proceedings. It conceded, as the Attorney-General has already mentioned, that it had grave doubts as to

  985
  whether it had power to look at fresh evidence which had emerged since the date of the inquests. That is paragraph D, page 30 of the judgment.
  I have tried—I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will accept this—to show that the limitations of the judicial review prohibited proper examination of that further evidence and that, under his powers under section 13, there is an opportunity for my right hon. and learned Friend to have a further look at it; it is that which is the basis of my submission and of the evidence which I shall give him tomorrow.
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall say what I was about to say to my hon. Friend, which is that I will indeed look very carefully at the evidence that he gives me tomorrow, and I will look at it in the context of all the matters that I have dealt with. As my hon. Friend mentioned, although I have a copy of the judgment in front of me, I cannot pick up all the words
  986
  that he said, but I am quite sure that the court did not give scant regard to anything. I am sure that the court looked very carefully.
  The House will have recognised from what I have said that, although the court was worried as to whether it had power to look at certain evidence, in fact it did, in that curious Latin phrase, de bene esse. It went on to look at that evidence. It did not brush it aside; it looked at it. My hon. Friend and Opposition Members are concerned that I should look carefully once again at what my hon. Friend can put before me, and I assure the House that I will. I caution that it requires very cogent evidence before the matter can be reopened, but I fully understand the concerns of the families and I express my deepest sympathy for them. I shall look carefully at the matter that my hon. Friend can bring forward.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of staff in the employment of the Lord Chancellor's Department and the proportion of them who are employed in the standard regions is set out in the table.

  Total numbers of staff in the Lord Chancellor Department as at 18 October 1994.

  The total number of staff currently employed in Lord Chancellor's Department is 12,439.

  The proportion of staff employed in the standard regions

  Region

  Total number of staff

  Scotland

  2

  Northern

  502

  York and Humberside

  1,041

  East Midlands

  635

  North West

  1,415

  West Midlands

  1,031

  Wales

  537

  East Anglia

  303

  South East

  6,183

  South West

  790

  These figures include part time staff who have been shown as whole numbers.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the public appointments for which he is responsible(a) in the west midlands region and (b) in Shropshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has 11 advisory committees on justices of the peace and four on general commissioners of income tax in these areas. The main function of these committees is to recommend suitable people to the Lord Chancellor for judicial appointment. The normal period of appointment is six years, so arranged that approximately half the members of a committee retire every three years. Neither chairmen or members of advisory committees receive any remuneration. If the hon. Member would like more detailed information about the membership of any particular committee or committees I should be happy to provide it if he writes to me. This answer does not include appointments which exercise judicial functions.
  602
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department has not organised any such receptions. However, in support of the Lord Chancellor's commitment to encourage applications for judicial appointment from suitably qualified women lawyers, the first of what is hoped will be a series of events for women lawyers was held in July at the Bar Council. The purpose of the event, arranged jointly by the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Bar Council and the Association of Women Barristers, was to provide information to women barristers on the opportunities available for appointments to part-time posts within the judiciary. There were no separately identifiable costs to the Department beyond those associated with the manpower involved.

  Legal Costs Payments
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many individuals have received payments of over £100,000 to their legal costs in each of the last four years and in 1994–95.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table gives the information requested. For civil legal aid, the figures represent the number of individual legal aid certificates where gross payments, including VAT, have exceeded £100,000. For criminal legal aid, the figures show the numbers of cases where gross payments, including VAT, in excess of £100,000 have been made since it is not always possible to disaggregate payments relating to individuals in cases involving more than one defendant.

  Year

  Civil

  Criminal

  Total cases

  1990–91

  4

  90

  94

  1991–92

  22

  66

  88

  1992–93

  36

  119

  155

  1993–94

  54

  172

  226

  1994 to date

  41

  112

  153

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The total amounts spent on official hospitality in the Lord Chancellor's Department each year since 1990, are given in the table. Until 1994–95, the Department had no agencies which were not separate Government Departments. The Public Trust Office, established as an agency on 1 July 1994, has no hospitality budget.

  Year

  Total£

  1990–91

  19,022·93

  1991–92

  20,894·90

  1992–93

  20,697·44

  1993–94

  20,476·67

  1994–95 (to the end of September)

  5,975·38

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date he expects the team conducting the fundamental review of his Department's expenditure to make its final report to the Lord Chancellor.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The review is an internal process and there are no plans to publish any of the documents produced. Any policy changes resulting from the review will be announced in the usual way and any major changes will be the subject of public consultation. However, there is no firm timetable for this at present.

ENVIRONMENT

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the non-departmental public bodies to which his Department makes appointments in the Greater London area, together with the total annual

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994 (to date)

  LDDC

  Appointments

  —

  6

  2

  2

  2

  Re-appointments

  —

  2

  4

  —

  5

  LPFA

  Appointments

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Re-appointments

  0

  0

  8

  0

  0

  LRAP

  Appointments

  2

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Re-appointments

  28

  26

  26

  25

  29

  LRB

  Appointments

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Re-appointments

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  SHAT

  Appointments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Re-appointments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  THHAT

  Appointments

  —

  —

  —

  10

  —

  Re-appointments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  WFHAT

  Appointments

  —

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Re-appointments

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the de minimis figure of £100,000 for compulsory competitive tendering will be reviewed, following the proposal of a de minimis figure of £300,000 in respect of compulsory competitive tendering for legal services.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The two figures referred to by my hon. Friend are different in nature and purpose. The £100,000 de minimis relates to manual services, and represents the level of expenditure on a service below which the administrative cost of compulsory competitive tendering may outweigh the prospective savings. The other figure relates to the proposals to extend CCT to local
  604
  budget for each body, and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the past five years.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State makes appointments to the following non-departmental public bodies whose activities relate solely to the Greater London area. It excludes those bodies, based in London, whose activities are national.

  Body

  Total Annual Budget (1994–95)approx. £ million

  London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC)

  116·2

  London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA)

  1248·5

  London Rent Assessment Panel (LRAP)

  2·6

  London Residuary Body (LRB)

  22·3

  Stonebridge Housing Action Trust (SHAT)

  1·0

  Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust (THHAT)

  6·9

  Waltham Forest Housing Action Trust (WFHAT)

  35

  1 None of this budget is directly financed by DOE. Most of the expenditure represents the cost of pensions paid to former GLC and ILEA employees.

  2 None of this budget is directly financed by DOE.

  The number of appointments and re-appointments for each of these bodies for the last five years is as follows:

  authorities' legal services. The exemption from CCT of 55 per cent. of local authorities' legal work, or £300,000 by value, whichever is the greater, is designed to ensure that all authorities can maintain the necessary in-house legal expertise for advising on policy and strategic matters.

  All CCT de minimis provisions are kept under review, but there are no immediate plans to change the present figures.

  Marsham Tower
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current quantity of floor space in the Marsham tower Government building; how many
  605
  persons are currently employed there; how much office space is envisaged in the outline redevelopment proposals currently before Westminster city council; and approximately how many office personnel could then be accommodated.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The current building at 2 Marsham street has a gross floor area of 890,000 sq ft above ground and accommodates approximately 3,000 civil servants from the Departments of Environment and of Transport. The outline application for the site before Westminster city council proposes 690,00 sq ft of offices above ground as well as residential and retail uses and open space. It is too early to say how many people will be accommodated in this new space. This will depend on the design of the new buildings on the site and the requirements of the eventual occupiers.

  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the likely timetable for the demolition of the Marsham street Government buildings and redevelopment of the 5 acre site; and what provision he is making for proper public consultation, including hon. Members, about the plans for the future of the site both as regards alternative usage and intensity of development and building design.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The 2 Marsham street building will be vacated by the end of 1997. Demolition will then commence and is likely to take a minimum of 18 months. Redevelopment of the site could start in 2000 with the first building becoming available for occupation in 2002. A public exhibition of the outline proposals for the site was held following the submission of the outline planning application on 18 July 1994. It is envisaged that there will be a further opportunity for the public to view the proposals after a presentation to the Royal Fine Art Commission later this year. This is an outline application and therefore proposes uses and scale of development but not building design.

  Land Searches
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his conclusions on the consultation exercise on a statutory scheme for local authority land searches.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Responses to the consultation carried out earlier this year demonstrated wide-ranging support for a 10 working days timescale for local authority responses to homebuyers' standard search inquiries. The proposals set out in the consultation document are being considered further in the light of responses, and a further announcement will be made in due course.

  Water Saving
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to issuing building regulations guidelines about water saving devices for new and refurbished buildings, including sprinkler taps and showers.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The consultation document, "Using Water Wisely" issued in July 1992 outlined various ways of saving water. The Government have considered the responses to that document and propose to issue an action plan shortly. A separate consultation paper will also be issued soon on replacements for the water 606
  byelaws which expire in England in 1997. This paper will consider the scope for addressing this issue through building regulations as well as in alternative ways.

  Local Government Act 1974
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will institute a public inquiry into the operation of section 26(9) of the Local Government Act 1974;

  (2) what considerations underlay the Government' s refusal to invoke the provisions of section 26(9) of the Local Government Act 1974 to close the loophole in the investigation of alleged breaches of the national code of local government conduct raised in the correspondence he and his predecessors have had with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe in the case of Mr. Arthur Hodgkinson.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Personnel matters are specifically excluded from the local government ombudsman's jurisdiction by schedule 5 of the Local Government Act 1974. It is not the ombudsman's responsibility to investigate breaches of the national code of local government conduct other than to include them in an investigation where there is an allegation of maladministration involving personal injustice. There is no loophole to close and my right hon. Friend will not be instituting a public inquiry into the operation of section 26(9) of the Local Government Act 1974.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the conformity with the national code of local government conduct of the action of Wigan metropolitan borough council in the case of Mr. Arthur Hodgkinson.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None. The Secretary of State has no role in assessing the compliance of individual councillors with the code.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department has not organised any receptions of this kind.

  Yorkshire and Humberside Projects
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what payments have been made by his Department during the last five years to individuals or companies in Yorkshire and Humberside in support of projects which it was assumed would create employment; and how many jobs have been created in each case.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Until April of this year, my Department awarded city grant to private developers in support of projects designed to create employment. On 1 April, responsibility for city grant was assumed by English Partnerships.

  In the five years to April 1994, £43·75 million of city grant was awarded in Yorkshire and Humberside in support of 41 schemes, which were expected to create 6,318 new jobs.

  Dearne Valley City Challenge Scheme
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what expenditure has so far been incurred in support of the Dearne Valley city challenge scheme; and how many permanent jobs have so far been created.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Dearne valley will receive £37·5 million in city challenge funding over five years from 1992–93, subject to satisfactory performance. Up to the end of September, Dearne valley city challenge has spent £15·252 million implementing its action plan. A total of 777 jobs has been created.

  London (1991)

  Percentage of total emissions

  Carbon dioxide (as carbon)

  Sulphur dioxide

  Black smoke

  Carbon monoxide

  Nitrogen oxides

  Volatile organic compounds

  Road transport

  33

  22

  96

  99

  76

  97

  Other transport

  3

  1

  2

  1

  4

  1

  Electricity supply industry

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Other industry

  13

  43

  1

  0

  5

  1

  Domestic

  30

  1

  0

  0

  6

  1

  Other

  19

  32

  2

  0

  8

  0

  Total (thousand tonnes)

  8,508

  26

  19

  648

  137

  116

  London as a percentage of United Kingdom total emissions

  5·3

  0·7

  4·2

  6·7

  5·0

  4·8

  The term volatile organic compounds does not include methane. The evaporation of petrol from production, storage and distribution is included under other industry. Evaporation from petrol tanks and carburettors of motor vehicles is included under road transport.

  Sources of volatile organic compounds given in the United Kingdom section of this table include emissions from non-energy related sources, such as industrial processes and solvents. These account for 50 per cent. of the total emissions. The sources included in the London section of the table are related only to the use of energy. Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

  The Government are committed to securing, throughout the United Kingdom, good air quality based on a framework of exacting standard which takes full account of health and environmental effects. They will announce later this year proposals for meetings standards efficiently and cost-effectively.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies have established policies to implement the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; and what procedures are in place to monitor the production and operation of these policies.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies that have public

  Air Pollution, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest information available on traffic-related air pollution in London; and what policy objectives he has for improving air quality.

  Mr. Atkins
  The London energy study carried out by the London research centre was published 15 September 1993, it was funded by the European Commission, London Electricity plc and the Department of the Environment. One of the principal outputs of the study was a very detailed inventory of energy use, and the resultant emissions of pollutants to the London atmosphere covering almost 2,000 sq km in and around London. The table illustrates the sources for each pollutant as well as the total for London and as a percentage of United Kingdom total emissions for 1991.

  responsibilities in relation to the environment are under a duty to implement the environmental information regulations.

  The Department of the Environment does not continuously monitor the implementation of these regulations, but in 1997 will give the European Commission a report on the experience gained in operating directive 90/313 — which required the regulations to be made — and will then ask bodies for information relating to the practical implementation of the directive.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list(a) the total expenditure to date and (b) expenditure in legal fees by each executive agency and non-departmental public body on the implementation of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today. The Department of the Environment does not keep centrally information of this kind.

  Hadrian's Wall
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he will announce his decision on the proposed Hadrian's Wall path national trail.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Secretary of State has today decided to approve the Countryside Commission's report in
  609
  respect of the Hadrian's Wall path national trail, with a modification to the route as submitted by the Commission.

  In reaching this decision, careful consideration has been given to all the views expressed, including from those directly affected by the route and those concerned at its impact on the archaeology of the wall. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the Commission, in conjunction with English Heritage, has taken full account of the implications of establishing the path alongside this world heritage site.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Docklands light railway.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government are to privatise the Docklands light railway in line with their 1992 manifesto commitment. The first step will be taken in 1996, when DLR operations will be franchised to the private sector for a period of about seven years. The second step will be taken at the end of the franchise period, when the aim will be to transfer the railway as a whole into the private sector.

  In parallel, as part of the private finance initiative, the private sector will take responsibility for building an extension of the DLR to Lewisham, as announced by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. Detailed planning for the Lewisham extension is now complete and I have today given DLR Ltd. my consent to start the competition to select a private concession company.

  DLR PRIVATISATION

  Through privatisation, the Government aim to ensure that the DLR will continue to develop as a highly efficient, customer-oriented and market-driven passenger service for Docklands, with reduced dependence on public subsidy.

  The DLR's operational performance has improved markedly over the last two years. Moreover, existing programmes to improve DLR's signalling and train control system are well advanced and will be complete in 1995, providing the capacity for more flexible service patterns and operating practices. The railway should return to full seven day services across the network during the first half of 1995. The franchising of DLR operations in 1996 will therefore allow private sector disciplines to be applied to consolidate the substantial improvements already made in efficiency, reliability and quality of service.

  I have asked Sir Anthony Gill, chairman of the DLR, to put in hand the preparatory work required to enable franchise to be let in 1996. The private sector operator will be expected to take responsibility for marketing services, maintaining trains, stations and track, and for all DLR's operations, including train services on the new extension to Lewisham when it opens, for a period of about seven years. The franchisee will have to have a statutorily approved railway safety case in place before starting to operate train services.

  DLR will be consulting its work force on the planned franchise. We expect any franchise to amount to a transfer for the purposes of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations and, if this is the
  610
  case, the franchisee will assume responsibility for DLR employees.

  Neither the letting of the franchise nor any subsequent sale of DLR will require legislation.

  DLR LEWISHAM EXTENSION

  In his Budget statement on 30 November 1993, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the private sector was to be invited to finance, build and maintain a 4·2 km extension of the DLR to Lewisham. Following the completion of detailed planning, I have today given my consent for the DLR to start the competition to select a private concession company to deliver the project. The first phase of market testing, the prequalification of bidders, will take three months. Full tendering is expected to start in February 1995, and DLR Ltd. should be in a position to award the concession contract before the end of the year. Construction should start in 1996, with the extension opening in 1999.

  A year ago, the provisional indications were that the project could not be financially viable as a private sector concession if it included stations previously planned for Island Gardens and Cutty Sark. At my request, DLR Ltd. and its owners, the London Docklands development corporation, consulted local interests on the option of deleting those two stations from the project. They also appointed financial advisers to validate the financial modelling and to develop a commercial structure for the project. Further, in July 1994, the Lord Chairman of Committees in another place ruled that any decision to omit Island Gardens station would breach an undertaking given to Parliament by the promoters of the London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Act 1993 in relation to that station.

  In the light of these developments, DLR Ltd. has recommended to me that, on the basis of its latest cost and revenue forecasts, the Lewisham extension project is potentially viable financially with the new station at Island Gardens included. But it has concluded that the financial case for inclusion of a station at Cutty Sark is poor and that unless the cost of providing the station can be met by third party contributions, Cutty Sark should be omitted from the project.

  I am pleased that we are able to proceed with the Lewisham extension with six stations because of the regeneration benefits this will provide both north and south of the Thames. In particular, the inclusion of a new station at Island Gardens on the Lewisham extension, close to the Thames foot tunnel, and one at Greenwich. about 700 m from the Cutty Sark and the historic waterfront, will provide dramatically improved access to the various important tourist destinations in the area.

  Nevertheless, I have received a number of representations arguing for a station next to the Cutty Sark itself. I am willing to allow more time for local interest to finalise a financing package of their own. My decision therefore is that if funding is fully and unconditionally committed by the time DLR has prequalified bidders for the project next January, the project may go ahead to full tendering with Cutty Sark station included. Otherwise it will go out to tender on a six-station basis, excluding the Cutty Sark. Contributors must agree to meet the actual costs of the station, whatever they are shown to be through market testing, the current estimate being £14 million at 1994 prices. Funding pledges must be

  611
  contracted and unconditional, with agreement that the cash will be provided during the construction period. There is no question of the Government's providing grant or subsidy towards a Cutty Sark station.

  This arrangement will allow an extended opportunity to those who support a station at Cutty Sark to come forward with funding, whilst eliminating uncertainty and potential delay for the Lewisham extension project as a whole.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list for each year since the introduction of housing benefit, and for(a) local authority tenancies, (b) housing association tenancies and (c) private tenancies, the average weekly housing benefit payable and this figure expressed as a percentage of the average income support paid per tenant household.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information is set out in the tables:

  Tenure Type

  Ave Weekly HB

  HB as percentage of IS

  1990

  Local authority

  22·74

  67

  Housing Assoc

  n/a

  n/a

  Private*

  31·35

  99

  1991

  Local authority

  26·08

  65

  Housing Assoc

  n/a

  n/a

  Private*

  37·35

  98

  1992

  Local authority

  29·88

  63

  Housing Assoc

  35·35

  80

  Private

  46·17

  107

  1993

  Local authority

  32·23

  66

  Housing Assoc

  40·22

  85

  Other Private

  51·67

  112

  * Includes Housing Association tenancies.

  n/a = not available.

  Information for earlier years is not available.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information Systems annual 1 per cent. samples (with Income Support) May 90, 91, 92 and 93.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Postgraduate Research Training
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what conclusions he has drawn from the public consultation on policies for postgraduate research training announced in the White Paper, "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy For Science, Engineering and Technology"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Office of Science and Technology has consulted widely on those policies. I am most grateful to all who responded to consultation.

  We need research students who are equipped with the skills and knowledge that they need to fulfil their potential in whichever sector they eventually choose to take up employment.

  There was widespread support for the White Paper's objectives of improving the quality of research training in
  612
  the United Kingdom, and making it more relevant to the needs of both students and their future employers.

  I am asking the Director General of the Research Councils, Sir John Cadogan, to write to the research councils with further guidance on how best to work with universities and employers to achieve those objectives. In particular, he will be inviting the councils to support new, one-year master's degrees by research on a pilot basis. We estimate that some 250 students will enrol on the first pilot courses. These new courses will offer a valuable addition to the range of options open to postgraduate research students.

  The way forward must be to test how effective the courses will be as a direct route into employment or as a preparation for the PhD. I welcome the initiative of universities and employers who are keen to lead the way. There will be no requirement for all research students funded by the research councils to complete a master's year. I would expect the councils to continue to fund PhD students for normally no longer than three years.

  I am placing in the Library: a copy of Sir John Cadogan's letter; a list of the respondents to the consultation; the responses from the CVCP and CBI, which I believe give a helpful general summary of the views expressed by higher education and industry; and a press statement which I am also making today. Copies of consultation responses not made in confidence are available on request from the OPSS.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Dunchy of Lancaster whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  No such receptions have been held.

  Official Report(Price)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to enable differential pricing of the Official Report so as to make it cheaper for public and academic libraries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Differential pricing already exists. Under long-standing arrangements aimed at facilitating public access to Government information, public libraries are entitled to buy all HMSO publications, including the Official Report, at half price.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  In the Departments and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, and other areas which fall to the Cabinet Office vote, the information is as follows:
  613

  Office of public service and science

  Survey

  Objectives

  Time

  From

  Citizen's Charter Customer Survey

  (a) find out levels of awareness of Charter initiative, individual charters and what they stand for. (b) form a base-line of public opinion about various public services, against which progress in achieving improvements in quality can be measured. (c) establish how people would like service delivery to improve, both generally and by the implementation of good charter practice. (d) gain information which will help Citizen's Charter Unit determine priorities for action.

  March-April 1993

  ICM Research

  Attitudes of University Finalists (additional questions commissioned to form part of survey)

  To enable the Office of the Civil Service Commissioners to market effectively opportunities in the Civil Service

  February-March 1994

  MORI

  Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force Survey on the views of users of public service on how public services handle complaints

  (a)identify the views of public service users on how public services handle complaints (b)to inform the Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force's review of public service complaints systems, and in particular its final report to Ministers in 1995.

  June-November 1994

  MORI

  United Kingdom Technology Foresight Programme: Delphi Questionnaire

  To elicit expert opinion on a range of potential market and technology developments in the next 10–20 years.

  September-December 1994

  A joint consortium of: The Programme for Policy Research in Engineering, Science and Technology (University of Manchester); Business and Market Research plc; and Segal, Quince, Wickstead Ltd

  Department of the Environment

  Researching Building Regulations

  January-March 1994

  Redwood Associates

  Parliamentary Publications

  To gauge the British public's awareness of, and interest in, Parliamentary Proceedings and publications

  May 1994

  MORI

  Department of Trade and Industry QA Register

  Primarily a customer satisfaction survey but addressing a number of side issues such as the need for sub-sets of information and scope for a European directory in paper or CD-ROM format

  August-November 1994

  BMRB International

  Department of Health

  To establish likely need for a CD-ROM of Department of Health Publications

  September-November 1994

  McCulloch Associates

  OFSTED Publications

  Primarily a customer satisfaction survey but addressing a number of side issues such as alternative ways of providing the information (CD-ROM) and extending the OFSTED portfolio

  October 1994-January 1995

  BRMB International

  The costs of the individual surveys are subject to commercial confidentiality.

  Access to Public Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will give details of the steps he has taken to consult the Council on Tribunals with respect to the preparation of a system of external review over cases where information is withheld from disclosure under the code of practice on access to public information, as indicated at paragraph 6.16, page 48 of the White Paper on open government of July 1993, Cm. 2290.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Independent external review of the code of practice on access to Government information is already provided by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The proposals on page 48 of the White Paper relate to access rights and not to the code of practice.

  The council's initial comments on the White Paper proposals are included in the volume of consultation responses deposited in the House of Commons Library. They will be consulted further as detailed proposals are developed.

  Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton Laboratories
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories will be affected as a result of the planned changes to the research councils.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [pursuant to the reply 11 February 1994, Official Report, c. 492–93]:

  Following an in-depth examination of the need for, management, operation, funding and other aspects of the laboratory, I have decided that, subject to parliamentary approval, the Daresbury and Rutherford Appleton laboratories should be established as an independent entity with effect from April 1995, under the terms of the Science and Technology Act 1965. The chief executive of the laboratory will be in the same relationship to the accounting officer and Director General of Research Councils within the Office of Public Service and Science as the chief executive of the six other research councils. I intend in due course to lay before both Houses a draft Order in council, which will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

  Daresbury and Rutherford are national assets. They have been thoroughly reviewed, and my conclusion is that they should remain in public ownership. I believe that according them independent status is the right way to proceed, but with strong emphasis on operating in a commercial manner, and particularly meeting the needs of the customers.

  By announcing these new arrangements now, and by aiming to introduce them as quickly as possible, we can ensure the nation gets the best return from these assets.

  I am confident that we are creating the right environment for this major resource of the United Kingdom science and engineering base to flourish, and play a full part in carrying forward our White Paper objectives of wealth creation and improving the quality of life.

TRANSPORT

  Executive Agencies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by each division in his Department and for each executive agency their running costs budget for this financial year and the budget allocation for the next financial year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested for 1994–95 is as follows:

  Current Budget £ thousands

  Headquarters Directorates in Central Transport Group

  117,407

  Gross Running Costs Agencies

  DVLA

  177,063

  The Highways Agency

  89,173

  Marine Safety Agency

  14,806

  The Coastguard Agency

  24,857

  Net Running Costs Agencies

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  2,629

  Transport Research Laboratory

  17,000

  Trading Fund (off Vote)

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  44,600

  Trading Fund (on Vote)

  Driving Standards Agency

  49,3000

  Budget allocations for 1995–96 have not yet been made.

  British Rail Employees
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British Rail freight services employees are being removed from York to Doncaster; and when these posts will leave York.

  Mr. Watts
  This is a commercial matter for British Rail. I am not aware of any such proposal.

  Channel Tunnel Link
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the timetable for connections from south Wales to Waterloo to join Eurostar trains to Paris and Brussels.

  Mr. Watts
  The timing of the connecting services from south Wales is a matter for British Rail, in consultation with European Passenger Services. It is intended that as the Eurostar frequency builds up in 1995, the three trains from south Wales to Waterloo each weekday will connect with the Eurostar service.

  Live Railtracks (Accidents)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have(a) died and (b) been seriously injured by stepping on live railtracks in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and what steps are being taken to prevent such accidents from happening, with particular reference to east Dulwich station.

  Mr. Watts
  Details of electrocutions both fatal and seriously injured, are given in appendices 7 and 8 of the "Annual Report on Railway Safety in Great Britain"
  617
  copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is discussing with Railtrack whether any reasonably practicable measures can be taken to prevent a recurrence of the type of accident that occurred at east Dulwich on 9 July.

  A249 Iwade Bypass
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on a preferred route for the A249 Iwade bypass to Queenborough improvement scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  I am pleased to announce the preferred route for this scheme. It is the route on which the public were consulted last November.

  This scheme, which includes a second crossing of the Swale on a high level bridge, will greatly assist the development and expansion of industry and commerce and increase competitiveness and employment on the Isle of Sheppey. I am confident that this much-needed improvement of the A249 will be welcomed by all those whose lives are affected daily by the existing, wholly inadequate link with the mainland and the lifting bridge across the Swale.

  In choosing a route we have had the difficult task of balancing the needs of people and the local economy with important environmental considerations. I believe we have struck the right balance. The preferred route will avoid the key areas of ecological importance and make the best use of the existing road corridor.

  Airports
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the differences between the current Civil Aviation Authority and the proposed joint airworthiness authority specifications concerning permissible duty hours by aircraft flight deck and cabin crew; and which specifications will be applied in the United Kingdom if there is any disparity between the joint airworthiness authority specifications and the Civil Aviation Authority specifications currently in force;

  (2) on how many occasions one aircraft bound for a United Kingdom international airport has declared a low fuel emergency when its airport of intended landing has been closed to normal operations; on how many occasions two or more aircraft bound for any United Kingdom international airport have simultaneously declared a low fuel emergency when their respective airports of intended landing have been closed to normal operations; on how many occasions one aircraft bound for Heathrow has declared a low fuel emergency when Heathrow airport has been closed to normal operations; and on how many occasions two or more aircraft bound for Heathrow airport simultaneously have declared a low fuel emergency when Heathrow airport has been closed to normal operations;

  (3) what procedures exist to ensure the safe landing of two or more aircraft which have simultaneously declared a low fuel emergency within any one terminal control area, control zone or control area (a) when all suitable airports are operative and (b) when a designated airport or one or more designated runways has been closed to normal operations;
  618
  (4) on how many occasions over the last five years and for what reasons (a) one of the United Kingdom international airports has been closed to all normal operations, (b) Heathrow airport has been closed to all normal operations and (c) more than one of the United Kingdom international airports have been closed to all normal operations at any one time;

  (5) what consideration he has given to the United Kingdom to the minimum fuel advisory system as practised in the USA; and if he will make a statement;

  (6) on how many occasions during the last five years a low fuel emergency has been declared by (a) one aircraft, bound for a United Kingdom international airport (b) more than one aircraft bound for any United Kingdom international airport at any one time, (c) one aircraft bound for Heathrow airport and (d) more than one aircraft bound for Heathrow airport at any one time.

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In the past year–1 October 1993 to the present—the spouse of one Minister in this Department travelled abroad once to accompany that Minister on public duties. The total cost to public funds of the spouse's travel was £923·66. There were no occasions when such travel was undertaken at own cost.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Department who are normally based(a) in the Department in London, (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]:
  (a) Thirteen, excluding press officers employed by executive agencies directly accountable to the Department. (b) None. (c) Regional services in England are provided by the Central Office of Information.

  Mineral Oil Excise Duty
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations are being carried out on EC directive 92/82; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  Article 10 of the directive requires that every two years, and for the first time not later than 31 December 1994,

  619
  the Council, acting on the basis of a report and where appropriate, a proposal from the Commission, shall examine the rates of mineral oil excise duty laid down in the directive and, acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, shall adopt the necessary measures. No report has yet been produced and no proposal has yet been put forward by the Commission.

  Road Surfaces
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of(a) the current noise comparisons between porous asphalt and whisper concrete; and (b) how they compare with conventional asphalt and concrete as presently used in road construction.

  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. Richard Page, dated 26 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts MP, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning comparisons between porous asphalt, whisper concrete and conventional road surfaces.
  We have in hand trials comparing whisper concrete with conventional asphalt and concrete road surfaces. Also, data is available on the comparative performance of porous asphalt and conventional asphalt and concrete road surfaces. From the trials some early indications are available of the noise performance of whisper concrete. These are that for surfaces with equivalent skidding resistance, overall noise levels for whisper concrete are slightly less than for conventional hot rolled asphalt. They are significantly less than for some of the more heavily textured concrete surfaces provided in the past.
  In the case of porous asphalt as used in the United Kingdom, noise levels are about 5 dB(A) less than for a hot rolled asphalt surface initially, although this difference may reduce to about 3 dB(A) as the pores become clogged. The relative noise performance of porous asphalt compared with concrete surfaces is the same as that given above for hot rolled asphalt where skidding resistance characteristics are similar. However, the texture provided on concrete roads to date has tended to be deeper than the minimum required under the specification with the result that the difference in noise with porous asphalt would be greater in the early life of the road.
  We have not made any direct comparison of the respective noise performance of porous asphalt and whisper concrete. However, from the data available so far, we can infer the likely relative noise performance of these two surfaces. The picture emerging is that traffic noise levels attributable to whisper concrete are higher than those achieved with porous asphalt.

  M3/M27 Link
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the M3/M27 link to be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  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 Mr. David Atkinson, dated 26 October 1994:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the expected completion of the final section of the M3 between Bar End and Compton.
  No firm date has yet been fixed for the completion of the motorway but we expect it to be ready before the end of the year.
  620
  Associated work on local roads, landscaping and restoration of the old A33 Winchester Bypass will continue until early next year.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the role of independent consultants in the formulation of tourism policy since his appointment.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My officials are working closely with the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board on the development of a tourism strategy for the next 10 years. Consultants are assisting with the analysis.

  Specialist Advisers
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what plans he has to appoint specialist advisers to his Department;
  (2) if he has appointed a specialist adviser to his Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has access to specialist advice from a wide range of sources. I have no current plans to recruit a personal special advisor.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does not organise such receptions.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. Dorrell
  There have been no occasions on which the spouse of a Department of National Heritage Minister has travelled abroad at public expense. Such travel has been undertaken on two occasions at own cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  United States (National Performance Review Team)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what contact his Government have had with Vice-President Gore's national performance review team; and will he make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, met Vice-President Gore and members of his national performance review team. The citizens charter unit has also had discussions
  621
  With the national performance review team, and continues to keep in touch with it.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how may people attend.

  The Prime Minister
  No such receptions have been held.

  Departmental Documents
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of all documents, letters, or accounts he has signed which are written in a language he does not understand.

  The Prime Minister
  It is my policy to allow photographic reproductions of my signature to appear on official documents translated into languages other than English. However it is not my normal practice to place such documents in the Library.

  Prevention of Terrorism Acts
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has for the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden),Official Report, 24 October, column 492.

  Mark Thatcher
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions Ministers in Her Majesty's Government have been informed of payments made to Mr. Mark Thatcher or to companies associated with him in relation to defence contracts.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 October 1994]: As far as I am aware, no credible information of this kind has been submitted to Ministers.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cider Apple Trees
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards planting cider apple trees in set-aside areas.

  Mr. Jack
  The rules of the Community's arable area payments scheme do not permit the growing of food crops on land set aside under the scheme. Cider apple trees are viewed as a food crop. Crops for non-food use, such as biofuels, are allowed to be grown on set-aside land.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.
  622
  Mr. Jack
  No receptions have been organised by this Department for people expressing an interest in public appointment.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of spongiform encephalopathy have been established in(a) kudu, (b) nyala, (c) eland, (d) gemsbok, (e) Arabian oryx, (f) puma and (g) cheetah in each of the last four years, with the age of each animal involved and the suspected cause of transmission.

  Mrs. Browning
  The following numbers of cases have been confirmed in Great Britain in the species listed in each of the last four years.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Kudu

  (19) 1

  (37,36*) 2

  —

  —

  Nyala

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eland

  —

  (27,28) 2

  (24) 1

  —

  Gemsbok

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arabian Oryx

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Puma

  —

  (62) 1

  —

  —

  Cheetah

  —

  —

  (96) 1

  (91) 1

  Classification is by year of death: ages in months at the time of death are shown in brackets. Animals marked with an asterisk showed no clinical signs when they were euthanased. Disease may have spread between kudu by contact or possibly environmental contamination after being introduced in feed and transmission between eland is also possible. The puma and cheetahs were fed parts of bovine carcases, including central nervous tissue, which were deemed unfit for human consumption.

  European Funding
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list in pounds sterling the allocations from PESCA for the United Kingdom and the other eligible member states and the proposed allocations to the regions in the United Kingdom which are highly dependent on fishing;

  (2) what is the basis for proposed allocations of PESCA funding for (a) member states and (b) regions which are highly dependent on fishing.

  Mr. Jack
  The Commission has allocated PESCA funding between member states as follows:

  £ million (converted at £1 = 1·319 ecu)

  Belgium

  1·52

  Denmark

  12·3

  Germany

  17·44

  Greece

  20·55

  Spain

  31·46

  France

  21·15

  Ireland

  2·80

  Italy

  25·55

  Netherlands

  7·73

  Portugal

  19·41

  United Kingdom

  25·70

  This breakdown is based on employment in the fisheries sector as a whole, and on the fleet reductions required by member states' multi-annual guidance programmes.
  623
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what actual or previous sums of money have been allocated to the British fishing industry under the Pesca initiative; what proportion of the total EU allocation is allocated to each of the receiving nations, approximately in each European nation; how much will be allocated per person employed in the fishing industry; and what are the funds to be made available in total and per person for Devon.

  Mr. Jack
  The Commission has allocated Pesca funding between member states as follows:

  £ million (converted at £1 = 1·319 ecu)

  Belgium

  1·52

  Denmark

  12·3

  Germany

  17·44

  Greece

  20·55

  Spain

  31·46

  France

  21·15

  Ireland

  2·80

  Italy

  25·55

  Netherlands

  7·73

  Subject

  Objectives

  Organisation

  Period Conducted

  1. Leaflet communication Research

  Response to proposed new leaflet on fridge use and maintenance

  Reflections

  Start: July 1993

  End: December 1993

  2. Foodsense Awareness Research

  Response to awareness leaflet

  RSGB

  Start: July 1993

  End: July 1993

  3. Foodsense strategy Research

  1. Knowledge of food hygiene issues

  Andrew Irving and Associates

  Start: September 1993

  End: October 1993

  2. Existing anxieties regarding food hygiene

  3. Awareness of existing foodsense leaflet

  4. Awareness of alternative sources of information about food hygiene

  5. Perceived area of uncertainty/ignorance

  4. Improved methods of food preference mapping

  Consumer response to foods

  Mobile sensory Testing Services Ltd.

  Start: October 1993

  Expected end: October 1996

  5. MAFF Exhibition Evaluation

  Response to the MAFF Exhibition

  Martin Hamblin

  Start: June 1994

  Expected end: January 1995

  6. Exhibition Research

  Appreciation of Exhibition at the National History Museum in South Kensington

  Diagnostics

  Start: August 1994

  End: October 1994

  7. Valuation of Non-use Benefits

  1. The extent to which the Surveyed population values natural areas.

  University of Portsmouth

  Start: October 1994

  Expected end: October 1996

  2. The populations' willingness to pay for environmental benefits.

  3. The socio-economic background of the population

  4. The cultural and social characteristics of the population

  624

  £ million (converted at £1 = 1·319 ecu)

  Portugal

  19·41

  United Kingdom

  25·70

  This breakdown is based on employment in the fisheries sector as a whole, and on the fleet reductions required by member states' multi-annual guidance programmes.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Jack
  Seven surveys seeking public opinion have been commissioned by MAFF and its agencies since 1 October 1992. Details of these surveys are as follows. It is not possible for commercial reasons to give the cost of each survey individually. However, in total these surveys cost £190,000.

  Badgers
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licences have been granted for interference with badger setts following the Badgers Act 1991, now the Protection of Badgers Act 1992; and for which purposes listed in section 10 of the 1992 Act such licences were issued.

  Licences issued to interfere with Badger Setts

  Purpose for which interference licence was issued

  Number of licences issued for each period

  February—december 1992

  January—december 1993

  January—september 1994

  Preventing the spread of disease

  —

  —

  —

  Preventing serious damage

  115

  236

  205

  Agricultural or forestry operations

  27

  46

  58

  Maintenance etc of watercourse or drainage work

  9

  20

  28

  Controlling foxes

  —

  —

  —

  Rabbits
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on outbreaks of viral haemorrhagic disease amongst the wild rabbit population and on the availability of vaccines to treat it.

  Mrs. Browning
  Viral haemorrhagic disease has been confirmed as the cause of death of four wild rabbits whose bodies were found near Tenterden in Kent—one—and Exeter in Devon—three. The presence of VHD in our wild rabbit population had been suspected for some time but only recently confirmed. The disease has been notifiable in Great Britain since 1991 and a total of 50 outbreaks in domestic and commercial rabbits have been confirmed up to 24 October this year. There were 10 outbreaks in 1993.

  No vaccines to protect rabbits against VHD, are currently licensed for use in the United Kingdom. Two applications for licenses have however now been received by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and are urgently being assessed under the provisional licence arrangements that came into effect on 8 September 1994.

  VHD is endemic in all rabbits, including wild rabbits, in much of the rest of Europe.

  Research and Development
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest available figure for his Department's total research and development expenditure for 1993–94 in(a) cash and (b) constant terms.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer to the answer given by my predecessor on 20 July 1994,Official Report, column 350–51.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures available for the number of personnel employed in his Department's research and development programme for(a) 1993–94 and (b) the latest available date.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest available figures are those given by my predecessor on 20 July 1994,Official Report, column 350.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions in the past
  626
  Mrs. Browning
  Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, this Department is responsible for issuing licences to interfere with badger setts for the purposes specified in sections 10(2) and 10(3).

  The Badgers Act 1991 came into force in October 1991 and the first licences were issued in February 1992. The number issued since then and the purpose for which they were issued are as follows:

  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. Jack
  Over the last year, there have been no occasions in which public funds have been used to finance the cost of spouses accompanying Ministers on overseas visits, and no occasion on which such travel took place at own cost.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Luxembourg on 24 and 25 October; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldergrave
  This meeting of the Agriculture Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, again discussed the question of stronger rules for the protection of animals in transport. Member states' views continue to diverge substantially and no agreement was reached. I made clear the importance I attach to limits on travelling time and proper enforcement.

  The Council also discussed a proposal from the Commission for a reduction in the required rate for set-aside for arable crops to be harvested in 1995. In the absence of an opinion from the European Parliament, no formal decision could be taken. But it was established that a qualified majority of the Council existed in favour of a reduction of three percentage points. I supported this reduction, which the Commission has assured the Council will be budget-neutral, and which will help to keep cereals market prices down and thus benefit the livestock sector.

  The Council considered a discussion document from the Commission on reform of the support system for fruit and vegetables. I regard its ideas as a step in the right direction but hope that more radical changes can be agreed. The Commission intends to present detailed proposals shortly.

  Finally, the Council adopted by unanimity various detailed amendments to the rules for granting aids of a structural nature. Among other things, these make it optional, rather than obligatory, for member states to operate schemes of aid for investment on farms.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the ancient woodland inventory undertaken by the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to establish a register of ancient woodland in the United Kingdom.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  An inventory of ancient woodland in Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, was produced by the Nature Conservancy Council between 1981 and 1991. Copies of this, arranged by county in England and Wales, and by district in Scotland, have been widely distributed to local authorities, the Forestry Commission, to conservation bodies and to landowners' representatives such as the Timber Growers Association.

  Since 1991, responsibility for maintaining and revising the inventories has been passed to English Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage. These bodies update the information on particular sites in the light of new survey information, including information provided by the organisations and individuals to whom the inventory has gone. Assessment of and amendments to the inventory are thus a continuous process. Information about individual sites or areas is available on request.

  Average number of school meals taken by day pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England on the census date in January: 1990 to 1994 (provisional)

  LEA Maintained Primary

  Grant Maintained Primary

  LEA Maintained1Secondary

  Grant Maintained1Secondary

  1990

  96

  —2

  274

  373

  1991

  94

  —2

  286

  363

  1992

  95

  117

  300

  384

  1993

  97

  139

  321

  384

  19943

  100

  123

  331

  422

  1 excludes sixth form colleges which ceased to be classified as schools from 1 April 1993

  2 There were no grant-maintained primary schools in 1990 or 1991

  3 provisional

  Cultural and Linguistic Exchanges
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what resources the DFE devotes to assist cultural and linguistic exchanges in(a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary sector;

  (2) how many language or cultural exchange arrangements exist within the state sector of education.

  Mr. Boswell
  DFE grant to the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges in 1994–95 is £4·2 million. Of this, some £860,000 is targeted at the primary sector and some £1·8 million is targeted at the secondary sector. The rest is targeted at the further and higher education sectors.

  The services offered include school linking, foreign language assistants, international in-service training for teachers and participation in multi-lateral—including EU—programmes. It is estimated that some 130,000 state-sector pupils participated in school exchanges in 1991–92, the latest year for which data are available.

  The DFE also provides funding to the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers. It is estimated that in 1993–94 some £262,000 was spent in support of

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General whether his departments organise receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  The Attorney-General
  No such receptions are organised in the departments for which I am responsible.

EDUCATION

  School Meals
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the average number of school meals claimed by(a) local education maintained primary schools, (b) local education authority maintained secondary schools, (c) grant-maintained primary schools and (d) grant-maintained secondary schools in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The available information is as follows:

  primary teacher exchange; and some £230,000 on secondary teacher exchange.

  Higher and Further Education Fees
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the average registration fee charged to home students by higher and further education colleges in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on the level of registration fees is not collected centrally.

  Overseas Visits
  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
  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.

  PE Teachers
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many physical education teachers were employed by local education authorities for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is only available for 1977, 1984, 1988 and 1992 from the secondary school staffing surveys. The number of full-time teachers in all maintained secondary schools in England who were teaching physical education in each of these years was as follows:

  1977 41·8 thousand

  1984 37·9 thousand

  1988 30·3 thousand

  1992 24·4 thousand

  The same surveys give information on the number of teachers with a post A-level qualification in physical education regardless of whether they were teaching it. The number of full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools with a physical education qualification in each year was:

  1977 33·9 thousand

  1984 36·4 thousand

  1988 31·6 thousand

  1992 30·3 thousand

  In both the above cases the 1992 figures include teachers in grant maintained schools.

  No figures are available giving the number of physical education teachers in primary schools or special schools. However, the 1987 primary school staffing survey showed that 12·8,000 teachers in maintained primary schools had a qualification in physical education.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether her Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department for Education does not organise receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the number of school playing fields by local education authority for(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987, (d) 1992 and (e) the latest available date.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No information is available for years before 1993. The latest available data will take a little time to assemble. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the capital receipts from the sale of school playing fields for each of the last six years by education authority.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not collected centrally.

TREASURY

  Foster Carers
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if allowances paid to local authority foster carers are non-taxable and are not regarded as income.

  Sir George Young
  To the extent that payments made to a foster carer do no more than meet the actual costs of caring for someone, no tax is payable. But if a profit arises on payments made to reward the foster carer's services in providing care, this profit is taxable.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if foster carers in receipt of boarding-out allowances and who do not receive an additional fee are not classified as self-employed.

  Sir George Young
  It will depend on whether or not an individual is self-employed, in particular the way in which the caring is organised. Whether a foster carer is self employed or not, to the extent that payments received do no more than meet the actual costs of caring, no tax will be payable. If a profit arises on payments made to reward the foster carer's services in providing care, this profit is taxable.

  Where basic boarding allowances paid to foster carers do no more than re-imburse actual costs, no taxable profit arises.

  This is reflected in National Foster Care Association guidelines, published in its leaflet NFC 2008, which has been agreed with the Inland Revenue.

  Tobacco and Alcohol
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what extra measures have been taken to prevent the illegal importation of tobacco and alcohol since the opening of the single market; how much they have cost; and what is the value of the illegally imported tobacco and alcohol that has been seized and destroyed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise has allocated some 240 staff to single market excise work most of whom are specially trained excise verification officers—EVOs—whose remit is to detect and prosecute anyone attempting to defraud the Revenue in this way. The annual cost of an EVO is about £30,000. In the 20 months to August 1994 the revenue value of seized tobacco and alcohol was over £4 million. These goods either have been, or will be, destroyed.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the volume of alcohol and tobacco which has been illegally imported since the opening of the single market; and what volume has been destroyed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is by definition difficult to form a reliable estimate of the total volume of smuggled goods. In the 20—month period to August 1994 Customs seized 4,298,927 cigarettes, 22,912 cigars, 25,517 kg of other tobacco and 1,188,449 litres of alcoholic drinks. All the goods sized either have been, or will, be destroyed subject to condemnation proceedings.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated loss to the Exchequer of the illegal importation of tobacco and alcohol from the continent in each year since the opening of the single market.
  631
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is notoriously difficult to calculate the true extent of smuggling. An assumed detection rate of one in 20, in the calendar year 1993 would suggest a revenue loss of the order of £35 million. The revenue value of seizures during the eight months of 1994 was £2·4 million.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions there have been, since the opening of the single market, for the illegal importation of alcohol and tobacco; and how many have been successful.

  Spirits

  Table Wine

  Beer

  £ per hl pure alcohol

  VAT rate per cent.

  £ per hl at 11 per cent. aby

  VAT rate per cent.

  £ per hl at 5 per cent.

  VAT rate per cent.

  Belgium

  1,289.60

  20·5

  29.87

  20·5

  14.98

  20·5

  Denmark

  3,070.90

  25

  69.31

  25

  34.05

  25

  France

  1,106.23

  18·6

  2.69

  18·6

  7.63

  18·6

  Germany

  1,066.95

  15

  —

  15

  8.05

  15

  Greece

  400.12

  18

  —

  18

  8.28

  18

  Ireland

  2,161.39

  21

  212.88

  21

  77.48

  21

  Italy

  420.37

  19

  —

  13

  13.93

  19

  Luxembourg

  852.97

  15

  —

  12

  8.12

  15

  Netherlands

  1,236.94

  17·5

  40.11

  17·50

  17.5

  17·5

  Portugal

  549.76

  16

  —

  5

  10.81

  16

  Spain

  425.47

  15

  —

  15

  6.37

  15

  United Kingdom

  1,981.00

  17·5

  134.77

  17·5

  52.25

  17·5

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his Departments organise receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's departments do not organise receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) of 20 October,Official Report, column 417, if he will make a statement on the emergency ECOFIN meetings attended on 21 October with special

  Collection

  Number of detections

  30 June 1993

  30 September 1993

  31 December 1993

  31 March 1994

  30 June 1994

  30 September 1994

  Total

  Belfast

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  3

  Dover

  26

  26

  5

  1

  22

  30

  110

  East Anglia

  3

  2

  5

  5

  5

  23

  43

  East Midlands

  —

  2

  1

  1

  3

  —

  7

  Edinburgh

  2

  —

  6

  11

  —

  7

  26

  Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2

  4

  Leeds

  2

  —

  —

  6

  2

  9

  19

  Liverpool

  8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  16

  London Airports

  1

  74

  4

  46

  16

  19

  160

  London Central

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  London North and West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London Port

  2

  8

  12

  —

  27

  17

  66

  London South

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Manchester

  —

  1

  —

  —

  6

  9

  16

  Northhampton

  2

  1

  1

  4

  6

  —

  14

  632
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To 31 August 1994 Customs and Excise prosecuted 289 individuals for the illegal importation of alcohol and tobacco from other EU countries. The courts acquitted in two cases although one of these is the subject of an appeal by Customs.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of excise duty, VAT or other tax on(a) wine, (b) spirits and (c) beer in each EU country; and what is the difference in each case for United Kingdom levels.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The rates of excise duty and VAT on wine, spirits and beer in each EU country are shown in the following table.

  reference to the United Kingdom's case against the EC Commission in the European Court of Justice regarding the proposal in respect of Italian milk quotas.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I refer to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) on 25 October.

  Firearms
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the total seizures of illegal firearms for each port of entry for each month since January 1992.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs do not hold central statistics for seizures of weapons that can be broken down in this way. Such figures could be produced only at disproportionate cost. However, the table sets out the number of detections of illegal weapons by Customs and Excise per collection—regional command—for each quarter since 1 April 1993.
  633

  Collection

  Number of detections

  30 June 1993

  30 September 1993

  31 December 1993

  31 March 1994

  30 June 1994

  30 September 1994

  Total

  Northern England

  4

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  7

  Southhampton

  10

  16

  —

  11

  26

  13

  76

  South Wales and Borders

  7

  1

  6

  7

  1

  —

  22

  South West England

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  10

  21

  Thames Valley

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  6

  Total detections

  70

  135

  43

  98

  123

  150

  619

  Total firearms seized1

  2,214

  3,045

  1,734

  170

  220

  2,190

  9,573

  1Firearms includes: handguns, rifles, shotguns, gas canisters and stun guns.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of press officers currently employed by his Departments who are normally based(a) in the Department in London (b) in the House and (c) at each other location.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]The number of press officers currently employed by the Departments responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is shown in the table.

  Number

  HM Treasury

  7

  HM Customs & Excise

  4

  Board of Inland Revenue

  7

  Department for National Savings

  2

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  1

  Crown Estate Office

  2

  Table A Persons sentenced at magistrates' courts for all offences by month, type of offence and type of sentence England and Wales 1993* Indictable Offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-Custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  20,810

  100

  709

  3

  20,101

  97

  February

  19,578

  100

  909

  5

  18,669

  95

  March

  22,451

  100

  1,155

  5

  21,296

  95

  April

  19,876

  100

  1,044

  5

  18,832

  95

  May

  19,077

  100

  983

  5

  18,094

  95

  June

  20,698

  100

  1,135

  5

  19,563

  95

  July

  20,683

  100

  1,159

  6

  19,524

  94

  August

  18,934

  100

  1,287

  7

  17,674

  93

  September

  20,163

  100

  1,465

  7

  18,698

  93

  October

  18,995

  100

  1,435

  8

  17,560

  92

  November

  20,479

  100

  1,409

  7

  19,070

  93

  December

  16,497

  100

  1,208

  7

  15,289

  93

  Total

  238,241

  100

  13,898

  6

  224,343

  94

  Summary non-motoring Offences

  Total Sentenced

  Custodial Sentences

  Non-custodial Sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  37,341

  100

  170

  0

  37,171

  100

  February

  34,623

  100

  213

  1

  34,410

  99

  March

  42,220

  100

  283

  1

  41,937

  99

  April

  35,866

  100

  237

  1

  35,629

  99

  May

  34,889

  100

  229

  1

  34,660

  99

  June

  40,034

  100

  224

  1

  39,810

  99

  July

  38,790

  100

  266

  1

  38,524

  99

  August

  36,659

  100

  309

  1

  36,350

  99

  September

  39,463

  100

  299

  1

  39,164

  99

  October

  37,181

  100

  331

  1

  36,850

  99

  November

  39,024

  100

  323

  1

  38,701

  99

  December

  31,405

  100

  334

  1

  31,071

  99

  Total

  447,495

  100

  3,218

  1

  444,277

  99

  634
  All of these staff are based in London. None are normally based in the House. Agencies which are accountable to the Chancellor and which employ press officers are not included in the table.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Court Sentences
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of people sentenced in the courts received(a) a custodial sentence and (b) a non-custodial sentence in each month of 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The 1993 information, which is provisional, on sentencing at both the magistrates' court and the Crown court is given in the tables A to C. Data provided by the Lord Chancellor's Department for committals for trial at the Crown court is given in table D.
  635

  Summary Motoring Offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  58,887

  100

  424

  1

  58,463

  99

  February

  54,406

  100

  498

  1

  53,908

  99

  March

  61,334

  100

  600

  1

  60,734

  99

  April

  54,268

  100

  572

  1

  53,696

  99

  May

  49,279

  100

  541

  1

  48,738

  99

  June

  55,780

  100

  637

  1

  55,143

  99

  July

  54,416

  100

  668

  1

  53,748

  99

  August

  52,369

  100

  664

  1

  51,705

  99

  September

  57,974

  100

  854

  1

  57,120

  99

  October

  53,598

  100

  855

  2

  52,743

  98

  November

  57,075

  100

  873

  2

  56,202

  98

  December

  45,870

  100

  714

  2

  45,156

  98

  Total

  655,256

  100

  7,900

  1

  647,356

  99

  All Offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  117,038

  100

  1,303

  1

  115,735

  99

  February

  108,607

  100

  1,620

  1

  106,987

  99

  March

  126,005

  100

  2,038

  2

  123,967

  98

  April

  110,010

  100

  1,853

  2

  108,157

  98

  May

  103,245

  100

  1,753

  2

  101,492

  98

  June

  116,512

  100

  1,996

  2

  114,516

  98

  July

  113,889

  100

  2,093

  2

  111,796

  98

  August

  107,962

  100

  2,260

  2

  105,702

  98

  September

  117,600

  100

  2,618

  2

  114,982

  98

  October

  109,774

  100

  2,621

  2

  107,153

  98

  November

  116,578

  100

  2,605

  2

  113,973

  98

  December

  93,772

  100

  2,256

  2

  91,516

  98

  Total

  1,340,992

  100

  25,016

  2

  1,315,976

  98

  Table B - Persons sentenced at the crown court for all offences by month, type of offence and type of sentence England and Wales 1993* Indictable offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-Custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  5,831

  100

  2,375

  41

  3,456

  59

  February

  6,111

  100

  2,728

  45

  3,383

  55

  March

  6,942

  100

  3,237

  47

  3,705

  53

  April

  5,677

  100

  2,743

  48

  2,934

  52

  May

  5,369

  100

  2,639

  49

  2,730

  51

  June

  5,251

  100

  2,600

  50

  2,651

  50

  July

  6,266

  100

  3,186

  51

  3,080

  49

  August

  4,567

  100

  2,382

  52

  2,185

  48

  September

  5,265

  100

  2,741

  52

  2,524

  48

  October

  5,481

  100

  2,823

  52

  2,658

  48

  November

  5,521

  100

  2,755

  50

  2,766

  50

  December

  4,699

  100

  2,526

  54

  2,173

  46

  Total

  66,980

  100

  32,735

  49

  34,245

  51

  Summary non-motoring offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-Custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  213

  100

  26

  12

  187

  88

  February

  189

  100

  38

  20

  151

  80

  March

  208

  100

  33

  16

  175

  84

  April

  162

  100

  34

  21

  128

  79

  May

  174

  100

  32

  18

  142

  82

  June

  126

  100

  20

  16

  106

  84

  July

  159

  100

  30

  19

  129

  81

  August

  120

  100

  23

  19

  97

  81

  September

  137

  100

  33

  24

  104

  76

  October

  130

  100

  32

  25

  98

  75

  November

  141

  100

  38

  27

  103

  73

  December

  107

  100

  18

  17

  89

  83

  Total

  1,866

  100

  357

  19

  1,509

  81

  636 637

  Summary motoring offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-Custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  118

  100

  28

  24

  90

  76

  February

  122

  100

  28

  23

  94

  77

  March

  91

  100

  33

  36

  58

  64

  April

  88

  100

  27

  31

  61

  69

  May

  84

  100

  24

  29

  60

  71

  June

  73

  100

  23

  32

  50

  68

  July

  93

  100

  24

  26

  69

  74

  August

  74

  100

  21

  28

  53

  72

  September

  80

  100

  21

  26

  59

  74

  October

  68

  100

  20

  29

  48

  71

  November

  88

  100

  23

  26

  65

  74

  December

  73

  100

  19

  26

  54

  74

  Total

  1,052

  100

  291

  28

  761

  72

  All offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-Custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  6,162

  100

  2,429

  39

  3,733

  61

  February

  6,422

  100

  2,794

  44

  3,628

  56

  March

  7,241

  100

  3,303

  46

  3,938

  54

  April

  5,927

  100

  2,804

  47

  3,123

  53

  May

  5,627

  100

  2,695

  48

  2,932

  52

  June

  5,450

  100

  2,643

  48

  2,807

  52

  July

  6,518

  100

  3,240

  50

  3,278

  50

  August

  4,761

  100

  2,426

  51

  2,335

  49

  September

  5,482

  100

  2,795

  51

  2,687

  49

  October

  5,679

  100

  2,875

  51

  2,804

  49

  November

  5,750

  100

  2,816

  49

  2,934

  51

  December

  4,879

  100

  2,563

  53

  2,316

  47

  Total

  69,898

  100

  33,383

  48

  36,515

  52

  Table C—persons sentenced at all courts for all offences by month, types of offence and type of sentence, England and Wales 1993* Indictable offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-Custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  26,647

  100

  3,084

  12

  23,557

  88

  February

  25,689

  100

  3,637

  14

  22,052

  86

  March

  29,393

  100

  4,392

  15

  25,001

  85

  April

  25,553

  100

  3,787

  15

  21,766

  85

  May

  24,446

  100

  3,622

  15

  20,824

  85

  June

  25,949

  100

  3,735

  14

  22,214

  86

  July

  26,949

  100

  4,345

  16

  22,604

  84

  August

  23,501

  100

  3,669

  16

  19,832

  84

  September

  25,428

  100

  4,206

  17

  21,222

  83

  October

  24,476

  100

  4,258

  17

  20,210

  83

  November

  26,000

  100

  4,164

  16

  21,836

  84

  December

  21,196

  100

  3,734

  16

  17,462

  82

  Total

  305,221

  100

  46,633

  15

  258,588

  85

  Summary non-motoring offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-Custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  37,554

  100

  196

  1

  37,358

  99

  February

  34,812

  100

  251

  1

  34,561

  99

  March

  42,428

  100

  316

  1

  42,112

  99

  April

  36,028

  100

  271

  1

  35,757

  99

  May

  35,063

  100

  261

  1

  34,802

  99

  June

  40,160

  100

  244

  1

  39,916

  99

  July

  38,949

  100

  296

  1

  38,653

  99

  August

  36,779

  100

  332

  1

  36,447

  99

  September

  39,600

  100

  332

  1

  39,268

  99

  October

  37,311

  100

  363

  1

  36,948

  99

  November

  39,165

  100

  361

  1

  38,804

  99

  December

  31,512

  100

  352

  1

  31,160

  99

  Total

  44,9361

  100

  3,575

  1

  445,786

  99

  638 639

  Summary motoring offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-Custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  59,005

  100

  452

  1

  58,553

  99

  February

  54,528

  100

  526

  1

  54,002

  99

  March

  61,425

  100

  633

  1

  50,792

  99

  April

  54,356

  100

  599

  1

  53,757

  99

  May

  49,363

  100

  565

  1

  48,798

  99

  June

  55,853

  100

  660

  1

  55,193

  99

  July

  54,509

  100

  692

  1

  53,817

  99

  August

  52,443

  100

  685

  1

  51,758

  99

  September

  58,054

  100

  875

  2

  57,179

  98

  October

  53,666

  100

  875

  2

  52,791

  98

  November

  57,163

  100

  896

  2

  56,267

  98

  December

  45,943

  100

  733

  2

  45,210

  98

  Total

  656,308

  100

  8791

  1

  648,117

  99

  All offences

  Total sentenced

  Custodial sentences

  Non-Custodial sentences

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  January

  123,200

  100

  3,732

  3

  119,468

  97

  February

  115,029

  100

  4,414

  4

  110,615

  96

  March

  133,246

  100

  5,341

  4

  127,905

  96

  April

  115,937

  100

  4,657

  4

  111,280

  96

  May

  108,872

  100

  4,448

  4

  104,424

  96

  June

  121,962

  100

  4,639

  4

  117,323

  96

  July

  120,407

  100

  5,333

  4

  115,074

  96

  August

  112,723

  100

  4,686

  4

  108,037

  96

  September

  123,082

  100

  5,413

  4

  117,669

  96

  October

  115,453

  100

  5,486

  5

  109,957

  95

  November

  122,328

  100

  5,421

  4

  116,907

  96

  December

  98,651

  100

  4,819

  5

  93,832

  95

  Total

  1,410,890

  100

  58,399

  4

  1,352,491

  96

  Table D Proportionate use of immediate custody for defendants sentenced at the Crown Court following committal for trial. England and Wales 1992–1994

  Month

  1992

  1993

  1994

  January

  48

  42

  52

  February

  48

  46

  54

  March

  49

  47

  52

  April

  50

  49

  54

  May

  49

  50

  54

  June

  49

  51

  53

  July

  48

  52

  53

  August

  48

  54

  53

  September

  48

  54

  —

  October

  42

  52

  —

  November

  42

  52

  —

  December

  43

  54

  —

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Howard
  The following is the information about expenditure on official hospitality by my Department.

  Year

  Department (excluding agencies) £

  Agencies £

  1990–1991

  30,080

  Nil

  1991–1992

  28,094

  Nil

  1992–1993

  21,651

  234,000

  640

  Year

  Department (excluding agencies) £

  Agencies £

  1993–1994

  15,233

  333,784

  1994–19951

  7,863

  411,297

  1To 30 September.

  2Expenditure by the Fire Service college trading fund.

  3Includes £29,771 by the Fire Service college trading fund, £307 by the Prison Service agency, £1,706 by the United Kingdom Passport agency and £2,000 by the Forensic Science Service agency.

  4Includes £10,596 by the Fire Service college trading fund, £76 by the Prison Service agency, £225 by the United Kingdom Passport agency and £400 by the Forensic Science Service agency.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about incidents of domestic violence in each of the regions of England and Wales.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available has been provided by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and is in the table; 1993 was the first year that HMIC collected information on incidents of domestic violence recorded by the police in England and Wales. The HMIC is in the process of collecting more reliable data.
  641

  Domestic violence incidents recorded by the Police in England and Wales in 1993

  Forces

  Year 1993

  Avon and Somerset

  Not available

  Bedfordshire

  Not available

  Cambridgeshire

  2,253

  Cheshire

  17,918

  City of London

  —

  Cleveland

  3,448

  Cumbria

  654

  Derbyshire

  7,606

  Devon and Cornwall

  Not available

  Dorset

  5,624

  Durham

  3,277

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,223

  Essex

  1,724

  Gloucestershire

  2,401

  Greater Manchester

  33,988

  Gwent

  135

  Hampshire

  Not available

  Hertfordshire

  3,367

  Humberside

  8,401

  Kent

  5,875

  Lancashire

  6,090

  Leicestershire

  4,075

  Lincolnshire

  373

  Merseyside

  8,850

  Norfolk

  881

  North Wales

  287

  North Yorkshire

  15,841

  Northamptonshire

  2,104

  Northumbria

  2,071

  Nottinghamshire

  1,990

  South Wales

  3,451

  South Yorkshire

  482

  Staffordshire

  Not available

  Suffolk

  1,396

  Surrey

  3,155

  Sussex

  1,157

  Thames Valley

  9,167

  Warwickshire

  Not available

  West Mercia

  916

  West Midlands

  12,151

  West Yorkshire

  11,315

  Wiltshire

  1,517

  Provincial Total

  185,163

  Metropolitan Police

  11,420

  England and Wales Total

  196,583

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Howard
  The surveys carried out by the Home Department since 1 October 1992 which have included questions on public opinion are as listed. Not all the surveys were primarily focused on public opinion. The fee paid to successful contractors is not shown as this is regarded by the Central Statistical Office as a matter of commercial confidentiality.

  Subject:–1994 BRITISH CRIME SURVEY

  Objectives:—To examine the extent of criminal victimisation amongst householders. The survey includes some opinion questions.
  642
  Period:—January-May 1994 (fieldwork)

  Organisation:—Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (fieldwork)

  Subject:–1994 COMMERCIAL CRIME SURVEY

  Objectives:—A telephone survey to examine the extent of criminal victimisation against retail and manufacturing business premises. The survey includes some opinion questions.

  Period:—April-May 1994 (fieldwork)

  Organisation:—British Market Research Bureau (fieldwork)

  Subject:—EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FIRE SERVICE

  Objectives:—To examine the image of the fire service as a potential employer amongst women and ethnic minorities

  Period:—May-August 1993

  Organisation:—Harris Research

  Subject:—PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE POLICE

  Objectives:—One of a series of surveys conducted in recent years to assess the impact of the police Quality of Service Programme.

  Period:—October 1993 (fieldwork)

  Organisation:—Office of Population Censuses and Survey (Omnibus Survey) (fieldwork)

  Subject:—PASSPORT AGENCY CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEYS

  Objectives:—Monthly surveys to establish the age profile and renewal habits of passport holders together with their expectations and opinions of the service provided by the Agency.

  Period:—May 1992-October 1994

  Organisation:—Passport Agency and Eurodata Ltd (data processing)

  Subject:—PARTNERS AGAINST CRIME CAMPAIGN

  Objectives:—To assess level of support for local community crime prevention and Neighbourhood Watch.

  Period:—September-October 1994

  Organisation:—NOP on behalf of Public Relations Branch, Home Office

  Subject:—WITNESS INTIMIDATION: STRATEGIES FOR PREVENTION

  Objectives:—The aim of this postal survey was to assess the extent to which witnesses of crime were harassed and intimidated and to find out if witnesses were satisfied with the police response. Two public surveys were carried out: one by internal staff, the other by an external contractor. Both surveys were more concerned with obtained peoples' experience of intimidation than their opinions.

  Period:—November-December 1993

  Organisation:—Internal survey: Police Research Group, Home Office, External survey: Research Surveys of Great Britain (RSGB)

  Subject:—ASSESSING THE EXPANDABLE SIDE HANDLED BATON.
  643
  Objectives:—The aim of this project was to assess the merits expandable side handled baton as an alternative to the standard issue truncheon. Part of this project involved carrying out a small face-to-face survey to assess the attitudes of the public towards the acceptability of the new baton.

  Period:–6 and 7 May 1994

  Organisation:—NOP (on behalf of Touch Ross)

  Subject:—CRIME PROFILING FOR RESIDENTIAL BURGLARIES

  Objectives:—The aim of this project is to determine the most cost-effective procedures for investigating residential burglaries. Part of this involved carrying out face-to-face interviews with victims to assess their perceptions of the level of service they received from the police so that this information could be related to the method and outcome of the investigation.

  Period:—April—october 1994

  Organisation:—Operational Research Group, Birmingham University

  Subject:—NORWICH CRIME LINE STUDY

  Objectives:—To examine satisfaction among victims with service provided by the Norwich Crime Reporting/Advice Line (for reporting minor crime over the phone).

  Period:—February—march 1993

  Organisation:—Police Research Group, Home Office

  Subject:—CRIME SCREENING STUDY (VICTIMS OF BURGLARY AND AUTOCRIME IN THREE POLICE FORCES.)

  Objectives:—A telephone survey to obtain victims' opinions on the police's performance, and the public's priorities for investigation.

  Period:—August—september 1994

  Organisation:—Centre for Study of Public Order, Leicestershire University

  Overstayers
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the Russian Federation have overstayed on their visas in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not available.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made to the interception of communications tribunal challenging his Department's authorisation to intercept the communications of individuals and organisations during the period to date from 1985; how many of these applications have resulted in quashing of the relevant authorisation, destruction of copies of materials intercepted under the authorisations concerned and payment of financial compensation; on average, how long it has taken for the tribunal to consider and reach an outcome on individual applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  The number of applications received by the tribunal in each year is as follows:644

  Year

  Number of applications received

  1986/871

  41

  1987

  32

  1988

  30

  1989

  49

  1990

  59

  1991

  58

  1992

  45

  1993

  41

  1April 1986 to April 1987.

  On no occasion has the tribunal concluded that there has been a contravention of sections 2 to 5 of the Interception of Communication Act 1985.

  In 1993 the average time taken to complete a tribunal investigation was eight weeks.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Howard
  No such receptions are organised.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to publish his conclusions on the consultation paper on wheel clamping on private land.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are considering what action to take in respect of wheel clamping on private land. The consultation paper referred to produced much useful information from interested parties. It did not, however produce any consensus on how to ensure that any measure introduced to prevent or deter irresponsible and heavy-handed wheel clamping on private land does not prevent sensible measures from being taken to control genuine parking problems. We will make our conclusions known as soon as possible.

  Merseyside Police Authority
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the proposed changes in funding for policing for the Merseyside police authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have listened very carefully to the many concerns which have been expressed from Merseyside and elsewhere about the version of the new police funding formula which was exemplified in September. We are now revising the formula to ensure the capacity of police authorities to maintain existing levels of service.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill (Demonstration)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis concerning the events on 9 October during and after the march and rally against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
  645
  Mr. Maclean
  The Commissioner has provided my right hon. and learned Friend with details of the disorder which occurred.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Islington, North of 10 October requesting an inquiry into the events of 9 October after the march and rally against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend will be replying to the hon. Member's letter shortly.

  Firearms
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are(a) the total number of firearms certificates current in London, (b) the number issued in the past year in London and (c) the number of prosecutions made in the past year in London for illegal possession of firearms.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested at(a) and (b) is published in Home Office statistical bulletin 'Firearm Certificate Statistics, England and Wales 1993' (issue 22/94), table 2, a copy of which can be found in the Library.

  One hundred and eight persons were proceeded against in the area covered by the Metropolitan and City of London police forces for the offence of possessing firearms or ammunition without a licence in 1993.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the licensing of replica guns; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Any imitation firearm which can be readily converted to fire live ammunition is subject to stringent licensing control. But licensing other imitation firearms would be neither feasible nor effective in combatting misuse.

  The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994 has made it an offence to possess an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of unlawful violence. The possession of an imitation firearm in the commission of an indicatable offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

  Charities Act 1992
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make any order or regulations under(a) section 38 and (b) section 39 of the Charities Act 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The deregulation task force on charities and voluntary organisations recommended, among many proposed changes to the law and regulations affecting charities, that the powers in sections 70 and 71 of the Charities Act 1993—formerly sections 38 and 39 of the 1992 Act—be used to amend the investment powers of charity trustees. The position remains, as indicated in the task force's report, that this is under review: first priority is being given to bringing into force new provisions in part II of the 1992 Act—control of fund-raising—and part VI of the 1993 Act—charity accounts, reports and returns.

  Gerry Adams
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to lift the exclusion 646
  order in respect of Gerry Adams made under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts.

  Mr. Howard
  The exclusion order against Mr. Adams was revoked on 21 October.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. Howard
  Since 28 October 1993, there have been two occasions when the spouse of a Home Office Minister has accompanied the Minister on public duties overseas. The total cost to public funds was £8,317.

  On both occasions the necessary approval was sought in advance of the visit and full official programmes drawn up by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, concentrating on charity work relating to Home Office interests, particularly drugs, were followed.

  There was one occasion when a spouse accompanied a Home Office Minister at own cost.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of full-time equivalent section 11 posts held for each education authority in England and Wales for the current financial year.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The table lists all education authorities in England and Wales with projects approved for funding under section 11, including those which, since 1 April 1994, have received such finding from the Department of the Environment's single regeneration budget.

  Authority

  Number of approved posts (FTE)

  Avon

  43·6

  Barking and Dagenham

  16·6

  Barnet

  59·31

  Bedfordshire

  223·9

  Berkshire

  81·0

  Bexley

  7·41

  Birmingham

  456·89

  Bolton

  63·4

  Bradford

  411·36

  Brent

  292·4

  Buckinghamshire

  91·84

  Bury

  35·65

  Calderdale

  74·54

  Cambridgeshire

  80·0

  Camden

  89·0

  Cheshire

  7·0

  Cleveland

  46·6

  Coventry

  133·0

  Croydon

  81·7

  Derbyshire

  85·5

  Devon

  21·00

  Doncaster

  10·95

  Dudley

  70·6

  Durham

  11·0

  Ealing

  188·1

  East Sussex

  11·6

  Enfield

  69·5

  647

  Authority

  Number of approved posts (FTE)

  Essex

  2·0

  Gateshead

  2·0

  Gloucestershire

  16·7

  Greenwich

  104·3

  Gwent

  21·0

  Hackney

  228·5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  44·4

  Hampshire

  22·9

  Haringey

  192·28

  Harrow

  37·0

  Havering

  3·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  24·0

  Hertfordshire

  130·4

  Hillingdon

  23·35

  Hounslow

  184·4

  Humberside

  23·4

  Islington

  93·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  45·0

  Kent

  88·51

  Kingston

  7·88

  Kirklees

  215·42

  Lambeth

  261·2

  Lancashire

  330·94

  Leeds

  129·5

  Leicestershire

  216·87

  Lewisham

  111·45

  Lincolnshire

  4·5

  Liverpool

  216·7

  Manchester

  1164·28

  Merton

  34·28

  Newcastle

  17·5

  Newham

  141·8

  Norfolk

  5·65

  Northamptonshire

  50·91

  North Tyneside

  9·7

  North Yorks

  4·0

  Nottinghamshire

  99·9

  Oldham

  117·3

  Oxfordshire

  258·4

  Redbridge

  59·57

  Richmond

  4·5

  Rochdale

  75·7

  Rotherham

  32·9

  St Helens

  1·35

  Salford

  6·5

  Sandwell

  97·5

  Sheffield

  137·5

  Shropshire

  7·0

  South Glamorgan

  39·9

  Southwark

  197·1

  Staffordshire

  59·75

  Stockport

  6·52

  Suffolk

  22·96

  Sunderland

  9·29

  Surrey

  24·5

  Sutton

  3·5

  Tameside

  35·49

  Tower Hamlets

  1379·5

  Trafford

  20·5

  Wakefield

  22·0

  Walsall

  78·7

  Waltham Forest

  138·0

  Wandsworth

  86·7

  Warwickshire

  67·42

  Westminster

  96·4

  West Sussex

  16·89

  Wigan

  23·5

  Wiltshire

  10·2

  Wirral

  6·0

  Wolverhampton

  138·5

  Notes:

  The number of posts shown is as at 24 October 1994 except
  648
  1 to be finally confirmed with the authority.

  2 number of posts eligible for grant funding as at 1 April 1994; awaiting information from the authority about possible changes in the light of the announced reduction in funding from 1994–95.

  Financial Times (Injunction)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the cost of the recent injunction obtained by him on the Financial Times was borne on public funds.

  Mr. Howard
  No

  Open Government
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the review of the blanket retention of civil and home defence records announced in the White Paper on open government has been completed.

  Mr. Howard
  The review of the blanket retention of civil and home defence records has been completed. I am pleased to announce that with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, it has been decided not to renew the blanket provision. This is in line with the open government initiatives introduced by the Government where the emphasis is on release rather than retention of records.

  Government Departments which hold records relating to civil and home defence will now review them individually on the basis of guidance provided jointly by my Department and the Cabinet Office, with a view to releasing those which are no longer regarded as sensitive.

  Prison Assaults
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the number of assaults(a) by prisoners on prisoners, (b) by prisoners on staff and (c) other assaults which took place in each prison in England and Wales each month of 1992 and 1993;

  (2) if he will list the number of assaults (a) by prisoners on prisoners and (b) by prisoners on staff, in each prison in England and Wales for each month of 1994 to the latest available date.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock, dated 26 October 1994:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your two recent Questions asking for the number of assaults by prisoners on other prisoners and on staff and others in each prison in England and Wales for each month of 1992, 1993 and of 1994 to the latest available date.
  The enclosed tables give the numbers of assaults proved at adjudication under the prison discipline system for January 1992 to September 1994. In view of their bulk, I have arranged for them to be placed in the Library of the House rather than printed in the Official Report. Information on the small number of assaults other than on staff or prisoners is included with assaults on staff in the tables; it is published separately on an annual basis by establishment in "Statistics of offences against prison discipline and punishments, England and Wales" (Cm 2411 for 1992 and Cm 2664 for 1993), copies of which are in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cuba
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the recent visit of the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology to Cuba.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I visited Cuba between 12 arid 14 September 1994, as the guest of the Cuban Minister for Foreign Trade, Senor Ricardo Cabrisas. It was the first visit to Cuba by a British Minister since 1975. I was accompanied by a 15-strong team of business men and women and by the chairman and director of the Department's Caribbean trade advisory group—CARITAG. We were warmly received and had productive meetings with key Cuban Ministers and with President Castro.

  Following the ending of preferential trade arrangements with the former Soviet Union, Cuba has begun to reform its economy along more market-oriented lines. The Cuban Government described this process as irreversible and the intention is to take it forward.

  On this basis, United Kingdom industry can respond more positively to Cuba's welcome of trade, investment and advice from Britain. It recognises its outstanding debt as an impediment to trade on normal commercial terms. The business group and I identified opportunities for British business in the provision of advice on the management of a market economy and in longer-term joint ventures. Commercial negotiations during our visit were advanced in transport, agri-business, construction, tourism and financial services.

  On 14 September, I initialled a bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement which will give further confidence to investors. Cuba is moving towards a more open trading relationship with developed market economies and this should encourage domestic reform. Subject to this process being continued and developed, I have asked CARITAG to make proposals for a private-sector-led group to co-ordinate discussion and to progress the many specific commercial and related issues raised during my visit.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his criteria for proscribing trade on the basis of a country's human rights record; and if he will make a statement on their application to Indonesia.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government subscribe to the common criteria for arms transfers agreed with EU partners at Luxembourg in 1991 and at Lisbon in 1992, and the principles governing arms transfers agreed by the forum for security co-operation of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe in November 1993. These include consideration of human rights.

  No prohibition on trade has been introduced in respect of Indonesia. Export licences are required for some goods and applications are considered on a case by case basis taking into account the above criteria as appropriate.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about recent exports of British armaments to Indonesia.
  650
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It is not normal practice to divulge details of export licences, unless the requirements of confidentiality are outweighed by public interest considerations.

  In this case, such considerations justify disclosing that to date in 1994 we have issued 26 export licences for goods in schedule 1, group 1 part III of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994—the military list. The total value of these goods licensed for export is £14·69 million. Licences are valid for two years.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that the human rights record of the Indonesian Government are taken into account when deciding whether to grant an export licence for the export of tanks to Indonesia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The human rights record of a recipient country is one of a number of factors taken into account during the consideration of an application for an export licence for military and paramilitary equipment.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The total number of permanent staff employed by my Department on 1 October was 10,594— part-time staff are counted as half. The proportion employed in each standard region is shown in the following table:

  Proportion by standard region

  Percentage of total

  Northern Ireland

  0·05

  Scotland

  4·05

  Wales

  17·62

  North

  2·19

  North West

  3·29

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2·49

  East Midlands

  2·10

  West Midlands

  4·06

  South West

  2·23

  South East

  160·70

  East Anglia

  1·22

  1 of which London—Inner–46·06 per cent., Outer–11·94 per cent.

  Rest of South East–2·7 per cent.

  Fuel Cell Advisory Panel
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of meetings held, the secretarial and advisory arrangements, the budgeted and actual expenditure and the subjects of any reports and submissions produced by the fuel cell advisory panel in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The fuel cell advisory panel was established in April 1992 and has met on a total of eight occasions, with three meetings in 1992–93 and four in 1993–94. Secretarial support is provided by the energy technology support unit—ETSU—which manages my Department's advanced fuel cell research and development programme, on which the panel advises. This advice, which includes the assessment of individual proposals for funding, is given through discussion at the panel's meetings, the minutes of which are not published
  651
  for reasons of commercial confidentiality. As an advisory body the panel does not disburse funds itself and membership is unpaid.

  The administrative costs of the panel are met from the programme management budget and published each year in a report prepared by the Cabinet Office. A copy of the latest edition, "Public Bodies 1993", is available in the Library of the House. DTI expenditure on projects within the programme amounted to £0·36 million in 1992–93 and £0·83 million in 1993–94. The budget for 1994–95 is £1 million.

  The total value of projects supported by the programme to date is £14·7 million, for a DTI contribution, including future commitments, of £2·6 million. Two technical strategies, for solid polymer and solid oxide fuel cells, prepared by ETSU and endorsed by the panel, were published by ETSU this summer and I have placed copies in the Library of the House. A wide range of information on projects within the programme is also published by ETSU.

  Committees
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of meetings held, the secretarial and advisory arrangements, the budgeted and actual expenditure and the subjects of any reports and submissions produced by the Advisory Committee for Arbitration Law in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The departmental advisory committee on arbitration law has met in full once a year in each of the last three years. The Committee has no dedicated secretarial or advisory staff nor does it have an allocated budget or expenditure functions. Secretarial support is provided by staff in my Department. My Department in co-operation with the committee published a consultation document on a draft Arbitration Bill in February 1994. No other submissions have been published in the last three years.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of meetings held, the secretarial and advisory arrangements, the budgeted and actual expenditure and the subjects of any reports and submissions produced by the Aviation committee in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The Aviation committee will meet four times this year and met three times in each of the past two years. Secretarial and administration functions are provided by the Department and cost approximately £30,000 per annum. There is no separate budget. The advisory arrangements are that the committee may communicate its advice during meetings to officials, who attend throughout, or in writing or by making presentations to Ministers. The subjects of such advice were as follows:1992: The Control Technology Programme
  The National Strategic Technology Acquisition Plan (NSTAP)
  1993: NSTAP: Report to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry Science, Technology and Engineering White Paper: relationship with NSTAP
  652
  1994: Technology Co-ordinators: Implementation of NSTAP
  An Industry Strategy
  The Hercules Replacement

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish a table showing the number of meetings held, the secretarial and advisory arrangements, the budgeted and actual expenditure and the subjects of any reports and submissions produced by the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The secretariat of the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property is provided by the Intellectual Property Policy Directorate—IPPD—of the Patent Office. Expenditure on this task is not budgeted separately from IPPD's other policy work. The committee's advice is sought by correspondence and at meetings. The meetings held in the last three years are as follows:

  Financial Year

  Number of Meetings

  1991–92

  3

  1992–93

  3

  1993–94

  4

  Cable TV
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sanctions can be taken against cable operators who fail to adhere to the proposed guidelines designed to minimise damage to tree roots; and what body is to be responsible for administering such sanctions.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The guidelines on minimising damage to street trees now agreed by the national joint utilities group, the arboricultural industry and the Cable Communications Association, are voluntary. Like other operators of underground services, the cable industry is committed to ensuring that its contractors follow best practice, including the need to hand-dig around the roots of trees. The effectiveness of the guidelines will be reviewed after they have been in operation for six months. We welcome the increased efforts of the Cable Communications Association to meet public concerns about safety of trees.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Surveys commissioned by my Department which included questions concerning public opinion since October 1992 are given in the table. No such surveys were conducted by DTI agencies during this period. Information on the fee paid cannot be disclosed due to commercial confidentiality considerations.
  653

  DTI Surveys Including Questions About Public Opinion Since 1 October 1992

  Survey

  Objective

  Period in which conducted

  Organisation from which commissioned

  Mountain Bike Study

  Establish proportion of cyclists in population; types of bike they use; and accidents suffered

  March 1994

  Nottingham University Institute for Occupational Ergonomics

  Metrication Survey

  Assess public attitudes before implementation of EC Directive on Metric food Pricing

  April 1994

  RSGB Ltd

  Child Usage of Gas and Electrical Consumer Products

  Assess the extent of children's everyday use of such appliances

  November 1993

  Children's Research Unit

  Renewable Energy Awareness

  Assess extent of public awareness of renewable energy

  September 1993

  RSGB Ltd

  Post Office
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Crown post offices have been closed in the last 15 years; which have been transferred from one premises to another; and what proposals the Post Office has for further closures or relocations.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand from the Post Office that between March 1979 and March 1994 the number of Crown post offices has been reduced from 1,580 to 800. This is not primarily the result of office closures; of this reduction, 675 have been converted to franchise or agency offices either in the same premises or in suitable premises nearby. Such converted offices continue to offer the full range of services available at Crown offices, and in many cases offer longer opening hours and improved access. Of the remaining 105, a number have not involved closure but the merger of two neighbouring Crown offices, again continuing to provide the full range of services.

  The Post Office has no plans at present to close or merge any further Crown offices. It does, however, intend to continue the Crown conversion programme, though decisions on such conversions are taken at regional management level. Where a Crown office is considered for conversion, a consultation process is undertaken with the local Member of Parliament and representative local bodies.

  The records of individual Crown office closures and mergers since 1979 are not held centrally by the Post Office and collecting this information would entail disproportionate cost.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 239, what percentage of responses were in favour of (a) granting the Post Office freedoms within the public sector, (b) a 100 per cent. share sale and (c)
  654
  joint ownership by Government, public and employees with the Government selling 51 per cent. of shares.

  Mr. Eggar
  As I indicated in my answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 239, we will make public the
  results of the consultation at the appropriate point.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of staff and their total salary cost employed at the Post Office headquarters for each year since 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand from the Post Office that the information requested is available only from 1990–91 and is as follows:

  Year

  Headquarters Staff Numbers

  Labour Costs (inc NI Contributions) £ million

  1990–91

  379

  8·9

  1991–92

  388

  9·9

  1992–93

  359

  9·3

  1993–94

  354

  9·9

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed as consultants to the Post Office; and what was their total cost in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment of consultants is an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much corporation tax was paid by the Post Office for each year since 1979 at current prices.

  Mr. Eggar
  Corporation tax paid by the Post Office in each year since 1979, expressed in September 1994 prices was as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  1

  1980–81

  nil

  1981–82

  nil

  1982–83

  nil

  1983–84

  2

  1984–85

  3

  1985–86

  2

  1986–87

  3

  1987–88

  59

  1988–89

  40

  1989–90

  32

  1990–91

  78

  1991–92

  72

  1992–93

  87

  1993–94

  83

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many submissions he received on his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services", and if he will list those who responded.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]At the end of the consultation period we had received some 13,400 responses to the Green Paper. It is for respondents to make public the views they expressed if they choose to do so.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many of the submissions he received on his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services", were in favour of
  655
  the Government's favoured option; and how many were against;

  (2) how many members of the public responded to his Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services", and how many of them were in favour of breaking up and privatising the Post Office.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]A wide variety of views were expressed. We will make public the results of the consultation at the appropriate point.

  Electricity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution his Department is making to the International Atomic Energy Agency's DECADES project on the comparative assessment of the environmental aspects, economic competitiveness and technical reliability of different electricity generating systems.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The DECADES project, part of the global response to energy and environmental concerns that arose in the 1990s, is being carried out by the IAEA and eight other organisations and works on databases and methodologies for comparative assessment of different energy sources for electricity.

  Results are scheduled for presentation in September 1995 at an international symposium in Vienna on electricity, health and the environment.

  The International Atomic Energy Agency share of the project is mainly funded from the regular budget to which the United kingdom contributes its share in full, as we do also with the other organisations involved in the project. It would be uneconomic to enumerate the exact contribution attributable to the Uuited Kingdom amongst the nine organisations involved. The DTI has also co-ordinated the attendance of experts from industry and government from the United Kingdom at meetings being held in the framework of the project.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the capacity of each of the coal-fired power stations privatised under National Power and PowerGen.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The capacity of each of National Power's and PowerGen's coal-fired stations at privatisation is set out on pages 96 and 168 of the prospectus, published on 22 February 1991, setting out the Government's offer for sale of National Power and PowerGen shares. I am arranging for a copy of the prospectus to be made available in the Library of the House.

  Taiwan
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what efforts his Department is making to improve Britain's trade with Taiwan.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My Department attaches importance to commercial links between the United Kingdom and Taiwan. The Taiwanese market is now treated in the same way as our other target markets. Taiwan has a dedicated market team in my Department supported by export promoters seconded from industry. Their work is being supported by additional resources allocated to the British trade and cultural office in Taipei.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Financial Year

  Area

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1.DTI (excluding net controlled agencies & trading funds) see note i)

  268,416

  399,720

  407,965

  519,037

  2.DTI agencies Accounts Services Agency

  300

  300

  300

  300

  Companies House (see not ii)

  n/a

  5,600

  11,187

  11,542

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  10·625

  17,685

  19,519

  27,122

  National Engineering Laboratory

  49,000

  36,000

  20,000

  10,000

  National Physical Laboratory

  35,300

  45,881

  48,408

  70,221

  Patent Office

  4,000

  8,000

  13,000

  18,000

  Radiocommunications Agency

  23,900

  21,993

  27,592

  33,575

  Total Agencies

  123,125

  135,459

  140,006

  170,760

  Total DTI

  391,541

  535,179

  547,971

  689,797

  Notes

  i) - Relevant expenditure for the Insolvency Service and National Weights & Measures Laboratory is included in 1 above. They are controlled gross against the DTI's main voted provision.

  ii) - Figures are not readily available for the six month period prior to attaining trading fund status in October 1991.

  Company Returns
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 20 October,Official Report, column 287, on how many occasions staff of the Registrar of Companies have notified his office in relation to companies in default on their annual returns during the past 12 months or other statistically convenient period.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]Records are not kept in a way which permits a definite answer, but four such cases have been identified since 1 January 1994 involving defaults on annual accounts, annual returns, or a combination of both.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of Export Credits Guarantee Department
  657
  credits related to defence exports in 1993–94; and what was their value.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]The ECGD supported guarantees worth £1.96 billion in 1993–94 in respect of defence contracts. This amounted to 48 per cent. of the ECGD's support for capital goods and projects in 1993–94.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total Export Credits Guarantee Department credit budget was used in relation to defence contracts for(a) Bangladesh, (b) Ecuador, (c) India, (d) Indonesia, (e) Jordan, (f) Malaysia, (g) Nigeria, (h) Oman, (i) Pakistan and (j) Thailand in 1993–94; and what was (i) the value for each year and (ii) the subject matter of the contracts.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]The percentage of the ECGD's total support for capital goods and projects in 1993–94 which related to contracts in respect of defence equipment in the named markets and the respective values were as follows:

  Percentage

  Value £ million

  Bangladesh

  —

  —

  Ecuador

  —

  —

  India

  —

  —

  Indonesia

  0·15

  6·2

  Jordan

  —

  —

  Malaysia

  0·46

  18·7

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  Oman

  8·42

  343·9

  Pakistan

  —

  —

  Thailand

  —

  —

  The subject matter of individual contracts is confidential to the contracting parties.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total Export Credits Guarantee Department credit budget was used in relation to defence contracts for Saudi Arabia in each year since 1980; and what was(a) the value for each year and (b) the subject matter of the contracts.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]The percentage of total ECGD support for capital goods and projects since 1980 which related to defence contracts in Saudi Arabia and the related values were as follows:

  Percentage

  Value £ Million

  1982–83

  0·28

  23·85

  1985–86

  0·39

  5·97

  1988–89

  21·77

  450·00

  1992–93

  5·92

  225·00

  1993–94

  18·36

  750·00

  In all other years the percentage and value were zero.

  The subject matter of individual contracts is confidential to the contracting parties.

  Official Receiver
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what legal advice he has received on the contracting out of the official receiver's work, in respect of the Insolvency Service's investigative functions; and if he will make a statement;
  658
  (2) what legal advice he has received on the contracting out of the official receiver's work in respect of Insolvency Service practitioners and the rights of assistance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]Any contracting out of functions of official receivers would be dependent on the passage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and on the procedures set out in it including consultation with official receivers as statutory office holders and obtaining an affirmative order of both Houses.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases were referred by Insolvency Service practitioners to the official receiver for investigation in each of the last three financial years.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]The number of cases so referred to official receivers in the last three financial years were:

  1992–93: —

  1993–94: 36

  1994–95: 42 (to date)

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has for consultation with the users of the Insolvency Service about the future of the service, following the Stoy Hayward report.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]: The Insolvency Service has commissioned a survey of its users which it expects to complete by the end of 1994.

WALES

  A465
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the transport directorate of the European Commission concerning the proposed addition of the A465 to the Trans-European road network.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have asked officials to pursue this. Revised proposals from the Commission show the A465 on the trans-European road network.

  A55
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the consultants' study into the ecological and environmental enhancement of the A55 will be completed.

  Mr. Redwood
  The consultants, final report on the A55 ecological and environmental study is due to be submitted to the Welsh Office at the end of January 1995.

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give figures based on current performance for the number of health service staff he expects will see earnings(a) fall and (b) rise as a result of the introduction of relating pay to performances.

  Mr. Richards
  The proposals made to staff sides and the professions who represent groups covered by NHS review bodies and included in the pay offer to staff sides of non-review body groups would strengthen the links between rewards and performance of their local
  659
  organisation. Such schemes would be locally determined and depend on the achievement of local objectives for the delivery of high quality services. I would expect average pay to continue to rise.

  A470
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the statutory requirements in connection with the improvement of the A470 Dolwyddel to Blaenau Ffestiniog road will be complete; when it is expected that works will commence; if the work will be in stages; how long the whole project will take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The programming of the major schemes for the improvement of the A470 in the Lledr valley between Betws-y-Coed and Blaenau Ffestiniog is set out in "Roads in Wales–1994 Review". The first of these schemes, that for the section between Cancoed to Minffordd, has recently been the subject of a local public inquiry. Depending on the outcome of that inquiry, work is expected to start on the scheme in 1995, subject to the availability of finance, and will take approximately 18 months.

  Housing Grants
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to allow Housing for Wales equivalent power to implement a scheme of GRO—grants for rent and ownership—grants for individual housing projects as currently operated and administered by Scottish Homes.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are at present no plans to introduce GRO grants in Wales. I continue to keep under review the Scottish experience in this field.

  Public Opinion Surveys
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each public opinion survey commissioned by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies since 1 October 1992, showing for each, the subject, objectives, total cost, the period in which it was conducted and the organisation from which it was commissioned.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is as follows. In addition to the items listed, the Welsh Office consults interested groups and individuals from time to time on a wide range of issues. Executive NDPBs in Wales have not been included in the data provided. The total cost of these surveys was approximately £56,000. The cost of individual contracts is confidential.

  WELSH OFFICE
  1. Research into bus-back advertising
  To establish the effectiveness of bus-back advertising, both in general and in response to Drink-Drive advertising campaign.
  Date: February—march 1994.
  Conducted by: Beaufort Research Ltd, Cardiff.

  2. Energy Efficiency Promotion in Wales
  To evaluate the effectiveness of energy efficiency promotions in Wales during 1991–92.
  Date: January—november 1993.
  Conducted by: William Battle and Associates, Swansea.

  3. Revised Patient's Charter in Wales
  To test public awareness of the Patient's Charter, and to elicit views on which standards should be included in a revised Charter.
  Date: February 1993.
  Conducted by: Durdle Davies Business Research.
  660
  CADW: WELSH HISTORIC MONUMENTS EXECUTIVE AGENCY
  1. Visitor Survey of 10 Monuments in State Care
  To provide information on visitor origins, characteristics and economic status; and to assess levels of satisfaction.
  Date: 1991–94.
  Conducted by: Beaufort research.

  2. Visitor Survey at 10 Monuments in State Care
  To provide up to date visitor profiles; to establish awareness of CADW; to monitor satisfaction levels.
  Date: 1994.
  Conducted by: Hall, Harrison and Cowley.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of appeals under paragraph 4 of schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 determined in 1992 and 1993 for which the time taken from receipt of the appeal by his Department to its determination was(a) not more than six months, (b) more than six months but not more than 12 months, (c) more than 12 months but not more than 18 months, (d) more than 18 months but not more than 24 months or (e) more than 24 months.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Eleven appeals have been determined during the period. Details are as follows:

  More than six months but not more than 12 months–2.

  More than 12 months but not more than 18 months–6.

  Morse than 18 months but not more than 24 months–3.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the budget agreed with each TEC in Wales for every financial year since its inception; broken down by programme area.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many employers in each TEC area in Wales have been given the investors in people award; how many have made a commitment to meeting the standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The number of businesses in each Welsh TEC area making commitments to investors in people and those which have already received the award is as follows:

  Commitments

  Awards

  Gwent

  48

  10

  Mid Glamorgan

  63

  18

  North East Wales

  25

  5

  North West Wales

  33

  6

  South Glamorgan

  47

  10

  West Wales

  85

  17

  Powys

  13

  3

  Wales

  314

  69

  The Welsh Office is committed to improving the competitiveness of businesses in Wales. Training and development plays a key part in this process by ensuring the availability of the skills and expertise necessary to achieve business objectives. Investors in people aims to encourage and recognise effective training. The Welsh Office promotes the commitment to, and achievement of,

  661
  the IIP award through the seven Welsh training and enterprise councils.

  Tir Cymen Pilot Schemes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many applicants were successful under the Tir Cymen pilot schemes in Wales in 1993–94; and how many were unsuccessful;

  (2) how many entrants into the Tir Cymen pilot schemes there were in 1992–93; and how many applied unsuccessfully;

  (3) what was the budget allocated for the Tir Cymen pilot schemes in 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is as follows:

  Tir Cymen Entrants

  1992–93 201 (Unsuccessful–11)

  1993–94 187 (Unsuccessful–14)

  Budget (Grant in Aid)

  1992–93 £0·5 million

  1993–94 £2·1 million.

  Juvenile Drug Prevention
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what budget was allocated by the Welsh Office for juvenile drug prevention education in 1992–93;

  (2) what is the budget allocated by the Welsh Office for juvenile drug use education in the current year.

  Mr. Richards
  Drug prevention work is undertaken by a number of agencies from both the statutory and voluntary sectors, which receive funds from various sources. In 1992–93 the Welsh Office made available some £200,000 to help fund activities concerned with the prevention of drug misuse. The budget for 1994–95 is over £350,000. Funding is also available to local education authorities for health education, including drugs, under the grants for education support and training programme.

  Long-stay
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people with learning disabilities are resident in long-stay hospitals; and if he will list the long-stay learning disability hospitals still operating.

  Mr. Richards
  In June 1994 information from district health authorities indicated that around 750 persons with learning disabilities were resident in long-stay hospitals in Wales.

  The long-stay learning disability hospitals in Wales are listed as follows:

  Bryn-y-Neuadd

  Gwynedd

  Brynhyfryd

  Powys

  Llys Maldwyn

  Powys

  Bronllys

  Powys

  Pater Close

  Dyfed

  Llys Myddfai

  Dyfed

  Llanfrechfa Grange

  Gwent

  Ely

  South Glamorgan

  Hensol

  Mid Glamorgan

  Ystrad Mynach Bungalows

  Mid Glamorgan

  Gorseinon Bungalows

  West Glamorgan

  Juvenile Drug Prevention
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives the Welsh Office is pursuing to combat juvenile drug abuse in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office was fully involved with the organisation and funding of European drug prevention week in Wales. The initiative, which lasted from 15 to 22 October, targeted young people. A variety of local events and a national sixth form conference were supported by the Welsh Office.

  During the week my right hon. Friend announced the setting up of a new unit to tackle drug and alcohol misuse. The development of effective prevention programmes aimed at young people will be one of the main tasks of the unit.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of school playing fields by local education authority for(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987, (d) 1992 and (e) the latest available date.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  PE Teachers
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many physical education teachers were employed by local education authorities in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is available for 1984 and 1989 only. In 1984, 2,400 secondary school teachers in Wales were qualified in physical education. The corresponding figure in 1989 was 1,900.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to control the number of sheep scab cases in Wales; and what plans he now has to make sheep scab a fully notifiable disease.

  Mr. Redwood
  Sheep scab is a disease which can be controlled by individual farmers, who are aware of the preventive measures and procedures needed to deal with it. The Government have no plans to re-introduce sheep scab controls.

  We are aware of the concerns within the industry about the number of sheep affected by scab. A comprehensive publicity campaign is being carried out this autumn aimed at all sheep farmers, encouraging treatment where scab is suspected. It will help owners recognise the disease and emphasise to farmers their welfare responsibilities. We are also stepping up our efforts to ensure that unfit animals are not presented for sale by increasing the official veterinary presence at markets. Animals suffering from scab will be removed from sale at markets and owners will face the possibility of prosecution.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first
  663
  time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Departmental Documents
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of all documents, letters, or accounts he has signed which are written in a language he does not understand.

  Mr. Redwood
  I know of none which I have personally signed.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. Redwood
  None. There have been no official overseas visits by any wife of a Minister in the Welsh Office, either at public expense or her own expense.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Wales how many farmers in Wales have not yet received payment of their advance payments with respect to the 1994 sheep annual premium scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]Of the 16,816 eligible claims received, around 13·8 per cent. remain to be paid. The majority of these involve queries or quota problems which will have to be resolved before payments are made.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 251, whether the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency discussed with the board members of the agency his intentions to take up a directorship of Development Securities plc; and if the discussion was minuted as recommended in paragraph 35 of the Caines report mentioned in his statement of 19 October 1993, Official Report, column 147.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]My understanding is that the chairman declared his interest at a WDA board meeting and this was minuted.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 251, and with reference to the recommendations contained in paragraph 35 of the Caines report of October 1993, what proposals he has to strengthen the guidelines for directors of the Welsh Development Agency regarding the proposed directorships of property companies with property interests in Wales and other companies with possible conflict of interest implications with the work of the agency.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]The rules on conflict of interest are already clear. The code of best practice for board members of public bodies, prepared by HM Treasury was issued to the agency in July of this year by my Department.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Royal Society of Arts and City and Guilds in relation to preparation of courses and examination leading to general national vocational qualifications through the medium of Welsh; and when he expects to conclude these discussions.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 25 October 1994]The position is as stated in my hon. Friend's letter to the hon. Member on 20 September 1994. Following negotiations between my officials and the GNVQ awarding bodies, the RSA and City and Guilds of London Institute have now agreed to provide GNVQ unit tests through the medium of Welsh to meet demand from schools and colleges in Wales during the 1994–95 academic year. The two awarding bodies will carry out pilots to test the systems and the quality of the qualifications.

  Officials expect to be in a position to finalise contracts with the two awarding bodies within the next few weeks.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of chief executives of national health service trusts in each of the last four years have been paid on a performance-related pay basis.

  Mr. Moss
  The pay of NHS trusts chief executive is a matter for individual trusts to determine. Details are not held centrally but should be published in trusts' annual reports. Guidance on that will be issued shortly.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what specific analysis his Department has conducted on the cost and efficiency of introducing performance-related pay to clinical grades in the national health service.

  Mr. Moss
  Implementation of local pay arrangements is for health and social services trusts to determine taking into account the individual health care objectives contained in their agreed business plans. The assessment of the cost and efficiency of schemes is also for local determination.

  Parades, South Down
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parades were held in the constituency of South Down from 1 April to 30 September inclusive; and what were the locations.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Some 241 parades were held in the constituency of South Down during the period 1 April to 30 September 1994. This figure can be broken down as follows:

  Location

  Loyalist Parades

  Republican Parades

  Killyleagh

  13

  Ballynahinch

  17

  Ardglass

  2

  1

  Crossgar

  5

  Downpatrick

  7

  1

  Saintfield

  9

  665

  Location

  Loyalist Parades

  Republican Parades

  Ballygawley, Downpatrick

  5

  Saul

  1

  Raffery

  3

  Hollymount, Downpatrick

  1

  Toyre, Killyleagh

  4

  Inch, Downpatrick

  3

  Kilmore

  2

  Ballyculter, Strangford

  5

  Ballykilbeg, Downpatrick

  1

  Woodgrange, Downpatrick

  2

  Bells Hill

  1

  Newcastle

  2

  1

  Kilkeel

  21

  7

  Castlewellan

  2

  1

  Clough

  4

  Seaforde

  2

  Annalong

  10

  Moneyslane

  1

  Ballymartin

  3

  1

  Benraw, Castlewellan

  2

  Closkelt, Ballyward

  2

  Dundrum

  1

  Legananny, Castlewellan

  1

  Attical, Kilkeel

  1

  Banbridge

  23

  Dromore

  18

  Rathfriland

  26

  Waringsford, Dromore

  3

  Corbet, Banbridge

  3

  Tanvally, Banbridge

  1

  Blackbridge, Poyntzpass

  1

  Finnis

  1

  Katesbridge

  1

  Ballyroney, Rathfriland

  3

  Garvaghy, Dromore

  1

  Glascar, Banbridge

  1

  Seapatrick, Banbridge

  1

  Hilltown

  Skeagh, Dromore

  1

  Drumavaddy, Banbridge

  1

  Donaghmore

  4

  Warrenpoint

  4

  1

  Rostrevor

  1

  Totals

  225

  16

  Parade Statistics are recorded by RUC sub-divisional areas, which do not generally coincide with constituency boundaries. Whilst every effort has been made to correlate information from the relevant boundary maps, it is possible that some 'borderline' cases may have been wrongly included or omitted.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the estimated cost of policing parades in the constituency of South Down from 1 April to 30 September.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  IRA Ceasefire
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many attacks on individuals have taken place in Northern Ireland since the start of the IRA ceasefire which have been classified as punishment attacks by a paramilitary organisation.
  666
  Sir John Wheeler
  The available information is for a period 1 September to 23 October 1994 and is as follows:

  Punishment Attacks

  Number of Casualties

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Total

  Punishment Assaults

  3

  11

  14

  Punishment

  Shootings

  14

  —

  14

  228

  Note:

  These punishment attacks have not necessarily been claimed by a paramilitary organisation. Attribution has been decided based mainly on knowledge.

  2With the exception of one punishment shooting, all of these attacks took place prior to the loyalist ceasefire.

  Learning Disability Hospitals
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people with learning disabilities are resident in long-stay hospitals; and if he will list the long-stay learning disability hospitals still operating.

  Mr. Moss
  The number of people with a mental handicap resident in long-stay hospitals in Northern Ireland was 839 at 17 February 1994, including 64 patients in long-stay psychiatric hospitals.

  The long-stay mental handicap hospitals which are currently operating are listed below:

  Muckamore Abbey

  Longstone

  Tower Hill

  Stradreagh

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the capital receipts from the sale of school playing fields for each of the last six years by education authority.

  Mr. Ancram
  There has been one such sale within the last six years. In 1991, £57,000 was received by the Belfast education and library board in respect of the sale of 8 acres of surplus school playing fields. The land was sold to a private rugby club and continues to be used as playing fields.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of school playing fields by local education authority for(a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987, (d) 1992 and (e) the latest available date.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information in the form requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, information compiled in 1989, shows that at that time there were 611 grass pitches and 950 artificial games areas for all schools in Northern Ireland.

  PE Teachers
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many physical education teachers were employed by local education authorities in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information is available only for 1989, when there were an estimated 860 physical education teachers in secondary schools in Northern Ireland.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Sir John Wheeler
  To date, no Northern Ireland Department has organised a reception for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time. However, Baroness Denton, as Minister with responsibility for women's issues in Northern Ireland, recently held a reception to encourage women in public appointment. My right hon. and learned Friend and I were in attendance and those present included both women who hold public appointments and those who did not but might be encouraged to consider putting themselves forward. Senior departmental officials involved in the public appointments process were also present. Some 97 people attended and the cost of the reception was £920.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent by his Department in each of the last three years to(a) produce public information in alternative formats for visually impaired people and (b) publicise the availability of accessible information among visually impaired people.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments have spent the following amounts of money in each of the last three years to produce public information in alternative format for visually impaired people:

  1991–92– £2,742

  1992–93– —

  1993–94–£2,969

  As the Royal National Institute for the Blind produces and provides the available information free of charge, the amount spent in each of the last three years on publicising the availability of accessible information amongst visually impaired people has been negligible.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will indicate which Departmental publications are currently available(a) in Braille, (b) in large print and (c) on tape; and if he will indicate what efforts have been made by his Department to inform visually impaired people about the availability of publications in alternative formats to normal print.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments currently have the following publications available in:

  (a) Braille

  Water Quality Register Leaflet

  Water Quality Standards Leaflets

  Emergencies and Complaints on Water Quality Leaflet Leaflets and publications relating to the marketing and promotion of training and employment services.

  The Northern Ireland Charter for the Child Support Agency "For Parents Who Live Apart" Leaflet

  "Talkback" Leaflet

  The Northern Ireland Civil Service Code of Practice on the Employment of People with Disabilities

  668

  (b) Large Print

  Water Quality Register Leaflet

  Water Quality Standards Leaflet

  Emergencies and Complaints on Water Quality Leaflet Leaflets and publications relating to the marketing and promotion of training and employment services.

  The Northern Ireland Charter for the Child Support Agency "For Parents Who Live Apart" Leaflet

  "Talkback" Leaflet

  A Guide on Social Security benefits

  RUC Charter

  (c) Tape

  Water Quality Register Leaflet

  Water Quality Standards Leaflet

  Emergencies and Complaints on Water Quality Leaflet "Orange Badge" Scheme

  Leaflets and publications relating to the marketing and promotion of training and employment services.

  The Northern Ireland Charter for the Child Support Agency "For Parents Who Live Apart" Leaflet

  "Talkback" Leaflet

  The Northern Ireland Civil Service Code of Practice on the Employment of People with Disabilities

  RUC Charter

  "At Your Service - An A to Z Guide for Older People"

  The equal opportunities officer in the Department of Finance and Personnel is in a position to inform visually impaired staff of the availability of the NICS code of practice on the employment of people with disabilities.

  Departments work closely with the Royal National Institute for the Blind to help promote services and programmes which are available.

  Hualon Corporation
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now make it his policy to suspend, pending the outcome of an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee, the proposed grant to the Hualon Corporation in connection with the development of new textile facilities in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]I am not aware of any such plans by the Public Accounts Committee and in light of the information currently before me I can see no justification in suspending progress of the Hualon project.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Mr. Philip Layton
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the charges laid against Mr. Philip Layton of the Royal Hong Kong police at his trial; what was the outcome of the trial; how much compensation has been paid to Mr. Layton following the trial verdict; what were the surveillance duties of Mr. Layton in relation to arms traffic in Hong Kong; and whether those duties extended to the People's Republic of China.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Philip Layton was charged with soliciting an advantage from John Edward Picken, and with offering an advantage to Rodney John Starling, a chief inspector of police, in exchange for the future supply of confidential information. He was acquitted of these charges. He did not receive any compensation but,
  669
  following a court order that he be awarded his costs, he was paid HK$3,416,601.

  Mr. Layton did not have any duties in relation to arms traffic in Hong Kong.

  Radioactive Nitric Acid
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the trade or atomic energy counsellor at the British embassy in Washington has given British Nuclear Fuels plc in negotiating with the United States Energy Department for the import of radioactive nitric acid from Hanford to Sellafield.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Contractual negotiations for the proposed import of nitric acid to Sellafield are a matter for the contracting parties, British Nuclear Fuels plc and the United States Department of Energy. In keeping with the Government's normal policy and practice of supporting British companies pursuing commercial opportunities overseas, the British embassy in Washington has provided information, advice and assistance to British Nuclear Fuels plc as necessary.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking, alone and in concert with the European Union, to press for the implementation of the human rights accord signed on 29 March, and for the deployment of the United Nations verification mission mandated by the human rights accord.

  Mr. David Davis
  We and our EU partners have made clear our intention to play a full part in supporting the peace process in Guatemala. We hope that the deployment of the United Nation human rights verification mission will encourage both sides to abide by the conditions of the human rights accord and to sign an overall peace agreement.

  Armenia
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the type of nuclear reactors built for electric power production in Armenia; and when the power station is likely to be commissioned.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Armenia's only nuclear power plant is at Medzamor, 25 km south of Yerevan. The plant consists of two Soviet-built VVER 440 pressurised water eactors. Both reactors were shut down in early 1989 as precaution following the Armenian earthquake but the Armenian Government are aiming, with Russian sistance, to bring unit 2 back into service as soon as ssible, with unit 1 to follow. The Armenian vernment intend to operate Medzamor for proximately seven of its remaining 20 years' design life, and in the meantime to bring alternative generating capacity on stream.

  Hebron
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a670
  statement on the recent exclusion of the British consul from the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Ibrahimi mosque was closed to all after the massacre in February. A representative from the British consulate-general in Jerusalem was among a group of people who were unable to enter the plateau near the mosque on 25 August 1994 because of the security measures.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which nations are represented in the United Nations peacekeeping force in Rwanda; and in what numbers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As at 30 September, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda—UNAMIR—consisted of troops, police and military observers—from Australia, 313; Austria, 16; Bangladesh, 52; Canada, 388; Chad, 130; Congo, 40; Ethiopia, 804; Fiji, one; Ghana, 899; Guinea, 15; Guinea Bissau, 39; Kenya, six; Malawi, 177; Mali, 39; Niger, 43; Nigeria, 271; Poland, three; Russian Federation, 15; Senegal, 241; Slovak Republic, seven; Tunisia, 40; United Kingdom, 595; Uruguay, 27; Zambia, 111; and Zimbabwe, 26.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current British contribution to peacekeeping forces in Rwanda.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The British contingent to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda currently consists of 575 personnel all ranks. It consists of: an equipment support workshop–182; an engineer squadron–144; a field ambulance–156; a signals detachment–29; a guard platoon–44; and 20 support personnel.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Nations forces in Rwanda are now fully assembled and deployed with full logistic support.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda is fully deployed with the exception of one battalion of troops from Zambia and one battalion of troops from India. Logistic support for the mission is currently provided by a number of contingents, including the British. A contract between the United Nations and the Brown and Root company to provide logistic support has not yet been finalised.

  Former Soviet Union
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the presence of Russian forces in Moldova, Georgia and Armenia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Our policy is that Russian troops should be stationed in another former Soviet Union country only with the consent of that country's Government, and in accordance with the provisions of the conventional armed forces in Europe treaty.

  We welcome the signature of an agreement between the Moldovan and Russian Governments which establishes a timetable for the withdrawal of the Russian 14th army. The Russian peacekeeping troops in Moldova, which are separate from the 14th Army, are present with the consent of the Moldovan Government.
  671
  In Georgia and Armenia, Russian troops are also present with the consent of the host Government.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the conditions for peacekeeping under the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe auspices in the Caucasus.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Arrangements to consolidate and monitor the ceasefire in Nagorno—karabakh, including the mandate of any peacekeeping force, and move on to negotiations for a peaceful settlement, are being discussed within the CSCE. We attach considerable importance to the principles on peacekeeping agreed by CSCE Foreign Ministers at their meeting in Rome in December 1993.

  Liberia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what hostage taking there has recently been of United Nations personnel in Liberia; what has been the outcome; and what representations there have been about this.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In early September, 43 United Nations military observers were detained by soldiers of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia. The President of the Security Council issued a statement on 13 September condemning the detention of the observers and demanding their release. By 20 September all had been freed.

  Iran
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Iran's continued abuses of human rights, and its policy of terrorism and fundamentalism; and what steps Her Majesty's Government will take concerning Iranian activities at home and abroad; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We remain deeply concerned at Iran's human rights record and at continuing reports of its support for terrorism. We are determined to maintain pressure on Iran to improve its behaviour in these areas, both bilaterally and through the European Union, the United Nations and the G7.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the CSCE review conference in Budapest.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—CSCE—Review Conference began on 10 October in Budapest and will end on 2 December. It will be followed by a CSCE summit on 5 to 6 December. It is our objective to develop the CSCE as the European instrument of choice in early warning, conflict prevention and resolution, especially of disputes affecting minorities. We are working for decisions at the summit which will promote security and stability in the CSCE area and strengthen co-operation between all participating states.

  European Union
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a672
  statement on the progress of enlarging the European Union.

  Mr. David Davis
  A treaty of accession to the European Union was signed with four European Free Trade Association states on 24 June this year. The people of Austria and Finland have already voted in favour of joining: provided that referendums in Sweden–13 November—and Norway–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 EU enlargement, the Copenhagen European Council–1 June 1993—agreed that the associated countries of central and eastern Europe that so wished 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–1 June 1994—agreed that the next phase of enlargement will involve Cyprus and Malta.

  Iraq
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his Security Council counterparts on the extent to which a further UN resolution would be required to authorise the use of force against Iraqi troops.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had close and regular consultations on Iraq with his French, American and Russian colleagues over the past fortnight. The extent to which a further UN Security Council resolution would be required to authorise the use of force against Iraqi troops would depend on the circumstances at the time.

  Romania
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Romanian authorities about child adoption procedures.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. learned Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the question of the operation of the Anglo-Romanian adoption agreement with the Romanian authorities in Bucharest in September. The Department of Health, which administers the agreement, is concerned about delays in processing applications under the terms of the agreement. We will continue to press for the proper operation of the agreement and the speedy resolution of cases.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The FCO does not organise receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time.

  Departmental Documents
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the
  673
  Library copies of all documents, letters or accounts he has signed which are written in a language he does not understand.

  Mr. Hurd
  The only documents that fall into this category are treaties, true and exact English language texts of which are always signed at the same time.

  Copies of all treaties entered into by the United Kingdom are published as command papers in the treaty series and laid before both Houses.

  Antartic Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to announce a decision on the siting of the secretariat for the Antarctic treaty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  Discussions continue among treaty consultative parties about the siting of the Antartic treaty secretariat. The position remains unchanged from that stated in the answer given by the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 27 June 1994,Official Report, column 410.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the estimated number of people who find permanent work as a result of the training enterprise councils.

  Mr. Paice
  Information is not available about the full impact of training and enterprise councils in helping people find permanent work. However, in England and Wales, 52 per cent. of those leaving youth training and 35 per cent. of those leaving training for work between April and December 1993 were in employment six months after finishing training.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons were trained by TECs in 1993–94.

  Mr. Paice
  During 1993–94, there were 566,100 starts on youth training and training for work in England and Wales. At the latest date for which information is available, July 1994, there were 357,000 people in training on these programmes.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the outturn expenditure given to each TEC in England in 1992–93 at 1993–94 prices; and what is the budget for each TEC in 1993–94 in total and broken down in the same way as given in the written answer of 18 February 1993,Official Report, column 341.

  Mr. Paice
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library.

  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which TECs are using adult training credits within their training for work provision; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Paice
  The following English training and enterprise councils are understood to be using a form of adult training credit within their training for work provision:

  South and East Cheshire TEC;

  674

  Hertfordshire TEC;

  Bedfordshire TEC;

  Milton Keynes TEC;

  Cambridgeshire TEC.

  Earnings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table showing the increase in earnings in cash and real terms for each socio-economic group since 1987.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The closest available information to that requested is for occupations, which is published in tables 8, 9 and x3 of part A of the "New Earnings Survey" for each of the years.

  The information on the retail prices index—all items—at April, to convert figures to 1994 prices, is published in table 6·4 of the Employment Gazette and in table 26 of the "Annual Supplement Economic Trends" for April of earlier years.

  National Union of Teachers
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the level of subscriptions paid to the NUT for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that the level of full member subscription to the National Union of Teachers is not specified in the latest NUT rule book submitted to him with the union's annual return for the year ended 31 December 1993.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many of the NUT's members currently employed as a teacher are practising the profession;

  (2) If it is possible for members of the NUT to pay lumps sums to cover a number of years' membership.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that this information is not available from records held by hint. Nor is any such information held by the Department.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply of 27 June,Official Report, columns 450–51, to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, how many members of the National Union of Teachers actually paid subscriptions for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the certification officer, an independent statutory officer, that the number of contributing members shown on the annual returns for the National Union of Teachers submitted to him during the period in question is shown in the following table:

  Number

  1985

  225,784

  1986

  201,444

  1987

  195,126

  1988

  189,043

  1989

  183,042

  1990

  181,557

  1991

  178,112

  1992

  176,022

  1993

  182,664

  Job Clubs
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employemnt (1) what is the average duration of time that people spent participating in job clubs; and how many people are currently in job clubs; and what analysis he has made of the wage rates and conditions that apply to the jobs obtained by job club leavers; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many people have joined job clubs; how many have left; how many leavers got jobs, and how many entered another positive outcome (a) in each region and (b) in Great Britain as a whole (i) in the year to April 1994 and (ii) since April 1994.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 26 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about Jobclub performance and the wage rates and conditions for Jobclub leavers.
  The attached table shows for each region and nationally the number of Jobclub entrants, leavers, job entries and other positive

  Jobclub Performance Information

  N

  YH

  EME

  LSE

  SW

  OW

  WM

  NW

  OS

  National

  Entrants

  April 1993 — March 1994

  14,342

  21,567

  21,676

  79,594

  18,743

  13,616

  23,954

  32,362

  23,253

  249,107

  April 1994 — August 1994

  6,602

  9,426

  9,439

  34,214

  7,972

  4,774

  12,026

  13,413

  10,086

  107,952

  Leavers

  April 1993 — March 1994

  14,109

  20,321

  19,953

  72,159

  17,332

  13,168

  21,228

  31,957

  21,098

  231,325

  April 1994 — August 1994

  6,777

  9,498

  9,604

  34,084

  8,217

  4,650

  11,461

  14,324

  9,771

  108,386

  Job Entries

  April 1993 — March 1994

  5,728

  9,346

  9,417

  31,492

  8,323

  7,234

  10,095

  13,903

  10,090

  105,678

  April 1994 — August 1994

  2,859

  4,461

  4,104

  15,115

  3,947

  2,524

  5,347

  5,793

  4,700

  48,850

  Other Positive Outcomes

  April 1993 — March 1994

  1,515

  2,779

  2,616

  9,286

  2,404

  1,875

  3,272

  3,465

  2,780

  29,992

  April 1994 — August 1994

  640

  1,052

  1,073

  3,444

  959

  588

  1,350

  1,141

  1,167

  11,414

  Abbreviations

  N=Northern

  YH=Yorkshire and Humberside

  EME=East Midlands and Eastern

  LSE=London and South East

  SW=South West

  WA=Office for Wales

  WM=West Midlands

  NW=North West

  SC=Office for Scotland

  Publications
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for the last 12 months the titles of papers published by his Department and by the Employment Service.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Command papers issued by the Department in the last 12 months are as follows:Competitiveness 'Helping Britain to Win', Column 2563. Published May 1994, jointly with the Department of Trade and Industry and nine other Government Departments.
  "Jobseeker's Allowance", Column 2687. Published October 1994, jointly with the Department of Social Security.
  676
  outcomes for the whole of 1993–94 and from 1 April to 31 August. Those who are shown as going into other positive outcomes will have moved on to either training, full-time education or self-employment.
  The average length of time people spend in Jobclubs is not routinely recorded. However a sample study in March showed that 58 per cent. of clients leave within 12 weeks and a further 22 per cent. within 21 weeks.
  Records of the number of people in Jobclubs at any one time are not kept. However, the attached table shows that 107,952 people joined the programme in the first five months of the 1994–95 operational year, an average of 5,140 a week.
  The wage rates that apply to jobs found by Jobclub members were last examined in January 1991, based on a postal survey of individuals who joined in Autumn 1989. At that time, 26 per cent. of respondents went into jobs with a wage of up to £80 per week and a further 60 per cent. went into jobs which paid £81 to £160 per week and 15 per cent. received over £160 per week.
  The Employment Service is undertaking a wide ranging evaluation of four of its placing services including Jobclub. This began in the spring and will examine, amongst other things, the wage rates of leavers going into employment. The report should be available next year.
  Jobclubs continue to be both popular with the people who join and an effective way of helping them back to work. We are now able to help more members than at any time before and 45 per cent. of leavers are successful in finding jobs.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Training Leavers
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many respondents to the training for work leavers survey and the youth training leavers survey were early leavers, showing the reasons for early leaving, by total and by percentage of all leavers in the survey, by total and by percentage of all leavers in the survey, for the year 1993–94, or the most recent available period, and for each region and for Great Britain as a whole, shown separately for male, female and in total;

  (2) what number and percentage of those leaving (a) training for work and (b) youth training for 1993–94 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole were, six

  677
  months after leaving, (a) in a full-time job with their work experience employer, (b) in a full-time job with another employer, (c) employed in their own business, (d) in a part-time job, (e) in voluntary work,(f) on another Government training programme, (g) on a full-time education or training course, (h) unemployed and claiming benefit, (i) unemployed and not claiming benefit, (j) in a job club and (k) doing something else;

  (3) for each region and for Great Britain as a whole how many people were participating in (a) training for work—employment training/employment action, (b) community action, (c) learning for work, (d) workstart pilots, (e) north Norfolk action, (f) the business start-up allowance and (g) youth training in each month since March 1994, and if he will make a statement.

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

  Restart Courses
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have been referred to restart courses by employment service counsellors since April 1994 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole; how many of them were unemployed for over two years; how many attended and completed the course; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had benefit penalties imposed for not attending or

  All Restart Course Attenders April 1994—September 1994

  Northern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South west

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. Referrals to Restart Courses1

  6,936

  12,581

  11,539

  40,210

  8,651

  7,662

  13,263

  19,381

  11,450

  131,673

  2. Total Starters

  4,217

  6,847

  6,064

  21,236

  4,979

  3,330

  7,684

  10,109

  5,785

  70,251

  3. Starters Unemployed 24 months or more

  3,768

  5,896

  5,424

  17,646

  4,399

  2,896

  6,826

  8,786

  5,237

  60,878

  4. Total completers

  3,759

  5,812

  5,333

  19,536

  4,370

  2,868

  6,496

  8,667

  4,978

  61,819

  Completers who agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  1,384

  2,475

  2,534

  8,831

  2,074

  1,140

  2,483

  3,443

  3,065

  27,429

  Training for Work

  579

  1,235

  1,075

  3,566

  1,119

  583

  1,693

  1,862

  944

  12,656

  Jobclub

  240

  491

  692

  3,028

  566

  406

  1,095

  938

  803

  8,259

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  2,207

  2,995

  2,953

  11,648

  2,479

  1,725

  3,279

  4,583

  2,339

  34,208

  5. Total number of people with an outcome to follow up2

  3,374

  5,491

  5,090

  17,619

  4,233

  2,767

  6,112

  8,041

  4,492

  57,219

  6. Number of decisions received from the Benefits Agency3

  830

  1,709

  1,322

  3,665

  685

  847

  1,050

  2,916

  1,960

  14,984

  1This figure includes people who fail to attend the course(s) they are booked for who are subsequently rebooked on other events.

  2Some people will be referred to more than one option at the end of the course

  3This figure includes decisions where no reductions have been made (approximately 12 per cent. of decisions). Nationally around 88 per cent. of decisions lead to either a 20 per cent. or 40 per cent. reduction in personal Income Support for a period not exceeding the length of the course.

  Course Referrals
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed people have been referred to(a) jobplan workshops and (b) workwise and worklink by Employment Service counsellors for each region and Great Britain as a whole since April 1994; how
  678
  failing to complete their attendance at the restart course; and if he will make a statement.

  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.

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dared 26 October 1994.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Restart Courses. I have set out the information you have requested in the attached table.
  It may help if I explain that in April, a new two week Restart Course programme was launched. This new course combines part time attendance with an external training provider and individual jobsearch activities in the afternoon.
  The course, which builds on the success of the shorter one week Restart Course, is designed to boost confidence and job search activity and there is an emphasis on making real applications for jobs and opportunities. A log of applications is kept and used a:3 a basis for review by Employment Service advisers after the course.
  Attending a course is not an alternative to regular job search or other employment or training programmes. Essentially it provides people with the opportunity to explore all the options open to them and give them confidence to take the next step back to work.
  People who have been unemployed for two years or more who refuse or fail to take up a place on an Employment Department employment or training programme at their Restart interview, are asked to attend a Restart Course. Those who fail to attend may, under Income Support regulations lose a proportion of their personal Income Support for a period not exceeding the length of the course.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  many of them were unemployed for over one year; how many attended and completed the workshop or courses.; what were the outcomes of the participants; how many had benefit penalties imposed for not attending or failing to complete their attendance at the Jobplan workshop or

  679
  Workwise/Worklink courses; and if he will make a statement.

  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.

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Ms Clare Short, dated 26 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Jobplan Workshops and Workwise1. I have set out the information you have requested in the attached tables.
  Jobplan Workshops aim to help people who have been unemployed for a year or more to compete successfully for jobs and opportunities. They will be asked to attend a workshop unless they

  Job plan Attenders April 1994—September 1994

  Table 1

  Nothern

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Wales

  West Midlands

  North West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. Referrals to Jobplan1

  15,578

  22,747

  22,890

  91,055

  17,095

  12,164

  23,327

  35,790

  25,949

  266,595

  2. Total starters

  8,720

  11,428

  11,621

  43,224

  9,552

  5,770

  11,991

  16,999

  12,676

  131,981

  3. Total completers

  8,188

  10,514

  10,689

  39,884

  8,793

  5,294

  10,968

  15,715

  11,559

  121,604

  Completers who agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  2,750

  3,308

  4,079

  14,925

  3,312

  2,002

  3,477

  5,500

  3,463

  42,816

  Training for work

  2,437

  3,155

  2,576

  9,914

  2,766

  1,260

  3,467

  4,286

  3,645

  33,506

  Jobclub

  887

  1,400

  1,433

  7,046

  1,490

  972

  2,432

  1,700

  1,680

  19,040

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  4,398

  5,346

  5,597

  23,222

  4,182

  2,527

  5,673

  8,680

  6,621

  66,246

  4. Total number of people with an outcome to follow up2

  7,665

  9,937

  10,057

  39,309

  8,263

  5,006

  10,523

  14,745

  10,681

  116,186

  5. Number of decisions received from the Benefits Agency3

  1,675

  2,649

  2,483

  9,602

  1,342

  1,116

  1,856

  4,929

  4,071

  29,723

  1This figure includes people who fail to attend the workshop they are booked for and are subsequently rebooked on another event. All people referred to Jobplan have been unemployed over 1 year except a small number (not obtainable) who have been unemployed for a shorter period. These people either ask to attend earlier or are from areas affected by colliery closures where special dispensation exists.

  2 Some people will be referred to more than one option at the end of the workshop.

  3This figure includes decisions where no reductions have been made (approximately 12 per cent. of decisions). Nationally around 88 per cent. of decisions lead to either a 20 per cent. or 40 per cent. reduction in personal Income Support for a period not exceeding the length of the workshop.

  Workwise Attenders April 1994—september 1994

  Table 2

  Northern

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and south East

  South West

  Scotland

  Total

  1. Referrals to Workwise1

  424

  1,836

  1,617

  1,599

  2,183

  7,659

  2. Starters

  218

  734

  700

  805

  951

  3,408

  3. Total completers

  156

  518

  505

  591

  682

  2,452

  Completers who agreed to follow up:

  Jobs

  91

  365

  294

  351

  255

  1,356

  Training for Work

  44

  198

  150

  225

  209

  826

  Jobclub

  5

  44

  55

  80

  46

  230

  Other employment, training and related opportunities

  72

  195

  289

  235

  262

  1,053

  680
  prefer to take up a place on another Employment Department programme.
  In November 1993, as part of his Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced two pilot initiatives to help people aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for a year. One of these is a four week advice, guidance and job search course called Workwise. The pilot, which provides 10,000 places and has run since April in five Employment Service regions, replaces Jobplan Workshops for people in this age group. The course has been designed to give people the knowledge, skills and motivation to decide and carry through an action plan by setting themselves realistic job goals and a route to achieve them. During the course people learn practical job search skills such as producing an up-to-date CV and where to look for job leads. They also receive individual guidance from the course leader about the other training and employment opportunities available to them. Although formal attendance on the course is part-time, participants are encouraged to put what they have learned into practice during the remaining part of the day; this includes making job applications.
  Individuals who fail to attend these programmes may, under Income Support regulations lose a proportion of their personal benefit for a period not exceeding the length of the course.
  I hope that this is helpful.
  681

  Workwise Attenders April 1994—september 1994

  Table 2

  Northern

  East Midlands and Eastern

  London and South East

  South West

  Scotland

  Total

  4. Total number of people with an outcome to follow up2

  122

  550

  535

  588

  556

  2,351

  5. Number of decisions received from the Benefits Agency3

  85

  258

  225

  140

  538

  1,246

  1This figure includes people who fail to attend the workshop they are booked for and are subsequently rebooked on another event. All people referred to Workwise have been unemployed over 1 year.

  2Some people will be referred to more tan one option at the end of the workshop.

  3This figure includes decisions where no reductions have been made (approximately 10 per cent. of decisions). Nationally around 90 per cent. of decisions lead to a 20 per cent. or 40 per cent. reduction in personal Income Support for a period not exceeding the length of the workshop.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what reports have been received by the International Labour Organisation with respect to Indonesia's conformity with the ILO convention of 1956 ensuring the right to associate in free trade unions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government of Indonesia ratified ILO convention No. 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining in 1957. Since then they have frequently reported as requested by the ILO on its application of the convention. Indonesia's most recent report was submitted to the ILO in 1993.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Department of Employment does not organise receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment on how many occasions in the past year the spouse of a Minister in his Department has traveled 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.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the past year, there have been two occasions where a spouse has accompanied a departmental Minister on an official overseas visit. Of those, only one visit involved a cost to public funds amounting to £862·95. That occasion was an informal EC social affairs meeting held in Athens on 10 March 1994 and to which the spouses of all EC Ministers attending had been officially invited by the Greek Government.

HEALTH

  Surgery
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of cold surgical interventions were carried out(a) in private hospitals or clinics by private practitioners, (b) in national health service hospitals by private practitioners and (c) in NHS hospitals by NHS
  682
  practitioners in each regional health authority in 1979–80 and in each year since then.

  Mr. Sackville
  Central returns do not include numbers of operations carried out in private hospitals and clinics. Estimates of the number of elective private operations carried out in national health service hospitals in England for the years 1989–90 to 1991–92 are set out in the table. Comparative information for previous years is not available. Figures for private elective operations by regional health authority are not available.

  Information about numbers of all NHS operations by regional health authority is published annually in the "Hospital Episode Statistics", volumes 1 and 2, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Elective Operations: England

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Private Elective Operations1

  50,062

  49,291

  61,819

  All NHS Elective Operations

  2,402,348

  2,417,252

  2,626,039

  Per cent. Private

  2·1

  2·0

  2·4

  1In NHS Hospitals

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics—based on 25 per cent. sample.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give figures based on current performance for the number of health service staff she expects will see earnings(a) fall and (b) rise as a result of the introduction of relating pay to performance.

  Mr. Malone
  The proposals made to staff sides and the professions that represent groups covered by national health service review bodies and included in pay offers to staff sides of non-review body groups would strengthen the links between rewards and performance of the local organisations. Such schemes would be locally determined and depend on the achievement of local objectives for the delivery of high-quality services.

  Maternity Services
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made for piloting the draft pregnancy-based clinical data set for maternity with the professions concerned; when the findings of the pilot tests will be available; and if she will place a copy of the draft minimum data set in the Library.
  683
  Mr. Sackville
  Initial draft proposals for a contract minimum data set covering community, maternity and mental health services were produced in October 1993. Priority was given to the further development and piloting of the community component of this data set.

  The results are about to be issued for consultation, and work has resumed on the maternity contract minimum data set. Copies of the consultation document will be placed in the Library when it is available. Arrangements for piloting will follow once the clinical profession have agreed the content of the data set.

  St Bartholomew's Hospital
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the use of charitable funds by St Bartholomew's hospital on services normally funded by the Exchequer.

  Mr. Malone
  Use of charitable funds is a matter for the special trustees who are required to apply the funds in accordance with donors' wishes.

  Junior Doctors
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if the planned reduction in the hours of junior doctors will be reached by end of 1994;

  (2) what further plans he has to ensure that the target of 72 hours maximum working week for junior doctors is reached by 1 January 1995.

  Mr. Malone
  It is hoped that reduction targets will be met. I expect reports from regional task forces for the six months to 30 September 1994 to show further good progress in reducing junior doctors' hours.

  I will consider whether any further action is necessary in consultation with my ministerial group on junior doctors' hours which includes representatives of the junior doctors, consultants, the medical royal colleges and national health service management.

  General Practitioners (Gifts)
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is sent to general practitioners regarding the value of gifts received from drug companies.

  Mr. Malone
  The General Medical Council is responsible for guidance to general practitioners on gifts received from drug companies.

  Female Deaths
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been(a) the number and (b) the percentage of all female deaths from (i) coronary heart disease, (ii) stroke, (iii) breast cancer, (iv) cervical cancer, (v) lung cancer, (vi) malignant melanoma, (vii) other skin cancers, (viii) accidents and (ix) suicide in each year since 1979.

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

  London Ambulance Service
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the extent of her responsibility for the London ambulance service.
  684
  Mr. Sackville
  The South Thames regional health authority is managerially responsible for the London ambulance service. South Thames RHA is accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the full range of its responsibilities, including the management of the London ambulance service.

  Mentally Disordered Offenders
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total cost to the NHS of treating mentally disordered offenders; and how many such offenders have been treated(a) nationally and (b) by each health authority in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the cost and volume of services provided for mentally disordered offenders is not collected separately.

  Trust Hospital Cars
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given on the maximum amount to be spent on purchasing and leasing cars for individual senior managers of trust hospitals.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. National health service trusts have the freedom to employ staff on such terms and conditions as they think fit.

  Endometriosis
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of endometriosis in each of the last 10 years by region and nationally.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no precise statistics on the prevalence of endometriosis. Gynaecologists have reported the condition at laparoscopy in between 2 and 18 per cent. of women, many of whom had no symptoms.

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her plans for legislation to abolish regional health authorities.

  Mr. Malone
  The Government's intention to abolish regional health authorities was announced on 21 October 1993. Legislation to implement the changes will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable allows.

  Local Authority Contracts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many voluntary sector organisations have contracts with local authorities to provide services; and what is the value of those contracts;

  (2) how many private sector organisations have contracts with local authorities to provide services; and what is the value of those contracts.

  Mr. Bowis
  Such contractual matters are for local negotiation and decision.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people receiving public funding towards residential or nursing care also had to contribute towards the cost for each of the last 10 years.
  685
  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by authority the number of private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes that have closed since implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984; and how many residents have been affected.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information could be provided on nursing homes only at disproportionate cost and is not available on residential care homes.

  Learning Disability Hospitals
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of admissions to learning disability hospitals by health authority for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is published in "Ordinary and Day Case Admissions for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Special Transitional Grant
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which authorities failed to spend 85 per cent. of the special transitional grant in the independent sector during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Bowis
  Audited returns detailing community care spending in the independent sector by health authorities in 1993–94 must be submitted to the Department by 31 December 1994.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the proportion of the total special transitional grant spent by each authority on domiciliary care during the year 1993–94;

  (2) if he will list by authority the proportion of the total special transitional grant spent in the voluntary sector during the year 1993–94.

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for local authorities and information on it is not available centrally.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average private sight test fee currently charged by opticians.

  Mr. Malone
  Information about the charges made for private sight tests is not collected by the Department.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether her Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not organise such receptions.

  Prozac
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the accuracy of information given to general practitioners in connection with the prescription of the drug Prozac; and if she will make a statement.
  686
  Mr. Sackville
  Prozac is an effective and very widely prescribed anti-depressant. The data sheet for Prozac which contains prescribing information and side-effects, is produced by the manufacturer and is authorised by the licensing authority. It is included in the data sheet compendium which is sent to all doctors. The accuracy of the data sheet is kept under review by the Medicines Control Agency, and where necessary changes are made to reflect evolving knowledge of its use, effectiveness and safety.

  In addition, all general practitioners regularly receive free information on drugs available in the United Kingdom through the "British National Formulary, Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin", "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" and the medicines resource centre. Professional advice is also available from the medical advisers support centre. Copies of the documents are available in the Library.

  Foster Carers
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the number of and (b) the percentage of local authority foster carers who receive a fee for fostering in addition to the basic boarding-out allowance, based on the latest available information.

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is not available centrally. However, I understand from the National Foster Care Association that the percentage is very small.

  Food Poisoning
  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(a) for each year since 1982 and (b) in 1994 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  Food poisoning notifications: England and Wales, 1982–1994

  Number

  1982

  14,253

  1983

  17,735

  1984

  20,702

  1985

  19,242

  1986

  23,948

  1987

  29,331

  1988

  39,713

  1989

  52,557

  1990

  52,145

  1991

  52,543

  1992

  63,347

  19931

  69,955

  19941

  264,959

  1Provisional figures.

  2Notifications to 7 October.

  There is no single explanation for the rising trend in food poisoning. A contributory factor may be a reduction in under-reporting. On 22 October 1993, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health announced the start of a major study of infectious intestinal diseases in England. The purpose of the study is to establish the incidence, sources, causes and socio-economic costs of infectious intestinal disease. This is the most comprehensive study of its type ever attempted. It will involve more than 70 general practices and more than 20,000 volunteers. The study will be completed in mid-1995.
  687
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures available for this year of the total number of laboratory reports of salmonella in foodstuffs to the Public Health Laboratory Service in England and Wales.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Public Health Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens has confirmed that to the end of September, 1,152 food isolates submitted were found positive for salmonella.

  General Practitioners Fundholders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made as to whether fundholding general practitioners are able to prescribe drugs on the basis of patient benefit rather than cost; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  Fundholding empowers general practitioners to ensure the most appropriate care for their patients whether by prescribing medicines, referring to specialist services or other treatments.

  Thameside NHS Trust (Learning Disabilities Services)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will set up a further committee of inquiry into the disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust to cover the period before 1991; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will place in the Library the report of the Mental Health Act Commission in respect of client A, referred to in appendix I, paragraph 4, of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust;

  (3) where Mr. H, referred to in the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust, is now working;

  (4) what action has been taken in respect of the recommendation set out at paragraph 17, appendix IV of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past" relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust;

  (5) what disciplinary action, warnings or counselling have been initiated in respect of senior managers or consultants referred to in the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust;

  (6) what action she proposes in respect of the findings of the alleged assault against client B, referred to in appendix II of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust; and what measures have been taken by the relevant health authorities since the publications of the report to remedy the "failure to investigate" detailed at paragraph 16 of appendix II;

  (7) if she will initiate a further investigation into the complaints detailed in appendix V of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust in respect of client E;

  (8) if the police were informed of details of all earlier complaints in relation to the care of client C, detailed in
  688
  appendix III of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust, when they investigated the circumstances surrounding the death of client C, which occurred some time between 22 March and 26 August 1991;

  (9) if relatives or representatives of patients and clients were allowed to attend all hearings of the inquiry of Mr. Norman Warner, the findings of which are contained in the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trusts;

  (10) if all managers, consultants or other practitioners referred to in the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust who continue to be employed by Thameside trust or other successors to the former Basildon and Thurrock health authority have been fully exonerated by the findings of the inquiry;

  (11) if Mr. H, referred to in the inquiry report "Learning from the Past" relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust, has had his professional conduct examined by his professional body; and if she will make a statement;

  (12) if the only disciplinary action taken in respect of matters examined by and referred to in the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust, were those detailed in paragraphs 6 and 7 of appendix V;

  (13) if she will further investigate the detailed findings of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust, in respect of client D contained in appendix IV of the report; and if she will set up a seperate inquiry into the finding that he was not recognised as being a patient requiring nursing as a terminally ill patient;

  (14) what action has been taken to remedy the anxiety set out in paragraphs 2·10 and 2·11 of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust;

  (15) what action she proposes in respect of the findings of the assault against client A, referred to in appendix I, paragraphs 11 and 12, of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust, as detailed;

  (16) what prosecution or disciplinary action has been taken against Mr. H, referred to in the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust;

  (17) on what grounds Mr. H, referred to in appendix III of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust, was allowed to resign when confronted with charges of professional misconduct; and what further action the health authority took to ensure that he was not re-employed by another health or local authority in a caring capacity;

  (18) if she will initiate a further investigation into the complaints detailed in appendix VI of the inquiry report "Learning from the Past", relating to aspects of learning disabilities services managed by Thameside NHS trust, in respect of client F.
  689
  Mr. Bowis
  We have been sent a copy of the independent inquiry report and I understand that the local agencies are acting on its 18 recommendations.

  The inquiry was commissioned by South Essex health authority in conjunction with Thameside Community Healthcare national health service trust. The hon. Member should approach those organisations for answers to detailed questions about the conduct of the inquiry and its findings. In particular, it is the health authority's role to ensure that local residents have access to services of the highest quality.

  Royal Northern Hospital
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans exist for the future of the Royal Northern Hospital, Holloway road, London N19 to be retained for health use; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  The future of the Royal Northern hospital is a matter for Camden and Islington health authority.

  Accident and Emergency Services
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the closure of accident and emergency departments at the North Middlesex hospital, Royal Free hospital and the Whittington hospital; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The provision of accident and emergency services is the responsibility of local health authorities, and is determined in the light of local needs, priorities and resources. The hon. Member may wish to contact New River health authority for details of any plans concerning the North Middlesex hospital; and Camden and Islington health authority for details regarding the Royal Free and Whittington hospitals.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Car or Van

  51 per cent.

  53 per cent.

  45 per cent.

  45 per cent.

  Television

  97 per cent.

  97 per cent.

  98 per cent.

  98 per cent.

  Telephone

  74 per cent.

  73 per cent.

  73 per cent.

  72 per cent.

  Video

  60 per cent.

  65 per cent.

  56 per cent.

  57 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. The source data for televisions (Family Expenditure Survey 1992) does not distinguish between black and white/colour sets.

  2. Information for other items is taken from Households Below Average Income 1979–1991/92, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Ms. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report, correspondence to the hon. Member for Bristol, East from the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People about households below average income, dated 12 August and 31 August.
  690
  many occasions such travel has been undertaken at own cost.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next plans to visit Ilford.

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no current plans to do so.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that company pensioners are represented on the board of trustees of pension funds.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We propose that occupational pension scheme members should have the right to nominate at least one third of their scheme's trustees. It is for members to decide whether they wish to select a pensioner trustee. That is in line with the recommendation of the Pension Law Review Committee. We are still considering the best way to implement our proposals on the selection and appointment of member-nominated trustees in the light of the replies to our consultation document.

  Poor Families
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the worst-off 10 per cent. of families have(a) motor cars, (b) colour television sets, (c) telephones and (d) videos.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is in the table. The households below average income report suggests that the bottom 10 per cent. of the income distribution may not represent the "worst off' 10 per cent. For this reason information is also provided for the bottom 20 per cent.

  Mr. Burt
  The correspondence in relation to the seven questions asked by the hon. Lady is as follows:

  Letter to the hon. Member for Bristol East from the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People dated 12 August 1994:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking what was the average equivalent income at April 1994 prices for (a) the poorest 10 per cent. and (b) the poorest 20 per cent. from the latest

  691
  households below average income analysis, before and after housing costs in 1979, 1981, 1987, 1988 to 1989, 1990–91 and 1991–92 for (i) a pensioner couple, (ii) a single pensioner, (iii) a couple with children, (iv) a couple without children, (v) a single adult with children and (vi) a single adult without children.
  Unfortunately at the time Alistair Burt was unable to reply and promised to write.
  Information for the bottom 20 per cent. is in the tables, which follows table A5 in the latest Households Below Average Income

  Median equivalised household income in £ per week in April 1994 prices for the bottom 20 per cent. of each of the household family types

  1979

  1981

  1987

  1988–89

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Before housing costs

  Pensioner couple

  91

  95

  103

  103

  101

  107

  Single pensioner

  91

  96

  99

  96

  98

  101

  Couple with children

  105

  94

  101

  104

  99

  100

  Couple without children

  131

  132

  123

  134

  141

  133

  Single with children

  89

  92

  97

  97

  97

  99

  Single without children

  114

  111

  112

  111

  106

  103

  After housing costs

  Pensioner couple

  76

  81

  88

  88

  88

  90

  Single Pensioner

  83

  86

  88

  85

  90

  92

  Couple with children

  88

  77

  79

  82

  76

  76

  Couple without children

  112

  111

  98

  110

  115

  105

  Single with children

  72

  76

  79

  74

  75

  76

  Single without children

  98

  91

  86

  83

  80

  75

  Letter to the hon. Member for Bristol East from the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People, dated 12 August 1994:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking what would have been the effect on the numbers of children in households living on incomes (a) below the 1979 bottom decile median and (b) below 50 per cent. of 1979 average income, by 1991–92, using the methodology of the latest households below average income report, if child benefit had (i) remained at its 1979 level in real terms and (ii) had been increased relative to household income.
  Unfortunately at the time Alistair Burt was unable to reply and promised to write.
  I regret that information is not available. Child benefit interacts with other components of household income, such as income-related benefits, and reliable assumptions cannot be made about the net effect on income of hypothetical scenarios. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.

  Letter to the hon. Member for Bristol East from the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People, dated 12 August 1994:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking for an assessment of the effect of a rise in the survey response rate on the latest edition of Households Below Average Income (HBAI). You also asked for details of any research into the relationship between income and the response to Government surveys on household expenditure and income.
  Unfortunately at the time Alistair Burt was unable to reply and promised to write.
  The Family Expenditure Survey (FES) response rate has remained relatively stable over the period covered by HBAI, reaching 72 per cent. in 1992. Any rise or fall in the survey response rate is compensated for by the use of grossing factors, which ensure that household population totals in HBAI continue to reflect the whole

  Numbers of children grossed to 1991–92 levels below fixed income thresholds (000s)

  1979

  1981

  1987

  1988–89

  1990–91

  1991–92

  (a) Below 1979 Bottom Decile Median

  BHC

  750

  1,110

  590

  730

  900

  770

  AHC

  790

  1,170

  890

  950

  1,210

  1,060

  692
  report. Reliable information on the bottom 10 per cent. of the groups specified is not available.
  All estimates are subject to sampling error which may affect the validity of comparisons between groups at a point in time. Table A4 of HBAI contains an assessment of the extent of this source of uncertainty and should be used for comparisons between 1979 and the latest year. Results for singles and couples will be affected by a discontinuity from 1990 related to cohabiting; please see Appendix 10 in HBAI 1979–1990/91 for details. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.
  population of the United Kingdom. Appendix 3 of the latest HBAI report gives further information. We have no reliable information on the income characteristics of survey non-participants to enable the effect of a rise in survey participation to be addressed.
  I understand that a study is being made of the FES sample from January to June 1991 as compared with the 1991 Population Census. However, the Census contains no income information, and the study will not cover this area. The main results of this study are expected to be published in 1995. My Department is aware of extensive research literature on non-response bias and takes this into account in the preparation of HBAI. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.

  Letter to the hon. Member for Bristol East from the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People, dated 12 August 1994:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking how many children were in households living on incomes (a) below the 1979 bottom decile and (b) below 50 per cent. of 1979 average income, in 1979, 1981, 1987, 1988–89, 1990–91 and 1991–92, following tables 11.1 and 11.5 of the latest households below average income report; and what was the household income in current prices of these two cut off points for each of the years in question.
  Unfortunately at the time Alistair Burt was unable to reply and promised to write.
  The information is in the tables.
  Your request for numbers below the 1979 bottom decile has been interpreted as a request for numbers below the 1979 bottom decile median. Household income in current prices for each year in question has been taken to mean current prices in each year rather than today's prices. The real (1994) values of the thresholds specified have been included in the tables but these values will be the same for any of the years shown. This is because the thresholds relate to the income distribution in 1979 rather than to conditions in each year. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.
  693

  Numbers of children grossed to 1991–92 levels below fixed income thresholds (000s)

  1979

  1981

  1987

  1988–89

  1990–91

  1991–92

  (b) Below 50 per cent. of 1979 Average Income

  BHC

  1,130

  1,640

  1,020

  1,070

  1,250

  1,160

  AHC

  1,310

  2,090

  1,680

  1,590

  1,900

  1,850

  Values of thresholds in each year (January prices except where stated)

  1979

  1981

  1987

  1988–89

  1990–91

  1991–92

  April 1994

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  (a) 1979 Bottom Decile Median

  BHC

  32

  43

  61

  67

  78

  83

  88

  AHC

  29

  38

  52

  57

  64

  69

  74

  (b) 50 per cent. 1979 Average Income

  BHC

  35

  47

  67

  74

  86

  91

  97

  AHC

  33

  43

  59

  64

  73

  78

  84

  1. Source: 1979, 1981, 1987 to 1992 Family Expenditure Surveys.

  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  3. Income values denote equivalised household incomes.

  4. Income for combined years is deflated to January of the later year.

  5. Total numbers of children are grossed to 1991–92 levels.

  Letter to the hon. Member for Bristol East from the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People dated 31 August 1994:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking what was the change in real incomes by decile group, 1979 to 1991–92, including the self-employed, before and after housing costs, following table A1 and appendix 10 of the latest households below average income report; and what was the equivalised and unequivalised income per household in each decile group, for households with children. Unfortunately at the time Alistair Burt was unable to reply and promised to write.
  The information is not available in the precise form requested. Reliable estimates of changes in equivalised real incomes are not

  Percentage change in real incomes of quintile medians and the mean of families with children for the period 1979–1991/92 (Percentage change)

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Mean

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  20-40 per cent.

  40-60 per cent.

  60-80 per cent.

  Top 20 per cent.

  Before Housing Costs

  (–2)

  (7)

  22

  33

  51

  32

  After Housing Costs

  (–12

  (1)

  20

  32

  49

  29

  Estimates in brackets () are particularly uncertain; see Appendix 5 of Households Below Average Income for details of the tests applied to estimates of changes in real incomes.

  Equivalised income of families with children; quintile medians and the mean for 1979 and 1991–92, in April 1994 prices.

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  20-40 per cent.

  40-60 per cent.

  60-80 per cent.

  Top 20 per cent.

  Mean

  Before Housing Costs

  1979

  103

  138

  165

  198

  261

  180

  1991–92

  100

  148

  202

  263

  394

  238

  After Housing Costs

  1979

  86

  117

  141

  172

  227

  155

  1991–92

  76

  118

  169

  226

  339

  200

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.
  694
  available for decile groups (and so is provided in the attached tables in quintile groups). In addition, it is not possible to give unequivalised incomes for all households with children as these depend on the number and ages of children in these households. The attached tables therefore contain equivalent money values of special examples of families with children. It is important to bear in mind that the results do not track what happens to a particular set of individuals over time and are as likely to be influenced by changes in the mix of groups as changes in income levels within each group. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.
  695

  Equivalent Money Values for Quintile Medians and the Overall mean for Different Examples of Family Types with Children Income Before Housing Costs (Equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group Medians

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  20-40 per cent.

  40-60 per cent.

  60-80 per cent.

  Top 20 per cent.

  Total population (mean)

  1979

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  145

  195

  233

  279

  368

  254

  Couple with child 3, 16 and 17

  202

  272

  325

  390

  515

  355

  Single with child aged 3

  81

  109

  130

  157

  206

  142

  1991–92

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  141

  209

  285

  370

  556

  335

  Couple with child aged 3, 16 and 17

  197

  292

  398

  517

  777

  468

  Single with child aged 3

  79

  117

  160

  208

  311

  188

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Equivalent money values for quintile medians and the overall mean for different examples of family types with children Income after housing costs (equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group Medians

  Quintile 1

  Quintile 2

  Quintile 3

  Quintile 4

  Quintile 5

  Bottom 20 per cent.

  20-40 per cent.

  40-60 per cent.

  60-80 per cent.

  Top 20 per cent.

  Total population (mean)

  1979

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  122

  165

  199

  242

  321

  218

  Couple with child aged 3, 16 and 17

  175

  236

  285

  347

  459

  313

  Single with child aged 3

  63

  85

  103

  125

  166

  113

  1991–92

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  107

  166

  238

  319

  478

  282

  Couple with child aged 3, 16 and 17

  153

  238

  341

  458

  685

  405

  Single with child aged 3

  55

  86

  123

  165

  248

  146

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Letter to the hon. Member for Bristol East from the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People dated 31 August 1994:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking for the mean disposable income of each of the family types, as listed in the latest households below average income report, of the lowest decile group, second lowest decile group, and highest decile group in (a) current and (b) April 1994 prices, as ranked according to this Department's convention of equivalised income in 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92. Unfortunately at the time Alistair Burt was unable to reply and promised to write.
  The available estimates are provided in the tables.
  It is important to bear in mind that the results provided cannot be interpreted as indicating that the incomes of these groups have gone up or down over the period. Any income changes will reflect shifts of the number of people in each family type group from one decile group to another. For example, if a family type's income remains unchanged but there was a shift of that particular family type from the bottom decile into the second decile, the median income of the particular family type in the bottom decile in these tables would show a fall. Conversely, if that family type's income again remains the same, but there was a shift of that family type from the second decile into the bottom decile, the median income of that particular family type in the bottom decile in these tables would show a rise. But in both these examples the real incomes amongst that family type did not change. A copy of this letter will be place in the Library.

  Median net equivalised income in each of the two lowest deciles and the top decile for each family type, 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 in actual prices1 and in April 1994 prices

  Pensioner Couple (Equivalised £ per week)

  1979

  1988–89

  1991–92

  Actual prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  34

  73

  88

  696

  Median net equivalised income in each of the two lowest deciles and the top decile for each family type, 1979,1988–89 and 1991–92 in actual prices1 and in April 1994 prices

  Pensioner Couple (Equivalised £ per week)

  1979

  1988–89

  1991–92

  AHC

  30

  61

  72

  Second

  BHC

  40

  89

  112

  AHC

  36

  71

  86

  Top

  BHC

  128

  416

  544

  AHC

  123

  372

  471

  April 1994 prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  92

  95

  93

  AHC

  78

  79

  77

  Second

  BHC

  108

  116

  119

  AHC

  93

  93

  93

  Top

  BHC

  351

  543

  578

  AHC

  314

  485

  506

  1Actual prices for 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 refer to January 1979, January 1989 and January 1992 respectively.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates have been calculated by the median income of family types in each of the bottom two and top deciles of the total Households Below Average Income distribution.

  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error which may affect the validity of comparisons between groups at a point in time and over time. More information about sampling errors can be found in Appendix 5 of the latest edition of 'Households Below Average Income', a copy of which is in the library.

  3. For estimates of changes in real income of family types over time, see Table A4 of the latest Households Below Average Income.

  697

  Median net equivalised income in each of the two lowest deciles and the top decile for each family type, 1979,1988–89 and 1991–92 in actual prices1 and in April 1994 prices

  Single Pensioner (Equivalised £ per week)

  1979

  1988–89

  1991–92

  Actual prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  33

  71

  89

  AHC

  31

  54

  61

  Second

  BHC

  40

  90

  111

  AHC

  37

  76

  91

  Top

  BHC

  128

  407

  537

  AHC

  131

  356

  485

  April 1994 prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  91

  93

  95

  AHC

  79

  70

  66

  Second

  BHC

  110

  118

  118

  AHC

  93

  99

  98

  Top

  BHC

  351

  531

  570

  AHC

  333

  465

  521

  1Actual prices for 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 refer to January 1979, January 1989 and January 1992 respectively.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates have been calculated by the median income of family types in each of the bottom two and top deciles of the total Households Below Average Income distribution.

  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error which may affect the validity of comparisons between groups at a point in time and over time. More information about sampling errors can be found in Appendix 5 of the latest edition of 'Households Below Average Income', a copy of which is in the library.

  3. For estimates of changes in real income of family types over time, see Table A4 of the latest Households Below Average Income.

  Median net equivalised income in each of the two lowest deciles and the top decile for each family type, 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 in actual prices1 and in April 1994 prices

  Couple with children (Equivalised £ per week)

  1979

  1988–89

  1991–92

  Actual prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  31

  67

  81

  AHC

  28

  53

  57

  Second

  BHC

  41

  88

  109

  AHC

  37

  73

  87

  Top

  BHC

  141

  397

  530

  AHC

  135

  359

  489

  April 1994 prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  85

  87

  86

  AHC

  71

  69

  62

  Second

  BHC

  111

  115

  116

  AHC

  95

  95

  93

  Top

  BHC

  385

  518

  563

  AHC

  344

  469

  526

  1Actual prices for 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 refer to January 1979, January 1989 and January 1992 respectively.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates have been calculated by the median income of family types in each of the bottom two and top deciles of the total Households Below Average Income distribution.

  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error which may affect the validity of comparisons between groups at a point in time and over time. More information about sampling errors can be found in Appendix 5 of the latest edition of 'Households Below Average Income', a copy of which is in the library.

  3. For estimates of changes in real income of family types over time, see Table A4 of the latest Households Below Average Income.

  698

  Median net equivalised income in each of the two lowest deciles and the top decile for each family type 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 in actual prices1 and in April 1994 prices

  Couple without children (Equivalised £ per week)

  1979

  1988–89

  1991–92

  Actual prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  31

  63

  70

  AHC

  28

  48

  47

  Second

  BHC

  41

  88

  112

  AHC

  37

  71

  85

  Top

  BHC

  127

  393

  532

  AHC

  121

  349

  475

  April 1994 prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  84

  83

  75

  AHC

  70

  62

  51

  Second

  BHC

  111

  115

  118

  AHC

  95

  92

  92

  Top

  BHC

  347

  513

  565

  AHC

  309

  456

  511

  1Actual prices for 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 refer to January 1979, January 1989 and January 1992 respectively.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates have been calculated by the median income of family types in each of the bottom two and top deciles of the total Households Below Average Income distribution.

  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error which may affect the validity of comparisons between groups at a point in time and over time. More information about sampling errors can be found in Appendix 5 of the latest edition of 'Households Below Average Income', a copy of which is in the library.

  3. For estimates of changes in real income of family types over time, see Table A4 of the latest Households Below Average Income.

  Median net equivalised income in each of the two lowest deciles and the top decile for each family type, 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 in actual prices1 and in April 1994 prices

  Single with children (Equivalised £ per week)

  1979

  1988–89

  1991–92

  Actual prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  32

  74

  90

  AHC

  29

  56

  68

  Second

  BHC

  41

  89

  109

  AHC

  37

  73

  87

  Top

  BHC

  132

  390

  534

  AHC

  132

  353

  538

  April 1994 prices (of decile median

  Bottom

  BHC

  89

  96

  96

  AHC

  73

  73

  73

  Second

  BHC

  112

  116

  116

  AHC

  94

  95

  94

  Top

  BHC

  362

  509

  567

  AHC

  338

  461

  579

  1Actual prices for 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 refer to January 1979, January 1989 and January 1992 respectively.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates have been calculated by the median income of family types in each of the bottom two and top deciles of the total Households Below Average Income distribution.

  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error which may affect the validity of comparisons between groups at a point in time and over time. More information about sampling errors can be found in Appendix 5 of the latest edition of 'Households Below Average Income', a copy of which is in the library.

  3. For estimates of changes in real income of family types over time, see Table A4 of the latest Households Below Average Income.

  699

  Median net equivalised income in each of the two lowest deciles and the top decile for each family type, 1979,1988–89 and 1991–92 in actual prices1 and in April 1994 prices

  Single without children (Equivalised £per week)

  1979

  1988–89

  1991–92

  Actual prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  29

  64

  76

  AHC

  25

  49

  50

  Second

  BHC

  40

  89

  110

  AHC

  37

  73

  87

  Top

  BHC

  129

  393

  518

  AHC

  122

  351

  464

  April 1994 prices (of decile median)

  Bottom

  BHC

  80

  83

  80

  AHC

  65

  64

  54

  Second

  BHC

  110

  117

  117

  AHC

  95

  96

  94

  Top

  BHC

  351

  513

  550

  AHC

  312

  458

  499

  1Actual prices for 1979, 1988–89 and 1991–92 refer to January 1979, January 1989 and January 1992 respectively.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates have been calculated by the median income of family types in each of the bottom two and top deciles of the total Households Below Average Income distribution.

  Money values for the bottom two decile median and the overall mean for different family types in April 1994 prices, including self employed

  (equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group medians

  Decile 1

  Decile 2

  Decile 10

  Total population

  Income before Housing Costs

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  10–20 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  (mean)

  1979

  Single adult

  54

  67

  218

  118

  Couple no children

  88

  110

  358

  193

  Couple with child aged 3

  104

  130

  422

  228

  Couple with child aged 16

  119

  150

  487

  263

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  124

  155

  505

  272

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  146

  183

  594

  320

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  173

  217

  705

  380

  1990–91

  Single adult

  53

  71

  345

  159

  Couple no children

  87

  116

  565

  261

  Couple with child aged 3

  102

  137

  667

  308

  Couple with child aged 16

  118

  158

  769

  355

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  122

  164

  797

  368

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  144

  193

  938

  433

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  171

  229

  1,114

  514

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in April 1994 prices, including self employed

  (equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group medians

  Decile 1

  Decile 2

  Decile 10

  Total population

  Income before Housing Costs

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  10–20 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  (mean)

  1991–92

  Single adult

  53

  72

  343

  160

  Couple no children

  88

  117

  563

  262

  Couple with child aged 3

  103

  138

  664

  309

  Couple with child aged 16

  119

  159

  766

  356

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  123

  165

  794

  369

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  145

  195

  934

  435

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  172

  231

  1,109

  516

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.
  700
  2. All estimates are subject to sampling error which may affect the validity of comparisons between groups at a point in time and over time. More information about sampling errors can be found in Appendix 5 of the latest edition of 'Households Below Average Income', a copy of which is in the library.
  3. For estimates of changes in real income of family types over time, see Table A4 of the latest Households Below Average Income.

  Letter to the hon. Member for Bristol East from the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People: 31 August 1994
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question asking for the equivalent monetary value in £ per week at April 1994 prices, following table A2 of the latest households below average income report, in 1979, 1990–91 and 1991–92, before and after housing costs, of the decile means and medians of the two poorest decile groups and the richest decile group, and the total population mean of (a) a single adult, (b) a couple with no children, (c) a couple with one child aged three years, (d) a couple with one child aged 16 years, (e) a couple with two children aged three and eight years, (f) a couple with three children aged three, eight and 11 years and (g) a couple with three children aged 11, 16 and 17 years. Unfortunately at the time Alistair Burt was unable to reply and promised to write.
  The information is not available in the precise form requested.
  Reliable estimates of the means of decile groups are not available. The estimates provided therefore follow those in Table A2 of the latest Households Below Average Income report and therefore only show the median of each decile group. It is important to bear in mind that the results do not track what happens to a particular set of individuals and are as likely to be influenced by changes in the mix of groups as changes in income levels within each group. A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library.
  701

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in April 1994 prices, including self employed

  (equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group medians

  Decile 1

  Decile 2

  Decile 10

  Total population

  Income After Housing Costs

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  10-20 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  (mean)

  1979

  Single adult

  41

  52

  173

  92

  Couple no children

  74

  94

  315

  168

  Couple with child aged 3

  87

  111

  371

  198

  Couple with child aged 16

  102

  130

  434

  232

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  104

  133

  444

  237

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  123

  157

  526

  281

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  149

  190

  636

  339

  1990–91

  Single adult

  35

  52

  280

  126

  Couple no children

  64

  94

  509

  228

  Couple with child aged 3

  75

  111

  601

  269

  Couple with child aged 16

  88

  130

  703

  315

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  90

  132

  718

  322

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  106

  157

  851

  381

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  129

  190

  1,029

  461

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in April 1994 prices including self employed

  (equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group medians

  Decile 1

  Decile 2

  Decile 10

  Total population

  Income After Housing Costs

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  10-20 per cent.

  Top 10 per cent.

  (mean)

  1991–92

  Single adult

  34

  52

  281

  126

  Couple no children

  61

  94

  510

  229

  Couple with child aged 3

  72

  111

  602

  270

  Couple with child aged 16

  85

  129

  704

  316

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  86

  132

  719

  323

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  102

  157

  852

  382

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  124

  190

  1,030

  463

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in April 1994 prices, excluding self employed

  (equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group medians

  Income before Housing Costs

  Decile 1 Bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 10 Top 10 per cent.

  Total population (mean)

  1979

  Single adult

  54

  67

  212

  117

  Couple no children

  89

  110

  348

  191

  Couple with child aged 3

  105

  130

  410

  226

  Couple with child aged 16

  120

  150

  473

  260

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  125

  156

  490

  270

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  147

  183

  577

  318

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  175

  218

  685

  377

  1990–91

  Single adult

  54

  71

  332

  156

  Couple no children

  89

  117

  544

  256

  Couple with child aged 3

  105

  138

  642

  302

  Couple with child aged 16

  121

  159

  740

  348

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  126

  165

  767

  361

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  148

  194

  903

  425

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  176

  230

  1,072

  505

  702 703

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in April 1994 prices, excluding self employed

  (equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group medians

  Income Before Housing Costs

  Decile 1 Bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 10 Top 10 per cent.

  Total population (mean)

  1991–92

  Single adult

  55

  72

  333

  157

  Couple no children

  89

  117

  545

  257

  Couple with child aged 3

  106

  139

  644

  303

  Couple with child aged 16

  122

  160

  742

  349

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  126

  166

  769

  362

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  149

  195

  905

  426

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  176

  231

  1,074

  506

  Note:

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in April 1994 prices, excluding self employed

  (equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group medians

  Income After Housing Costs

  Decile 1 Bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 2 10–20 per cent.

  Decile 10 Top 10 per cent.

  Total population (mean)

  1979

  Single adult

  41

  52

  168

  92

  Couple no children

  74

  94

  306

  167

  Couple with child aged 3

  88

  111

  361

  197

  Couple with child aged 16

  102

  130

  422

  230

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  105

  133

  431

  235

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  124

  158

  511

  278

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  150

  191

  618

  337

  1990–91

  Single adult

  38

  52

  271

  124

  Couple no children

  70

  95

  493

  225

  Couple with child aged 3

  83

  112

  581

  265

  Couple with child aged 16

  97

  131

  680

  310

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  99

  134

  695

  317

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  117

  159

  823

  375

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  141

  192

  995

  454

  Money values for the bottom two decile medians, the top decile median and the overall mean for different family types in April 1994 prices, excluding self employed

  (equivalent monetary values in £s per week)

  Group medians

  Income after Housing Costs

  Decile 1 Bottom 10 per cent.

  Decile 10–20 per cent

  Decile 10 Top 10 per cent

  Top population (mean)

  1990–91

  Single adult

  37

  52

  273

  1,248

  Couple no children

  67

  95

  496

  225

  Couple with child aged 3

  80

  112

  586

  266

  Couple with child aged 16

  93

  131

  685

  311

  Couple with child aged 3 and 8

  95

  133

  700

  317

  Couple with child aged 3, 8 and 11

  113

  158

  829

  376

  Couple with child aged 11, 16 and 17

  136

  191

  1,003

  455

  All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the cost of each medical examination carried out by his Department's medical officers on customers claiming sickness benefit for the first time and the cost of each subsequent medical examination of customers in receipt of sickness benefit in(a) the north Tyne area and (b) the south Tyne area for the year ending 31 March; and how many (i) first-time and (ii) other claimants' claims for sickness benefit was
  704
  rejected on the basis of the examining medical officer's report in each area in that year.

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

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. David Clelland, dated 25 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Sickness Benefit (SB)

  705
  recipients in the north and south Tyne areas and the cost of medical examinations.
  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because Benefits Agency boundaries do not correspond with county or borough boundaries. SB recipients in the north Tyne area are dealt with by the Newcastle and north Tyneside district offices; SB recipients in the south Tyne area are dealt with by the south Tyneside district office.
  For the year ending 31 March the number of customers disallowed SB following a Benefits Agency Medical Services report that they were capable of some work was as follows:

  (i) first time claim (where a customer claimed SB for the first time)–5 in the Newcastle and north Tyneside Districts and 5 in the south Tyneside district.

  (ii) other claimants' claims (where a customer has claimed SB in the past)–14 in the Newcastle and north Tyneside districts and 18 in the south Tyneside district.

  Information on the overall cost of Benefits Agency examinations for SB is not available. However, I am able to tell you that the cost in terms of payments to doctors and nurses for each examination is approximately £22.00. The costs of the administrative overheads for SB examinations is not recorded separately from those of other benefits and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women are currently members of an occupational pension scheme; and how many men aged 65 to 69 years and women aged 60 to 64 years are currently in receipt of an occupational pension.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The most recent figures available1 show that in 1991 there were 6·8 million male and 3·9 million female active occupational scheme members2. In the same year there were 0·92 million men aged 65 to 69 years and 0·39 million women aged 60 to 64 years in receipt of an occupational pension.

  Notes:

  1Occupational Pension Schemes 1991. Ninth survey by the Government Actuary.

  2 A member of an occupational pension scheme who is at present accruing benefits under that scheme in respect of current service.

  Automatic Benefit Payments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the project brief for automatic benefit payments accounting systems at post offices allows for the introduction of transaction charges for(a) Post Office operators and (b) benefit claimants.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The system of charges to be paid by the Department of Social Security to Post Office Counters Ltd. for encashments under the automated system will be a matter for negotiation. The system for remunerating individual sub-post offices is a commercial agreement between Post Office Counters Ltd. and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters.

  There is no intention to introduce a transaction charge for benefit claimants.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide information on the level of bank charges paid to date by the Child Support Agency 706
  and the extent to which they have been absorbed by clients' funds temporarily held by the agency.

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Clive Betts dated 25 October 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the level of bank charges paid by the Child Support Agency to date and the extent to which they have been absorbed by client's funds held by the Agency.
  To 31 July 1994, the Agency has paid £173,400 in bank charges. The greater proportion of the Agency's expenditure on bank charges occurs when absent parents use Transcash to make cash payments of maintenance via Girobank. Charges are also made for the use of computer tapes to transfer money to the Client Funds Account. In addition, between April 1993 and March 1994, charges were also incurred in respect of the processing of computer tapes, direct debits, standing orders and the use of the Agency's bank's Head Office collection account for clearing cheques. Invoices for bank charges are received from the Agency's bankers and are paid from the Department of Social Security Administration and Miscellaneous Services Class XIV, Vote 4 account.
  No bank charges have been paid from clients' funds temporarily held by the Agency.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to review the workings of the Child Support Agency.

  Mr. Burt
  The workings of the Child Support Agency are under constant review.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the first report of the chief child support officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Burt
  The report is being published today. The report's findings on the standard of adjudication in the Child Support Agency are disappointing. However, the chief child support officer, Mr. Ernie Hazlewood, recognises the exceptional pressures faced by the agency in its first year and the extremely high level of outside attention focused on staff, many of whom were new to the work. In addition, the deliberate non-co-operation of some absent parents has made the task faced by the agency a very difficult one.

  The Child Support Agency is committed to raising standards of adjudication and many of the difficulties identified in the report were recognised by the agency in its annual report, published in July. The CCSO acknowledges the plans already made by managers to effect improvement. To supplement and reinforce the work already begun, he recommends extra emphasis be given to the key areas of adjudication training, recording of decisions, periodic checks and some specific parts of the formula. The agency clearly has a long way to go to reach an acceptable standard of decision making and considerable difficulties to overcome, but recent monitoring exercises indicate that improvement has already occurred.

  Both the CCSO and I look forward to continuing progress in future years.

  VAT Allowances
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what interdepartmental arrangements he has made to ensure that the moneys paid to pensioners and families as compensation for VAT
  707
  increases are not eroded by being taken into account when other benefits are calculated; and if he will make a statement on how the Government are protecting them against the erosion of their benefits;

  (2) how much money the Government have saved as a result of taking into account the allowance for VAT when other benefits are calculated.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In April 1994, income-related benefits were increased to provide help with VAT on domestic fuel. In April 1995, they will be increased again. Claimants with other benefits that are taken into account in assessing entitlement to an income-related benefit therefore still receive help with the levy. The total package involves expenditure of £2·5 billion over three years.

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce legislation that will take account of absent parents who set themselves up as self-employed in order to avoid maintenance payments.

  Mr. Burt
  None. The formula for assessing liability for child support maintenance applies equally to employed and self-employed parents.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of women who are experiencing difficulties with the Child Support Agency regarding payment of maintenance moneys.

  Mr. Burt
  The information about complaints, difficulties and queries is not collated in the form requested. Some 9,542 complaints and queries relating to the Child Support Agency were recorded between 1 April and 31 August 1994. This figure represents less than 5 per cent. of the cases taken on to that date.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the

  Hospitality Expenditure by Defence Support and Executive Agencies Since Vesting

  Name of Agency

  Date of Vesting

  Financial Year 1990–91 £

  Financial Year 1991–92 £

  Financial Year 1992–93 £

  Financial year 1993–94 £

  Army Base Repair Organisation

  01.04.93

  —

  —

  —

  5,984

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment

  02.04.91

  —

  8,000

  12,000

  10,000

  Defence Accounts Agency

  02.04.91

  —

  670

  717

  452

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  01.07.92

  —

  —

  1,970

  410

  Defence Animal Centre

  01.07.93

  —

  —

  161

  245

  Defence Operational Analysis Centre

  01.07.92

  —

  —

  2,832

  2,098

  Defence Postal and Courier Service

  01.07.92

  —

  —

  933

  1,004

  Defence Research Agency

  02.04.91

  —

  10,147

  4,749

  4,000

  Disposal Sales Agency

  03.10.94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Duke of York's Royal Military School

  01.04.92

  —

  —

  1,915

  1,953

  Hydrographic Office

  06.04.90

  810

  1,602

  2,876

  2,914

  Metreological Office

  02.04.90

  20,712

  25,734

  16,465

  25,206

  Military Survey

  02.04.91

  —

  0

  384

  4,655

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation

  01.04.92

  —

  —

  7,000

  3,000

  Queen Victoria School

  01.04.92

  —

  —

  335

  2,395

  RAF Maintenance Group

  02.04.92

  —

  —

  0

  0

  RAF Training Group

  01.04.94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Service Children School North West Europe

  02.04.91

  —

  0

  77

  308

  Total

  21,522

  46,153

  52,414

  64,624

  708
  first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Hague
  No such receptions are held.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. Hague
  On one occasion, at a cost of £538·48. Such travel has not been undertaken at a Minister's own cost.

DEFENCE

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Soames
  The amounts spent by my Department on official entertainment, refreshments and protocol entertainment for each year since 1990 are:

  1990–91—£3,900,000

  1991–92—£4,100,000

  1992–93—£4,950,000

  1993–94—£4,580,000

  These figures include expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence headquarters, by formations and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable.

  Expenditure on official hospitality by agencies is the repsonsibility of individual chief executives under the terms of their framework documents. The figures are as follows:

  Nerve Gas
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantities of nerve gas stocks have been disposed of; what locations were used for this dumping; and what monitoring has been done subsequently of these sites.

  Mr. Soames
  The United Kingdom has undertaken the disposal of sizeable quantities of nerve agents on three occasions since 1946. In 1946, British forces disposed of some 3,000 tons of captured German WWII munitions containing nerve agent in hulks scuttled in the Skagerrak. An additional 17,000 tons of captured German munitions were similarly dumped at sea in the north Atlantic in 1955–56. No subsequent monitoring of the Atlantic dump sites was undertaken in view of their depth—over 2,000 m—and because, on exposure to sea water, nerve agents rapidly decompose to non-toxic compounds through dilution and hydrolysis. Monitoring of the Skagerrak sites by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment in 1990 and the Swedish Maritime Department in. 1992 showed no evidence of nerve agents or their decomposition products.

  Finally, some 20 tons of nerve agent produced prior to 1956 was destroyed by chemical hydrolysis and dilution at the former Chemical Defence Establishment, Nancekuke, Cornwall in 1968. Following tests to ensure the hydrolysed material was harmless to the marine environment, it was discharged into the sea. Additionally, from time to time, small quantities of agents are destroyed routinely by chemical methods and incineration at CBDE, Porton Down.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department, or the Chemical and Biological Defence Agency, gave the producers of the "Network First" programme, "The Secrets of Porton Down", broadcast on 11 October.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment. I have asked the chief executive of the CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 26 October 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what assistance his Department, or the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, gave the producers of the Network First programme on the "Secrets of Potion Down", broadcast on 11 October has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The producers of the Network First programme broadcast on 11 October 1994 first approached this Establishment on 6 December 1993 to say that they had been commissioned by the ITV Network to make a one hour documentary programme looking at the history of chemical and biological warfare research in Britain for transmission in 1994. This was followed by a meeting with the Director and Associate Producer of the programme in the Ministry of Defence with the Head of News and myself. We were provided with an outline of the programme which said, that it would look at the history of British research into chemical and biological warfare and defence and assess its current status. They made it clear that they felt that CBDE Porton Down had made a very significant contribution to chemical and biological defence and wished to examine the direction of such defence now that the East-West situation had relaxed and the Chemical Weapons Convention had been opened signature and steps were being taken to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention.
  3. This was followed by a reconnaissance visit by the Director and Associate Producer to CBDE Porton Down on Friday 14
  710
  January 1994. This led to a request dated 20 January 1994 which stated that this was an appropriate moment to take stock of the history and development of chemical and biological warfare and defence, a history in which Porton Down had played a leading role for almost 80 years. Requests were made for filming facilities at CBDE Porton Down together with an interview with myself. Such filming and the interview which lasted for about three hours took place on 3 and 10 February 1994. In addition, CBDE provided on loan to the producers five CBDE films and four video tapes.
  4. Our practice over the past decade has been to respond positively to requests from media for facilities at CBDE Porton Down and these have generally succeeded in giving a far wider public perception of the role of CBDE which is to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons might be used against them. This improved public perception has also been aided by CBDE being a Defence Agency since April 1991 resulting in the publication of Annual Reports and Accounts. In addition, in July 1994, we launched a new brochure "Protecting Through Scientific Understanding" together with an accompanying video.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men or women have died as a result of experiments undertaken on them with chemical or biological warfare agents at Porton Down Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 26 October, 1994:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him how many Service personnel have died as a result of experiments undertaken on them with chemical or biological warfare agents at Potion Down CBDE has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to ensure that the UK Armed Forces have effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. In order to carry out this work, it is necessary to use service volunteers to:

  a. assess the ability of service personnel to function to function with new equipment and procedures,

  b. develop medical countermeasures to protect Service personnel and

  c. evaluate the effects of very low and medically safe concentrations of CW agents on the ability of unprotected personnel to operate normally.

  No studies involving volunteers are carried out unless there is a clear military need and a detailed protocol has been reviewed and approved by an independent Ethics Committee in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Royal College of Physicians.
  3. Since the start of the Service volunteer programme in the 1920s, there has been a single fatality in 1953 as reported in the Official Report (9 June 1953, Volume 516, Column 7–8 and 22 June 1953, Volume 516, Column 105) when Leading Aircraftsman Ronald Maddison died from the effects of asphyxia after taking part in a trial at the then Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment at Porton Down. A detailed inquiry was then held into the circumstances and following this inquiry which was carried out by eminent independent scientists, new guidelines were laid down to ensure the safety of Service volunteers. In the subsequent 40 years, there has been no fatality nor has there been any evidence that any Service volunteers have suffered deterioration in their health as a result of participating in studies at Porton Down.

  Upholder Submarines
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the Government's intentions for the Upholder submarines.

  Mr. Freeman
  In the light of the changes in the strategic environment, the Upholder class is being withdrawn from service. HMS Unicorn, the last of the four boats, will pay off next month. We are currently examining options for their sale, lease or storage, bearing in mind the investment which they represent. No decisions have yet been taken.

  Ammunition Contracts
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the financial effect on the British defence manufacturing industry of the placing of ammunition contracts with foreign manufacturers by the Ministry of Defence under the advice of Mr. Gordon Foxley.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not possible to say with any certainty what impact Foxley's corrupt activities in the field of fuse manufacture had on British defence manufacturing industry.

  Contracts
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all contracts tendered for, and handled in any way on behalf of, Saudi Arabia by his Department acting as agents for the Saudi Arabian Government; which firms tendered for, or were awarded, those contracts; and which business agents were appointed in connection with these contracts.

  Mr. Freeman
  Equipment supplied under the Al-Yamamah programme includes Tornado and Hawk aircraft and naval minesweepers along with associated equipment, support and infrastructure. Further orders for Tornado and training aircraft have been announced since January 1993. Details of the contracts are confidential between the British and Saudi Arabian Governments. The British Government have not employed business agents in connection with these contracts.

  Catering
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the difference in the allowances per service man for catering purposes per day in(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force; if he will set out each allowance; and what factors underlie the differences between the amounts.

  Mr. Soames
  The allowances per day for catering purposes are based on a ration scale costed at current prices and known as the daily messing rate. The ration scale is the same for personnel of all three services.

  The scale is costed according to the supply source of food items. Where the source of supply is more expensive due to local conditions the daily messing rate is higher to take account of extra costs. For ships and submarines a slightly different scale is used to take account of their special circumstances.

  A general overseas ration scale exists for overseas bases and attachments. This scale has a higher calorific value to take account of conditions such as heat, cold and humidity. The rate applicable to units abroad will also
  712
  depend on prices in the local economy for food stuffs which are bought locally.

  Examples of daily messing rates for October 1994 are:

  £

  Army, RAF and RN Shore establishments (including Germany and Hong Kong)

  1·75

  RN ships and submarines

  1·86

  Falklands

  2·03

  Cyprus

  1·93

  Gibraltar

  2·07

  Where personnel are in special circumstances or performing duties which require extra energy—such as divers or members of mountain rescue teams—they are entitled to supplementary allowances.

  Royal Marines
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the investment appraisals in respect of the 16 Deal-based options referred to in paragraph 8 of the consultative document dated 17 October 1994 entitled "Future Location of Royal Marines Training".

  Mr. Soames
  I have written to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter is being placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what alternative defence uses are being considered for RAF Finningley.

  Mr. Soames
  No alternative defence uses have yet been identified for RAF Finningley. In accordance with departmental procedures, however, a full inter-service trawl will be undertaken in parallel with the consultation period to identify any possible alternative defence uses, in the event that a decision to close RAF Finningley is taken after formal consultation.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures will be followed if the MOD decides to dispose of the RAF Finningley site.

  Mr. Soames
  If it is decided to dispose of RAF Finningley, standard departmental procedures would be followed. This would include discussions with the local authority on future use and the appointment of consultants to advise on a disposal strategy and optimum method of sale.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will hold discussions with Doncaster metropolitan borough council and the local regeneration partnership on how RAF Finningley could become a joint military and civilian airfield.

  Mr. Soames
  The proposal to close RAF Finningley will be subject to full consultation with trade unions and other interested parties. I would be happy to receive details of any substantive proposals regarding future use the site that Doncaster metropolitan borough council may wish to put forward as part of the consultation process.

  Appropriation Accounts
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff were involved in the movements in the
  713
  public interest which led to the expenditure recorded in the notes to class I, vote 1 of the Appropriation Accounts 1993–94.

  Mr. Soames
  Seven staff received special payments following a move in the public interest.

  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many countries are covered by the £20,315,000 in forgone receipts referred to in the other notes to class I, vote 1 of the Appropriation Accounts 1993–94.

  Mr. Soames
  Thirty-six countries are covered by the £20,315,000 in forgone receipts referred to in the other notes to class 1 vote 1 of the appropriation accounts 1993–94.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he proposes to take to make low flying avoidance areas public.

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans to alter my Department's policy of not releasing specific details of flying restrictions in individual areas.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made to introduce flight simulators as a substitute for low flying sorties.

  Mr. Soames
  The use of flight simulators is an integral part of our training programme. However, the performance characteristics of current simulator technology do not provide an acceptable substitute for low flying training. We do, however, continue to monitor closely developments in this area of technology.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make all non-United Kingdom air crews included in low flying over the United Kingdom subject to the jurisdiction of the RAF police.

  Mr. Soames
  All foreign military aircrews operating within the United Kingdom low flying system are subject to the same flying regulations as apply to United Kingdom aircrews. The RAF police are responsible for investigating alleged breaches of the regulations, whether United Kingdom or foreign aircrews were involved. In the event that a breach of regulations is confirmed, jurisdiction, in terms of disciplinary action, rests initially with the commanding officer of the aircrew concerned or, in the case of foreign aircrew, with their relevant national authorities, not with the RAF police.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which NATO countries allow low flying training below 250 ft; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member as this information is not readily available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce an independent system of investigation of public complaints about alleged breaches of low flying regulations by low-flying aircraft over the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  No. We are satisfied that the existing system is impartial, effective and best placed to investigate public complaints about alleged breaches of low flying regulations, and therefore see no reason to introduce such a system.

  Bird-strike Incidents
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of observed birds or intensity of bird activity specified in the bird warning movement message for the Aberlady bay area on the morning of 30 September.

  Mr. Soames
  There was no bird hazard warning issued for the Aberlady bay area on the morning in question.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the date, location, aircraft type, altitude and damage category for all bird-strike incidents involving military aircraft in the Forth estuary area since 1990.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice is given to military aircrew concerning the minimum altitude at which aircraft should cross coastlines in order to reduce the risk of bird-strike.

  Mr. Soames
  Aircrew are advised that, wherever possible, coastlines should be crossed at a minimum height of 500 ft, but preferably 1,000 ft.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's practice to organise such events. Those who express an interest in public appointments without specifying a particular body are referred to the public appointments unit of the Cabinet Office who have their own arrangements for publishing the requirements and opportunities of such appointments.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Soames
  Since the beginning of 1994, Ministers in my Department have been accompanied by their spouses on public duties overseas on five occasions. On each of those occasions the extra cost to the Department would have been either negligible or nil, as the spouses in question travelled on RAF aircraft which were already assigned to the visit, and on four occasions were accommodated in official residences.

  On one occasion a Minister and his spouse were accommodated in a hotel but in a room that the Minister would have occupied if he had not been accompanied.

  Procedures outlined in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" were followed in all cases.

  Japan (Plutonium)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the proliferation risks associated with the transport of plutonium from Europe to Japan were
  715
  discussed at the NATO-Japan third security conference in Brussels held on 19 to 20 October.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I have been asked to reply.

  During its recent meeting the third NATO-Japan security conference took careful note of the requirement for maintaining the highest standards of protection for all fissile material.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Rwanda
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European counterparts regarding the provision of European Union aid for rehabilitation and reconstruction in Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the outcome of the recent EU troika visit to Rwanda with his European colleagues at the EU Foreign Affairs Council on 4 October. There was broad agreement on the need for continuing humanitarian aid, for short-term rehabilitation programmes to encourage the return of refugees and for longer-term resumption of development co-operation.

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy regarding aid funding for economically unsound projects.

  Mr. Baldry
  It is our policy to finance projects only after rigorous appraisal against economic, financial, technical, social and environmental criteria.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what test of economic efficiency is applied to projects seeking financial assistance under the aid programme.

  Mr. Baldry
  Projects should at least match the economic rate of return appropriate to the recipient country. Where no rate of return is calculated, cost-effectiveness is tested by comparing alternative ways of achieving project objectives. The methodology used in economic appraisal is set out in the ODA's publication"Appraisal of Projects in Developing Countries—a Guide for Economists", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requirement for economic efficiency in individual aid projects is included in the Overseas Development Administration's priority objective of promoting economic reform.

  Mr. Baldry
  Most aid for internationally agreed economic reform programmes has been in the form of balance of payments support. Project aid in support of reform is largely in the form of technical assistance. That is not usually susceptible to appraisal for economic efficiency, but is carefully assessed for cost-effectiveness.

  Belize
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all Overseas Development Administration projects in Belize with the costs involved.
  716
  Mr. Baldry
  A list of current Overseas Development Administration projects in Belize which are costed in excess of £50,000 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. In addition to those projects, the British high commission in Belize has an allocation of £100,000 to finance small projects of a developmental, social or welfare nature.

  Project Title

  Commitment(£)

  Airport Terminal (Construction)

  2,800,000

  Big Falls Bridge

  1,334,116

  Northern Highway Project

  563,604

  Stann Creek Valley Road

  7,096,000

  Police Radios Project

  565,094

  Toledo Agricultural Research and Development Appraisal

  80,000

  Plant Protection Project

  787,000

  Tropical Forestry Action Plan

  120,000

  Mountain Pine Ridge Inventory

  55,485

  Forest Management Project

  3,732,000

  Land Survey; North Belize

  325,527

  Rural Physical Planner

  117,500

  Civil Aviation Authority Chief Fire Officer

  120,000

  Architectural Advice

  150,000

  Education Support In-service Project

  90,000

  World Bank Education Project

  1,000,000

  Drug Demand Reduction

  134,000

  Total

  19,070,326

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the 1992 review of the aid and trade provision.

  Mr. Baldry
  The new arrangements for the administration of the aid and trade provision referred to in the reply which my hon. Friend the Member for Morecombe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on 17 June 1993,Official Report, column 675-76, took effect on that date.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is providing for the elections in Mozambique.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have contributed about £2·2 million to the United Nations Development Programme's electoral assistance project, including our share of the EC's contribution. We have also contributed £500,000 to the UN Trust Fund for the Implementation of the Peace Process in Mozambique to help RENAMO transform itself into a political party.

  We are providing 30 British observers for the UN and EU international election observers teams. Several United Kingdom parliamentarians are also attending under other auspices.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to maintain humanitarian assistance to the Kurdish
  717
  population of northern Iraq, following recent events in the Gulf region.

  Mr. Baldry
  Saddam's threatening actions near the Kuwaiti border have not affected our plans for aid for northern Iraq. We have committed some £4·7 million this year for medical assistance and village rehabilitation. We shall continue to keep in touch with the Kurdish administration, UN agencies, NGOs and others involved in northern Iraq.

  Haiti
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what economic or other aid he plans for the United Kingdom to give to President Aristide of Haiti.

  Mr. Baldry
  We are ready to consider assistance for police training once security conditions have allowed the UN mission in Haiti to deploy. We have also agreed in principle to the resumption of EU aid. Haiti's national indicative programme for the period 1990–95 will be 120 mecu—£94 million—of which the United Kingdom share will be £15 million. This will be implemented as soon as the EU and Haiti agree priority sectors.

  Third World Department
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning third world debt.

  Mr. Baldry
  By long-standing convention, discussions of this nature between Departments are confidential.

  Albania
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount of bilateral aid given by the United Kingdom to Albania in each of the last three years; and if he will list the main projects to have benefited from this aid.

  Mr. Baldry
  Total United Kingdom bilateral aid to Albania for the last three financial years was:

  £

  1991–92

  615,000

  1992–93

  417,000

  1993–94

  1921,000

  1Provisional figure

  A large proportion of this was emergency aid, mostly food and medicines: £615,000 in 1991–92; £371,000 in 1992–93; and £501,000 in 1993–94. The remainder, £46,000 in 1992–93 and £420,000 in 1993–94, consists of funds disbursed under the know-how fund, Britain's programme of technical assistance for the countries of central and eastern Europe. The KHF was extended to
  718
  Albania in June 1992. The main projects completed or under way are:
  a one year placement for a British agricultural consultant to assist the National Agency for State Farms with the process of privatisation (completed);
  a two year project to assist the development of private farmers associations (ongoing);
  funding of volunteers from East European Partnership (EEP) to work on a major EU PHARE business advice and training project for regional business centres (ongoing);
  a two year training programme for local government finance officers to help implement new local government legislation (ongoing);
  placement of a haematologist to assist the Director of the Tirana Blood Bank with the transition to a voluntary system of blood donation (ongoing);
  a grant for EEP volunteers to provide training and consultancy advice at the home for Mentally Handicapped Children in Berat (ongoing);
  a project to improve the quality and supply of water by Korca water company. The project will also produce a manual of good practice to be used elsewhere in Albania (ongoing);
  a project to train Albanian geoscientists in coastal zone management and to help establish a Coastal Geology Unit in Albania (ongoing);
  a programme of consultancy and training for the Albanian prison service, provided by Her Majesty's Prison Service (ongoing);
  a series of visits to and from Albania by members of the Devon Fire Service and Albanian fire officers, culminating in a training course for 14 Albanians in Devon in November 1994 (ongoing);
  a publishing seminar organised by International Book Development (IBD) Training as part of a larger World Bank programme designed to develop an approach to textbook provision appropriate to Albania (completed).

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of multilateral aid packages given to Albania in which the United Kingdom or the European Union has contributed.

  Mr. Baldry
  Several multilateral agencies to which Britain makes a regular contribution are active in Albania.

  The EU's PHARE programme was extended to Albania in 1992. In 1992 and 1993 a total of 53 mecu—£42 million—was disbursed on a number of projects in agriculture, private sector development, health, transport, environment, public administration and higher education. Britain contributes approximately 16 per cent. of the total PHARE budget, which, in 1994, represents about £7 million for Albania.

  The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, in which the British Government have an 8·5 per cent. shareholding, has approved loans totalling 34 mecu—£26·5 million—for investment projects in Albania. It has also committed 4·7 mecu—£3·6 million—to technical co-operation projects in telecommunications, finance, energy, the environment and tourism.

  Since it began lending to Albania, the International Development Association has approved a total of US$138 million in development credits, of which $87 million remained undisbursed on 30 June 1994. During the IDA 1993–94 financial year, it approved credits for housing, labour market development, social safety net development, water rehabilitation and school rehabilitation. The UK contributed 6·15 per cent. to the latest IDA replenishment—IDA–10—in July 1993.

  Three UN agencies, UNICEF, the UNDP and WHO, are active in Albania. UNICEF, which received $8·5 million from Britain this financial year, has a $6 million

  719
  programme for Albania covering the years 1993–95. WHO has a $50,000 programme in albania for 1994–95 and the UNDP a $6 million budget for the same period. The UK contributes approximately 5 per cent. of the annual global budget of both agencies.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet Scottish Enterprise officials to discuss future financial allocations and priorities.

  Mr. Stewart
  As my right hon. Friend said in his earlier reply to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, (Dr. Reid) he plans to meet the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise next month.

  Assured Tenants
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many assured tenants there are in Scottish Housing Association dwellings.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 31 March 1994, there were over 40,000 assured tenancies representing 60 per cent. of the total housing association stock.

  Commercial Property Market
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the workings of the commercial property market in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations about the workings of the commercial property market in Scotland.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has in respect of homelessness in Scotland.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received relating to the statutory duty on local authorities to provide permanent accommodation for homeless; and what percentage of these representations favoured retention of this statutory duty.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have received nearly 160 responses to our consultation paper. Ninety-seven per cent. of the consultees expressed strong support for the retention of local housing authorities' duty to provide permanent accommodation for unintentionally homeless people in priority need. We are now considering the responses to all of the questions posed and we shall announce our decisions in due course.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet the Scottish Council of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss its manufacturing industry study.

  Mr. Lang
  I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry maintain regular contact with the Scottish Council of the CBI on a wide range of issues.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet his European colleagues to discuss the entry qualification for higher education.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I plan to attend the next meeting of EC Education Ministers on 5 December in Brussels. Entry qualifications to higher education are not on the agenda on that occasion. The Scottish Office Education Department is represented at a Council of Europe conference beginning today on recognition of higher education qualifications.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss youth unemployment.

  Mr. Lang
  I have no plans to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss youth unemployment, although we correspond regularly about a range of issues.

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many general practitioner fundholding practices there are now in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  According to the latest information provided by health boards there are currently 107 operational fundholders in Scotland.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current estimate of the costs of local government reform in Strathclyde and Lothian region.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government's estimate of the costs and savings that will result from its proposals to reorganise local government in Scotland has been calculated on a Scotland-wide basis, and has not been disaggregated to individual local authority level.

  Forestry Commission
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the future of the Forestry Commission.

  Sir Hector Munro
  I have nothing to add at this stage to the statement to the House by my right hon. Friend on 19 July 1994 and the command paper "Our Forests—The Way Ahead" published in August, which explained the Government's proposals in greater detail. We have invited views on our proposals. These should be submitted by 18 November.

  Economy
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish economy.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Scottish economy is advancing on a broad front. Output is increasing across a range of sectors and exports are at a record level. Unemployment has been falling and the September level was the lowest for three years. The latest business survey evidence points to continued confidence in virtually all sectors and to
  721
  increasing investment expectations on the part of manufacturers. Business forecasts predict continuing steady growth this year and next. These positive trends are greatly to be welcomed and amply demonstrate the success of the Government's policies for the economy.

  Hardwood Trees
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what acreage of hardwood trees is felled on average each year; and what is the rate of re-planting.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No record is kept of the area of broadleaved woodlands which is felled each year. Nevertheless, the felling of woodland in Britain is controlled through felling licences and the woodland grant scheme. These ensure that practically all felled woodland is replanted, and that broadleaved woodland is replanted with broadleaved trees.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about water charges.

  Mr. Stewart
  Water charges have risen in recent years and will continue to do so to finance the new investment of some £5 billion needed for water and sewerage over the next 15 years or so. The new structure for Scottish water and sewerage services proposed in the Local Government etc (Scotland) Bill is designed to keep increases as low as possible. The three new public authorities will be expected to secure economies of scale and maximise operational efficiency.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the number of hospital beds in Glasgow will be sufficient for future needs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for Greater Glasgow health board in consultation with the NHS trusts in its area to assess the volume of service for the Glasgow population in consideration of a needs assessment of the current and future needs of the local population.

  "Higher Still: Opportunity for All"
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made with regard to the implementation of the proposals contained in his document, "Higher Still: Opportunity for All".

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Good progress is being made. The committee structure which will deliver the new system of courses and awards for upper secondary education in Scotland is now in place and has commenced its work. In addition, a development unit has been established to co-ordinate development activities.

  Housing
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of tenants groups to discuss housing in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet tenants' organisations to discuss housing in Scotland but I often meet tenants in the course 722
  of my housing visits to local authorities throughout Scotland.

  Unemployment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the change in the number of unemployed in Scotland since December 1992.

  Mr. Stewart
  Between December 1992 and September 1994, the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment in Scotland fell by 24,000.

  Rivers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on measures to combat acidification of rivers in Scotland.

  Sir Hector Munro
  The main source of acidification of rivers in Scotland is acid rain caused by atmospheric pollution. The Government are a signatory to the recent European sulphur protocol which binds all European countries to reduce emissions of sulphur, a significant contributor to acid rain, during the next 15 to 20 years.

  Our primary vehicle for achieving reductions in emissions of acid gases from major industrial sources is the United Kingdom national plan to meet the requirements of the EC large combustion plants directive. Under this plan, Scotland is separately responsible for delivering its own reductions in emissions of sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen within specified overall UK limits.

  Public Sector Jobs
  Mr. Harry Greenaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish jobs are in the public sector; what is their cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  In 1993, public sector employment in Scotland is estimated to have been as follows: civil service 53,000; NHS 139,000; local government 304,000; HM armed forces 19,000; and national industries approximately 30,000.

  The above total of 545,000 excludes employment in other central Government occupations and other public corporations. The NHS figure includes those employed in NHS trusts, but excludes medical and dental practitioners, who are treated as self-employed. The local government figures exclude those employed in further education.

  An estimate of the total cost is not available

  Approximately one in four workers in Scotland are in the public sector, a slightly higher proportion than in the UK as a whole. This includes part-time as well as full-time workers.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss local government reorganisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and I are scheduled to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 11 November as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters. It is likely that issues relating to local government reorganisation will be discussed at that meeting.

  Ports Assistance
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outcome of his representations to the European Commission on the eligibility of the ports of Cairnryan and Stranraer for assistance under various EC initiatives.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  I expect that projects to develop facilities and access at the ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan will be eligible to compete for a share of the 47 million ecu to be made available to Dumfries and Galloway under objective 5b of the structural funds over the period 1994 to 1999. This follows the Government's success in securing objective 5b status for the region. The Commission have decided that the two ports will not be eligible to receive assistance under the INTERREG community initiative.

  New Town Development Corporations
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current position on the winding up of the new town development corporations.

  Mr. Stewart
  The annual report of each new town development corporation for the year ending 31 March 1994 sets out progress with winding-up. Copies of the reports are available from the Library of the House. We remain committed to achieving the wind-up of East Kilbride and Glenrothes by 31 December 1995, and the other three towns by 31 December 1996, and plans to do this are in place.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Water Services Association and the DOE Northern Ireland in respect of the review of the EC drinking water directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The water industry has made my right hon. Friend aware of its views, supported by COSLA, on the review of the EC drinking water directive. The Government will take these views into account when negotiating the revision of the directive.

  Forth Bridge
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultation he has carried out in respect of the environmental effects of the proposal to build a second road bridge across the River Forth.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The "Setting Forth" feasibility studies considered the environmental effects of a wide range of transport proposals, including a new bridge across the Forth. Full reports of the studies have been passed to Scottish Natural Heritage, local authorities and other bodies, and we look forward to receiving their detailed comments.

  Traffic Regulation Orders
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the temporary traffic regulation orders for which he has authorised an extension under section 15(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended by the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991,724
  stating in each case (a) the name of the authority making the order, (b) the public rights of way stopped up by the order, (c) the duration of the extension and (d) why he granted the extension.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State for Scotland has authorised an extension under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as amended by the Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991 to one temporary traffic regulation order made by Highland regional council, which temporarily closed the U87 Wick to Noss Head road for a length of approximately 480 m for a six month period from 9 February to 9 August 1994 to allow time for him to determine the permanent Highland Regional Council (Wick Airport Road) (U87) (Stopping-up) Order 1993.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new patients with glaucoma were referred to out-patient departments for each year from 1985 until the last for which current figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Health Care International
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he was first informed that Health Care International in Clydebank had financial difficulties; and what action he has taken to alleviate these difficulties.

  Mr. Stewart
  Officials of Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise have been involved in discussions about this company's financial position over the last two months, and my right hon. Friend has been kept informed of developments.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what Government assistance has been given to Health Care International in Clydebank; and what has been its total value.

  Mr. Stewart
  Total assistance offered to this project amounted to some £30 million, the largest single element of which was an offer of £22 million in regional selective assistance. This relates to total investment in the project of £180 million.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie of 4 August about Health Care International in Clydebank.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State replied to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie on 21 October. I hope that he has now received that reply.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what dates in the past two years his representatives have met with, or had other contact with, representatives of Health Care International from Clydebank.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend's officials have had regular contact with the company over this period.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what way the Government's loan to Health Care International was secured.

  Mr. Stewart
  An unsecured loan was advanced to the company, by Scottish Enterprise, under the terms of its
  725
  leg-up scheme. There has been no other loan from the Government or its agencies.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if all the intended regional selective assistance has now been paid to Health Care International in Clydebank; and what is the cash value of this assistance.

  Mr. Stewart
  An offer of £22 million in regional selective assistance was made to the company, not all of which has been paid.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who owns the site on which Health Care International's hospital in Clydebank is situated.

  Mr. Stewart
  The site is owned by the company.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Health Care International has fully paid for its hospital in Clydebank.

  Mr. Stewart
  This is a matter for the company.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what undertakings Health Care International have given to him about its relationship with the national health service.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  HCI has consistently stated that its objective is to complement and not compete with the NHS.

  The authorisation of the construction of the Clydebank hospital given in 1987 by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) the then Secretary of State for Scotland, contained conditions about staffing, reimbursement of nurse training costs and supply of blood and blood products. A copy of the authorisation is in the Library.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to send work to(a) Health Care International and (b) other private hospitals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]None. Individual health boards are free to purchase health care from HCI where the hospital can offer specific medical techniques not readily available elsewhere or where the NHS sees a need for waiting lists to be reduced more quickly than the service itself is in a position to achieve. This position applies equally for all independent providers.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received the study ordered by Health Care International from Ernst and Whinney into the size of the market for an American hospital; what conclusions he drew from its report; and when he investigated Health Care International's forecasts as to when it would achieve its capacity.

  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 24 October 1994]The study was undertaken in 1987 and formed part of the information on which decisions were taken concerning the hospital.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to safeguard jobs and beds at NHS hospitals in Greater Glasgow and Health Care International in Clydebank.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Greater Glasgow health board is currently preparing its strategy for acute and maternity services in Glasgow. This will outline the future level of NHS provision of services and will be subject to full public consultation. Officials of Locate in Scotland are currently engaged in unrelated discussions 726
  about the financial restructuring of HCI with a view to securing its future.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what occasions he has met the founders of Health Care International or their representatives.

  Mr. Stewart
  My right hon. Friend met the founders of the company or its representatives on four occasions between October 1987 and June of this year.

  Investors in People Award
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employers in each TEC area have been given the investors in people award; how many have made a commitment to meeting the standard; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The operation in Scotland of Investors in People is the responsibility of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department organises receptions for those expressing an interest in public appointments for the first time; how often they are held; what is the annual cost; and how many people attend.

  Mr. Lang
  No receptions are organised for people expressing interest in public appointments.

  PE Teachers
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many physical education teachers were employed by local education authorities in each year since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information for years in which data were collected is set out in the table.

  Number (full-time equivalents) of physical education teachers in Scottish education authority secondary schools

  Year (at September)

  Number

  1979

  2,008

  1980

  1,998

  1981

  1,934

  1982

  1,896

  1983

  11,862

  1984

  11,792

  1985

  not available

  1986

  not available

  1987

  1,698

  1988

  1,614

  1989

  not available

  1990

  1,610

  1991

  not available

  1992

  1,611

  1993

  not available

  1estimated

  Planning (Public Inquiries)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to announce his decision in the public local inquiry held under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 into the provision of a supermarket in Anstruther.
  727
  Mr. Stewart
  The reporter who heard evidence at the public local inquiry into the proposed supermarket in Anstruther will shortly submit a report, with recommendations, to my right hon. Friend. Every effort will be made to issue a decision by the end of the year.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public local inquiries under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 have been held in each of the last 10 years for which information is available.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Year

  Number

  1984

  150

  1985

  147

  1986

  163

  1987

  123

  1988

  125

  1989

  132

  1990

  171

  1991

  129

  1992

  111

  1993

  215

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current establishment of the planning inquiry reporting unit of the Scottish Development Department; and what vacancies there are.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Chief Reporter

  Deputy Chief Reporter

  Principal Reporters–2

  Reporters–10

  Administrative Supportive Staff–25

  Secretarial and typing staff–4

  These figures include the two additional reporter posts which were created and filled earlier this year.

  The current complement of the panel of part-time reporters is 16 including four part-time reporters who were recruited recently. There are no vacancies at present in the Unit.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many public local inquiries held under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 in 1993 he has yet to announce a decision.

  Mr. Stewart
  There are at the present time four cases awaiting determination.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates and subjects of the public local inquiries in north-east Fife held under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 in which he has yet to announce a decision.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is as follows:

  Inquiry Dates

  Subjects

  16 and 22–31 March 1993

  Proposed retail developments at Crawmill farm, Crail road, part of the holiday camp site and St. Andrews road, Anstruther.

  31 August 1994

  Proposed timeshare chalet, development at Brownhills Cottage, by St. Andrews.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the capital receipts from the sale of school playing fields for each of the last six years by education authority;

  (2) if he will list the number of school playing fields by local education authority for (a) 1979, (b) 1983, (c) 1987, (d) 1992 and (e) the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not held centrally within the Scottish Office.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of reported cases of salmonellosis in Scotland in each year since 1979; and what is the latest available figure for this year.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The total numbers of cases of salmonella infection reported by laboratories to the Scottish centre for infection and environmental health are as follows. These figures do not necessarily reflect the total incidence of the infection in the community, since doctors do not routinely send specimens from every case for laboratory confirmation.

  Year

  Number of Notifications

  1979

  1,483

  1980

  1,577

  1981

  2,526

  1982

  2,621

  1983

  2,288

  1984

  2,221

  1985

  1,690

  1986

  2,015

  1987

  2,286

  1988

  2,580

  1989

  2,578

  1990

  2,441

  1991

  2,330

  1992

  2,992

  1993

  2,919

  19941

  2,401

  1as at 14 October

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest figure for the number of cases of food poisoning reported in Scotland in 1994.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of 3,380 cases of food poisoning were reported in Scotland during the period 1 January to 14 October 1994.

  Medical Appointments (Aberdeen)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on the number of patients from(a) Orkney and (b) Shetland who have travelled to Aberdeen for medical appointments at the Aberdeen Royal Hospitals trust or the Grampian Health Care trust, and have been returned home without the appointment having taken place, in each year since 1 April 1992, and from 1 April 1994 to 30 September 1994.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not held centrally. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind, I suggest he takes it up direct with the relevant health board.

  Schools
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools within each education authority area in Scotland currently have school boards; and how many (i) primary

  Primary Schools

  Secondary Schools

  Schools

  With Boards

  Schools

  With Boards

  Borders

  73

  45

  9

  9

  Central

  116

  86

  18

  17

  Dumfries and Galloway

  116

  84

  16

  16

  Fife

  145

  100

  19

  16

  Grampian

  274

  175

  38

  33

  Highland

  199

  137

  27

  23

  Lothian

  240

  156

  46

  43

  Strathclyde

  887

  736

  172

  160

  Tayside

  187

  114

  32

  30

  Orkney

  24

  13

  6

  6

  Shetland

  35

  20

  9

  9

  Western Isles

  45

  25

  16

  14

  SCOTLAND TOTAL

  2,341

  1,691

  408

  376

  Note:

  1. Schools as at September 1993.

  2. Schools with Boards in existence at 31 May 1994.

  NHS Helpline
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many calls have been made to the NHS helpline for each month since its establishment; and how much the Scottish Office has spent in establishing, publicising and administering the helpline.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The cost of setting up the NHS helpline was £72,401. Since it became operational in October 1992, expenditure on administration of the service totals £303,585 and expenditure on publicity totals £108,241. The total number of calls, both interactive and non-interactive, received each month by the NHS helpline since it came into operation is as follows:

  Date

  Number

  29 October–20 November 1992

  759

  21 November–19 December 1992

  710

  19 December–15 January 1993

  674

  16 January–12 February 1993

  1,303

  13 February–12 March 1993

  1,140

  13 March–9 April 1993

  1,214

  10 April–7 May 1993

  834

  8 May–4 June 1993

  975

  5 June–2 July 1993

  1,128

  3 July—30 July 1993

  1,236

  31 July–27 August 1993

  861

  28 August–24 September 1993

  801

  25 September–22 October 1993

  1,059

  23 October–19 November 1993

  765

  20 November–17 December 1993

  644

  18 December 1993–14 January 1994

  561

  15 January–11 February 1994

  956

  12 February–11 March 1994

  1,039

  12 March–8 April 1994

  790

  9 April–6 May 1994

  1,165

  7 May—3 June 1994

  824

  4 June–1 July 1994

  1,280

  2 July–29 July 1994

  1,204

  30 July–26 August 1994

  1,056

  730
  schools and (ii) secondary schools there are in each education authority area in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information reflecting the outcome of the 1993–94 round of biennial parental elections, is as follows:

  Date

  Number

  27 August–23 September 1994

  1,218

  24 September–25 October

  4,007

  TOTAL

  28,203

  Water and Sewerage Boards
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures the Scottish Office has taken to recruit the chairmen and senior management of the proposed water and sewerage boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  Normal procedures for appointments to public bodies are being followed. Executive search consultants have been contracted to assist in the recruitment of chief executives. Additionally, invitations have been issued to Confederation of British Industry, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, National Farmers Union of Scotland, Scottish Consumer Council, Scottish Landowners Federation, and Scottish Trades Union Congress to offer suggestions for appointments to the membership of the new authorities. Suggestions from these organisations, and others, are now being considered.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which private companies the Scottish Office has engaged to advise or assist in the recruitment of the chairmen and senior management of the proposed water and sewerage boards.

  Mr. Stewart
  Andrew Rait Ltd. executive search consultants, has been appointed to assist in the search for the chief executives of the three water authorities.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines have been issued to health boards concerning the monitoring of standards within nursing homes.
  731
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office issued four sets of model guidelines between October 1989 and December 1993 covering the needs of specific client groups. The model guidelines and date of publication, are listed and copies have been placed in the Library of the House:Model Guidelines for the Registration and Inspection of Nursing Homes for the Elderly (October 1989)
  Model Guidelines for the Registration and Inspection of Independent Hospitals and Nursing Homes Providing Acute Services (March 1992)
  Model Guidelines for the Registration and Inspection of Nursing Homes Providing Care and Treatment for People With a Learning Disability (December 1993)
  Model Guidelines for the Registration and Inspection of Nursing Homes Providing Continuing Care and Treatment for People with Dementia (December 1993).

  In addition to the above sets of model guidelines, a document setting out national standards for the registration and inspection of nursing homes in Scotland is currently being produced for publication next year.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) nursing homes and (b) residents of nursing homes there are in each health board in Scotland.
  732
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information on private nursing homes as at 31 March 1994, is as follows:

  Health Board

  1Homes

  Beds

  2Residents/Patients

  Scotland

  Argyll and Clyde

  32

  1,150

  1,044

  Ayrshire and Arran

  58

  2,142

  1,997

  Borders

  17

  723

  530

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  508

  360

  Fife

  17

  795

  666

  Forth Valley

  21

  884

  712

  Grampian

  44

  1,761

  1,648

  Greater Glasgow

  54

  2,471

  2,068

  Highland

  26

  1,009

  956

  Lanarkshire

  47

  2,181

  2,029

  Lothian

  69

  2,322

  2,095

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  Tayside

  37

  1,635

  1,509

  Western Isles

  2

  65

  62

  Total

  437

  17,646

  15,676

  Notes:

  1Establishments registered by Health Boards under the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 (as amended).

  2All categories.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Lord Sheppard of Didgemere
Sir Allen John George Sheppard, Knight, having been created Baron Sheppard of Didgemere, of Roydon in the County of Essex, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Young of Graffham and the Lord Laing of Dunphail.
Lord Hambro
Charles Eric Alexander Hambro, Esquire, having been created Baron Hambro, of Dixton and Dumbleton in the County of Gloucestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Gibson-Watt and the Lord Sterling of Plaistow.

EC Tobacco Regime: UK Expenditure
3.1 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the expenditure in the current year of the European Commission on the growing of tobacco; and what is the cost of the United Kingdom's contribution to this expenditure.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the latest estimate on expenditure on the tobacco sector for 1994 is 1,087 million ecu (£839 million). The cost to the United Kingdom arises from our contribution to the EC budget. However, as we do not produce or store tobacco and therefore have no receipts, the abatement agreed at. Fontainebleau would apply in full. In effect, our net contribution would be around 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. of EC expenditure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative reply. Can he say whether the time has come for Her Majesty's Government to refuse to make any contribution whatever to subsidising the production of that poisonous product? Should not the Government stand quite firmly by that line and refuse any contribution?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend expresses his distaste for the EU tobacco regime, as he has done on a number of occasions in the past. The Treaty of Rome provides for tobacco to be eligible for support under the CAP. The UK is a signatory to the treaty. We cannot, as it were, cherry-pick our treaty obligations. The fact is that tobacco is an important crop in many areas of the Community, particularly in southern member states. What we must now do is reform the regime and reduce
532
its cost. The UK has been very successful in influencing the Commission and our fellow member states in that regard.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that Her Majesty's Government have no control whatsoever over the European budget as such? Is he further aware that on 25th July last, when a government representative of the Treasury last appeared in ECOFIN, he did not seek to alter the figure in any way from the figure already in the preliminary draft budget, over which—again—he had no control? Will he accept that it has been found not only by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House but by the Court of Auditors and other financial bodies generally that it is in that area that the greatest amount of fraud against the European Community takes place? Does he agree: that it is disgraceful that the British taxpayer should be saddled with a bill of over £100 million annually in respect of such a wretched production?
Earl Howe: My Lords, first of all, I should correct the noble Lord about his last point. As 1 said to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the UK's contribution is effectively much lower than the figure that he gave. But the noble Lord overlooks what was achieved in the 1992 reform of the tobacco sector. I am sure he will recall that production quotas (which, as he knows, exist for every member state) will be cut from 430,000 tonnes in 1991 to 350,000 tonnes in 1994. There will be no payments for tobacco produced over quota. Export refunds and intervention payments will no longer feature as a normal part of the regime, controls will be tightened and producers encouraged to convert to low tar tobacco and other crops. In all, the Commission estimates that that will reduce expenditure by over 25 per cent. between 1992 and 1997.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, at a time when the funding of the Health Education Authority and of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) appears to be very uncertain, does the noble Earl feel that it is quite wrong that any British or European funds whatsoever should be used for that purpose? Does he agree that the British Government should be more active in seeking not just to reduce but to stop that absurd subsidy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that when the tobacco regime next comes up for its formal review in 1996, the UK will be at the forefront of efforts in the Community to reduce the subsidies still further. With regard to his other point on the health aspects of smoking, it is surely right that the Government should devote resources towards discouraging smoking, whether or not the tobacco that is smoked is grown in the Community. Those efforts form one of the main planks of the Health of the Nation initiative.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the Minister allow us to share with him the arguments put forward for

533
ensuring that the present grants —the same amount— for growing tobacco are transferred to compensate farmers for not growing tobacco?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the problem with that idea is finding alternative opportunities for those who currently grow tobacco. Tobacco production is a very labour intensive undertaking and alternative employment would need to be provided. Alternative crop opportunities are very few, and support of whatever kind the noble Lord has in mind would need to be very long term if rural depopulation is to be avoided.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in their further consideration of this matter, would Her Majesty's Government feel that their hand was strengthened by the recently published report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and bear in mind that the smoking of tobacco possibly causes individuals more harm than the matters considered in that report?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I said, the campaign to discourage the smoking of tobacco is one of the main planks of the Health of the Nation initiative. I agree with my noble friend that that effort should not be relaxed. The Government have consistently criticised the tobacco regime. We shall continue to do so. We also support the reorientation of tobacco production away from high tar varieties into low tar varieties. But when all is said and done, demand for tobacco stems from consumers. The fact is that imports meet over two thirds of consumption and are increasing.
Lord Carter: My Lords, despite the evident absurdity and expense of the tobacco subsidy, it represents, as the Minister said, an important source of income for farmers in southern Europe. Does the noble Earl agree that this is perhaps a case in which some variation of the bond system could be used whereby farmers would be compensated for the loss of income but the EU would stop subsidising the production of tobacco?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sure that that idea will be explored. I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting it forward. We return to the rural depopulation issue. One must find alternative activities for current tobacco growers to engage in. That is a very difficult problem which the Community will have to address.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the argument that useful employment is given in the production of such a poisonous product is a very weak argument which could be applied to the production of other poisons? Has Her Majesty's Government taken action to try to ensure that the Community stops giving the subsidy altogether?
Earl Howe: My Lords, tobacco is indeed a noxious substance, as my noble friend said. But we still live in a free country. It is open to men and women to possess
534
and smoke tobacco, if they wish to do so. The Government have not yet taken the step of forbidding people to smoke tobacco.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not one of the worst features of the regime—and I appreciate the arguments involved—not the fact that they are growing tobacco of either high tar or low tar, but that they are growing tobacco which even the addicts do not want to smoke? That is one of the reasons for the increase in imports.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the stronger forms of tobacco which used to be a feature of the tobacco grown in the EC are now on the decline. We are encouraging, with the Commission, those countries which produce such tobacco to convert to lower tar varieties, and I believe that that is a useful way forward.

DTI Inspectors' Transcripts: Use in Criminal Trials
3.10 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the practice of using transcripts obtained by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors in their investigations under the provisions of the Companies Acts as primary evidence against individual defendants in criminal prosecutions has been discontinued.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, no. As the noble Lord is aware, the conduct of cases by the prosecuting authorities is not the subject of direction by Her Majesty's Government. It is for each prosecuting authority to decide in relation to individual cases whether to seek to adduce as evidence-in-chief transcripts of any interviews which may have taken place between defendants and inspectors appointed by the Department of Trade and Industry under the provisions of the Companies Act 1985.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. However, is he aware that the improper and possible unlawful use of those transcripts—now the subject of a European Commission on Human Rights ruling—was planned and discussed at meetings between Ministers, civil servants and DTI inspectors in early 1987? Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the public interest certificate that was issued to prevent discovery of those meetings will now be made available to the European Court so that these matters can be aired there?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that this matter is now pending before the European Court of Human Rights. I would understand that the Court of Human Rights would be concerned with the appropriateness of the rules under which trials take place in this country in this connection. It will be the merits of that question upon which the Court will adjudicate.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend consider that this form of inquisition,

535
which is used under the Companies Act and increasingly elsewhere, may be contrary to the best traditions of British justice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the admissibility of such evidence has been the subject of discussion in Parliament and is regulated by statute. I have no doubt that those in Parliament who agreed with this provision of our law were well acquainted with the deepest traditions of British justice but concluded that the specific circumstances of these reports made it right that they should be admissible, obviously under the general power of the judge to prevent them being used in a specific case if he thought that their use might prejudice a fair trial.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that this question, and the recent saga of prosecutions which have failed either in front of juries or in the Court of Appeal, underline the need to expand and strengthen the regulatory mechanisms in the City—that may be the answer to these problems in many cases—in particular by imposing massive civil penalties, including the imposition of fines, costs and disqualifications, and employing that most delightful of phrases "disgorgement of profits", rather than relying on the sometimes over-cumbersome machinery of the criminal law?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it may be that that question is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I appreciate the concern that lies behind it. There is also a concern to be taken into account in that, if crime—dishonesty—is being practised in a way that would normally transgress the criminal law, it should be prosecuted as such wherever it occurs, whether in the City or elsewhere. Of course, the more complicated the circumstances, the more difficult it may be in practice to accomplish that. But there is certainly a case in principle for ensuring that truly criminal activities are dealt with under the criminal law.

UN Peacekeeping Forces: African Participation
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received positive responses to their proposal that African countries contribute more peacekeeping forces to United Nations operations within the continent of Africa.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made firm proposals in his speech to the 49th UN General Assembly for setting up a framework of support to assist African countries in conflict prevention and peacekeeping. The United
536
Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and other member states have reacted positively to those proposals.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, which is very encouraging. Should not the British initiative be generally acceptable to all members of the United Nations? While the British Army has excelled in peacekeeping duties, it is already overstretched. Nonetheless, cannot Britain help by providing training to the troops of those African states which would appreciate the assistance?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think all noble Lords will agree that the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom are the best in the world. Indeed, they play a major role in training African armed forces; for instance, in Ghana, Namibia and recently—yesterday—they came back from Mozambique. We shall continue to provide training and assistance with a special focus on peacekeeping and the prevention of conflict.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the admirable initiative by the Ministry of Defence in giving assistance to the Baltic states to train and service a battalion that can be of service to the United Nations? Following on from the original Question, would it be a good thing for a specific initiative like that to be introduced to assist the African states more effectively to fulfil their responsibilities to the UN?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the British Armed Forces are deployed on a case-by-case basis across many member countries of the United Nations. In fact, the United Nations has some 78,000 personnel currently engaged on 16 operations. But the whole proposal from my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was that the United Nations should improve the capability of African countries themselves to deploy peacekeeping forces quickly and effectively through, first, setting up logistics centres to store and maintain peacekeeping equipment; and, secondly, by the establishment of rapid mobile logistics teams to help Africans maintain their peacekeeping equipment and vehicles.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I can press the Minister a little further on this welcome initiative. Can he give specific examples of the ways in which the British Government, in bilateral arrangements with individual African countries or under the auspices of the UN or with our partners in NATO, will actually help to train African armed forces for peacekeeping? It is a fact of which we are all aware that we are already involved in training programmes for African military. But the new aspect would be involvement in training them for peacekeeping. Can the noble Earl be a little more specific as to what is planned and how?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I rather hoped that in my last answer I gave specific ideas of what my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was proposing. The ideas met with considerable enthusiasm not only in African countries but in other members of the United

537
Nations as well. At the same time we are consulting closely with African countries to establish what they regard as their priority requirements.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in addition there must be taken into account any tribal or religious problems that may arise?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, yes. What my noble friend says is extremely important. The point is that there is a growing need to help Africans to find their own solutions to their own conflicts.

Sheep Dipping: Certificate of Competence
3.19 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many applications for enrolment for the certificate of competence in the safe use of sheep dips have been received by the National Proficiency Tests Council.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as at 18th October, the National Proficiency Tests Council had received 8,881 applications for enrolment for the certificate of competence in the safe use of sheep dips.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Earl accept that that is a very disappointing number in view of the fact that the Government believe that there are around 90,000 sheep farmers in this country? Is he aware that during the Recess I came across two first-hand cases of people who have been stockpiling sheep dip? The first person has bought enough for five years for dipping three times a year and the second has formed a syndicate with a group and they have bought three years' stocks in advance. In view of the fact that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain has only six inspectors to inspect 1,081 major outlets and four different categories of minor outlet, can he say how what is actually happening goes with his stated remarks about the Government's,
"overriding concern to protect human health through measures that are practicable and effective"?— [Official Report, 19/4/94; col. 176.]
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot accept the noble Countess's contention that the figures are disappointing. The number of applications has increased each month so far since the scheme was introduced. Sheep farmers do not need to register unless they see the need to purchase OP dips. However, the central point of her Question is a very important one. Agricultural distributors cannot sell dips to those who clearly intend to sell or to supply on to other people. That would be wholesale dealing, an offence which carries an unlimited fine or two years' imprisonment. Similarly, any farmer acting in this way could be aiding and abetting such activity as well as undertaking an illegal sale and supply of the product. If a buyer acts as an agent on behalf of several purchasers, he will need certificates in respect of each purchaser in order to proceed.
538
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain is the enforcement body and it is aware of the potential problem of bulk purchases. It is for the society to provide whatever resources it needs to meet its responsibilities and to reflect the costs in its fees as appropriate. It will prosecute if evidence comes to light that the proper conditions of sale have not been observed.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister reassure the House that enough inspectors will be available to monitor the scheme? Even at the level of 8,000 applicants, and certainly if the total grows any higher, is it not the case that this service is particularly overstretched at the moment?
Earl Howe: My Lords, monitoring will take place on two levels. As I have said, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain is the enforcement body with regard to the certificates of competence, but the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and COSHH give adequate powers to deal with those who handle sheep dip products carelessly. I am confident that there are adequate men on the ground to monitor that as well. The key point here is that those who purchase OP dips will have to demonstrate that they are competent to use those dips or are purchasing the dips on behalf of someone who holds a certificate. That is a very important sanction.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, if a farmer takes the test and fails, does he have to pay another £49 to retake the test?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the cost of the test is £49. That is not unreasonable for a one-off payment. It covers the holder for life and ensures that he or she has adequate training in the handling of these products, thus minimising any risks that may be involved. Within that figure there are three elements; first, the costs of certification, which are £19; secondly, the agent's costs for assessment, invigilation, provision of accommodation for testing, and so on, which are £30; thirdly, there is the optional extra above that of training for those who feel they need it. Those who fail the test will have to pay part of the fee again. I shall write to the noble Baroness with further details.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is there any method of reporting excessively large sales of these organophosphate dips so that the inspectors know where they should carry out urgent inspections?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point but I would say to him that the onus is on the supplier to ensure that he does not supply organophosphate dips to anyone who is not going to use those dips himself on his own animals. Any suspiciously large quantity of OP dips will of course excite the suspicions of the supplier. It is important that suppliers take their responsibilities seriously.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree with me that fewer and fewer farmers will enrol for the certificate of competence in sheep dipping for the reason that we have alternative dips on the market

539
these days which are very efficient indeed. I happen to be one of those users. On this occasion I should like to thank MAFF and the ADAS staff for the help that they have given to the sheep farmers of this country over the past six months. However, I beg the Minister once again to reconsider introducing compulsory sheep dipping.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. He is quite right that there are acceptable alternative ways of treating sheep. Flumethrin dips can be used to treat sheep scab. A new injectable product was licensed in February 1994 for the treatment of sheep scab. That was on the market in time for the 1994 dipping season. There are also pour-ons that can be used to combat blowfly strike.
With regard to the noble Lord's second point and the reintroduction of scab controls, I would simply say that several years of stringent controls failed to eradicate sheep scab. There are no EC-wide controls for sheep scab and the disease can be readily controlled at farm or local level. It is up to the farmer, whose responsibility it is to see to the health and welfare of his animals, to ensure that sheep are dipped if necessary.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl give the latest figures of deaths or serious illnesses as a result of handling sheep dip?
Earl Howe: My Lords, there are records of two fatalities associated with sheep dipping. One, however, was a suicide, where there was a deliberate ingestion of the sheep dip product. Another involved a heart attack immediately after dipping, but that was later found not to have any connection with the dipping operation itself.
Lord Carter: My Lords, are the Government aware that it is possible for farmers to purchase OP sheep dips abroad and bring them into the UK with a view to by-passing the certification scheme? Do the Government have any plans to close that loophole?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. It is possible in theory for a farmer to purchase organophosphate products overseas and bring them back to this country. It is perfectly legal to do so provided that those products are for his own use and for the treatment of his own animals. However, that is not a reason for the Government to have failed to act in the way that they have by introducing the certificate of competence scheme. If one regards it as a loophole, I suppose I would have to agree with the noble Lord. But it is not a serious enough loophole to invalidate the Government's actions.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the farmer purchases the sheep dip abroad and brings it in, he can then use it. He has not needed a certificate to buy it because he bought it abroad. But he can then still use it. Is that the case?
Earl Howe: My Lords, he may use it on his own animals. What he may not do is sell it on to other sheep farmers or users of the product.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Earl appreciate that I am extremely grateful to him and to Her Majesty's Government for all that they have tried to do to prevent people from suffering ill health?
540
However, I am still very concerned about the number of people who are purchasing in bulk and who perhaps do not realise, despite all the literature that they have been sent, that OP dips contaminate when they stand on the shelf and that the contaminants are very much more dangerous than the original OP dip? Can anything be done to inform those people of the dangers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government regularly review their publicity efforts. As I am sure the noble Countess will know, an HSE leaflet on sheep dipping was circulated in May to all sheep farmers. A claim form for the sheep annual premium scheme which will be going out shortly will have an accompanying note about sheep dipping. The leaflet on sheep scab which was published this autumn contains a note on dipping. That is not the end of the story. We are ready and more than willing to consider other messages if they are needed.

Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill
3.30 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Power to remove or reduce certain statutory burdens on businesses, individuals, etc.]:
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("descriptions of case, including different provision for").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak to Amendment No. 11.
During the first day of Report stage my noble friend Lord Peyton, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, suggested that subsection (4)(d) of Clause 1 was unnecessary and could be deleted without losing any point of substance. My noble friend Lord Henley agreed that we would carefully consider the points which had been made. I am advised that if we were to delete paragraph (d) entirely, Ministers would be unable to make different provisions for different cases or to treat different parts of the country, such as Wales or Greater London, differently.
I very much share the noble Lord's objective of simplifying the drafting of legislation where this is possible without changing the substance of the legislation. We have reconsidered whether all the words are really required, and we have concluded that some simplification is possible but that some of the words are required. I am sure that these amendments will meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Peyton and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as they are essentially in response to their request for simplification of the law. Wherever possible, I try to meet your Lordships' wishes and particularly when they are good wishes. I hope that I have done so on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I hasten to seize the opportunity to thank my noble friend very warmly for his proposed amendment to the words. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I,

541
believing the words in paragraph (d) to be both unnecessary and inelegant, sought to persuade the Government that they could do without them. We failed to do that entirely; but, nevertheless, I am extremely grateful through him for the partial success which we have enjoyed. I particularly welcome the evidence which we have been provided with today that my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Henley afford notable examples of Ministers who listen and pay attention to what is said from behind them. I do not wish to stress this, but I very much hope that the example which they have set will commend itself to other Ministers in their department.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said and express my own thanks to the noble Earl. I confess—as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, does also—that the whole of that paragraph is unnecessary. But the noble Earl has gone into the matter very carefully with the draftsman and formed his own judgment. We are deeply grateful for that.
Only a few words have been excised but they are more important than would appear at first sight because that formula appears on the computer screen whenever the button for regulations is pressed. As the noble Earl has pointed out, at the beginning of this Bill that has occurred twice. It occurs in practically every Bill.
What the noble Earl has achieved is to reprogram the computer to operate more efficiently: to remove something from the draftsman's computer is a major task. Naturally, the draftsman wants to be on the safe side. He wants to guard himself against any possible argument that might prevent the achievement of the objective which he has been instructed to define. As a result, he will often be over-cautious. He will be particularly cautious when there is an attempt to alter a formula which has commended itself to his predecessors in the Parliamentary Counsel's Office. We are deeply indebted to the noble Earl.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly to echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Perhaps I may also add to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said in that I would be obliged if occasionally the Minister would also listen to some of the words coming from people who are facing him as well as from those sitting behind him. But I do not want to be too churlish this afternoon.
As a layman I find alarming the inability of the Government to delete paragraph (d). What they are saying is that if a paragraph like that is not included, the law would be idiotic—in other words, any normal person reading subsection (4) without paragraph (d) would take it for granted that an order can make different provision for different cases. It would be an absurd state of affairs if an order, purely because it is an order, could not make different provision for different cases. However, the noble Earl has told us that if that is not written into the Bill, the provision is
542
inadequate. I find that quite amazing. Nonetheless, if the noble Earl tells me that that is so, I have to accept it because I am not an expert.
Clause 2(4) (d) will now read,
"make different provision for different cases or different areas".
As written, that means that a "case" is not the same as an "area". I am surprised—but I do not push the point in order to score points over the lawyers and draftsmen present —that one cannot leave out,
"different provision for different areas".
That seems to be subsumed logically in the meaning of the word "case". But I do not press the point because we want to get on. However, it shows how extraordinary is the drafting of legislation these days.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to your Lordships for having agreed with the amendment. It is always quite a task to satisfy my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He is endowed with great charm and intellectual ingenuity. The fact that I have been able to satisfy him this afternoon gives me enormous pleasure. The fact that I have also succeeded in satisfying the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is another source of great satisfaction, so that is a good start.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked the Government to listen to the views coming from the opposite side of the House as well as to those coming from behind. We would be more than happy to accept some of the views of noble Lords opposite if they were good ones. My noble friend said that he thought that the words were unnecessary and inelegant in the original draft. They may be, but we have tried to take out the unnecessary and inelegant and to leave the necessary and elegant.
As regards the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I know that he will not want me to go into a great deal of detail; but I believe that he will agree that, in considering his question, a "case" is very different to an "area". I am advised that it is necessary to have both words included.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Preliminary consultation]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 39, after ("above") insert ("or sections 37, 69 or 70 below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2, with your Lordships' permission I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8, all of which stand in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.
This is our last main occasion for dealing with the Bill. I have been brooding over certain parts of it and, although we have discussed this topic at some length previously, I felt that one could not let this day go by without giving your Lordships some chance to think yet again on this matter. Your Lordships are aware that I do not care for the Bill anyway, but I have not been convinced from the beginning about why what we might call the "procedures and safeguards" of Part I have not been applied to what will be Section 37, which is to do with health and safety, and what will be Sections 69 and 70, which relate to contracting out generally. I have

543
listened to and re-read the Government's statements but in the end—slightly to paraphrase what the noble Earl said about me—I do not find their arguments good ones. It simply does not make any sense within the context of the Bill to treat the contracting out and health and safety provisions in a different way.
I hope that your Lordships will bear with me because I have drawn your attention to this before. I refer to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers, which comprises some of the most eminent and sensible Members of your Lordships' House. I am still concerned that the Government felt unable to respond to what was said in that report. I repeat—for the last time—that the Committee recommended:
"The Committee accordingly urges the House to consider whether the procedure for deregulation orders, with the improved safeguards for parliamentary scrutiny, should apply not only to orders under Chapter I of Part I of the bill, but also to delegated legislation made under".
The report then refers to the original version of the Bill and to Clauses 27, 58 and 59, but I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that that now means Clauses 37, 69 and 70.
I do not believe that the Government have yet made any serious effort to convince your Lordships why they feel that the implicit recommendation in the Select Committee's 9th Report of 13th June 1994 cannot be accepted. I suppose that it is a curiosity—perhaps it is a tradition of your Lordships' House to which no one has drawn my attention in all my years here—that not one member of that committee has spoken in support of the committee's recommendation. I am not sure whether any members of that committee are present in the Chamber, but it has puzzled me throughout our deliberations that the committee makes a recommendation to your Lordships but no member of it appears to want to argue for it. I did not seek to divide the House on the matter but, had I done so, I wonder whether members of the committee would have voted for their own recommendation.
My main point is that this is the end of the matter. I find it deeply unsatisfying that the Government have neither accepted the recommendation (despite the judicious way in which it was put) nor, in my judgment, put up very good arguments to say why they cannot or will not do so. That is why I felt that we should have one last brief opportunity to reconsider the matter before proceeding. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, says that he has been brooding over this matter. I advise him not to do too much of that because it is very bad for the mental digestion. The noble Lord said that he wanted to have yet another go at this and I can understand that. I shall have another go too to see whether I can persuade him of something of which we have not been able to persuade him previously.
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee recommended that consideration should be given to extending the special procedures of Clauses 3 and 4 to the order-making powers which are contained in what
544
are now Clauses 37, 69 and 70 which relate to health and safety and contracting out. As the noble Lord said, we have considered that matter previously on a number of occasions.
The Government have given very careful consideration both to what was said in the report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee and to what has been said subsequently by your Lordships about what constitutes the appropriate parliamentary procedure for the making of orders under these clauses. I am bound to say that, having done so, we remain of the view that these are powers for which the affirmative resolution procedure is entirely appropriate and sufficient.
We believe that the powers in question are by no means as wide-ranging as has sometimes been suggested. Perhaps I may reiterate briefly what each of the clauses does.
Clause 37 allows for health and safety legislation, which was in place before the 1974 Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, to be repealed or revoked without replacement. The power is available only in relation to a specific and identified body of legislation which relates to health and safety at work. There are some 40 Acts which form the "existing statutory provisions" in the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. There are 200 statutory instruments which predate the 1974 Act and there are about 20 statutory instruments which have been enacted since the 1974 Act but which carried forward pre-1974 Act provisions. The position is that any legislation which occurred before the 1974 Act can be added to; it can be altered, but it cannot be revoked or repealed. This is in contrast with the power in Clause 1 which, provided that the various safeguards are met, is available in relation to any legislation which has been passed up to and including in the present Session.
The power in Clause 37 has a close precedent in the powers which we already have to remove post-1974 health and safety legislation. Unlike the pre-1974 powers, those powers allow legislation to be repealed, and they are subject only to the negative resolution procedure, whereas Clause 37 allows the same procedure to be used for pre-1974 Act provisions but provides for the stronger affirmative resolution procedure. We are of the view that that procedure will provide the appropriate level of scrutiny and that there is no justification for extending the special procedures which apply to orders under Clause 1 to regulations which can be made under Clause 37.
The order-making powers in Clauses 69 and 70 allow statutory functions to be named in an order with the result that in future those functions would be capable of delegation to private sector contractors. The basic nature of the functions themselves cannot be changed by such orders. The power is available only in closely defined circumstances which are clearly set out in the Bill. The functions concerned must be functions which can be delegated to the staff of the Minister, of the office holder or of the local authority on whom the function is conferred by statute. Certain functions are explicitly excluded.

545
Part II of the Bill confers only a very narrow power to make any change to existing primary legislation; namely, the provision in Clause 77(1) (b) that orders may contain incidental, consequential or supplemental amendments to enactments. Powers like this are well precedented in order-making powers which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and they are given a narrow interpretation both by Parliament and the courts.
The matters which need to be included as specific amendments in Schedule 16 to the Bill give an indication of how narrowly these powers will actually be construed. The schedule contains certain specific changes to primary legislation which have to be made before contractors can be used to carry out some existing statutory functions. None of the amendments to primary legislation which are made in Schedule 16 could be made as incidental, consequential or supplemental changes under the provision in Clause 77(1) (b), even though several of the changes are very minor.
Part II of the Bill represents a well precedented pattern for delegated powers in that it sets out the principles and constraints for the use of contractors in carrying out statutory functions and the circumstances in which such contracting out should be possible. Orders under Clauses 69 and 70 will simply name the particular statutory functions to which those principles will be applied.
The contrast between, on the one hand, either Part II of the Bill or Clause 37 and, on the other hand, the deregulation order-making power in Clause 1 is, in the Government's view, a big one. It was the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee itself which referred to the power in Clause 1 as being:
"unprecedented in time of peace".
We have never sought to deny that it is an exceptional power as it is being made available to amend or to repeal provisions which have been made by primary legislation across a wide range of policy areas, with the consent of Parliament.
It is for that reason that we have provided unique arrangements for the scrutiny of orders which will be made under the power. We have listened to the arguments on this on a number of occasions, and we have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to extend those specific and particular procedures for those unique occasions to the perfectly ordinary order-making powers in Clauses 37, 69 and 70. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, brooded over the weekend on this. I hope that he has been able to brood a little over what I have said, and that I have been able to persuade him that it is not necessary to do what he wants, that it is not without precedent, and that the arrangements that we have are reasonable ones.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full answer, which of course happily is on the record which, given Pepper V. Hart, is important in terms of
546
the use of these powers. Let me read out what was said in your Lordships' Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. It said:
"There are, however, two provisions for delegated powers in the Bill for which the Committee consider that neither the affirmative nor the negative procedure provides an appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny. These are the powers to repeal certain health and safety provisions … and the power to contract out functions".
The next sentence is one that I should have read out earlier:
"These are both policies which the House"—
that is, your Lordships' House—
"might have expected to debate in detail in primary legislation; and both sets of powers are very widely drawn".
I take it that what the Minister is now saying is that your Lordships' Select Committee was mistaken, and that we would not have been expected to debate all this in primary legislation. It is wrong in that regard. Whereas the committee says that both powers are widely drawn, the Minister says that they are not widely drawn, that they are narrowly drawn. I felt—and this is why I use the word "brooding"; I have been brooding about other matters too, as the Minister will see in due course—it to be a serious matter for the Government to reject such advice when the committee was endeavouring to be as helpful to your Lordships as it could be. These are not matters upon which I would wish to divide the House on a day like this. However, I wanted to get my argument on the record. I say this in a good spirit to the Minister; I thought that his getting his argument on the record was helpful. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 43, at end insert ("and in each case state whom he has consulted and why").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment stands in my name alone, and I am very lonely. It relates to a matter that I have raised before. Recent events into which I shall obviously not go in any detail have made me worry about it a good deal more. Once the Bill becomes law—and it looks as though it will in the not too distant future—it will open up to pressure groups and bodies of all kinds the opportunity to press Ministers with arguments corresponding to what the Bill says; namely, that the regulations exist; they have been passed properly by both Houses of Parliament; they are in primary legislation; but we think they are a burden and, "We want you to use your powers to get rid of them".
As I said, without adverting to recent events about external pressures on Ministers and Members of Parliament, I am worried that those pressures should in any way be covert and not open to public scrutiny. It is a matter I raised earlier, and I raise it again. If the Minister were to make an order under Clause 1—of course I agree entirely that he should consult, and I am not seeking in any way to undermine consultation—he should have an explicit statutory obligation to say to whom he and his officials have been talking; why they have been talking; what the pressures have been, and all that type of thing.
As I say, I do not have to underline recent events to emphasise the necessity for such a thing if the power is to be used. I do not apologise for returning to this issue, but the case for open government here is so overwhelming that it should not depend upon the Minister himself choosing whether to reveal the basis of how he or she has moved to make an order. This relates to a matter which occurs later but where again I have to accept that the Government would not go with me. It relates to the question of representations being made and those making representations having rights to say, "Well we would like to say to you that this is a burden on us. We should like you to do something about it, but we want you not to let anyone know that we have done it". That is even more alarming in terms of open government.
Yet again, repeating what I said earlier, this is my last chance to raise such matters, and therefore I felt it to be my duty to place this matter before your Lordships to see whether the Government might not feel that this is an amendment that they should accept in the interests of openness and parliamentary democracy. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it was, I think, with a certain amount of horror that the noble Lord found that he was alone on this amendment. He must not worry too much about such things. Periodically one becomes lonely. It does not matter if one is right; it matters if one is wrong. He said mat he was worried. I do not like the idea of the noble Lord being worried, especially if the worry is unnecessary. I should like to try to allay the noble Lord's fears because what he is trying to do by the amendment is to require the Minister to state whom he has consulted and why he had consulted them.
If the noble Lord will be good enough to look at Clause 3(4) (e), (f), and (g) he will see that the matters referred to above—in other words what the Minister has to lay before Parliament—are:
"(e) any consultation undertaken as required by subsection (1) or subsection (2) above;
(f) any representations received as a result of that consultation; and
(g) the changes (if any) which the Minister has made to his original proposals in the light of those representations".
Those are full requirements made upon the Minister before he lays a document before Parliament. The committee, which in this House will be the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee will, as a result, have full information not just as regards the removal or reduction of a burden and the maintaining of necessary protection, but also as to whom the Minister has consulted; on what he has consulted; and what he has done with the results. All that will be subject only to the provision of confidentiality, which appears in subsection (5). If, for example, an unreasonably short period of time had been provided for responses to the consultation or if some interested parties had been excluded from the consultation that would be readily apparent to everyone. The period for parliamentary scrutiny would allow further representations to be received and, as was said only last Thursday by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, the committee would be able to call witnesses.
548
I suggest that the point which the noble Lord's amendment seeks to address is met by the provisions of subsection (4) and that it would add nothing to the consultation or parliamentary scrutiny process.
Of course, the noble Lord is right in saying that people should be consulted and that the Minister should say whom he has consulted. However, the noble Lord may be content and less worried because that which his amendment seeks to include in to the Bill is already there.
4 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may clarify one matter. I understood him to say that the provisions of paragraphs (e), (f) and (g) granted the whole purpose of Amendment No. 3. However, perhaps sotto voce, he referred to the following paragraph relating to confidentiality. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked for openness, and I strongly support that view in particular in the present climate. However, is it right that the provisions in this part of the clause ensure confidentiality and therefore defeat a substantial proportion of the purpose of the amendment?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I find that question extraordinary. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, wishes to have published that which is confidential. I cannot tell him what is confidential; that will be a matter for consideration. However, there is a well-established precedent for statutory consultation for confidentiality, if that is the wish of the person consulted. The Fair Trading Act 1973, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 carry provisions relating to full and frank consultation. However, if the person being consulted says, "This is confidential and I do not want it displayed", it is right to accept that understanding.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the Minister. Is he saying that despite the provisions of confidentiality, which in his view refer only to the content of the discussion, there will be no confidentiality about the people consulted?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I must consider that matter. I believe that there would be no confidentiality as regards the people consulted but that there might be confidentiality as regards what they said.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has raised an important point. We are not trying to hide anything but to make sure that that which is confidential in the fairness of business and consultation should not be made public property. That occurs throughout public life and all forms of consultation.
The confidentiality provision is a necessary safeguard for the consultees. It could be possible that in some cases it might not be appropriate to provide the details of the responses to Parliament, except in a non-attributable form, unless the person responding consents. I believe that the answer that I have given is correct; but if I have misled the noble Lord I shall let him know.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank.

549
The noble Lord put his finger on a matter which is of some anxiety and we have received some clarification. I can see a distinction between asking what is the provenance of the consultation—"Whom did you consult?", which I do not believe in almost any circumstances should be kept secret—and the details of the consultation. Perhaps I may give a theoretical example, which is theoretical because it is dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. Let us suppose that a group of London lorry drivers or owners of lorry firms said to the Minister, "We wish the rules on lorry driving through London to be changed because we believe that there is a burden on us"—which is dealt with in another part of the Bill—and proceed to demonstrate to the Minister what they believe will be the excess costs to themselves. I can understand them saying, "The data that we are giving you on the costs is commercially confidential and we would rather that it did not appear in the public domain". However, if they also said, "We don't want anyone to know that we made these representations", I would regard that as completely intolerable. That is the distinction.
I understand the Minister to say that the distinction is already taken care of in the Bill. He said that subsection (5) would not refer to "who" but to what we all understand to be "commercial in confidence"—we have all seen documents displaying that phrase. We need clarification on that matter.
Perhaps I may prevail on the Minister, although I know that it is tedious of me to do so. I take it that "any" in subsections (4) (e) and (f) subsumes "all"; in other words, "any" means "all" rather than "some". It is most important that it is "all" such consultations. However, does that provision relate to the prompting of the Ministerial intervention in the first place? I do not want pressure groups of any kind to be able to pressurise a Minister into taking various actions under these powers without us knowing who started the action.
I thought that my amendment was important because I read subsection (4) as meaning consultation after representations had been made in the first place. Will the Minister assure me that I am wrong and that "consultation" means consultation from the beginning— that is, from the moment anyone says to a Minister, "I do not like this burden and I want you to do something about it"? Will he confirm that Members of this House and another place will be told who such people are? That issue was exercising me, and if the Minister tells me that I am mistaken I shall be willing to accept that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is worrying unduly. Anyone can go to a Minister at any time and say, "There is an unfair burden and it ought to be removed". Many people can do that and the Minister must make up his mind whether it is reasonable. If the Minister believes such action to be reasonable and that steps ought to be taken, before he lays the document before Parliament he must consult with interested parties. It may well be that some of that consultation is of a confidential nature. That would not necessarily be given, therefore; or it could be given in an unattributable form. I said that I did not believe that there would be
550
any particular difficulty about disclosing the people whom the Minister had consulted. However, it is important to recognise that the Minister should be under no obligation to list every single person he has consulted. He might have spoken to his Ministers, to his officials and to all kinds of people.
The point is that when the Minister lays a document before Parliament it should be clear that he has gone through consultation and he should not necessarily list every single person who has given an opinion. I believe that to be reasonable. However, that does not mean to say that one is deliberately excluding from the public domain people who have made a contribution about which the Minister believes that he will keep quiet. It is a matter of genuine public consultation. I do not wish to give the impression that consultation would necessarily mean providing a list of people, each of whom may have given an opinion to the Minister. Consultation relating to a particular proposal is what the Minister needs to tell Parliament. The consultation may have taken place over many years and on a number of issues, and I do not believe that it would be sensible to include that.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was worried about whether "any" included "all". I can tell him that "any" does mean "all".
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, it seems to me that there is a distinction to be drawn here. A person may say to the Minister, "Do not let anybody know that I have been to see you". In that case, the Minister should not be able to say, "I will not tell anybody that you have been to see me". He must reveal the names of those who have been to see him and those whom he has consulted. However, somebody may say, "Of course you may tell Parliament that I have been to see you, but do not tell it what I have told you because it is commercially confidential". It seems to me that the second of those propositions is entirely reasonable and the noble Earl is right to say that any Minister or former Minister is familiar with that in all business relationships.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, it is essential that there should be a degree of openness. I cannot think of any circumstances, certainly no circumstances today, in which any individual who has made representations to a Minister under the provisions of this Bill should not be prepared to have his name mentioned in public.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, will he consider whether or not the debate is running rapidly into a Committee stage rather than a Third Reading debate?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale for bringing us back onto the rails. I was being propelled off them at a rate of knots by the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Rodgers. I was only trying to be helpful.
Having tried to be helpful, I should say that although I long to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, I do not agree with him. Ministers are always able to have private conversations and consultations with people. It

551
would be wrong if they were prevented from doing that. If by any chance a person were to go to a Minister and say, "I want to tell you this in confidence", it would be intolerable if that had to be put in the public domain.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. It would be intolerable if this were a normal Bill and not a Bill which undermines the procedures of Parliament. All my interventions are based on my original view of the Bill; namely, that it is an outrage.
I accept entirely the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but there is another problem as regards the Bill. Although I have tried very hard to avoid becoming involved in a Committee stage debate at this stage, it is extremely difficult to understand the implications of the Bill. I learn about the Bill each time that I return to it. I am sure that when it passes into law, it will dawn on me that there are enormous parts of it which I did not understand and which I shall wish I had investigated. That is no excuse for breaking the rules, but it is an explanation as to why sometimes one gets a little out of line in trying to deal with the matter.
The end of the noble Earl's reply was worse than the beginning because towards the end of the reply he was saying that it is acceptable for a Minister to choose not to reveal the names of those to whom he has spoken. I do not believe that that is acceptable if such powers are being used to amend primary legislation, and in view of what we have all been through in the past two or three weeks.
I have had my say and it is on the record. In a curious way, the Bill will be a running sore because in due course the Minister will bring orders before Parliament and one will be able to complain at great length about the use of the powers taken. Therefore, we have that to look forward to in the next year. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert:
("(bb) whether there is likely to be any impact on the natural environment if the burden, authorisation or requirement is removed or reduced and, if so, ways of reducing that impact where it is negative;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has been moved at earlier stages of the Bill both in this House and in another place, but since the principle behind the amendment has been conceded by the Government it seems worth presenting it yet again in an attempt to give concrete expression to that principle.
In many ways, the Government have at least paid lip service to the need to have environmental impact assessments made in relation to new regulations. On Report in this House, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, reassured the House that the Government had no intention of deregulating at the expense of protection for the environment, wildlife or our natural heritage. Since
552
that principle was conceded, it seems that the amendment would be a small addition which would help the Government to ensure that that is the case.
It will also give substance to the Government's claim in their document Sustainable Development—The UK. Strategy that the Government have long been committed to the integration of environmental concerns into decision making at all levels. If that is written into the: Bill, it will ensure that that part of government policy is; given expression.
In 1991, the Government published a document called Policy Appraisal and the Environment. Its introduction describes it as a guide for Civil Service administrators. It said that there should be increased awareness within government of the need to examine environmental impacts and offer a systematic approach to the treatment of environmental issues within policy analysis. Thus, if that were written into the Bill, the undertaking of environmental appraisals would underline and reinforce that instruction to the Civil Service.
The Government said also in that document that environmental appraisals should be seen as an opportunity rather than a burden. Again, if the amendment were accepted, it would increase the opportunities for Government departments to consider the environmental consequences of any regulations which they intended to produce.
Secondly, it would ensure that any possible environmental implications of proposals would not be overlooked. It is very easy in departments dealing with a variety of issues, matters and regulations to forget the environment. We have just seen a report about the effects of the increased use of unleaded petrol. We can see from that that sometimes well-intentioned policies which were intended to assist the environment have adverse effects on other aspects such as health.
The imposition of VAT on the costs of making repairs to existing buildings works against the repair of inner city buildings while encouraging the construction of new buildings, on which no VAT is imposed, on greenfield sites. Therefore, almost any aspect of government legislation can have an effect, intended or otherwise, on the environment. Therefore, it would be useful to have that made clear on the face of the Bill.
It would ensure also that, when a regulation comes before this House, the other place or parliamentary scrutiny committees, the maximum amount of information is available on any possible environmental implications.
We believe also that the Government should be concerned not merely with the short-term benefits of any regulations or legislation which they propose, but that they should attempt to take a strategic, long-term view. Any environmental impact assessment necessarily concentrates the mind on the long-term consequences of regulations and legislation.
Therefore, we seek a minimum assurance from the Government as regards the amendment that even if they do not accept it, they should at least give a verbal acceptance that what is proposed is essential. We should have that assurance on the record. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I fear that noble Lords opposite are having to display their anxieties and seek reassurances with regard to the Bill. I shall try to give the noble Baroness the reassurance which she seeks. I believe that I can do that relatively easily because the noble Baroness spoke about the importance of protecting the environment and reducing any negative impact. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government believe strongly that the legislative framework should provide proper and adequate protection for the environment. There is no question about that.
Your Lordships may recall from our earlier debates on Clause 1 that the deregulation order-making power could not be used where that would remove any necessary protection. The term "necessary protection" in Clause 1(1) would certainly encompass the protection which is necessary in order to safeguard the environment.
In recognition of the exceptional nature of the power which is provided by Clause 1 the Government have provided a number of checks to prevent its abuse. In particular, Clause 3 requires that a Minister must undertake a consultation exercise on any proposal which he wishes to make before he brings forward an order. The outcome of that consultation, together with other specified items of information about the proposal, are then required to be laid before Parliament at the beginning of the special scrutiny procedure. That is a matter to which reference was made during our debate on the previous amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
The matters which are required to be covered in the document already include details of the burden which it is proposed to remove or to reduce; whether the existing provision affords any necessary protection and, if so, how that protection is to be continued. The document will also include other details, including—and here, I fear, that I shall make the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, more jumpy—subject to confidentiality, the results of any consultation which will have been undertaken and the changes, if any, which will have been made to the document as a result of that consultation. All those matters appear in Clause 3(4). The amendment just moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, seeks to add to the matters which are required to be included in the document. It seeks to include and add information about any implications for the "natural environment". The provisions as drafted—and, in particular, the requirement of Clause 3(4) (b) to describe how any necessary protection which is afforded by existing legislation is to be continued—would ensure that, in cases where the proposal has implications for the natural environment, they would be brought out in the explanatory document.
554
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness. We are committed to providing necessary and proper protection for the environment. As I have tried to make clear, the order-making power could not be used to remove any protection which is described as "necessary protection" in this or in any other area. The document which will have to be placed before Parliament is bound to contain information on how any necessary protection for the environment will continue to be provided. With that deeply satisfactory reply, I hope that the noble Baroness will remain content and be less worried than she was when she moved the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, the noble Earl's elegant and reassuring soft words have not wholly allayed my anxieties. I believe that some of the difficulty lies in the generality of the word "protection" which is not really defined in the Bill. However, as the noble Earl has given us the assurance that protection does include protection of the environment, I am partially reassured. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Powers to improve enforcement procedures]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 29, after ("protection") insert ("or unreasonably increasing the burden on any enforcement officer").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a preface to what I have to say, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that, when the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, introduced the considerations which gave rise to new Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill, I tried to be as sympathetic as I could. I was very much on his side and hoped that the Government would be able to respond. Indeed, they have certainly made some effort to do so.
I do not want anything that I say on this or on the following few amendments to be interpreted as suggesting that I am backing down from my support for the need to treat enforcement in a reasonable and decent way. That is not what I have in mind. My concern is that a rather unscrupulous person—that is, not the kind of person that either the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, or myself, have in mind —might try to use Clauses 5 and 6 in order to get out of what are reasonable obligations by making the life of the enforcement officer or officers a misery by essentially raising this or that difficulty and thereby making it impossible for them to carry out their proper functions.
It is possible that the noble Earl will tell me that the situation has already been taken care of under the Bill. Indeed, I should very much like him to say so. I should like him to say that the words in Clause 5(1) (b),
"without jeopardising any necessary protection",
would include the words of my amendment; namely,
"or unreasonably increasing the burden on any enforcement officer".
It is possible that the words could be read in that way. If the noble Earl tells me that that is the case, I shall be perfectly happy. However, if the words cannot be read in that way, we will have a serious problem. Despite all

555
my sympathies and support for what is proposed, it would be quite wrong—as I am sure that we all agree— if an unreasonable burden was placed on enforcement officers. That is not what my amendment seeks to do.
In the main, I am seeking clarification and what the noble Earl himself referred to as reassurance. The noble Earl may not like that psychiatric role, but one of the burdens of being a Minister is that, if noble Lords from either side of the House express their concerns on a matter, at least one of the Minister's tasks is to say, "Don't worry, it's all perfectly OK". However, if the noble Earl does not feel that that comes naturally to him, it is most unfortunate. That is a burden that he must bear. As I said, I am asking for reassurance. I should like to be persuaded that my amendment is unnecessary. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, adopting the position of a psychiatrist as the noble Lord wishes me to do, perhaps I may metaphorically lay the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on a psychiatrist's couch. I would touch him gently and say, "Don't worry, it's all perfectly all right". But perhaps the noble Lord would not wish me to sit down at this point.
Lord Peston: My Lords, yes I would.
Earl Ferrers: That is fine, my Lords. I can reassure the noble Lord that the amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but he will have to rise to his feet later. Indeed, the exercise might be necessary. I take it that my interpretation is correct; namely, that my words are included in the expression,
"without jeopardising any necessary protection".
That is really all I wanted to know.
Earl Ferrers: Yes, my Lords; that is perfectly true. The amendment is not necessary because the powers in Schedule 1 would give businesses the opportunity to challenge informally any enforcement action which the enforcement authority has said that it intends to take. They would require enforcement officers to give reasons for any immediate action which they intend to take or to ensure that third parties who have a direct interest are informed of the enforcement action which affects them. They would also require that, when formal enforcement action is taken, the business affected would have to be given a clear statement of what its rights of appeal are and how to exercise them.
We believe that there is already a great deal of good practice between enforcement authorities and businesses, but it is perfectly true that the powers could increase the burden on any enforcement officer who is not at present exercising his powers with fairness, transparency or consistency. It is much more likely that difficulties—for example, if there are any misunderstandings or in cases of over-zealous application of legislation—will be picked up and ironed out before the formal action is taken. Therefore, I believe that the powers will not add unnecessarily to the work of enforcement officers other than where enforcement officers are not at present exercising them
556
with total fairness, transparency and consistency. In that respect, there could be an increase but, in general, there should not be.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It was most helpful. I was also helpful to him in the sense that he was able to rise to his feet, get some physical exercise momentarily and then sit. down again. Indeed, it is all an example of sweet reasonableness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Vinson Lord Vinson moved Amendment No 10:
Page 5, line 30, after ("fairness") insert ("proportionality").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Report stage of the Bill, I suggested to my noble friend the Minister that the purposes of the legislation would be better clarified by the insertion of the word "proportionality" in the same line as the words currently in the Bill; namely, "fairness, transparency and consistency". I hope that my noble friend will still consider my suggestion now that the matter has been formally tabled because he will know that the law is so often misapplied through being applied in an unreasonable or disproportionate manner. Indeed, throughout the debates, both in this House and in another place this matter has been well recognised by the Ministers concerned.
For example, when summing up at Committee stage, the Minister of deregulation said on the afternoon of 28th April:
"The greatest single deregulatory gain that we could produce as a result of the deregulation initiative is a mechanism that is user-friendly, cheap and speedy. It must be able not only to identify, but to deal with cases when the decisions apparently fly in the face of common sense or when the costs that are imposed as a consequence of them are out of all proportion to the benefits that are supposed to be gained. I know that that was at the back of my hon. Friend's mind when tabling the new clause. I have the greatest possible sympathy with it, and I entirely share his aims. I hope that we can find the mechanism which, because of our debate, I guarantee we shall officially seek".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 28/4/94; col. 1226.]
So the Government are clearly committed to the concept of proportionality. Subsequently, at the press conference on 29th July, when details of the clause we are debating today were released by the Minister for deregulation, he said:
"There is a will to provide some mechanism that will act as a check on unreasonable use of draconian powers used to close businesses down. I would like to create a non-legalistic body to which businesses could appeal if they felt that the enforcement of a regulation lacked a sense of proportion".
It is for this reason that I, along with other noble friends, are pressing for the word "proportion" or "proportionality" to be inserted in Clause 5 (1) (b). I hope that on reflection the Minister will consider the use of such a word to be wholly appropriate, and all the more so because it is a term well recognised throughout the EEC of which we are a member, and from where many—some might say "too many"—regulations emanate. I await his positive reply on this matter; but if, for some reason, he is unable to accept our suggestion, I hope he will confirm that the appeal procedures

557
authorised under these clauses may wholly embrace appeals against the perceived misapplication of regulation because it is perceived to be unreasonable or disproportionate to the alleged offence and is more than necessary to meet the intent of the regulation.
This matter has indeed received widespread support from all sides of the House—I am very indebted not least to the noble Lord, Lord Peston—both here and in another place. I believe it is the wish of Parliament that Clauses 4 and 5 are designed to, and should be interpreted as, dealing with this problem. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will make it quite clear, unequivocally, that they do so. I beg to move.
Lord Reay: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Government for having introduced Clause 5 which, together with Clause 6 and the new Schedule 1, give the Minister powers to improve enforcement procedures and to draw up model appeal provisions. The Government have taken a great deal of trouble to try to meet the anxieties of those of us who wanted to see a new appeals procedure introduced against the unreasonable decisions of the over-zealous bureaucrat.
However, an inseparable part of the thinking behind our original amendment, and the amendment which preceded it moved in another place, was a wish to provide redress in those cases where an official in applying regulations may have followed the letter of the regulation but showed no sense of proportion.
The word "proportion", or some variant of it, occurs repeatedly in debates on the subject; and, as my noble friend Lord Vinson, has pointed out, in many government contributions. Yet it is not plain that a concern for proportion is covered by the wording of Clause 5 as it now stands. I hope therefore that the Government will be able to accept our amendment. If they are not able to accept it, I hope at least that they will be able to give a strong, legally based indication that our anxieties are fully covered by the wording as it stands.
Lord Monson: My Lords, there is little I can add to the case for this amendment so ably put by the noble Lords, Lord Vinson and Lord Reay. It is the unimaginative lack of an adequate sense of proportion which contributes to the financial distress and the mental anguish suffered by so many men and women running, or trying to run, small businesses whose plight is highlighted almost daily by Mr. Christopher Booker in the Daily and Sunday Telegraph respectively. But it is these very people, after all, upon whom the Government always say they are relying to help pull this country out of recession and set it upon a course of sustained prosperity. I hope this amendment will be accepted.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I also wish to speak briefly in support of this amendment. It seems to me that the word "proportionality" deals with a rather different aspect of the situation to the words "fairness, transparency and consistency" because what I believe we mean by proportionality is that the punishment should fit the crime; that a regulation should not be put into force the severity of which, in terms of the damage
558
to the business, is disproportionate to the risk which is caused by the action or lack of action complained of. I do not think that point is covered by the word "fairness". It is not necessarily unfair, it is not inconsistent and it is not necessarily untransparent to close down a business because its scrubbing boards are made of wood instead of stainless steel. But it may be totally disproportionate to the risk which the public may suffer if the wood were to stay in place for another month or two.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a moment but I certainly do not wish to say anything that would prevent the noble Earl from accepting this amendment simply because I wish to say a few words. However, we ought to remind ourselves that where the regulations are derived from the European Community this Bill is unable in any way to deal with them. We ought to realise that we can only confine ourselves to regulations that we ourselves have introduced. That is a point I raised in pointing out how flawed the Bill was to start with. I do not believe that we ought to raise people's hopes excessively in terms of what any of this could possibly do. I rise because I believe the example given by the noble Lord was an example that related to the European Community as regards whether a scrubbing board was made of wood or something else. I do not think there is anything we can do about that unless the noble Earl tells me that we can. I intervene simply to add that point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the humility of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is always a matter of astonishment! To think that he should feel that by his intervening for such a short period of time he would make me change my mind from accepting the amendment to not accepting it does not do justice to his own logic and ability to contribute to the debates. We are always glad of that contribution.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, I have been a professor of economics for the past 30 years. Our watchword is, "humility always".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that is not always apparent in the noble Lord's colleagues—of course, I am talking about his economics colleagues, not his political ones.
On the previous amendment, the noble Lord said he had no objections to giving me a little physical exercise by making me rise up and down to answer his questions which of course disturbed my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale behind me. I do not offer physical exercise to the noble Lord, Lord Peston; but I suggest he practises a little mental exercise over this amendment because it is not easy. I have given a certain amount of consideration to it. My noble friend Lord Vinson has raised an important issue of whether Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 go far enough to address the anxieties about proportionality, and in particular whether the phrase used in Clause 5(1) (b),
"to improve (so far as fairness, transparency and consistency are concerned)"
is sufficiently wide to cover what is intended in respect of the use of these new powers.

559
The concept of proportionality is taken from Community and European jurisprudence. Your Lordships may think it is a curious word and I suppose it would be classed as "Eurospeak" which will immediately endear it to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. In applying the concept of proportionality in United Kingdom law we need to be clear what we mean by it. In the sense in which we are using it in this debate, the word "proportionality" does not yet appear in the additional series of the Oxford English Dictionary. Some of your Lordships may think that that is a good thing.
In essence proportionality means that the legal power of the state should be applied only to the extent which is necessary to achieve the objective in question and that the benefits which are derived from achieving that objective should outweigh the burdens which will arise from it. What that means in practice will differ according to the nature of the power which is being applied. For present purposes, we are identifying two different aspects. The first aspect is that there can be law which, when applied properly and correctly, is unduly burdensome. Such a law could be said to lack proportionality if the benefits, which the requirement might confer, would clearly be outweighed by the cost. Alternatively, it might be disproportionate in that it laid down requirements which could not be achieved in a cost-effective way.
Where the law itself, correctly and reasonably applied, results in undue burdens, then the answer is to change the law. It may be possible to do this by existing powers. Sometimes, however, the problem lies with the requirements of the primary legislation or the powers which the primary legislation provides. In that case, the answer may be to use the order-making power in Clause 1. As your Lordships will be well aware, this can be used to reduce or to remove the burdens which have been imposed by legislation, where this can be done without removing any necessary protection.
It may be that what would be needed would be simply to change the nature of the requirements. In other instances these may be unduly burdensome only in particular cases. Where the requirements are discretionary, it may be appropriate to change the factors which have to be taken into consideration or the weight which has to be attached to them.
Sometimes that will not be possible. In this instance what would solve the problem would be if the legislation concerned provided for requirements to be waived in particular circumstances.
Section 50 of the Financial Services Act is an example of such a particular dispensing power. We are of the view that in appropriate cases the deregulation order-making power could be used to amend legislation so as to provide such a dispensing power for particular cases.
We, therefore, believe that Clause 1 provides the means to deal with legislation which is itself disproportionate or which cannot be applied in a proportionate way.
I said that there were two aspects to the notion of proportionality. The second aspect is the way in which the law is interpreted or the way in which it is applied
560
administratively. Within the framework of the particular legislation, the action which is taken by an enforcement officer should be directed at what is necessary to achieve the objective of the law in question—neither more nor less.
In other words, the action must be proportionate and if it is not, the fact that it is not may indicate the: misapplication of discretionary powers or the misinterpretation of legal requirements. Frequently, there will be inconsistent application between different cases, but not necessarily, as there can be consistent over-enforcement.
What is needed is a mechanism to ensure that the: requirements of the substantive law—as amended, if necessary, by using the powers which are in Clause 1— are properly interpreted and applied. This is precisely what Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 have been designed to provide.
The requirement to give reasons, which appears in several elements of the schedule, addresses the mind of the regulator on whether any action which he is proposing is really necessary. In this way, transparency is a relevant concept in contributing towards a proportionate outcome.
Taken together with the concepts of consistency and, importantly, fairness, I can assure your Lordships that we believe that we have indeed ensured that the powers which are in Schedule 1, could be used where what is necessary is to achieve the result that the sanction which is to be applied should be no greater than that which is needed to achieve the objective of the law.
Given the different concepts which are involved in the word "proportionality", we do not believe that it would be helpful to add the word to the clause. Nor do we believe that it is necessary to do so in order to achieve the effects which I think we are all agreed should be the aim. I think that it would be wrong to do so, as it might be taken as in some way also implying that the powers under Clause 1 were not in fact directed at proportionality in the way in which we intend them to be directed. I can, therefore, give your Lordships the firmest possible assurance that the complementary powers, which are in Clauses 1, 5 and 6, will achieve what your Lordships wish and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary and to that extent undesirable.
I have dealt with this at some length and, indeed, with some complexity. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has exercised his mental capacity in absorbing my reply. It is a complex subject. It is not easy. But it is important, and I thought that your Lordships might welcome a full explanation even if your Lordships may prefer to consider the issue tomorrow in writing, and at your Lordships' leisure.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the noble Earl finally sits down, will he give his thoughts on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston— namely, where our regulation is in pursuance of a European Community regulation. To many of us that is

561
seen as the main difficulty to further advance in the situation which the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, and his colleagues have identified.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, where European directives come into the issue, we are obliged to carry out the directives and to make our law comply with them. In so far as we have to do that, then we have to adjust our law. On this issue we are concerned with making adjustments to the law which is already in existence and, by so doing, to ensure that any action we take is not out of proportion—in other words, that the action taken does not exceed the benefits which accrue from it.
We cannot, of course, derogate from Community laws, but we may be able to alter the penalties. We shall certainly bear the noble and learned Lord's point in mind.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, it is indeed a complex subject. I hope that the many small firms of lawyers who will have to battle with the Act and advise their clients will be well guided by the explanation that has been given to us.
At this stage of the Bill, having attempted to clarify the position, one can do nothing further. Indeed, the position is clarified to the extent that quite clearly as regards UK application of EC regulations disproportion is covered. If the application of the regulation in all cases is more than is necessary to meet the intent of the regulation, I interpret from my noble friend's remarks that quite clearly there would be ground for appeal. On that basis, I believe that it would be appropriate for me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 11, leave out ("descriptions of case, including different provision for").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Model provisions with respect to appeals]:
4.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("by") in line 10 and insert ("The Secretary of State shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I introduced this clause into the Bill at Report stage, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked why the word "may" had been used in this clause rather than the word "must". I am bound to say that the noble Lord periodically makes some perceptive and even on occasions helpful observations. When he stated earlier that he could not think why the Government listened to the Benches behind them, and not to the Benches opposite, I sought to assure him that we always listen to the Benches opposite.
I listened and, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I brooded on his amendment. I came to a happier conclusion as a result of my brooding than he did as a result of his brooding over my amendments. I thought that he had a good point, I congratulate him on it. We
562
agree that the Secretary of State should prescribe model provisions with respect to appeals, and my amendment therefore replaces "may" with "shall". I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will be even more pleased now than he was at the beginning of this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl. It gives me enormous pleasure because when people ask me what I do all day working on the Bill, I often have great difficulty in showing that it is anything useful. However, in future when the Bill is enacted, I shall be able to say that the "shall" moved by the noble Earl was really mine. Thus I thank the noble Earl most warmly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall perform his duty under this section in the manner which he considers is best calculated to secure—

(a)that appeals determined in accordance with the model provisions are determined without unnecessary delay; and

(b)that the costs or expenses incurred by the parties to appeals so determined are kept to the minimum.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we are getting on famously. At the Report stage of the Bill when this clause was introduced, my noble friend Lord Vinson suggested that two further areas for consideration— namely, timeliness and costliness—should be incorporated in the clause. He argued that it was important for a business that it should not have the sword of Damocles of an appeal hanging over it for months on end and that if appeal procedures turned out to be too costly then they would simply not be used and a great deal of unfairness would continue. I quite agree with my noble friend and I am grateful to him for drawing this to my attention. The timescales and costs involved in any enforcement appeal mechanism are important factors in determining how valuable an appeal mechanism is to business and, in particular, to small business.
Clearly, different cases will vary in terms of urgency and complexity and any appeal mechanism will have to take account of that. However, I agree that the Secretary of State should draw up the model appeals mechanism in such a way as will secure that appeals can be determined without unnecessary delay and that costs and expenses which will be incurred by the parties are kept to a minimum. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve and I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing it to my attention. I commend it to the House and beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank the noble Earl for the extent to which he and the Government have gone down the road which was so strongly advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, myself and others at the Committee stage. We are grateful to him for considering the problem of individuals who, for one reason or another, have suffered unfairly at the hands of over-zealous officials. I am most grateful.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, I join in those words and thank the noble Earl and the officials who drafted the

563
appropriate amendments. It is rewarding when an idea— particularly one which has received so much support— is taken up by the Government and incorporated. Now that we are nearing the conclusion of the Bill, I am most grateful to all concerned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Repeal of Part I of the Shops Act 1950]:
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 24, line 38, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 39, and insert ("be amended as follows.
(2) For sections 1 to 3 there shall be substituted—
"Public safety and hours of closing.
1.—(1) The council of a London borough or a district in England and Wales may, where it is satisfied that it is in the interests of public order and safety or the prevention of crime within its area, by resolution determine that a shop or shops in any part of its area shall be closed for the serving of customers from such hour and for such period between the hours of eleven o'clock in the evening and five o'clock in the morning as it considers appropriate in the furtherance of those interests.
(2) A London borough or district council may exercise the power contained in subsection (1) above only after consultation with the police for the area concerned, and after consultation with organisations representative of such persons as appear to the London borough or district council to be concerned."
(3) Sections 4 to 13 and 15 to 16 of that Act shall cease to have effect.
(4) For section 14 there shall be substituted—
"Penalty.
14. The occupier or owner of any shop which is open for the serving of customers in breach of a resolution made under section 1(1) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Turner. The substance of the amendment was discussed both at Committee and Report stages, as well as to some extent at a meeting which I attended with the noble Earl in his office, following the Report stage. I am grateful to him for setting up that meeting for myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, to discuss this and other amendments.
I did not leave that meeting satisfied that I had done enough to persuade the noble Earl and perhaps other noble Lords that the amendment was necessary. Noble Lords will remember that we discussed at length what I considered to be the necessity for the amendment so I shall not have to repeat everything I said before.
However, there has been some confusion so I think we ought to be clear at the outset what the amendment is about. It is intended to provide a reserve power— and I emphasise the words "reserve power"—to require shops in a particular area, not throughout the whole borough or city, to close during the night where the commercial activity runs against
"the interests of public order and safety or the prevention of crime".
It is not a question of whether or not shops themselves engage in criminal activity—that has nothing to do with the amendment—or allow it to take place. It is the very fact that they are open for business and, one must presume, wanting to attract customers that may have
564
struck at measures which the responsible authorities locally are taking to prevent crime or disorder in the middle of their communities.
I wish to go into a few details of what the amendment requires. It requires that a local authority must: be able to demonstrate not only that a problem of crime and disorder exists but also that closure of shops will assist in dealing with it. If a local authority cannot demonstrate both those points, then any resolution it makes can be challenged and held invalid. Before the local authority makes any resolution, it must consult the police force for the area concerned. If it does not, or if it takes no account of the views of the police in reaching that decision, then again the resolution can be challenged and held to be invalid.
Before the local authority makes any resolution, it must consult representatives of the people affected by the resolution. Once again, if that consultation is not genuine then the resolution will fail. I do not see why a decision that can pass those tests should be objected to by anyone. It seems to me that a resolution which can pass the test is essential to the local community.
In previous debates at the Committee and Report stages, both the noble Baroness and I described in detail the horrific situation in King's Cross, London. I know that the local community will welcome the power, if we achieve it. However, it is needed not only for King's Cross. I have heard from a number of local authorities who have similar problems and who are greatly worried, as I am, about the lack of that kind of provision. I have heard from the city of Coventry of the measures that it has taken, in partnership with the police and others, to tackle serious disturbances and crime in the city centre. There is a combination of measures such as control of late-night licences, street trading and new by-laws which all work together—as they do in King's Cross—to protect the fragile environment while its quality is improved.
Here, I must comment on the fact that I well remember the attempts of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who was in his place a moment ago, to try to persuade local authorities to combine with the police to provide such agreements and to get some kind of order into the local situation where there were problems. I imagine that he would be delighted if he could have achieved the kind of consultations that are now taking place between the police and local authorities throughout the country on the aspects about which he was concerned as Home Secretary at the time. I hope that he will take that as a genuine attempt at least to justify his efforts. At the time when he was trying, it was difficult.
Thus, Coventry has a similar problem. In Sheffield, people face problems of drug dealing and rowdyism at four o'clock and five o'clock in the morning in the Wicker and Burngreave areas. In the Peckham area of Southwark in London, there exists perhaps the worst degree of street crime in London. I am sure that noble Lords will know of similar situations in other urban areas. Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council has pointed out the possibility of all-night shops becoming a focus for youngsters and others to congregate and generally cause a nuisance. The London Borough of

565
Newham says that the knock-on effect of all that could well mean an increase in night-time crime, especially robbery. It says: "When better to rob a trader than when the tills are full in the late evening or early morning?" Lambeth points out that in some instances all-night opening might concentrate on local dealings as an auxiliary to local trading. There is a great deal of anxiety and I feel that there is more to come if the amendment is not accepted.
As was said in a previous debate, an open shop can provide light and refuge on the streets at night. I accept that. We all accept that there has been a vast improvement in certain parts of London, where shops light the street and provide some kind of improvement. But where that is the case, if the benefits outweigh the problems, then neither the police nor the local authority will want to see them closed. But where it happens the other way round, then of course they will want to take remedial action.
I recognise, too, that the regeneration of town and city centres is at present being actively encouraged by the Government. I welcome that. An important element can be bringing life back to traditional centres in the evening. Where that is not damaging, I support it. However, the point has been made to me by another local authority that the ability to succeed in these projects depends heavily on creating public confidence and a user-friendly environment. We are talking about fragile communities. To sweep away all possibility of regulation in this one regard; namely, in relation to shops, would be a very dangerous path to take when the same kinds of powers in relation to cafes, places of entertainment and others have proved so vital.
It may be that the power granted by this amendment will not be invoked by very many authorities at any given time. But I am convinced that it will be valuable to a great many at different times in the not too distant future.
I should now like to deal with a few smaller points. Noble Lords will note that this amendment does not amend Part I of the Shops Act, which places general controls on shop hours. There is no intention at all to do that. Those provisions are repealed by Clause 23, which has already been decided. This amendment is selective. It deliberately provides a power to a local authority in relation only to a part of its area. As I have said before, it is a measure to deal with particular circumstances, not to impose global or overall rules.
In our last debate, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he did not foresee a large number of shops opening at night. If that proves to be the case, then few will have reason to object. But the evidence available to me is that it is a growing trend among small retailers in precisely the kind of area about which I am concerned. In that debate the noble Lord also welcomed the kind of partnership initiatives that I have described. I am sure that the local authority concerned will be pleased to read that. I have no wish to fall out with the noble Lord. But it is precisely those partnerships of local interest, those who know their own communities, who call for the measures that I have proposed.
I do not believe that the clause is at odds with the Bill. Nor is it at odds with the Government's commitment to co-operate with local authorities where, in conjunction with the police, they provide such protection for local neighbourhoods. It does nothing to damage the Government's commitment to measures to reduce the level of street crime. On the contrary, it can only assist the Government in the achievement of those aims. This amendment is a necessary improvement to what is already in the Bill.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the noble Earl two questions with which he may be able to deal between now and the final stage. Can he give us an assurance that he will consult his original advisers and ask them to investigate again the powers of the Secretary of State in these matters? Does the Bill as presently drafted give the Secretary of State powers to reinstate closing times? It might be helpful if he could give me replies to those questions. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment, which has my name to it and which has been moved in such detail by my noble friend Lord Stallard. Indeed, my noble friend has gone into so much detail that there is very little that I want to add, except to say that I live in Camden, not so very far from King's Cross. As we know, the King's Cross area has been a centre for prostitution, drug dealing and violence and has a name for it. The existence of that kind of set up has of course had a disastrous effect on residents in the adjoining area.
Successful joint initiatives have been taken under the current legislation, and I am informed that such initiatives would be prevented by the Bill as it now stands unless there is an amendment along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Stallard. The partnership of Islington and Camden councils and the Metropolitan Police took a variety of action, including a restriction on the licensing of night cafes to 1 a.m. closing. That had the effect of removing legitimacy for the presence of criminals in the vicinity.
Were the Bill to pass unamended, shops would be the only public buildings for which there was no regulation on late opening. It is very likely that night shops would provide, often unwillingly and quite unwittingly, a similar cover for drug dealers and prostitutes. I know that it is the Government's intention—and it is one that we all applaud —to reduce crime and the fear that the average citizen has displayed about crime in the community. I really do not think, unless the Government accept the amendment, that the Bill will help that situation. I spoke on this matter at some length in Committee and on Report. My noble friend has given a very detailed explanation of what the amendment would mean in practice. I hope therefore that we shall hear from the Minister this afternoon that, this time round at least, the Government are prepared to accept the advice of institutions like the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and, I gather, the police, and to accept what was suggested by my noble friend.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, noble Lords may recall that at Committee stage I raised an amendment

567
which was followed through by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes at Report stage. It referred to the nuisance that was, caused in residential areas by late night shopping. I, too, thank my noble friend the Minister for meeting me with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. However, I am given to understand that the Government's view is that the existing environmental and noise legislation is adequate for dealing with this problem. A number of local authorities are not happy about that, and we shall have to see in the new deregulatory phase whether these powers appear to be adequate. If they are not, we shall have to address the problem again at a later stage.
Turning now to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, the problem, particularly in King's Cross, is immediate and very serious. The noble Lord referred to the partnership between local authorities and the police both there and elsewhere. It is absolutely essential that this valuable initiative is given as much legislative power as possible. If it appears to your Lordships that this amendment is a slight tightening up of regulations in what is generally a deregulatory Bill, I suggest that the situation is so serious that it is fully justified on this occasion. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have spoken to similar amendments and to the predecessor amendments at different stages of this Bill. I have to say that in Committee I was not wholly persuaded that the amendments that had been moved were such as were required. They seemed to me to go a little far. But as we have continued to debate the issue I have become further and further persuaded of the need for the kind of protection which now, in a very modest and careful form, has been proposed today by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. I wholeheartedly support his amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was very grateful to have had the opportunity of meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman the other day on this subject. I considered very carefully what they said; I realise that there is a real point of anxiety. The noble Lord is quite right to be concerned about the areas of drug dealing and prostitution. He mentioned King's Cross and a number of other places. He told me then of the co-operation between the police and local authorities over this matter. That is extremely important; and I have no reason to believe that that co-operation would be any the less once the Bill becomes law. Indeed, I see absolutely no reason why it should be less, and I hope that that will not be the case.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord in fact would replace the existing closing hour provisions of Part I of the Shops Act 1950 with a new power for local authorities which would allow them to close on a weekday or a Saturday all shops or any class of shops within the whole or any part of their area. However, the position at the moment is that shops have to be closed from 8 p.m. until midnight or 9 p.m. on Monday of the week until midnight. After that they can open. So they can open all night if they so wish. If the amendment were to come into operation, it would give the local
568
authorities power to close shops between 11 p.m. at night and 5 a.m. in the morning which is, at the moment, when they are allowed to open.
First, let me say to the noble Lord that the amendment does not propose the retention of an existing power to be exercised under certain specified conditions; it proposes the creation of a new power. We have heard concerns that, if Part I of the Shops Act is repealed without any form of replacement, local authorities will be unable to take action against late night shops which may be providing cover for criminal activity.
That line of argument rests on the assumption that the repeal of the Shops Act itself will significantly change the pattern of shops' opening hours and thereby will create a problem where none existed before. With great respect to noble Lords, I do not believe that that is so. I do not believe that the repeal will change the pattern of consumer demand. People who want to shop late at night can do so now. Their numbers are unlikely to change substantially as a result of the repeal. The shops which open now are responding to that demand and there is no evidence to suggest either that their numbers will greatly increase or that they are currently causing problems for the police in their pursuit of criminals.
I accept entirely the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, about crime. He mentioned various places. The Government take very seriously all measures which could contribute to the fight against crime. But, equally, we have to be sure that the measures that we take are appropriate. Any proposal for a new regulatory power— one which at the moment does not exist and which is suggested by the noble Lord's amendment—has to be clearly demonstrated as both necessary and workable.
It is true that some local authorities have used their powers under other legislation to close late night cafes which have been associated with criminal activity. They have claimed that it has reduced the incidence of drug dealing and prostitution by depriving criminals of a place to go and an excuse to linger. Those powers still remain. It has also been said that late night shops could provide alternative cover for those kinds of activities. I do not find that suggestion very persuasive.
In fact, late night shops are quite different from cafés, takeaways and other premises which are dealt with by other legislation. The licensing and control of those premises are not affected by this repeal. Those licensing and controls will continue. It may be possible surreptitiously to pass drugs in a shop, but that can be done in the daytime just as much as at night. Drug pushers are not exclusively night birds. But unlike in a pub or café there is nowhere to sit and other customers are constantly moving about. Shop owners are unlikely to allow drug dealers and prostitutes to remain on their premises simply to ply their trade and criminals are likely to be deterred by the widespread introduction of closed-ciruit television systems in shops, which are now becoming increasingly commonplace.
There has been no suggestion that those shops which open now have become the focus for criminal activity. It is difficult to find any evidence that they would do so in the future. Indeed, in Scotland, to which the proposed power would also extend, the problems of drug dealing

569
are centred on housing estates rather than shopping areas. Late night shops themselves are not seen as presenting any particular kind of threat.
Having said that, perhaps I may now turn from the question of necessity to the issue of practicality: how would the proposed power operate? The noble Lord's amendment includes the requirement to consult with the police and:
"organisations representative of such persons as appear … to be concerned".
But consultation is not evidence. Before any action could be taken there would presumably need to be evidence of a threat to public order and safety or to the efforts to prevent crime. That evidence would have to be available to be tested on appeal. So presumably there would have to be an avenue of appeal, probably to the magistrates' court. That would be a necessary protection for those businesses which are likely to suffer from the imposition of restrictions to their trading hours. In other words, there would have to be some evidence for a local authority to say to this or that shop: "You must close because we believe that the opening of your shop is causing distress to the area". The shop owner would have to have some right of appeal and there would have to be some evidence that the local authority must produce in order to justify the action that they had taken against that shop as opposed to any of the competitors' shops. But if that kind of evidence were available, why could not prosecutions be brought against the criminals and their associates? I do not think it right to punish the shops, which equally happen to be the victims of criminal activities.
It may well be said that the evidence of a problem existing may not be sufficient to bring prosecutions. If that is so, the way is wide open for different interpretations of what is a perceived threat. Arbitrary decisions may well be taken to close some shops and not others. Such discrepancies are likely to apply between local authority areas as well as within the same local authority area. We will have run ourselves straight back into the very problems of the interpretation and practice of weekday shopping which dogged us so much throughout the debate on Sunday trading.
I do not wish in any way to understate the problems faced by the police and local authorities in certain inner cities. Nor do I wish to do anything other than congratulate those who have worked together so successfully in combating crime. The Government support local partnerships against crime. We should like to see them extended into the communities themselves. But I do not believe that the new power proposed by the noble Lord is necessary or appropriate to that task. Late night shops do not currently cause problems and are quite different in kind from those premises which have sometimes been a source of difficulty and which remain unaffected by the repeal.
This is a deregulation Bill. Far from deregulating what is already the law, the noble Lord's amendment introduces regulation where there was no regulation before. If evidence of criminal activity is insufficient for prosecutions, its use to support the imposition of restrictions on trading hours would reintroduce the
570
likelihood of new anomalies in the regulation of shops. There is clear support from consumers for deregulated opening hours. We believe that shop hours should be determined by consumer demand.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked me whether I would consult the advisers to the Secretary of State about the powers to revive the closing hours. The Bill repeals all the powers in relation to closing hours, and that is our intention. Any further restrictions on closing hours would require further legislation. But for all the reasons that I have given, I do not consider those powers to be appropriate or necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, was concerned about the police and their view of the problems which may arise. We take very seriously the views of the police on all matters of crime. Our view is that there is no evidence of serious criminal activity where those shops are concerned at that particular time of night. But if there is, the appropriate sanctions should be brought to bear directly on the criminals.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman was worried about noise. I understand his concern but I do not believe that a new power would be appropriate. It could represent an increase in regulation; it would introduce new restrictions on trade.
I realise the public concern in relation to noise nuisance and the lack of consideration which some people show to the comfort of others. But I do not believe that this repeal will substantially alter the pattern of shop opening or the noise which is generated by shops. In addition, even if further action against noise is required—I am not persuaded that it is—the problem should be addressed directly through noise legislation rather than indirectly through the medium of closing orders.
I return to the point that I made at the beginning, that the amendment seeks to introduce a restriction preventing shops from opening during the night at a time when, at the moment, they are permitted to open. If the noble Lord wants to address the problem about which he is concerned, the right way to address it is through existing legislation to which local authorities have access and which relates to noise as opposed to shop opening hours.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, I listened with great interest to what the noble Earl said. I confess that I am still disappointed in his reply. We seem to be playing skittles: I put them up and he knocks them down. We have done that during Committee stage, Report stage and now at Third Reading. It is as though the Government are paying lip service to the seriousness of the problem but are not prepared to do anything about it. Nor are they prepared to support what has already been done.
I find it most objectionable that an expensive and intricate exercise called "Operation Welwyn" mounted by the Metropolitan Police in conjunction with Islington and Camden is not to be supported. It was an important operation. I offered to show the video produced by the police on that occasion to any Member who wanted to see it. I am sure that if they saw it they would

571
immediately agree with the amendment. However, I had only one request from someone prepared even to look at it.
That operation will be totally undermined by the reply given by the noble Earl. He is trying to produce arguments that the amendment is dealing with separate shops and so forth. We are dealing with what was a real problem in that area. We are saying that any increase in commercial activity in that area will produce the same results as existed before Operation Welwyn. What happened was that there was a huge operation of commercial activity in the area which created the nuisance. Local authorities and the police dealt with it. The Bill puts us back in the situation where there could be an increase in mat kind of commercial activity which would, in my view and in the view of many other people, including the police, take us back to the position that existed previously.
The noble Earl gave the impression that we had not taken account of previous debates. We exempted Scotland from the application of the Bill. That is stated in the amendment. That was an objection made at a previous stage. We took note of it and left out Scotland. We also dropped the coverage of the whole of an area and said "part of an area. A local authority therefore must limit application to a part of any area. The noble Lord spoke of appeals. We have said in various contributions made that the actions would have to be reasonable to escape legal challenge. There are sufficient safeguards in the amendment to ensure that the local authority is being reasonable. If it is being unreasonable then the police could say so, as could the legal opinions of the various traders, their representatives and organisations. We have therefore covered all the objections raised.
The noble Earl did not raise anything new or constructive. All he did was try to knock down what he considers to be objections. I hope I am wrong, but I fear that as a result of the Bill in its present form we shall be back not just in Camden, but in many other areas of the country, to a situation which may get out of control if we are not careful. I do not intend to divide the House this evening; I want carefully to study and look at the responses. However, I have not said my last word on the matter yet. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Controls on London lorries: replacement of discretionary exceptions]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen) moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 28, line 14, leave out from ("that") to ("the") in line 15 and insert ("doing so—
(a) will have the effect that less of a burden is imposed on").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 it may be for the convenience of the House for me to speak also to Amendment No. 17. At Report stage we discussed whether or not our proposals would add to the overall burden on business. As I then made clear, we are confident that they would not do so. To clarify the matter further I undertook to bring forward an amendment to the effect that the
572
Secretary of State could only make an amending order if he were satisfied that the result would impose less of a burden on the carrying on of business. Amendment No. 15 does just that. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, in this Bill we have to be grateful for small mercies. The Government are still proposing to introduce a scheme which we believe to be fundamentally flawed, undesirable and introduced in the face of a scheme which worked well in the past and protected the environment of the people of London. Nonetheless, it would be churlish not to accept that, following representations made—notably by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding—it is better now than before, assuming the amendments are accepted, which is not an unlikely scenario.
The interesting parts of the amendment relate to the: provisions in regard to "less of a burden" and the words,
"not have the effect of removing any necessary protection",
which are to be viewed conjunctively. That is important. But having gone as far as this, it is a pity that the Government did not go a little further.
It may be helpful if the Minister could cover a number of undertakings that we believe to be important. Does it remain the Government's intention to control the movement of heavy lorries in London? Is it their intention to have a workable scheme for me whole of London administered by the boroughs working jointly?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I can intervene to say that we will probably cover those points when debating the next group of amendments with Amendment No. 16. Amendments Nos. 15 and 17 are on a more specific point and it may be better to leave the matters raised by the noble Lord to when I introduce Amendment No. 16.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 28, line 15, at end insert (", and
(b) will not have the effect of removing any necessary protection.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18.
These amendments respond to concerns which were expressed at earlier stages. As I said at Report stage, I entirely understand that noble Lords wish to be confident that this clause will not lead to a reduction in standards of environmental protection for Londoners. I recognise the importance of the protection afforded by the London lorry ban. Let me assure your Lordships once again that we have no intention of undermining that protection in any way. We have repeatedly given assurances that no order would be made under the power in Clause 34 unless the Secretary of State was satisfied that the ban itself could still be enforced effectively.
We believe that removal of the permit scheme would not undermine the effectiveness of the ban itself, although it would change the nature of enforcement activity. For example, failure to display a permit gives rise to many prosecutions at present, but there is no guarantee that all the vehicles seen with plates are

573
conforming with the lorry ban conditions, particularly the tough routeing conditions. It is possible that many drivers who are currently prosecuted for not displaying a permit may in all other respects be conforming with the existing ban, including its routeing conditions. Conversely, there are many vehicles with permits which are not necessarily complying with the ban.
Enforcement will, of course, remain a matter for the London boroughs concerned, but we estimate that administrative savings of some £400,000 per annum will be achieved from abolition of the permit scheme, money which the boroughs could spend on additional, more effective, forms of enforcement such as police roadside stop checks and multi-agency checks. We are therefore confident that the ban can be enforced effectively without a bureaucratic permit regime.
Nevertheless, I accept that, despite the assurances which have been given on behalf of the Government, the feeling of the House is that those assurances should be reflected on the face of the legislation. Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 would therefore provide that the Secretary of State could make an order only if he were satisfied that it would not remove any necessary protection. This will ensure that the Secretary of State cannot make an amending order unless he is satisfied that the ban will be capable of proper enforcement.
I trust that these amendments cover the concerns that were very ably expressed at a previous stage by many noble Lords, including, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I commend the amendment to the House.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I apologise for having anticipated the debate but what is proposed still does not, in my view, go far enough. As I indicated in my original remarks, there is an advantage in seeing the conjunctive application of the two ideas. That is helpful and it is as a result of representations made by this House in debate, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that this change has taken place. However, I am not convinced that it goes as far as it should. While the Minister may be satisfied that no degradation will be caused to the environment it may not be the view of the local authorities with which he consults that that will be the case. The Minister could override that view and take a different view altogether from that of the local authorities. I hope that in the light of what the Minister has said that possibility will not arise. Nonetheless, it is certainly conceivable.
The Minister has indicated that it is not the Government's intention to see any deterioration of environmental quality in London. That being the case, will he give an undertaking that if, notwithstanding the introduction of any such scheme, despite the caveats which have now been introduced, it became evident subsequently that there was a substantial deterioration in terms of environmental quality in the capital, the Government would undertake a review of the situation? Although it is helpful to have this process of consultation before the introduction of any scheme, will
574
there be a continuing review of the position or a continuing measure of consultation while the scheme is in operation even after a pilot scheme might have been approved? Will the Government therefore give an undertaking that they would have no hesitation in reviewing the position once it had become clear through substantial evidence that there was a deterioration in the environment?
To that extent it is to be hoped that the Ministers concerned would use their influence to ensure that the Metropolitan Police also participated in future controls throughout the London area at no additional cost to the London boroughs. London boroughs have sufficient impositions made on them in terms of carrying out more and more duties and here they are expected to carry out the duty of enforcement. Presumably they will have little or no additional resources provided to them. What is to be the role of the Metropolitan Police, in conjunction with the boroughs, in ensuring that there is adequate enforcement of this new scheme?
I shall not go into the matter any further. I believe that the question of costs has been grossly exaggerated by the Government and I have evidence to refute what the Government have said in that regard during earlier debates. However, I do not think it would be helpful to go into that all now. What I look for is a response to the specific points that I have made during the course of this brief debate.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and myself with his noble friend earlier this week, for being prepared to listen again to the concerns that have been expressed during debates on this matter and which were expressed again by us, and for reflecting those in Amendments Nos. 16 and 18. The issue which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I raised was that of enforceability. Though at first blush the reference to,
"not have the effect of removing any necessary protection",
does not appear quite equivalent to enforceability, I see that it is an appropriate way forward. I am aware that there have been concerns as to how that concept can be expressed. I am further reassured today having realised that the same words are contained earlier in the Bill in Clause 3. I can therefore understand that it is an appropriate way forward.
Your Lordships will know that throughout the proceedings on the Bill I have been deeply unhappy with this clause. I remain unhappy. I am sad that it is included, but if it has to be included—clearly it is going to be—these words are certainly a help. They will ensure that proper scrutiny is given to the different criteria which should apply when and if—it may only be if—an order comes to be made. I do not agree with the Minister that the cost is £400,000 or indeed that that money could straightforwardly be made available for enforcement through other means. I have recently learnt that not only is it a question of costs but that if there is no permit scheme in operation there may well be a difficulty in devising a sign to go on the roadside which will properly reflect the scheme.

575
I have one further question. Will the Minister confirm—I am sure he will be able to—that in referring to "necessary protection" it is the public at large—the residents of London—who are to be protected?
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, it is clear to me that the noble Viscount is well aware of the concerns of the local authorities which are involved in this issue. I should like to underline from my knowledge the degree of feeling that exists on this matter and the worry that the noble Viscount's words will not be proved correct. What I wish particularly to do in rising to speak is to refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said about reviewing the situation. I should like to take the question one stage further. Will the noble Viscount confirm that the Minister would have power to reverse an order once it had been made if it were proved that the. protection was being undermined, something which he has assured us he does not wish to see done?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her welcome for this group of amendments and also the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, although he went further to say that he was much less satisfied with the provisions. Even at this late stage it is worth reinforcing the fact that it has never been our intention to reduce the protection provided by the ban. We believe in the ban and we believe that it will continue to serve Londoners. This amendment addresses the anxieties which were raised by noble Lords at Report stage and at earlier stages when we had very full discussions on these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, brought up the issue of a review and how things will go in future. The important point is that any Secretary of State would have regard to the performance of the ban and the public view and would keep the matter under review. In answer to my noble friend Lord Harrowby, any regulation such as this could be reversed by Parliament.
As a final point, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, raised the question of the role of the police. We believe that their role will be absolutely crucial to the enforcement of the ban under our new arrangements. We believe that their role will be to organise and to participate in an increased regime of stop checks which is really the best way of enforcing the ban.
The Earl of Harrowby: My Lords, the Minister said that the regulation can be reversed by Parliament. That was not the question that I asked. The Minister makes the order and parliamentary time is always short. I was asking whether the Minister has the power himself to reverse an order which he has made.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, yes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 28, line 28, leave out from ("satisfied") to ("under") in line 30 and insert:
("(a) that, if he does so, it will still be the case that less of a burden is imposed on the carrying on of business than was imposed before the replacement").
Page 28, line 31, at end insert (", and
576
(b) that doing so will not have the effect of removing any necessary protection.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 37 [Power to repeal certain health and safety provisions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 30, line 37, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to ensure that the powers under this section are exercised with a view to maintaining or improving standards of health and safety in the workplace and as they affect members of the public.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am returning to the whole matter of health and safety provision at Third Reading because, I regret to say, I found the: responses of the Minister to our attempts at amendment on Report rather unsatisfactory.
Perhaps I may make it quite clear that we on this side of the House understand that much of the legislation that the Government desire to remove from the statute book is out of date. We understand the intention. The Minister said at col. 1089 of the Official Report, that it is intended that the powers will be used to remove outdated and redundant law and that the Secretary of State would have the same power with respect to pre-1974 legislation as he already has with regard to post-1974 legislation. But there is a widespread fear that the use of the powers could lead to a decline in standards.
I shall not go over the ground already covered in Committee and Report because I am sure that we all agree on the absolute necessity of maintaining and, if possible, improving standards of health and safety not only for the sake of workforces everywhere, but also in the interests of members of the public who must use locations where work is being carried out or where it is being undertaken in the public domain.
At Report stage the Minister referred to a decline in the number of fatal accidents and of course we are glad when that occurs. Nonetheless, there are still too many accidents which result in grave and sometimes fatal injuries. It is because that is realised among trade unions and employees generally, as well as by the public, that any moves at deregulation by the Government must be against the background that standards will not decline, and everybody must understand that that is so.
I moved a simple amendment to that effect at Report but I, and I believe other noble friends, simply did not understand the Minister's response. The amendment did not seek to remove the powers granted in the Bill at all; it simply sought to write on to the face of the Bill the provision that standards would be maintained. In his response the Minister argued against the amendment on the grounds that,
"The amendment … would put us and the Health and Safety Commission right back at square one, making the clause unusable".—[Official Report, 13/10/94; col. 1089.]
But since the Minister himself had argued that the intention was to maintain standards anyway, it is difficult to see why an amendment that actually makes that clear would make this clause in the Bill "unusable". However, if we had a clause like this on the face of the

577
Bill it would, I am sure, do much to allay the fears that have been expressed to me in some of the correspondence that I have received.
I repeat that the amendment in no way interferes with the powers within the Bill; it is simply intended to demonstrate that there will be no decline in standards. Therefore, I hope that the Minister, at this very late stage in the passage of the Bill, will reconsider the attitude which he has previously adopted to what I believe is really an anodyne amendment, but one which will have the effect, if it is adopted, of allaying the fears of a great many people outside this House. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, in Committee I said that, on the face of it, an amendment in similar terms to this one, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, seemed reasonable. However, in response, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, told us, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, has repeated today, that while the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act allowed the repeal without replacement of post-1974 legislation, it did not allow the repeal of outdated pre-1974 legislation. The Health and Safety Commission had alerted the Government to the deficiency and at the request of the commission what is now Clause 37 was proposed to remedy what was a technical fault.
That explanation, buttressed for me by the confidence I repose in the Health and Safety Commission, was sufficient to allay my anxieties although clearly not those of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. That was why, when a similar amendment was moved at Report stage, I did not speak in support of it. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Henley, confirmed that the purpose of the clause was simply to remove outdated and redundant legislation. He gave a categoric assurance that the Government had no intention of reducing safety standards.
Nevertheless, a third amendment of the same kind has now been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. Apart from its substance I question, with due respect to the noble Baroness, whether it is in the general interest that at Third Reading of the Bill we should debate once more what is essentially the same matter. I am sorry that in those circumstances I cannot give positive support to the noble Baroness's amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Henley): My Lords, obviously I fully understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the clause should not be used to undermine necessary safety standards. I had rather hoped that the assurances that I gave at an earlier stage would have been sufficient to have satisfied her about our intentions. I am very grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who was obviously satisfied by the assurances which I gave earlier and which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde gave before me.
However, I shall repeat them this evening in the hope that on this occasion they might satisfy the noble Baroness. I repeat the assurance that the Government
578
gave on previous occasions that we have no intention of undermining necessary safety standards. Powers to revoke or repeal health and safety legislation are nothing new. We already have the power to repeal health and safety legislation introduced after 1974 and, moreover, that power has been used over 300 times during the past 20 years and very much to good effect. That power is not subject to the qualification which the noble Baroness is seeking to introduce in Clause 37.
However, health and safety standards have been reduced not one iota during that time. On the contrary— I believe that the noble Baroness was quite right to stress this—we can be very proud in this country of our health and safety record and the fact that standards have improved markedly. As I believe I said earlier, and the noble Baroness quoted me, we now have the lowest rate of fatal injury ever reported. We have health and safety standards which are certainly as good as any of our European partners and, in most cases, far better. This is due, at least in part, to the Health and Safety Commission's achievements in modernising the law. This clause will form part of that process by allowing the revocation or repeal of outdated and irrelevant laws and was introduced in response to the commission's own request for such a power—that is, the tripartite Health and Safety Commission.
The amendment proposed would mean that the power could be used only,
"with a view to maintaining or improving standards of health and safety".
I agree that that may appear to be a reasonable requirement. However, I have to advise the House that it would make the clause unusable in practice.
The problem is that even when provisions have no practical or useful effect—either because the situation they refer to no longer exists or because the provision is covered by other more modern legislation—it would be virtually impossible to be satisfied that they have no effect whatsoever on health and safety standards. But that is in fact what the amendment would require us to do. We have taken legal advice on whether the words "with a view to" might overcome this problem but I am advised that they do not. So the amendment would render the clause useless, and the outdated legislation identified by the commission's Review of Regulation would continue to clutter up the statute book.
If it would help the noble Baroness, I shall give just one example. The Cotton Cloth Factories Regulations 1929 specify the times at which readings must be taken from a hygrometer in weaving sheds. This must,
"be observed on every day on which any workers are employed in the shed, between 15 and 30 minutes from the commencement of work, between 11 am and 12 noon, and (except on Saturday) between 4 and 5 pm".
Most of the requirements of these prescriptive regulations, which now apply to a mere 20 factories in the UK, have already been replaced by modern legislation, and the Health and Safety Commission has recommended that the remaining provisions would be better subsumed in the goal-setting requirements of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations. However, I am advised that it would not be possible to revoke these regulations if the amendment were

579
accepted. Although the regulations have no practical, useful effect, it would not be possible to be satisfied that they contributed absolutely nothing to maintaining or improving health and safety standards.
As I said before, and I again repeat it, we have no intention of reducing any necessary health and safety standards. We believe that these assurances—together with the obligation to consult and the affirmative resolution procedure—are full and sufficient safeguards. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for the response that he has just made which is very similar to that which he made to the amendment moved on Report. I note that the noble Lord told us this evening that he has taken legal advice, but I remain unconvinced that the inclusion of wording such as I propose on the face of the Bill, which would give an assurance that standards would be maintained or improved, would have the effect that he claims. Nevertheless, at this late stage in the passage of the Bill it is not my intention to seek to divide the House. I am grateful for the assurances that the Minister has put on the record in regard to the Government's intention about maintaining and improving standards. I shall read with interest his words in Hansard tomorrow with a view to assuring myself that they are as adequate as they seem to be at present.
I have every confidence in the Health and Safety Commission, which has done, and continues to do, a very good job in maintaining and improving health and safety standards in this country. I share the view that we have higher standards than many of our European neighbours. However, as I said earlier, my reason for tabling the amendment was that there is a widespread feeling outside the House—I have received letters about it from a number of organisations—that the mere provision of these powers could ultimately result in a decline in standards. We have the Minister's assurances that that will not be so and that the Health and Safety Commission will be involved. Having heard those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Inspection of independent schools]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 32, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 20 relates to Clause 38 which was introduced essentially by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Over the years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness and I have agreed on an enormous range of matters to do with education. I think that we still do. Unfortunately, when it comes to independent schools we disagree and we simply have to agree to differ. I can only say in mitigation on my side that life in your Lordships' House would be incredibly boring if all that we did was to say how right the noble Baroness is.
Although we disagree, it is not my purpose to re-examine the substance of Clause 38. My purpose in moving Amendment No. 20 is to seek to ensure that, if we have to have Clause 38, it is right rather than wrong.
Amendment No. 20 is not quite a drafting amendment but it is rather technical. If we are to go ahead and have new subsection 87(3), I simply do not understand why the Government have chosen the word "may", given that they want something to happen and are seeking to provide for it appropriately in the Bill. It may be that no one has thought of it, but I am convinced that if we an: to have the provisions, the word should be "shall". It is not quite a technical amendment because there is a certain amount of substance to substituting "shall" for "may". If the Minister reflects upon this, I am sure that he will want the word "shall" rather than "may". The noble Baroness might agree that that is what she wants. That is my only reason for moving the amendment; it is not to go into the detail of the whole thing for a second time. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I was very surprised when I saw Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He is right that we have frequently agreed on educational matters and it is a matter of much regret that on this particular issue he is so completely misguided. But there we are, you cannot have everything in life.
I was particularly surprised because when I introduced my amendment in Committee, to my great surprise the Labour Benches emptied entirely except for the figure of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for whom I have the highest admiration, I am sure that he is equal to the entire Labour Benches. What conclusion was I to draw as I got up to speak and that happened? Did everybody suddenly take such a dislike to me that they felt that they must walk out? I flatter myself that that was not the case. The only conclusions, therefore, that I could draw were either that members of the party opposite felt that I was absolutely correct and there was no need to consider the matter further or that they were indifferent to the whole matter and felt that they could leave. It is difficult to know which it was—
Lord Peston: My Lords, my mind has gone—I am convinced of that—but I do not recall walking out. I thought that we had a row. I could have sworn that I was here, but perhaps I am thinking of another occasion. Although I agree that my memory is no longer as reliable as it used to be, I thought that I was here.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am quite certain that if I had had a row with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I would have remembered it. I do not think that we had a row. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for 25 years and what happened was something new in my experience. Of course, it was late at night but I am quite clear that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was not present, although a number of his colleagues were. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was present and spoke and I am sure that she will confirm that the Opposition side of the House was almost empty.
What conclusion am I supposed to draw from that but that the Labour Party did not regard this as a matter of such seriousness that it was worth having somebody on their Front Bench—or, indeed, on their Back Benches— to speak to the amendment? I recall the time; it was

581
about 11 p.m., but those of us who are stalwart Members of your Lordships' House think nothing of making speeches at 11 p.m.
There it was. So imagine my surprise when we got to Report and the Government introduced an amendment to meet my amendment and all sorts of people suddenly felt that all sorts of things were wrong with it. I did not answer all the points on Report. I could have done so, but under our proceedings I can speak only once. So I was even more surprised when I saw yet more amendments being tabled on Third Reading.
Here we are, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, all innocence, says that the first amendment is just technical. He spoke so briefly that I hardly had time to make a note of what he said. I think that he was saying that, if we wanted to get something done, the word "may" was weaker than the word "shall". I am not a lawyer, but I have learned in public life that there is a great deal of difference between "may" and "shall".
Lord Peston: Oh yes, my Lords!
Baroness Young: My Lords, what the word qualifies in this clause makes a difference, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendment. I thought that the noble Lord had put the amendment down because he was concerned about the qualifications of the ISJC inspection team, and that he wished to ensure that the qualifications were higher. If that was one of the points at the back of his mind, I should like to repeat for the benefit of the House that the ISJC inspection teams came into being because in 1978 the Labour Government removed from independent schools the inspection by the Department of Education and Science which would have given them the qualification which recognised them as efficient. The Government decided to remove that. In order that the schools could satisfy themselves, and even more the parents, that they reached high standards, they introduced the ISJC inspections. In order to satisfy everyone that their standards were high—no one is interested in anything but high standards—the inspectors are always led by a former HMI, and most of the inspectors are former HMIs.
I was rather sad to hear someone say that if they were retired HMIs they were over the hill. If we regarded everyone over 60 as over the hill, your Lordships' House would be a poorer place. That is not a good criticism. Of course there are younger people who are notable exceptions, and we all look up to them greatly. I thought that this might be a serious point, and I wished to answer it.
The second point is that I, and ISJC schools, do not see that a distinction can be drawn between what is known as welfare and what we in schools call pastoral care. It is an interesting philosophical point which we could no doubt discuss at great length. I have asked a great many people what is the difference, and I am bound to say that I have not had a satisfactory answer. If one is responsible for running a boarding school, one of course needs high educational standards, but the pastoral care side of the school is equally important. The child is there for the whole of the term time, and it is
582
important that the whole of his or her life should be taken care of properly. So we too have an interest in what we call pastoral care but which otherwise is called welfare.
The argument has been that welfare can only be looked after by social service departments. Social service departments do a good job for a great many people. They do an especially good job for children who have been removed from their parents, those who are in trouble, those who need care, or something like that; but the children about whom we are talking are children who are in schools under a contractual arrangement between the school and the parent, and they are in a completely different situation.
We do not believe that there is this thing called welfare which is not covered by our own inspections. I place those points on record because it is important for the House to know how important we think it is that the children should be looked after and taken care of properly.
Perhaps I may add just one further point. A criticism was raised about the frequency of inspections. Under the amendment, the schools will all be inspected by Ofsted every 10 years and by the ISJC every 10 years, and of course parents have the right to remove their children at any moment that they are dissatisfied with what is going on. That is a greater guarantee of high standards.
It is not the frequency of inspections that matters. What controls whether or not a school is a good school—whether it is issues of bullying or abuse, all of which are serious and need to be dealt with—is the head teacher and the teacher being in the school every day keeping an eye on everything. As I said when we last discussed this matter on Report, a school received a very good report from the social services department and yet a month later a case of abuse was found. I do not blame the social services in the least for that. They did their job. But we need to watch all the time for that type of thing. Eternal vigilance is needed.
I return now to the issue of "may" and "shall". We are talking about the inspectors' qualifications. When I was discussing the amendment—long before the Report stage—early in September, when I saw a draft of it, I said to the officials that I would like included in it a provision—I was not drafting, and I am not drafting now—which would say that the Secretary of State may not unreasonably withhold consent from someone. It is a provision which goes constantly into Bills, and one of which we are all aware. I was assured that that was unnecessary, because it was implicit in the amendment. I asked for a letter on that point, which I have on my file. A case is quoted supporting that statement. I therefore accepted that as being correct, and I stand by that.
When I looked at the amendment which removes the permissive "may" and replaces it with "shall", that rang alarm bells. I am sorry, perhaps it should not have done so. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, may frown, but one thing is absolutely for sure—I was not born yesterday. I have seen an awful lot of things in my public life. I like to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s before I settle for something. I am not convinced that this matter is quite as simple as the noble Lord suggests. I am not

583
suggesting of course that he is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. I am sure that he would not even think of that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, no, not in this case.
Baroness Young: My Lords, that is good. I am pleased to hear that. We are obviously agreed on that point. It is for those reasons that I hope my noble friend the Minister will not accept the amendment. I hope on the serious points I can give to the House the assurance as to what is implied by the amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will be able to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I may use this opportunity to apologise to the noble Baroness if she felt that at the previous stage she was inhibited from answering the points which were being made from these Benches and the Labour Benches. A criticism was made then that we had allowed her to speak early in the debate. Let me repeat what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said on that occasion: there was no thought of gagging her from responding to points which were made; it was a matter of courtesy that, as she had effectively been the progenitor of the amendment, it seemed appropriate that she should speak first.
There are two, or perhaps three, points, upon which I would agree with the noble Baroness. I agree with her that in Committee the Labour Benches, for whatever reason—it was probably the lateness of the hour, which was even later than she said—were pretty empty, and that the row we had was on Report. That indicates the value of the proceedings, and of the fact that we can keep returning to matters. Not everything is obviously important the first time round. The importance dawns upon us subsequently. As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, the Bill becomes more difficult to deal with the more we read it.
The issue is an important one. Coincidentally, I received a letter yesterday from a Member of another place who is not of my party. He had not caught up with the Report stage but had read the Hansard of the Committee stage. He told me that, following approaches from a parent with children at a private school, he had been trying to extend the English legislation to such schools in Scotland. This debate will continue. Clearly out there in the world there is real concern about how the matter is dealt with.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Was the school in question a member of the Independent Schools Joint Council? We must remember that the amendment applies only to ISJC schools and not to the others which will continue to be inspected.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question; but I take the point which the noble Baroness raises. However, the point that I am seeking to make is that the matter is of considerable anxiety to parents and others who are involved with children at independent schools.
I agree with the noble Baroness that the distinction between "may" and "shall" is important. However, I do not agree with her analysis of the position. If she and
584
her colleagues are content with new Section 87B(1)— that there is the possibility of the Secretary of State imposing requirements—they should fear that he shall impose requirements, in particular given the final words:
"as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, does not cut across the assurances that the noble: Baroness has reported; that consent would not unreasonably be withheld to the approval of particular inspectors. I believe that the alteration proposed by the noble Lord is an important requirement. I should certainly feel somewhat reassured on a matter about which I remain anxious—that the Government would give guidelines that monitoring must be in place, and so forth. That is not to the detriment of inspectors. Indeed, I believe that any inspector worth his salt would welcome the fact that those protections were in place. I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, sadly, I have no memories of the earlier stages of the Bill. I suspect that they were conducted by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde prior to his elevation to the Chief Whip's Office. Obviously, I missed the most fascinating of debates and I regret that I come to the subject somewhat late.
We do not believe that the amendment is necessary or desirable. My noble friend Lady Young spoke at length on why the amendment as drafted is undesirable. As the noble Lord said, "may" and "shall" are very different words indeed. My noble friend made a most powerful speech which will have gone a long way towards persuading the House that the amendments are not necessary. Perhaps I may comment briefly on that.
We have already made clear that we would expect it to be necessary to impose some conditions, such as inspections at regular intervals and the inclusion of a person with suitable welfare experience in the inspection team, but in our view it is right that each case should be considered on its merits. I can assure the House that, in deciding what conditions it would be appropriate to impose, the Secretary of State would take fully into account the need to safeguard the welfare of children.
Clause 38 already provides that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the person to be appointed would be an appropriate person to determine whether the welfare of children provided with accommodation in a boarding school is adequately safeguarded and promoted. We believe that that gives a very full safeguard.
I hope that with those assurances, and following the words of my noble friend Lady Young, the noble Lord will feel it unnecessary to press his amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I were at cross-purposes. She referred to the Committee stage and I must admit that at that late time of night I was not in the mood for a great row about the future of independent schools. I had in mind the Report stage. At least we can agree on the facts.
I am totally mystified by the view of the noble Baroness and the Government. It is not in the spirit of the Bill to use the word "may". Anyone reading the rest

585
of the Bill would say that there is no shadow of doubt that the Government mean "shall". No ulterior motive is involved; indeed, I believe that I am the innocent party. I had no idea that I should raise such wrath on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Indeed, had I done so I might not have pursued the amendment. I assumed that the Government must have had in mind "shall", and I remain mystified by the Minister's reply. He cannot possibly mean "may"; he must mean that the Government will impose on the person such requirements. What logical role does "may" have? The whole point of this clause must be "shall", and I am totally bewildered by the Minister's reply.
Given his assurances, I believe that "shall" is the word that he would like to have included. However, he has said that he will not do so and therefore there is no point in wasting everyone's time. Occasionally, I am bewildered that anyone should doubt my motives. As the noble Baroness knows, I am quite capable of producing great mischief; but I assure her that on this occasion I had no intention of doing so. I thought merely that the Government must have wanted "shall" and that if no one else would bring the matter forward I would do so. The Minister is perfectly happy to go on record with what I regard as a totally illogical position and if he insists on doing so, so be it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 32, line 30, at end insert ("following consultation with such persons as he considers appropriate").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise with even greater trepidation. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my assurance that I shall not go over the background to the clause. She knows my views on independent schools and I do not wish to have a substantive argument.
The expression "following consulting with such persons as he considers appropriate" appears frequently in the Bill and I am somewhat taken aback by the fact that it does not appear in this new section. As it appears throughout the Bill I believe that its omission here is an oversight. I assure the noble Baroness and the Minister that it is merely a case of my disliking the whole clause and if it were up to me we would not have Clause 38. However, as we must, I ask: where is the provision about consultation that occurs elsewhere?
I put the amendment forward in the same spirit and there is no pseudo-conspiracy on my part. I have a great desire to undermine independent schools, but this is not my way. When the time comes to deal with independent schools, I shall express my views and the noble Baroness knows those views. However, given what is in the Bill, the amendment does not relate to that but to the procedures. I hope that she accepts my bona fides
586
on these matters and I look forward to hearing her view. I hope too that on this occasion we shall receive a modicum of logicality from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has approached his second amendment with trepidation. Obviously, we have absolutely the right relationship. I had not previously realised that and am delighted to hear it. I always welcome his views, in particular on subjects about which he believes that he is right and I am wrong. Of course, I believe that I am right and he is wrong.
I believe that it is unnecessary to add these words to the Bill. The noble Lord will be pleased to hear that I agree about consulting people—the Bill is full of instances where people will be consulted. I am certain that in this case consultations will take place. However, I do not believe that these words are necessary.
We are talking about inspections by the ISJC inspection team. There is no secret about the members of the team; who they are, their qualifications, what they have done, and so forth. There is nothing to hide. If anyone wishes to consult further they can do so. However, I believe the amendment to be unnecessary. Your Lordships' House is always saying that we must not have unnecessary legislation and unnecessary words and therefore I believe that it is better to leave the Bill as printed.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggests that the words are unnecessary. However, I believe that we should ask whether they will do any harm. I do not believe that an extra half dozen or so words will undermine the drafting process to such an extent that we should be concerned about them as extra words in the legislation. There are far too many words in the Bill as it is. But the words do no harm and since they reflect everything which has been discussed in that context they should be welcomed and added to the Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the idea of drafting which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has—that one can add words and it does not matter unless they do any harm—is rather extraordinary. On many occasions I have been told by noble Lords on all sides of the House that unnecessary words should be removed from legislation. But I shall not take issue with the noble Baroness because I believe that that is a very minor point.
If my noble friend Lady Young is so successful in producing trepidation in the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am tempted to unleash her on many more occasions. We may then get through Bills somewhat faster.
Perhaps I may give the appropriate assurance and respond briefly to the noble Lord. I can give him an assurance that it is our practice to undertake appropriate consultation. We would certainly intend to consult generally on the requirements. Indeed, some such consultation has already taken place. However, it may not be necessary to undertake consultation on every single occasion before a further body is appointed.

587
In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is not wise or indeed necessary to have the words proposed by the amendment written into the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment, while accepting on this occasion my logicality.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the reason that I used the word "trepidation" is that the two amendments are not put forward in order to look for trouble. As the noble Baroness knows, no one is better than I am at making trouble. I am just taken aback because I seem to have upset the noble Baroness when I thought that I was being helpful. However, let us leave that on one side.
I must say that the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was absurd. His reply would apply to the whole of the rest of the Bill. On every occasion on which I asked about consultation he could have said, "Oh, we believe in consultation, and there is no reason to provide for it in the Bill". It seems to me that he cannot get away with his answer; it will not do.
Following what the noble Baroness said, perhaps I may now pretend that there is something suspicious here. I have reached the conclusion that the Government believe that there must be something very special about independent schools because all the principles which appear in the Bill do not apply to those schools. That was not my thought when I tabled the amendment. I thought that they would be discussed on a par with the rest of the Bill.
I am now rather taken aback because on the one occasion that I point out that the Government have forgotten to provide for consultation I am told, "You can rely on the word of the Secretary of State about that. There is no need to include it in the Bill". If the Minister takes that view, that should apply to the rest of the Bill. The Minister's reply looks ridiculous in terms of what Hansard will now contain. In future, the Minister's reply could be used to undermine the rest of the Bill because he suggests that with regard to independent schools the Government are willing to abandon principles on which they built the Bill.
In the end, for my part, it is water off a duck's back. There are bigger fish to fry. I am sorry. That is two clichés and I shall stop at two clichés. I have in my office Every Boy's Bumper Book of Clichés but there is a limit to how many I can introduce on this occasion. For my part, these have not been the happiest few moments in dealing with the Bill. I do not believe that my amendments have been dealt with with the seriousness which they deserve. However, I do not regard wasting time as a useful exercise and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 [Duration of licences and grant of interim licences]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 40, line 8, at end insert (", following a probationary period of 12 months, at the end of which period the licensing authority by whom it was initially granted shall review the grant of the licence.
( ) The matters which the licensing authority shall take into account when carrying out such a review shall include the safety record of the holder of the operator's licence.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23.
Amendment No. 22 deals with provisions relating to heavy goods vehicles and seeks to introduce a probationary period of 12 months following which the licensing authority may review the grounds of the licence, and in addition, among the criteria which can be applied by the licensing authority for determining the review, the safety record of the holder of the operator's licence can be taken into account.
Amendment No. 23 deals with criteria in relation to the consideration by traffic commissioners of the; operators of public service vehicles to enable them to take into account the safety record of the operator and the extent to which the operator voluntarily complies with the best safety practice, in particular in relation to schoolchildren who may be carried. That relates to the use of seat-belts. I shall deal later with those issues in a little more detail.
At the outset I must say that I am extremely unhappy about the deregulation provisions with regard to heavy goods vehicles. The 1968 Act introduced strict controls on HGVs and licences were required to be considered on a five-yearly basis. I am not happy about the way in which enforcement has been undertaken. I believe that there was plenty of room for more effective enforcement of the strict rules which were enacted in 1968.
But we are now considering a diminution of those very strict safety requirements and I believe that that is driven by dogma and not by reason. Indeed, I should go so far as to say that there is a strong case for introducing a very much stricter enforcement of the law as it stands today rather than any reduction of it.
I believe that it is right to have a probationary period as we have set out in the amendment because we are entering into an area which needs to be looked at from time to time. The probationary period which we seek to introduce here is perfectly reasonable.
Of course, we cannot avoid all risks that are entailed in the use of heavy goods vehicles but at least some of the risks might be mitigated. The Government are really compelled to argue here, although they have not done so with any great skill or ability, that the present system has substantially failed and that it imposes too heavy a burden on industry. What is the evidence which they would utilise to corroborate that contention? Is there any public demand for a reduction in those standards? What is the evidence which would justify moving in that direction?
I believe that there has been an intensive lobbying campaign by the road haulage industry. It argues that it is perfectly safe to leave all that to market forces. We believe that that notion is, in this particular instance, misguided in the extreme.
In previous debates we have been told that transport managers dread the bureaucratic burden which they face with the five-yearly renewal of the operator's licence. I suppose that that is as useful an argument as any but, nevertheless, it is a discredited argument. That is precisely what one might expect them to say. The industry has wished to diminish the provisions over many years and this is the first Government who have

589
succumbed to that wish since 1968. Those concerned do so on the basis of a report by the taskforce which is heavily biased politically. I have made previous comments about the taskforce and its composition. We simply do not place any great credence upon the views that have been represented.
The Government say that all they are doing is streamlining the system of management. They say, "We are providing for a continuous licensing system". I submit that that is pure camouflage. The background to the entire situation is far removed from that which the Government have represented it to be. It is a story of declining standards. The licensing review boards have confirmed that position. Road hauliers in recession have tried to cut costs and some have even tried to cut comers. I am not blaming the entire industry, but there are significant sections which are prepared to do so. After all, maintenance costs are very heavy and, therefore, they must be reviewed from time to time— just like the philosophy of this Government when it comes to issues affecting safety and the environment.
The findings are that one in four lorry accidents is caused by maintenance faults. I should have thought that that in itself would have justified a tightening of the enforcement of the rules. I say that because the toll in terms of human life is very substantial and the toll in terms of injuries is likewise: it is much too high. That is an enormous drain on the resources of the nation, to say nothing of the intensity of suffering which is caused to people and their families who might be so involved.
Is it not a fact that certain advice was given to the Government in a report which was not published by them but which was circulated, I believe, in Whitehall about a year ago—advice which argued that the extent of illegal operation of lorries was very difficult to determine from national statistics? Did not the report say that illegal operations seem to be endemic to the road transport industry? Further, did not the report say that corners were being cut because of the recession in order to reduce costs? What is the Government's response to that report, rather than the rather tendentious report of the taskforce upon which they rely? I believe that we argue perfectly logically that there is an overwhelming case not for a relaxation of controls but for more effective enforcement of them.
There is a system operating in Germany where an annual test of general road-worthiness takes place, together with an interim six-monthly examination to test the efficiency of brakes. The cost is estimated to be about £30 a lorry. That is not an overwhelming cost. Moreover, it seems to work and the German Minister of Transport takes the view that it is a system which saves lives. Why should that not apply in this country? Perhaps such tragedies as that of Sowerby Bridge when six people were killed by a runaway truck or that at Shelley near Huddersfield last July when, again, a runaway truck smashed into a house, might well be averted.
It was not long ago that the West Yorkshire police found that 70 per cent. of lorries examined in a special operation were faulty. Indeed, four of the 23 that were stopped were so dangerous that prohibition orders were
590
served upon them which prevented them from travelling further until the necessary repairs were made. Of course, it is true to say that that was a special case. It was a special operation. Nevertheless, it is a significant factor which I believe is worth adducing.
The Government cannot deal with all the causes of heavy goods vehicle accidents. One of the problems is that they do not know about such causes. Indeed, they have no information showing how many fatal or serious crashes involving such vehicles were due to brake or maintenance problems. They should know, but they claim not to know. On the other hand, the Vehicle Inspectorate, which is a government agency, has established that of 4,092 lorry accidents that it investigated 983 were caused at least partly by mechanical failure. In its judgment, brake failures and crashes caused 75 deaths. It is all too easy to put the responsibility, as the Government frequently do, on man-made problems; for example, it was the driver's fault. However, I believe that the overwhelming number of fatal accidents in Britain were partly caused by the reasons to which I referred earlier.
It is also interesting to note that, while the overall number of fatal accidents in Britain has been falling, the proportion of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles has been increasing. It seems to increase where road traffic is busiest and freight traffic most concentrated. Inspector Kevin Sharp from the motorway unit of the West Yorkshire police believes that as few as 30 per cent. of lorries on the road are in good working condition. He drew the conclusion that the proposal that we are making will at least partially remedy the harm that will be done by the Government's preparedness to undertake deregulation.
Amendment No. 23 specifically requires the operation of criteria affecting public service vehicles to be followed by the traffic commissioner at the end of a probationary period of 12 months. He would take into account the safety record of the public service vehicle operator. Why should that not be the case? The extent to which the public service vehicle operator voluntarily complies with best safety practice, especially in relation to vehicles carrying school children, would also be an element that he would take into account. I believe that that is a perfectly reasonable proposal. It is odd that the Government have so far shown no indication of being prepared to accept it.
I do not want to recite a whole catalogue of hideous accidents that have taken place, although I have the evidence with me. I have in mind the type of incident which involved 12 children from Hadley Roman Catholic School—a matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Howell when the matter was last debated. The coroner found that, due to the fact that they were not wearing seat belts, the children were thrown from one end of the coach to the other, whereupon a fire started and they were trapped. Indeed, we have heard of many other such incidents, some equally serious while others have been less serious.
However, the Government continue to prevaricate about the use of seat belts. Characteristically, they tend to blame the European Commission for inaction. But they have failed consistently to take action. That point

591
has been taken up by the Director-General (of Directorate-General VII) who deals with transport. The Government are perfectly at liberty to apply Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome which provides that they can undertake provisions dealing with health and safety, among other things, provided that they do not engage in any,
"disguised restriction on trade or any arbitrary discrimination against competitors".
So they could apply higher standards; but, instead, they seek to suggest that the European Commission is at fault. Of course, the Commission is seeking to introduce provisions in that regard. From my own experience, I remember that the British Government were seriously at fault in resisting safety measures which, when I was a Commissioner, I suggested should be undertaken in relation to vehicles of this nature. Indeed, they were hardly in the van of progress at that time.
However, be that as it may, it appears that the previous Secretary of State made a comment on 15th June 1994 which showed that he favoured the use of seat belts. He said:
"Tragedies like the M.2 coach crash and the deaths of children in crashes in Strathclyde and north Yorkshire have highlighted the potential safety benefits for belts".
The Government ought to be taking action now in regard to the latter I propose to introduce an interim measure which I believe the Government ought to take into account. I see that that amuses the Minister. I do not regard it as a matter for amusement; indeed, it is a most serious matter which has taken a very heavy toll of life. I beg to move.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, these amendments which we are discussing this evening are identical to those tabled, but not moved, by the noble Lord at the Report stage. I re-emphasise the Government's absolute commitment to maintaining and improving safety on British roads. Our proposals are entirely consistent with this aim, as I will demonstrate. These amendments are in no way necessary to achieve that objective.
We agree that there is a need to monitor carefully the performance of new operators. Special attention is already paid to the operations of those new to the business and the existing powers of traffic commissioners, together with the provisions of this Bill, will ensure that monitoring can be carried out effectively without the need for a probationary period. Were a probationary period to be introduced, it would create a year of uncertainty for operators who are just setting up a new business.
As a matter of practice, under the present system, new operators are given close attention and are invariably visited by the Vehicle Inspectorate within the first 12 months of operation to check that everything is in order. If an operator were found not to be up to scratch, he would face disciplinary action of the traffic commissioner. The move to continuous licensing would not affect this practice or the powers of the commissioner to take action against any operator who, at any time, was shown not to meet the standards required of licence holders. That is the absolute key here.
592
Continuous licensing does not mean that an operator will have a licence for life to act as he pleases. Disciplinary action can be taken by the traffic commissioner at any time if an operator's performance is unsatisfactory. All that it means is that he will not have to reapply for a licence every five years. Experience has shown that this is an unnecessary administrative burden in terms of time and cost, particularly to goods vehicle operators. For example, in 1993/94, out of some 16,000 applications for replacement goods vehicle operator licences, all but 250 resulted in fresh licences being granted in the terms applied for. Out of that 250, only 100 were refused and the remaining 150 were granted on reduced terms.
All operators are required to notify traffic commissioners if and when they are convicted of relevant offences. As regards PSVs, an operator is additionally required to report to the traffic commissioner any failure or damage to a PSV of a nature calculated to affect the safety of its occupants or of other road-users and reports on prohibitions and defective vehicles detected at roadside checks are sent by the Vehicle Inspectorate to the traffic commissioner.
It is unclear what is meant by the term "best safety practice" in the amendment. Clearly it is the responsibility of the operator to comply with road traffic law and the requirements of the operator licensing system, and the traffic commissioner can take action if he fails to do so. However, it should not be the business of the traffic commissioner to impose his own views of what best practice may or may not be.
Buses and coaches have a good safety record. Mile for mile, it is twice as safe to travel by bus or coach as by car. Statistics also show that the number of people killed or seriously injured in accidents involving buses and coaches has steadily declined, so that it is now 45 per cent. lower than it was in 1979. But the Government are very concerned that measures should be taken to minimise the risks to children. That is why the Secretary of State announced in July that the United Kingdom is to act ahead of the European Union and seek agreement to introduce compulsory fitment of seat belts to all minibuses and coaches used specifically for the transport of children. Some operators are pre-empting the legislation by fitting seat belts to their vehicles in response to passenger demand. It is open to local education authorities to specify these requirements for any vehicles they purchase or hire in for contract work.
But it should be remembered that the objective of the operator licensing system is to ensure that operators fully meet the requirements of the law as it stands rather than to impose the vagaries of "best practice", which, as I have said, is imprecise in its meaning.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, are quite unnecessary as it is already open to a traffic commissioner to review the operations of an operator and take disciplinary action against him at any time on the grounds that he has failed to meet the licensing requirements.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, rather than wait for agreement at European Union level, whether by qualified majority or otherwise, why do the Government

593
not take advantage in this field of Article 36, as I suggested earlier? I told the Minister what Article 36 was about. It gives the Government the opportunity to do this. It has been suggested by Mr. Coleman, as I indicated too, that the Government would be open to do that provided they do not offend the provisions about setting up any discrimination against competitors or any arbitrary barrier to trade.
6.45 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I would say in answer to the point raised by the noble Lord that we are dependent on European legislation acting across the board. We have to allow vehicles meeting current EC standards, which require belts only in the front and other exposed seats, to be freely marketed in the United Kingdom. This applies to British as well as to European manufacturers. For the new rules to be fully effective they must be agreed and implemented throughout the European Union.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord speaking for the Opposition and to the noble Minister speaking for the Government, the difference between them seems to be that the Government are quite happy to wait for an accident to happen and then take action, whereas the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench is saying, "For goodness' sake, take whatever precautions you can beforehand so that an accident does not happen". Anyone who travels long distances along motorways and other roads as I do, will see for himself that many of these vehicles are in a hopeless condition. They cannot possibly be inspected ad hoc, as it were, by the traffic commissioner because how can he be expected to know about them? However, a person could be appointed whose duty it was to inspect those vehicles after such period of time as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested. They could be inspected, for example, after 12 months of operation or at five-yearly intervals. Such a process must be right. I cannot see why an operator who has just established himself in business should face uncertainty by knowing that his licence may be taken away at the end of 12 months if his safety record is no good because, if he observes all the rules, he will not be in any danger at all.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would remind the House that we are at Third Reading and therefore we should abide by the rules. However, with the leave of the House, I will respond to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, by reminding him that this initial check by the Vehicle Inspectorate and any subsequent checks which may be made at any time to confirm that an operator is operating safely and within the terms of his licence are quite separate from the opportunity to review goods vehicle operating centres at five-yearly intervals as provided by the Bill. The noble Lord is quite incorrect in saying that we are waiting for accidents to happen. We have a very good regulatory system and we submit that these checks by the Vehicle Inspectorate are the right way to go forward.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I find the Minister's reply very much less than convincing. When he says
594
that, as regards seat belts, the Government are terribly hidebound by European Union law at the moment, I must say that I have already indicated to him that that is not the case. As regards British vehicles, the Government could insist upon higher safety standards subject to the caveats I have mentioned. The Minister has not really responded to that With respect, I think he is wrong in the way that he has referred to the law here. I propose to test the opinion of the House.
6.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Kirkhill, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Lockwood, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mishcon, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Crook, L.

Moran, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Portsmouth, Bp.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ripon, BP.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Rodgers of QUARRY Bank, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Geraint, L.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hamwee, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Flather, B.

Aldington, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gisborough, L.

Arran, E [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Ashboume, L.

Greenway, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gridley, L.

Astor, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Attlee, E

Harrowby, E.

Balfour, E.

Harvington, L.

Belstead, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Blaker, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hothfield, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Howe, E.

Camock, L.

Huntly, M.

Chesham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kintore, E

Courtown, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lindsay, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Cross, V.

Liverpool, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lucas, L.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dundonald, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Faithfull, B.

Melville, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Finsberg, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

595

Milverton, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Morris, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mountevans, L.

simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. john of Bletso, L.

Moyne, L.

Stewartby, L.

Munster, E.

Stockton, E.

Napier of Magdala, L.

Strange, B.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Newall, L.

Tebbit, L.

Norrie, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Northbourne, L.

Torphichen, L.

Northesk, E.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Vinson, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vivian, L.

Prior, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Westmorland, E.

Rawlings, B.

Wynford, L.

Reay, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.57 p.m.
Clause 61 [Duration of licences]:
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 70 [Functions of local authorities]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 62, line 38 at end insert:
("( ) Sections 19 and 20 of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall apply to any person authorised by virtue of this section to carry out a function of a local authority as though that person were a member or an employee of the authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and myself. At Report stage, we moved two sets of amendments on the issues of probity. One dealt with quangos, Cabinet Ministers, and so on. The other amendment related to local government probity and audits—issues to which this amendment returns.
Referring to the amendment that we moved at Report stage—it concerned sleaze—the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, stated at the time that I was "extravagant" in my concerns, that my remarks were "astonishing", my proposals "an absurdity", my anxieties "over the top", and other similarly judicious, balanced and appropriate remarks. We have seen how balanced, judicious and appropriate those remarks were as the events of the past week have unfolded and as the Prime Minister, if not the Minister, has accepted the anxieties exemplified from this side of the Chamber on the issue of sleaze and the need to clean it up. I hope that the Minister will convey to the Prime Minister that we on this side are appreciative of the fact that he at least listened to the concerns expressed on that amendment, even if the Minister felt unable to do so.
However, we explored the provisions of such an amendment at Report stage and we are moving it again for reasons that I hope will become apparent. The provision ensures that where a local authority contracts out an entire function, and not just aspects of that
596
function, the same probity and checks on probity which apply to local authorities should also apply to the contractor.
At Report stage we discussed issues relating to the code of conduct of the ombudsman, and the powers of the auditor. At that stage, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was helpful and clear. He is always clear, but not always helpful. However, he was kind enough to enlarge on some of the points in a letter today which we were proud to receive. Following that discussion at Report stage and the Minister's letter, one point of difference remains, and that is what the amendment is about. Local authority councillors may be surcharged if they act illegally in providing a function, but no such power of surcharge applies to a private contractor who might be guilty of an identical offence, even though the: private contractor is in it for the money in a way that the councillor is not. A councillor may be surcharged for wilfully incurring extra, unnecessary or improper expenditure, even though he perhaps wrongly believes that it was in the best interests of the authority and it was the right thing to do. An example might be delaying setting a rate, which is the kind of thing for which councillors have been surcharged. From my experience, such an action is seldom, if ever, for personal gain. Yet following such a decision, surcharge, bankruptcy, disqualification, even jail and often the loss of a home may follow.
A contractor, motivated not by a sense of public interest—however misinformed that sense of public interest may have been—but by personal financial gain alone, nonetheless escapes such a sanction. Why? After all, local authority functions can already be delegated to employees of the council and those employees, not just the councillors, are liable to surcharge. Why should contractors who are in an arm's length but nonetheless quasi employee relationship be treated differently from the employees themselves?
What happens where council officers or members collude with the contract or illegally? In a report in The Times on 22nd October, a Westminster housing trust was described as set up "to sanitize" discriminatory house sales. Had it worked, the officers and members of the authority would have been liable to surcharge, but not the trustees or employees of the trust. Had their instructions not been put in writing and had the trust acted illegally on a verbal, as opposed to written, authority, the auditor would have been powerless to intervene. In other words, it puts a premium on councillors delegating functions, thus placing those responsibilities beyond the reach of the full powers of the auditor. That is what it means. By delegating functions, councillors can put those functions beyond the reach of the full controls of probity. That is what we are trying to check tonight, because it cannot: be right.
So on the first argument, it is unfair to draw a distinction between, on the one hand, contractors, who are free of surcharge, and, on the other hand, councillors and officers of a local authority and employees of that local authority, who are not. The threat of surcharge, the knowledge that it could happen, would help to clean up the act.
Is it really a problem? Unfortunately, yes. Compulsory competitive tendering and voluntary tendering have led to contracts being won by companies whose parent companies in the United States and France have, I understand, been convicted of improper or corrupt practices under the jurisdiction of their own countries. Waste Management Inc., for example, in the United States has been at odds with state and federal regulators mostly because of violations at its hazardous waste dumps and incinerators. It is my understanding that one of its subsidiaries has bought out the entire Cheshire architects, engineers and surveyors departments.
Another US company, Attwoods, was, I am told, fined, 4.5 million dollars in the United States for fraud. One of its US subsidiaries, Industrial Waste Services, has been the subject of repeated criminal cases.
Alternatively, let us take two French companies: Compagnie Générate des Eaux and Lyonnaise des Eaux, the two major water companies. I gather that both companies have been implicated by French MEPs in recent corruption scandals in France. According to the Financial Times, Lyonnaise des Eaux was implicated in the corruption scandal which this summer brought down M. Carignon, mayor of Grenoble and former communications minister.
All those companies which I have named, and many more, have subsidiary companies in this country. It is crucially important that such practices, which, to my understanding, are apparently carried on by those parent companies in the United States and France, are not imported here. Powers of surcharge would deter any such thought. It is desperately important that we keep and continue to keep local government clean as more and more of its work goes out to subsidiary companies some of whose parent companies have a record of criminal conviction in their own home countries.
If your Lordships will allow me, I will repeat the warning of Peat Marwick:
"contracting out of public services to private firms is likely to trigger an explosion in fraud and corruption".
The Audit Commission itself is neutral on the subject. It believes that it is a matter of,
"policy for government to determine".
I hope that your Lordships will determine tonight that the powers of audit should be extended and that the powers of surcharge should be applicable to contractors, as they are in all other walks of local authority life. I beg to move.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I listened with growing astonishment to what the noble Baroness said. What she is doing is advocating the practice of visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons. I could not care less whether companies in any other part of the world are convicted while their subsidiaries tender quite separately for work in this country and are responsible to this country and to the laws of this country.
Much of what was said is hearsay, because the noble Baroness said, "I am told", "I hear". I prefer to rely upon the ability of local government officers and councillors. Like the noble Baroness, I have served 25
598
years in local government and have great faith in the ability of councillors and officials to probe and advise their councils as to the probity of a firm quoting for work in some contracted out service.
I believe that it would be the height of folly to say that because a company has committed crimes elsewhere, that company's subsidiary is liable to do so here. If it does, then it is liable to the laws of the country. What has been said is that those companies have been convicted in other countries, fined 4 million dollars, etc. If they break the law here, they will be fined. I believe that it is absolutely wrong to draw the comparison that the noble Baroness drew.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, without repeating the powerful arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I wish to associate these Benches with the sentiments behind the amendment. I am surprised that the noble Lord said that he "could not care less"—those were the words that he used. It is possible to argue that it is not a case of the sins of the fathers being visited on the children. It is a rather more complex relationship than that.
It is possible to argue that, if a company commits an offence in one country, of course a subsidiary will not commit a comparable offence in another. However, to say that one could not care less is going much too far. I believe that the Minister would be ill advised to take the view and to repeat in this House that, in deciding whether a company is eligible for a contract here, he could not care less what breaches of law it may perform in another country. I think the Bill would be improved by the addition of the amendment and I await with great interest what the Minister has to say.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend's amendment, I bring to the House the experience that I have in both industry and local government. Perhaps I may explain to your Lordships, in industry one of the factors that I found most salutary was the effect on managers of personal liability for their conduct and actions. For example, we may recall the penalties that were imposed by the Health and Safety at Work Act. The risk that individual managers who did not abide by the criteria of that Act would go to prison was immensely salutary in respect of the conduct of managers over matters of health and safety at work.
In other areas of companies' activities where the risk of personal liability for their actions did not exist, sometimes companies would take risks that would be covered by either the company or its insurance company paying up, and therefore individual managers would bear virtually no risk of liability.
Another factor arises from the experience that I have of local government. Here I can attest that risk of personal liability is very significant when very complex decisions have to be made as to conduct and decisions that are made by local councillors. Not only are they advised by their chief officers of the legal implications of the decisions in terms of personal liability, but individual councillors take those warnings very, very seriously, because, unfortunately, these penalties have been visited on a number of councillors throughout the United Kingdom. To suggest that companies can

599
perform the functions of local government, with all the complicated factors that ensue, without the same sort of risks of personal penalty that apply to local councillors, is asking for trouble. That is why I beg the House to support the amendment that has been moved so ably by my noble friend.
Lord Henley: My Lords, when we started debating the provisions in Part II of this Bill, noble Lords opposite said it was scandalous that the responsibility for public service functions was being transferred to the private sector. The Government explained that this was not the case. The Bill provides that responsibility, both in terms of accountability and legal liability, remains very firmly in the public sector. This ensures that the interests of third parties are fully protected.
Now that this point seems to have been taken on board by most, if not all, of the party opposite, the noble Baroness seems to be telling us—certainly that is what the amendment seems to do—that it is a scandal that responsibility has not been transferred to the private sector. That is quite a leap.
The Government stand firmly by the principle that the responsibility for delivering public services, whether through public servants or outside contractors, must remain with those in the public sector on whom statute placed that particular responsibility. That situation should not change unless and until whichever the statute was that imposed that responsibility is amended by Parliament by means of primary legislation in the usual way.
That is the principle that is embodied in the Bill. It ensures that any third party who might have a claim arising out of the acts or omissions of a contractor would be able to make that claim against the public sector organisation, be it a local authority or central government department. That ensures there is no diminution in the protection of the public interest when functions are contracted out by means of the provisions in this Bill.
I can further assure the House that there is no cause for concern that the contracting out provisions create the potential for that avoidance of proper probity in financial affairs. As I have explained, responsibility for the function carried out by a contractor remains very firmly with the local authority, which must ensure that the terms of its contract provide for proper financial control.
Under Clause 72 the authority remains accountable and legally liable for the exercise of the function in question for all purposes. The district auditor would be able to audit as part of the local authority's accounts the contractual arrangements to perform the functions. It is through the terms of the contract and subsequent monitoring of the operation that the local authority has the means to safeguard against impropriety and wilful misconduct by the contractor and to take action if such behaviour should occur. The auditor would have regard to whether the officers and members of an authority had properly considered such questions if any question of surcharge arose.
600
The priority, obviously, for all of us must be to ensure that, in any local authority service, systems are in place to ensure effective management accountability at every level. A local authority has the power to ensure this through the terms of its contract and by proper management of that contract once it is let. Authorities may also, of course, include terms in contracts to recover any losses which might arise out of a contractor's acts or omissions. Further, any expenditure incurred by the contractor is incurred under the terms of a contract. Limits on discretion to incur expenditure would be set by the terms of that contract. It is the responsibility of the authority, of both members and officers, to set such limits as appropriate when they draw up the contracts. Obviously it is right that they should be answerable for that.
I hope, given the safeguards in the Bill, that I have made clear the principles on which it is based and the responsibilities of local authorities to manage their affairs responsibly. There should be no diminution in the protection of the public interest where functions are carried out. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. If, however, she feels unable so to do, I invite the House to reject it.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and I thank other noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. First, I have to say that I was slightly distressed by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, who has considerable experience as a former Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, the words attributed to him were that he "could not care less" if the companies had convictions elsewhere, so long—
Lord Finsberg: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. What I implied and intended to mean was that it is "utterly irrelevant". I chose the wrong words and I regret them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for clarifying his initial remarks. I understand that that is what he means—in which case I am puzzled now, not by his failure perhaps to grasp the issue but by his lack of logic. Why invent an issue when the track record is there to read? These are parent companies which, on well testified information in reputable newspapers such as the Financial Times, have been convicted of improper practices—corruption, embezzlement, fraud and so on— and have offended against regulations in the countries of their home jurisdiction. Those companies have subsidiaries in this country. Where the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, myself and noble Lords on this side would entirely agree is that we do not wish to see the importation of those practices here. The only difference between us is on whether the powers of the auditor to surcharge would add to the likelihood of discouraging the import of such practices here.
I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, would not agree that, if a contractor had personal liability—as my noble friend Lord Monkswell said—for such an offence (not just company liability, but personal

601
liability) that would be an additional deterrent to the importation of such practices. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, would not agree with us that any additional penalty must be an additional deterrent. As he wishes to deter—and I am sure that there is no division between us on that point—then I am sure that he should be supporting us in this amendment, not opposing us.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that there will be "no diminution in the protection of the public interest" in contracting out. The noble Lord still fails to grasp the key distinction between the contracting out of a service (let us take housing, for example,) such as rent collection —in which clearly the local authority has specified a service level; has specified the contract; has agreed the price after open competition; and continues to maintain a supervisory role. If that service is contracted out and the contractor fails to meet the standards required, the contract will be withdrawn. Very often it is withdrawn—for school meals, cleaning and the like. Clearly, in that case the noble Lord is entirely right that the local authority retains responsibility and powers of surcharge are probably not so appropriate.
What the Minister does not understand—if he does understand he should not have made those remarks—is that when not a service but an entire function, say the entire housing function of an authority, is contracted out, then by definition the local authority has stepped back from that responsibility and handed it to the contractor. It has retained the power of supervision, but at that point it is no longer a function but simply a shopping list of services. That is the difference between a shopping list of services, where responsibility is retained, and a function. The point about a function is that responsibility for the delivery of that service and for the whole array of service is in the hands of the private contractor.
We argue that where that happens—an entire function goes out—the contractor should stand in the same relationship to the public in terms of probity as if it were the local authority which was providing that function, including its employees and its councillors.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House I may come back on that point. There is simply no distinction between the two. In both cases the responsibility remains with the local authority and what I said earlier stands.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, then could I invite the Minister to define for the House a distinction between a function and a shopping list of services?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, it makes no difference in either case. There is no need for me to draw up a list of differences between functions and services. In either case the responsibility remains with the local authority. It is up to the local authority to draw up the contract in an appropriate manner.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, am I right in believing that what the Minister is saying is that the local authority has responsibility but not power? The power has been
602
contracted out to the contractor but the responsibility remains with the local authority for a function over which it has relinquished control and supervision. I hope that the Minister is aware of the green light that he is giving. Many of those involved in local government for many years, which includes many Members of your Lordships' House, have struggled long and hard to keep local government clean. I am sorry to hear the snort from the noble Lord opposite. The standards of probity in local government, as we now know, are far superior to those in many areas of public life —certainly that appeared following the Widdicombe inquiry —and in particular the private sector. It is estimated that there is something like £25 million a year of fraud in local government and £9 billion a year of fraud in the private sector. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of that.
It has to be said that, if local authorities have failed to retain the power to arrange the service—have vacated the power—but have retained the responsibility for it, there may well be, as Price Waterhouse feared, an increase in corruption. I hope that for the record Ministers are going into this situation with their eyes open. For many decades many of us have struggled to keep local government clean. We are now warned that CCT and VCT without adequate controls are an invitation to some companies to cut corners and to engage in corruption. We are trying to increase the deterrents. The Audit Commission is neutral on this matter. The Minister rejects those deterrents. He and his Government must take responsibility for any subsequent abuse. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 25:
Before Clause 74, insert the following new clause:
("Discharge of functions by authorities

..—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a local authority (a "contracting authority") may agree with any other local authority (a "supplying authority") that the supplying authority shall carry out for the contracting authority any activity or service which the contracting authority is required to, or may legitimately, carry out.

(2) An agreement under this section—

(a) may provide for activities or services to be carried out by two or more authorities jointly; and

(b) may include such terms as to payment as the authorities concerned consider appropriate.

(3) Anything requiring to be done by a supplying authority under an agreement under this section shall be treated as one of their statutory functions.

(4) This section is without prejudice to any other power under or by virtue of which a local authority may arrange for the carrying out of any of their activities or services by another authority.

(5) Subsections (1) to (4) above shall come into effect by an order made by statutory instrument under section 82(4) below and no such order shall be made before the Secretary of State has consulted such persons representative of local authorities as appear to be concerned.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to associate with this amendment Amendment No. 27, which also stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and myself.
Amendment No. 25 is about cross-boundary tendering. I had not expected to run this amendment for a second time, but the Minister's reply at Report stage

603
was in some ways sufficiently worrying for us to feel it important to press him further on the matter and seek assurances from him. The amendment would allow one authority to provide a service for another. Why would an authority want to do that? Perhaps I may take as examples two services: street cleaning and archives.
An authority may be required under CCT to put a service out to competitive tender. Let us say it is street cleaning and I offer your Lordships an appropriate scenario. Let us suppose that the contract was won three years ago by a private company. The authority's own in-house team was disbanded and its vehicles, plant and depot sold off. The contract, which had never been entirely satisfactory, is due out again for tender. The market is underdeveloped. The existing contractor has performed poorly and there have been plenty of complaints from the users and clients. However, all the other bids that come in are more costly.
In those circumstances why should not the in-house team—the DSO (the direct service organisation) or DLO (the direct labour organisation) of an adjacent local authority bid for the work? It has won the competition in its own local authority and would bid here in open competition. It would only win the right to provide that service if it won it in open competition by offering the best value for money, that is to say, the cheapest price that would meet the quality specification. Surely it is in the best interests of both the local authority which has that DSO and the local authority which seeks a contractor for its service that it should bid. The authority seeking the contractor will get better value for money; the DSO bidding will have a wider basis of work, more regular work and therefore more cost-effective work. There can surely be no objection, except on ideological grounds. The Government do not want local authority DSOs and DLOs to compete because they fear that they might win; and because they might win, they are forbidden to compete.
At Report stage the Minister's comment was that local authorities were not trading organisations. That comment—which he may or may not repeat tonight— baffles me. DLOs and DSOs under CCT have been constructed precisely to be trading organisations, to make a separation between purchaser and provider and to make a 5 per cent. return on capital. An organisation is required to make a 5 per cent. return on capital and to win the contract in open competition. How can the Minister possibly say that a local authority and its DSOs and DLOs are not trading organisations? All that the Minister is doing is restricting the area in which they can trade and therefore is effectively limiting their economic viability.
The Minister may say that without adequate safeguards taxpayers' money would be put at risk. Perhaps I may use the word "baloney". If the taxpayers' money is not at risk when they performed that service for their own local authority, why is it at risk for any other local authority? It is precisely the expertise of the local authority's in-house DLOs and DSOs—whose experience, skilled and committed staff and appropriate back-up of resources in finance, personnel and administration have allowed them to win the contract in their own authority—which will allow them to produce
604
value for money and therefore savings for an adjacent local authority. I suggest that that is one argument for allowing one organisation to bid for the. contract in another authority.
My second example is one that worried your Lordships in the summer; namely, libraries and archives. Some of the local government proposals that will undoubtedly come before this House may produce situations in which there will be unitary authorities alongside, say, two-tier authorities—counties and districts. Before 1974, there were county boroughs, such as my city, "nested", so to speak, inside a county council, with its urban and rural district councils, and local authorities regularly provided services for each other. My own county borough, the City of Norwich, provided the FE college for the county of Norfolk. It is now unclear whether such arrangements will be legal after the process of local government reorganisation has been completed. It may well be sensible for joint arrangements or lead authority arrangements to be devised. Indeed, it may be essential to introduce them to maintain the morale of staff and the continuity of service. But what did the Minister say at Report stage which so worried us and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee? He said:
"the Government have expressed themselves as willing to look at suggestions which would achieve greater flexibility after reorganisation".
But he also said:
"the Government will be looking … [at] this issue post-reorganisation".—[Official Report, 18/10/94, col. 174.]
How can local authorities reorganise if they do not know, until they have done it, whether what they have done will turn out to be legal? That is what the Minister is saying: "Go ahead if you wish and we will decide afterwards whether or not what you have done is legal and whether you need a new legal framework". You may, and we may give it to you; or you may, and we may not give it to you; or you may not and we shall not need to give it to you. Nobody knows. That is an absurdity. Cannot the Government clarify the legal framework within which local authorities can make joint arrangements or lead arrangements so that they can re-enter the period of reorganisation with confidence that they are acting legally? Surely that is not unreasonable.
The proposed clause fits neatly into the Government's requirements that local authorities become more commercially oriented. Further, the clause would clarify for local governments that they were acting legally and appropriately and that they certainly would not be eligible for surcharge if they should proceed with joint and lead arrangements. It is surely right that people know what the law is so that they can operate within it. I therefore invite the Minister to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to post-reorganisation and quoted Ministers as having said that these were matters which could be dealt with at that time. As I understand it there is no longer going to be

605
much reorganisation and therefore the argument that we should wait until some future date hitherto unknown does not stand up.
I want to approach the amendment in an interrogative way. I lack the recent and deep experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in relation to local governments. But for six years, until February this year, I was the director general of the Royal Institute of British Architects. In that capacity I had a good deal to do with local authorities with sizeable architects departments and with the Government's intention to introduce compulsory competitive tendering in that area.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the outstanding architectural achievements of Hampshire County Council, of which some noble Lords may already be aware. It has a first rate county architect and has achieved a great deal. I must say that it was achieved during a period when the leadership of Hampshire County Council was Conservative; in other words, what was achieved was with the full support of the elected local members. As we know, Hampshire schools have not only won architectural awards, but they have also been and remain immensely popular with parents, teachers and pupils.
My question is this. In Hampshire County Council we have an outstanding local authority architects department. The members of staff have great specialist skills in designing schools. Other local authorities come to look at what Hampshire has done. Indeed, other county councils may have a good record in architects' departments, such as Essex and Staffordshire. But the point is that Hampshire has expertise in this area. Do I understand that with the Bill as drafted it will be impossible for the Hampshire county architects department, on a cross-boundary basis, to tender for the design of schools in other counties? I find that extremely hard to believe. Perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am wrong.
If I am wrong my support for the amendment may be qualified. However, I should like some reassurance. It would plainly be nonsense if Hampshire County Council could not tender for the design of schools in other local authorities.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness tabled this amendment at Report stage, seeking to clarify the powers of local authorities to trade across their boundaries. The issue is, I appreciate, somewhat complex, and I hope that I can set out the position more clearly and in more detail now than was possible during the earlier debate.
The noble Baroness had two broad concerns: first, the general question of the scope given to local authorities to undertake work for each other (and specifically the question of whether a direct labour or services organisation may tender for a contract of another local authority); and, secondly, the need to facilitate arrangements for local government reform. On the first broad issue, as the noble Baroness is aware, the powers for local authorities to undertake work for one another are governed by Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 and the Local Authorities (Goods and
606
Services) Act 1970. I shall say a little more about them later on. While the Government accept that it is in the taxpayers' interests for local authorities to be able to operate as cost effectively as possible, there are nevertheless countervailing reasons for limiting authorities' powers in that respect.
First—I feel that I should repeat this though the noble Baroness may not like it—local authorities are not created purely as trading organisations. There may be trading organisations within them, but local authorities are there for rather different reasons and purposes. For them to become so without adequate safeguards could put taxpayers' money at risk. Secondly, it could create unfair competition for the private sector which does not have the ultimate security of a tax base to underwrite its risk.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it has limited liability, which is the equivalent.
Lord Henley: My Lords, some companies have limited liability but there are also individuals who trade as individuals who are not in that position. I am saying that local authorities have the ultimate security of a tax base which is much better than the security of being a limited company.
We have, therefore, expressed a willingness to consider proposals from local authorities for greater flexibility, given those caveats. Acknowledging those two conflicting pressures, and being prepared to listen to suggestions for different arrangements is not, I think, arguing for two incompatible aspects as the noble Baroness suggested. It is merely realism. As I understand it, local authorities are intending to put proposals to government in due course.
On the specific point of whether a direct labour or services organisation may tender for a contract from another local authority, the simple answer is that that can happen. However, in England, in doing so, an authority may only use temporarily spare capacity and, if the work is subject to competition legislation, it must also fulfil the requirements governing works contracts in Sections 6 and 7 of the Local Government Act 1988. In Wales the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 also allows local authorities to undertake cross boundary trading in certain limited circumstances. There are similar provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
The noble Baroness also suggested that the amendment proposed would facilitate local government reorganisation. I believe that the powers already available offer sufficient flexibility for authorities affected by reorganisation, to make arrangements for discharge of their functions including delegation and voluntary joint working.
Section 101, to which I referred earlier, gives the authorities the power to arrange for the discharge of functions by authorities in return for payment. Section 112 gives authorities the power to appoint such staff as they think necessary for the proper discharge of those functions. Section 113 gives local authorities the power to place various members of their staff at the disposal of other authorities. Various voluntary joint arrangements can lawfully be made under the powers of

607
Sections 101, 112 and 113 unless expressly excluded by Section 101 or other legislation specific to a particular function. For instance, authority A may draw up an agency agreement with authority B to provide leisure facilities. As part of that agreement authority A could stipulate how it wished the function to be discharged and would retain ultimate responsibility for the function. Authority B would need to provide services to ensure that the function was properly discharged and could employ additional staff for that purpose.
If we can improve upon existing arrangements in the light of proposals from local authorities themselves, we will consider doing so. In the meantime, I see no impediment to reorganisation arising from the existing arrangement.
Perhaps I can turn briefly to the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, when he was talking about the architects department and specifically citing the case of Hampshire. I, too, have seen some of its schools and I seem to remember one where a large number of rooms were built in wood. However, I may be misremembering that point.
As I understand it, in order to tender for work in another local authority, the tendering local authority would need to have temporarily spare capacity. If the condition is satisfied in that example, Hampshire County Council could do so under the existing powers. However, as I made clear, I do not see this acting as any impediment to reorganisation. We would certainly welcome the views of the local authority associations as to whether they consider that further developments are necessary.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it would be helpful if the noble Lord could clarify this point. Is he saying that a local authority with excess capacity—for example, the architect's department—could tender under the powers we are discussing in this Bill in terms of contracting out functions? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am saying that under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 there are already sufficient powers. What the Hampshire County Council architect's department needs to do is show that there is temporarily spare capacity. In other words, we are not giving a carte blanche to the authority to expand its architect's department into a major architectural firm. It is if there is temporarily spare capacity that it would seem that it is a sensible use of that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, if I may interrupt, that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, was asking. We are discussing this Bill. He asked about a local authority which was seeking to have a function contracted out under this Bill. He asked whether another local authority—I accept the noble Lord's point about spare capacity—which was able to do the work could simply say, "We understand that you want to do this architectural work. Let us do it". It is nothing to do with the Local Government Act. It is to do with this Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the 1970 Act and the Local Government Act 1972 are the relevant Acts in this case. They are the ones that would give the power to
608
Hampshire County Council on those occasions. We are not talking about what the Bill would do. lit is what the existing legislation would do.
In the light of those assurances, and in the light of the assurances I have given about reorganisation and the confirmation that there will be further discussion on these matters in partnership with local government, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I believe that I should thank the Minister for his reply but I am not entirely sure. When he began I thought he was going helpfully to clarify the matter for us. At the end of that explanation I am almost more confused than I was before I started.
Perhaps I may make two or three points on the noble Lord's remarks. First, he made a distinction. He said that,
"local authorities are not created purely as trading organisations",
but that there may,
"be trading organisations within them",
which was indeed the point that we were making. But it is not a local authority that tenders for another local authority's work. It is the trading organisation within a local authority that would compete for a contract of another local authority. If the Minister agrees with that reading of it, the objection he previously raised is no longer valid, because we are indeed dealing with a trading organisation.
At Report stage the Minister could not support our amendment because he felt that the enterprise was too risky. He appears to be saying tonight that because the organisation has "the ultimate security of a tax base" it is not risky enough. In other words, the organisation cannot fail, and that is therefore unfair to private contractors. I invite the Minister to comment on that. What worries me still more is that I do not understand the point about temporarily spare capacity.
What the Minister is saying, as I understand him, is that the existing Acts empower a local authority with temporarily spare capacity to use that or to make that available to another local authority. That is fine. But what we are seeking in this amendment is that local authorities which have trading organisations, as all local authorities now do, should not be disqualified from competing for a contract of another local authority. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether in future, if a local authority with a good architect's department seeks to tender for the architectural work of building schools in an adjacent authority, under this Bill it will be empowered to do so. I ask the Minister to clarify that point for us.
Lord Henley: My Lords, with the leave of the House—I think that the House is being very tolerant bearing in mind that we are at Third Reading—the Bill does not change the existing arrangement for cross-boundary trading. We are dependent on the 1970 and 1972 Acts. If the noble Baroness can bear with those until further discussions have taken place, that is the best way to go forward.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as there is so much confusion concerning the understanding of the

609
Minister's input among people who have been involved in local government, it does indeed suggest that we are going to need some clarification here. The words "temporarily spare capacity" have been used. How long is "temporarily"? How much is "spare", and for how long? These are clearly weasel words; but I take the Minister's point that this is a matter that will clearly have to be resolved. We need to read his remarks carefully, and I have no doubt that local authorities will need to press the Minister further. It will not do for local authorities to be seeking to manage change in a climate where they do not know the legal framework in which they are operating. That legal framework has not been clarified as a result of the Minister's response. Nonetheless, with the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 74 [Powers of certain office-holders]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 82 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
7.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 69, line 19, leave out ("day") and insert ("days").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 29. I apologise for the fact that they are starred amendments. That was because on the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Henley, very kindly said that if I withdrew such amendments, he would consider the matter further. However, I was left, unhappily, with the feeling that I had not made my point really clear and so I wrote to the noble Lord. Before putting down any amendments, I waited to receive his reply. The fact that his reply did not satisfy me, as is obvious from the re-tabling of the amendments, does not derogate in any way from my gratitude for the care that he has taken.
As it was originally introduced, this subsection ran:
"The remaining provisions of this Act … shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order … appoint; and different days may be so appointed for different provisions or for different purposes".
We succeeded in chipping away at that. The words "for different provisions or" have disappeared. But in my respectful submission nothing is required after "may by order appoint".
The first amendment substitutes "days" (in the plural) for "day". As your Lordships know, by the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. It is very much a matter of the style which the draftsman employs. However, if there is a change of usage, as I suggest we should have here, it is a very strong signal to the court on interpretation. If the word "days" is used, it shows beyond any doubt that all the provisions need not be brought in on one day. That is the first amendment.
As I say, the second amendment is to leave out everything after the word "appoint" in line 20. I ventured to say last time that the remaining words are
610
quite unnecessary and that it is inconceivable that any court would hold that without those words the provision may be brought in for different purposes on different days. In his letter the noble Lord said that he was advised that it was not inconceivable. When I spoke last time I ventured to suggest that if there was any doubt about the matter the Law Officers' opinion may be requested. I had said that also in relation to the amendment to Clause 1.
My first question is this: have the Law Officers been asked to advise on this? The noble Lord did not say that in his letter, but it may be that the Law Officers have been asked to advise. If I had been told that they had and that they advised in favour of the Bill as it stands, I would certainly not have put down the amendments. As regards that matter, Sir Robert Andrew recommended in his report on the government legal services that parliamentary counsel should come under the Law Officers' Departments. Of all his recommendations unfortunately that one was not accepted. That is the first point.
The second point is this: I hope that the noble Lord will not think it impertinent when I say that it should be firmly accepted that it is the Minister and not the draftsman who is responsible for the Bill. The Minister must exercise his independent judgment and, dare I say it, when a question is raised which is not in agreement with the drafting of the Bill, it is all the more important that the Minister should form his independent judgment.
Without going into it, last time I mentioned something that happened as regards the Charities Bill. It had a provision that a charity's accounts should be audited if its annual income was more than £100,000 or its annual expenditure was more than £100,000 or both. Everybody said that the words "or both" were quite unnecessary. However, it was argued stoutly that without those words, if the charity's expenditure and income were both over £100,000 there was no requirement for an audit.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale moved to excise those words. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was in charge of the Bill and stuck stoutly by the drafting. He said that he was advised that there might be an ambiguity. My noble and learned friend Lord Brightman was a Member of that Public Bill Committee and he spoke confidently for all the Law Lords. He said that it was quite inconceivable that any of his colleagues would think that those two words were necessary.
My noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale returned to the matter at Report stage and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill was equally firm. He said that he was advised that the words were necessary. It was only at Third Reading that he gave way and the words were eliminated. I have since seen in context and in statute that if those words had been necessary in the Charities Act they would have been necessary in subsequent statutes, but they were not included and we have got on perfectly well without them. So I say again that we can

611
get on perfectly well without the words which are sought to be omitted by the second amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I have the greatest respect for the noble and learned Lord's continued vigilance to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is no more complex than is necessary. At previous stages of the Bill the noble and learned Lord pressed us to simplify the provisions of Clause 82 which allow different provisions of the Bill to be commenced on different days for different purposes. In response, I believe that we have to some extent simplified the drafting of the clause by the amendments which we moved at an earlier stage. But having simplified them to a certain extent I have to say, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, that I cannot go any further. However, I can assure him that we have considered this matter extremely carefully.
The noble and learned Lord has suggested that if the whole of the final part of Clause 82(4) were to be omitted it would be inconceivable that a court would interpret the subsection other than as allowing Ministers to commence a particular provision on different days for different purposes. Having taken further advice on this point, I fear that I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that we must simply agree to differ on it. I appreciate that he asked me to expand a little on the legal advice that we have taken. I can say that we have taken the appropriate advice, but he will be aware that it is not the Government's practice to discuss consideration of legal advice within the Government. I can assure the House that we considered these points very carefully.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to say that, as a former Law Officer, what he has said is not in accordance with the practice.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry to say, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, that that is not now the case. It is not the Government's practice to discuss consideration of legal advice within the Government. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that these matters were considered very carefully.
I now go back to the substance of the amendment. I believe that there is a very real risk that a court might indeed interpret the provision more restrictively if the words,
"and different days may be so appointed for different purposes"
were not included, however clear Ministers made it in the House that that was the intention of the provision.
Obviously, I remain in sympathy with the noble and learned Lord's objective in ensuring that the statute book contains no unnecessary words, but I do not believe his amendments are necessary. I am genuinely sorry that I am unable to go further to meet the suggestions which the noble and learned Lord has put forward so eloquently both today and on previous
612
occasions. I hope that he will accept that I have taken the matter as far as I can and that on that basis the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Striking Off of Non-trading Private Companies: Northern Ireland]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 87, line 23 at end insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to resolve an inconsistency between Great Britain and Northern Ireland provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Schedule 8 [Schedule to be Inserted in the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 after Schedule 5].
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 93, line 6, at end insert:
("and
(c) work necessary to ensure that either (a) or (b) above can take place.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on Report, I sought to move an amendment designed to remove the anomaly which I believe is admitted to exist with regard to workers on racetracks, such as greyhound racetracks, who will be expected to work on Sundays. Through the Bill the Government are introducing measures designed to ensure that racetrack workers whose employment is directly concerned with betting would have the protection that is afforded to shop workers by the Sunday Trading Act 1994 should they decide that they do not want to work on Sundays. However, such protection will be available only to workers regarded as "betting workers"—in other words, workers whose work is directly concerned with betting.
On Report, the Minister sought to justify mat at cols. 1029 and 1030 of Hansard, saying that workers throughout the leisure industry had often been expected to work on Sundays. However, until recent legislation, betting was unlawful on Sundays. That is no longer the case and, as people can bet on Sundays, it is only right that betting employees should have the protection of the Sunday Trading Act if they do not want to work on Sundays.
It had been drawn to my attention that that position created anomalies in that employees employed as betting workers on greyhound tracks would have the protection of the Act, but other workers at precisely the same venue, without whom the tracks could not function, would not have such protection. I refer to catering staff, cloakroom attendants and clerical and administrative workers. There could be some difficulty about the position of clerical and administrative workers due to the question of whether they are engaged directly on betting work.
It was pointed out to me on Report—I tend to agree— that the amendment that I then tabled was much too widely drawn and would cover all leisure employees whether or not they had originally been engaged to work on Sundays. I said then that I would endeavour to come back with something a little more specific on Third Reading. I said that it was difficult to avoid all anomalies. I still think that that is the case, but surely there is a much more stark anomaly when people working at the same place have different levels of protection. One group will have the protection of the Sunday Trading Act and can opt out of the obligation to work on Sundays without penalty, while the other group cannot do so. As I said on Report, that anomaly is already being brought to the attention of Members in another place, some of whom are being approached by constituents who work on greyhound racing tracks.
I hope that the Minister will be able to help this evening, because I have tried to devise a form of wording that will be specific to the betting industry and that will cover people working in the betting industry without being applicable across the board to the leisure industry. I believe that that was one of the problems with the amendment that I sought to move in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, on Report I supported the principle of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, which was designed, as she has said, to ensure that people who are employed to enable racing to take place on a Sunday should, like betting workers, enjoy the same employment rights as those accorded to shop workers under the Sunday Trading Act. However, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, that amendment was drawn too widely, covering not only racing but other sporting events also.
Amendment No. 31 has accordingly been drafted more narrowly to ensure that the work to be covered is confined strictly to that set out in Schedule 8(1). Surely it is right that people undertaking any ancillary work that may need to be done to enable a betting office to open on a Sunday for use in effecting betting transactions should have the same employment rights as those engaged on the transactions themselves. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment on behalf of the Government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Bill removes the prohibition which has hitherto been placed on Sunday betting. The Government have therefore agreed that new employment protection rights should be provided for betting workers, in view of the fact that they may well have entered the industry in the perfectly reasonable belief that, due to the current restrictions, they could not be expected to work on Sundays. These rights are introduced in Schedule 8 to the Bill, which the noble Baroness now seeks to amend. I appreciate the noble Baroness's anxieties and that she is making a genuine attempt not to so widen the new rights that they cover all Sunday workers throughout the leisure industry or wherever. However, I have to say quite simply that somewhere the line has to be drawn.
614
Under the definition of "betting work" in Schedule 8, the new rights will extend to those engaged in all types of work in licensed betting offices, which would not normally have been open for business on a Sunday in the past.
However, the situation at racing tracks is quite different. Many staff there already work on Sundays, for example, to prepare for weekday racing or to oversee other events such as Sunday markets and so on. I believe that such employees may properly be regarded as part of the leisure industry, in which Sunday working is already commonplace. The Government therefore do not consider that special new rights are justified in these cases.
The Government believe that the new rights should continue to be confined to those they are designed to protect: that is, at tracks, those actually involved in betting transactions. Other workers will continue to enjoy the normal protections under their contracts of employment and under employment protection legislation. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am rather disappointed by the Minister's response in view of the fact that he acknowledges that I have made a genuine attempt to meet the objections to my original amendment which I moved on Report. I do not think that staff who work at racetracks will find the Minister's explanation acceptable. We may very well find that at some time in the future as a result of pressure (perhaps on MPs or in other ways) the Government will have to amend the legislation in order to cope with the fact that people working in the same place have different protections and it is felt that that is neither acceptable nor fair.
I fear that there is no point in pressing this to a vote at this time and with a very thin House, although I am disappointed that it has not been found possible to come to terms with the case that the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and I have advanced on two occasions. However, having heard what the Minister has said— although I am not at all happy about it and believe that the Government may find that they have to amend the legislation in the not-too-distant future —I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 16 [Amendments etc. for Facilitating Contracting Out]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 129, line 20, at end insert:
("Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9)

—.(1) In paragraph (b) of subsection (10) of section 19 of the Local Government Act 1988 (Provisions supplementary to or consequential on section 17), after the words "permitted by section 18 above" there shall be added the words "or by subsection (10A) below".

(2) After subsection (10) of that section, there shall be inserted the following subsection—

615

"(10A) Nothing in section 17 above shall preclude an authority from including in a draft contract or draft tender for a contract terms or provisions relating to workforce matters and considering the responses to them with regard to the composition of contractors' workforces"

(3) For subsection (12) there shall be substituted the following subsection—

"(12) In this section—

"workforce matters" means matters falling within paragraph (a), but no other paragraph, of subsection (5) of section 17 above;

and any expression used in section 17 above shall have the same meaning as in this section.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and myself, I believe that I need to make a typographical correction to the last two lines of the amendment, which should read:
"any expression used in this section and section 17 above shall have the same meaning in this section as in that section".
I understand that that is simply a typographical correction which does not affect the sense of the amendment.
The amendment would have the effect of lifting the restriction on local authorities which prevents them from including terms dealing with, for example, the composition of the contractor's workforce in tender documentation and draft contracts through their inclusion in the list of non-commercial considerations in Section 17(5) of the Local Government Act 1988. That would apply to CCT and voluntary competitive tendering alike.
What would it mean? It would mean that a local authority could regard the composition of the workforce as a relevant matter in determining the terms of its draft contract—not the awarding of the contract, but the terms of the draft contract. As a result, it could ensure that the draft contract included references to the long-term unemployed, to a proper proportion of disabled workers, women, ethnic minorities and the like. Why? It would ensure that social gain as well as commercial advantage would flow from the award of such a contract in exactly the same way as a local authority, in awarding a big building contract, might seek planning gain for the local community such as, for example, a large open space. There is no difference in principle.
Why should that be desirable? On Report, the Minister gave us two broadbrush reasons for rejecting such an amendment. The first was that European legislation would not allow any public procurement contract to discriminate against other contractors if there were any restriction as to nationality; in other words, the contract may not contain a local labour clause. However I understand from the letter which the Minister was kind enough to send me that that does not apply to an amendment such as this. The Dutch Beentjes case established that contracts could be required to carry other social objectives such as tackling the problem of disabled people's lack of employment opportunities and the problem of the long-term unemployed, provided that it was not discriminatory against other nationalities by being
616
confined to a particular locality. The amendment is not so discriminatory. So, within the Minister's own definition, it does not offend EC law. I am sure that the Minister will want to confirm that when he replies.
If that is the case, as I believe it is, we are left only with the Minister's second objection to the amendment: that it runs counter to UK law. That is right, which is why we are seeking to change it. The Government, as the Minister said on Report, do not believe that procurement decisions should achieve social objectives. He went on to say that it was a general principle of government policy that social aims such as urban regeneration and equal opportunities should not be pursued through commercial contracts, and that they had a raft of other policies and provisions to support those social aims. Quite so! And it all costs us much more to achieve because the Government allow private contractors to abdicate from social responsibility in their commercial contracts.
The dispute between us is not whether urban regeneration or equal opportunities are desirable—the Minister concedes that they are—but whether those policies can and should be incorporated into commercial contracts. In his letter the Minister says:
"I do not believe that the case has been made".
What does the Minister count as evidence? What information does he require for the case to be made? We have a right to know. The Minister says that the case has not been made, so what would he count as relevant evidence for the case to be made so that it may be possible to return to this point at another time?
I should like to make two points. The first is why should contractors be allowed to opt out of social responsibility in their labour employment practices? We do not allow contractors to opt out of responsibility for environmental considerations— pollution, or waste disposal—although they would if we let them. We do not allow them to opt out of health and safety legislation associated with dangerous substances, noises, fumes, heat, surfaces, temperatures at work, and so forth, although they would if they could. Indeed, the DSS's own departmental research shows that taxpayers subsidise to the tune of over £655 million a year dangerous and irresponsible employers in relation to benefits for industrial injuries which could have been prevented had those employers followed appropriate practices.
Why should labour market social responsibility not also be incorporated into commercial responsibility? Why should it not be privatised? After all, employers do not operate in a vacuum. They need skilled labour, training programmes, key worker housing and the local authority infrastructure in which to operate and make a profit. Why in turn should not their labour practices reflect the partnership?
Secondly, if employers do not embody socially responsible practices in their labour market policies, they may become irresponsible by exporting the costs on to others. When a commercial contractor pays no heed to long-term unemployment or disabled people, but still, for example, brings in labour from outside without consideration, what happens? He undermines

617
other policies that government and local authorities are funding, which therefore become more expensive to achieve. Let me give one brief example. The Government stopped requiring employers to pay a levy to a training board and to train apprentices themselves. As a consequence, employers now do not train. Instead, often they poach. It is cheaper to poach, and poaching is offset by higher wages, or is made possible by offering higher wages which in turn generate a competitive cycle which helps to generate wage inflation. At the same time, government and local authorities have to fund TECs to make good the consequent training deficit. That is all because we do not have employers properly fulfilling their responsibilities for training. Commercial contractors have abdicated from such social responsibility. We want them to continue to carry it.
This is a value-for-money amendment. I hope that even at this 59th minute of the 11th hour it will generate government support. It is an amendment designed to ensure that private contractors do not opt out of the community in which they operate, and that they, too, accept social responsibility for their labour practices. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that I can take the noble Baroness much further. There is obviously a wide ideological gulf between the noble Baroness and myself, and I am not going to attempt to bridge it. I suspect that we might have a repeat of the very interesting debate that we had at an earlier stage of the Bill, when we slightly lost track of the Bill itself.
I should like to correct just one small fact. The noble Baroness implied that employers are no longer involving themselves in training. I can assure her that employers are spending something in the order of £20 billion a year on the training of their employees. That figure has not changed much. It did not drop during the recession. The noble Baroness mentioned the letter that I wrote to her, which I hope she found helpful. If I have not already done so, I shall ensure that a copy of my letter is placed in the Library. I should like to quote just one paragraph from it to put into context the noble Baroness's interpretation of the case that I was making in that letter:
"In the Beentjes case, the court indicated that the clause on long-term unemployment could be held to infringe the principle of non discrimination on grounds of nationality if it appeared that such a condition could only be fulfilled by national firms, or if firms from other member states would find it more difficult to fulfil".
As I attempted to explain in the debate, given the need to conform with the requirement of non-discrimination and other principles of EC law, the practical scope for developing lawful contract compliance clauses may be limited. I should say also that the amendment would allow authorities, if they chose, to include in draft contracts and tenders for contracts, terms or provisions relating to the contractors' workforce. Those terms and conditions could include the terms and conditions of employment
618
by contractors of their workers, the composition of the workforce, the arrangements for promotion, transfer or training of staff, or any other opportunities afforded to a contractor's workforce. Such an amendment would give local authorities an unacceptable degree of influence over issues which are properly internal organisational matters for their contractors, and it could well deter competition at the expense of the local authority and its local tax payers.
Again, as I have explained previously to the noble Baroness, both in the House and in the letter from which I have just quoted, powers of the kind that the amendment seeks to permit would not be acceptable. Value-for-money is at the heart of our public procurement policy in the UK. We believe that that policy, which is reflected in Part II of the Local Government Act 1988, and which the amendment seeks to undermine, is the right one.
None of that detracts from our deep commitment to supporting our wider social objectives; for example, on urban regeneration and equal opportunities. However, we do not see contract compliance in general, and the amendment in particular, as the way to achieve those ends. The Government do not believe that the case for pursuing those objectives through commercial contracts has been made. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He was right in saying that there is an ideological gulf between us. That gulf has been widened by his reply. He referred to the fact that the amendment would allow local authorities an unacceptable degree of influence over decisions which belong to the contractor which are properly internal.
Perhaps the Minister did not listen fully to the points being made and with the attentiveness that one might expect. The thrust of the argument was that the decisions are not properly internal. The whole point of the amendment is that they are external in the sense that the decisions that the contractor makes about his labour force have direct implications for the economy and the community in which that activity is taking place. If the contractor chooses not to employ long-term unemployed people, disabled people, ethnic minorities and so forth the needs of those groups must be met and offset by other programmes and patterns of expenditure. Therefore, although one may save £1 for the local authority on the contract, one must spend £2 on making good the exporting of those costs to other programmes.
Why is the Minister so determined to corral and confine his programmes instead of diffusing them, which is sensible, through the activities of all organisations such as private employers, voluntary organisations, local authorities and trade unions across the community? Surely that is what "partnership" and "community regeneration" mean. I am sorry that the Minister has failed to understand that if this country is to regenerate, it needs to build from that basis upwards. That is why so many urban regeneration programmes have failed, as the DTI's research shows. The programmes have not been people-based; they have been property-based. The amendment would allow

619
commercial contracts by enabling socially responsible policies in the labour market to be people-based and not property-based. That would allow all of us further to implement government policies on equal opportunities and urban regeneration with the best possible value for money.
The noble Lord prefers cheapness to value for money. That is a great mistake, but it is too late to change his mind. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I cannot help but recall the final report that a young man received when he left school. It began, "All good things come to an end". That was a most apposite thought with regard to the deliberations on this Bill. We have reached the last stage of a complicated Bill. The subjects that it covers reflect its enormous breadth. They have ranged from children to pubs and to the law on charities. We have gone from slaughterhouses to operators' licensing and from hairdressing on Sundays to health and safety. Through it all has rumbled the requirements and obligations of local authorities and of government.
Our debates have not been limited to matters covered by the Bill. In a true innovative capacity not unknown to your Lordships we have debated matters ranging from deregulation for friendly societies to new authorities for national parks and even, by an ingenious device of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, new regulations for Lloyd's. The deregulation initiative is a continuing initiative and that has been reflected in the fact that the Bill has grown as a result of the considerations that your Lordships have seen fit to give it.
When the Bill came to this House it contained about 20 specific deregulatory measures. It now contains more than 30, which is an increase of 50 per cent. In today's jargon, I suppose that some would say that that is not bad value for money. I am sure that it would worry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who trembles as he sees the statute book growing. That is always a matter of anxiety for him.
We have also added important new clauses in order to improve the enforcement procedures. The Bill will also allow the process of deregulation to continue through use of the new deregulation order-making powers. The contracting-out part of the Bill has also led to a number of debates on a whole host of different subjects. It contains important provisions that will enable those responsible for the provision of public services to seek further improvements in efficiency and effectiveness through competition as well as improvements in quality and savings in costs.
I became involved in the Bill only in its latter stages. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde bore the burden and heat of the day until he found himself propelled into the more military sphere of being Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms. I know that he considered that your Lordships had some helpful and useful debates.
As always, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, contributed knowledgeable and pertinent arguments in his usual inimitable style. Although we did not always agree with what he said, we sometimes agreed with him and gave
620
him concessions. I thank him for the courteous way in which he always made his points and contributions and for the understanding manner in which he dealt with us.
The noble Lord became so infected with the Bill that he contracted out some of his responsibilities to the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Williams of Elvel, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollis of Heigham and Lady Turner of Camden. They all played a notable part in our debates.
The noble Lords, Lord Rodgers and Lord Tordoff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made important contributions to a complicated subject. I thank them and all noble Lords who have taken part for the way in which they approached our considerations. That enabled the Bill to be given, as it should be given, a thorough examination.
I pay tribute to the way in which noble Lords understood the Bill. It is not an easy Bill—I certainly did not find it easy but there is nothing surprising in that! Those of us who sit on the Government Front Bench have the advantage of a number of skilled professional advisers, as do noble Lords opposite. However, it is never easy in Opposition to deal with such matters and to comprehend everything. That is particularly the case with complicated Bills. I congratulate noble Lords opposite on the way in which they grasped and understood the Bill, which hits been far from easy.
As one would expect in regard to an important Bill such as this, the Cross-Benchers played a valuable role. In particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was true to form and from Clause 1 to the final clause he made a number of distinguished contributions to our debates. He always reminded us of our obligations to the statute book, what we do to it and what we put on it.
I also thank my noble friends behind me who contributed so much to many of our debates. Many noble Lords participated in debates on the many different subjects. In addition to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I single out only my noble friends Lord Vinson and Lady Young as having prompted the debates which led to additional clauses on new matters being added to the Bill. I thank my noble friends Lord Henley and Lord Goschen for the considerable heat and burden of the Bill that they carried with their usual charm and competence and their ability to comprehend subjects which would have daunted many lesser mortals.
Regulations are important; we must have them in our national life for a whole variety of purposes. But throughout life there is a tendency to add to things and not to diminish them. The deregulation task force discovered that there were some 3,500 regulations which, in the modern language of today, "impacted" on business. That is a terrible verb. Nowadays people like using terrible verbs; rather like having to "exit" from something! One way or another—and this Bill is one of the ways—the Government hope, in the language of the bruiser, to "deal with" those that are unduly burdensome.
We have already earmarked a quarter of those regulations for action and that must help business; it must make life easier; it must give value for money; and

621
it must enable business to be more competitive. If that is so, business will succeed and the economy of the country will improve. It will also make our lives a great deal easier and simpler.
This is an important piece of legislation, albeit that it has been a difficult piece of legislation for all of your Lordships to take through this House. I believe that the Bill will bring substantial benefits to business, the taxpayer and society as a whole. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Ferrers.)
8.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in responding to and thanking the noble Earl I shall be brief. It is late. But I have to say that I am not in the best of tempers and I would not wish to say anything about one or two aspects of today's deliberations which I should regret tomorrow.
Noble Lords may ask whether my view of the Bill is what it was at the outset and I have to say that it is. I regard it as a constitutional outrage, and to repeat some remarks that I made earlier, when noble Lords and honourable Members in the other place complain about the excess power of the Executive I shall remind them that they voted for the Bill.
Nevertheless, that is not what I wish to say now. My present task is different; namely, to thank noble Lords for their contributions. The Bill was kicked off by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who did an excellent job with what the noble Earl has described as a very difficult Bill. It is certainly the most difficult piece of legislation with which I have tried to come to grips. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did an excellent job, but it is no disrespect to him to say that when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, came on just after half-time there seemed to be no diminution in performance. I say that with some envy because the Bill is difficult and I was impressed by how the noble Earl took over and was able to handle the rather complex set of issues before us.
I also congratulate the rest of the very powerful team that the Government put up. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was on until just after half-time. As usual, he did a first-class job. He seemed to be replaced by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. In particular, I am indebted to both of them because they accepted one amendment which I moved which dealt with the anomalous treatment of SeaCat. They responded to my amendment in an excellent way and I am indebted to them for that. Finally, it is always a pleasure to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, because he is extremely forthright and, although we often disagree, it is a pleasure to argue with him. Therefore, the Government fielded an excellent team and from that point of view for me it was an excellent experience.
We also fielded a very powerful team. The noble Earl referred to my subcontracting, but because of the complexities of the Bill I preferred to have various of my noble friends dealing with matters which they understood rather than trying to struggle through as best I could. Therefore, I am indebted to my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel, Lady Hollis, Lord
622
Clinton-Davis, Lady Turner, Lady Hilton and Lord Howell. In particular, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Carter who handled some of the most esoteric parts of the Bill, from slaughterhouses on the one hand to matters to do with co-ops on the other. He has asked me to thank the noble Earl in particular for the Government's response to some of the worries of the co-op societies and credit unions. The Government's response was extremely reassuring, as the noble Earl is aware. Therefore, my noble friend wished me to place his thanks for that on record.
I must thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for their contributions. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, made the most important contribution. I assure noble Lords that when a Labour Government are responsible for these matters they will take very seriously the question of regulation and deregulation. The line that we shall pursue will be precisely that recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers; namely, that there should be an annual deregulation Bill. That makes extremely good sense.
The last person that I have to thank is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. That is particularly difficult for me because all I ever knew about Henry VIII clauses I was told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As an economist rather than a constitutional lawyer, I had no idea what a Henry VIII clause was until I came to your Lordships' House. The first time the subject was raised I had to ask what it was. I was told that the person who knew about it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He is the expert. Therefore, it is with some regret that, when I argued that the Bill should be rejected outright because it is one massive Henry VIII clause, he disagreed with me. However, I have learnt that you win some, you lose some. But the contributions made by the noble and learned Lord were extremely helpful to us.
I cannot name every other noble Lord who took part in our debates. I merely echo the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Many other noble Lords contributed and improved the Bill. We are all indebted to them. I thank them all and I thank the Government's team in particular.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, having listened to what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Peston, have said, I feel that we should now be going away for a very long time, perhaps for the Summer Recess. However, my noble friends Lord Tordoff, Lady Hamwee, Lord Rochester and I will be here again tomorrow to pick up the debates where we are leaving off tonight.
For me, this was a new experience. It has been a long time since I have been involved in legislation from Second Reading to the end of Third Reading, and when I was so involved it was in another place. The debates here were infinitely more courteous than those I remember from long ago and I greatly appreciate the contributions made by the noble Earl and all his colleagues. It is too late to list them this evening. I

623
greatly enjoyed too entering into debate together with and sometimes, although not always, agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
I was glad to hear that, even if I have not been able to persuade the Government of anything in the course of the debates, I have persuaded Her Majesty's Opposition that there should be an annual deregulation Bill.
I thought that our debates on Chapter I were extremely important and interesting. Of course, that was due in no small part to the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. But I have to say—and I hope that this will be regarded only as mischievous—that, whereas I thought that throughout our debates the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, represented the voice of new Labour, I heard with great interest in the debate last Thursday initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and I thought that that was the old order speaking still. I believe that fundamentally the view on this side of the House between both our parties is that the less secondary legislation we have the better and the more primary legislation there is—the more scrutiny there is —the better that is for the whole parliamentary process.
I wish that we were going to return to the Bill very briefly in three years' time to decide whether it should be renewed in the light of experience. Indeed, that is the one matter that remains which I regret. With no loss of face and no disadvantage, the Government could have agreed to allow the provisions of Chapter I to prevail for three years, at the end of which we could have debated them and decided whether they should be changed.
As I say, I have greatly enjoyed our debates and have profited by and learned from the contributions made by all Members of this House. I am glad to see the Bill now go on its way.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I wanted to stay to speak to the Motion so that appreciation could be expressed from the Cross-Benches to those who have had to wield the labouring oars throughout the long discussions on the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, never ceases to amaze me. Just before the Summer Recess, I left the House at about midnight just as he was juggling competently with the by no means easy concept of criminal corroboration. Two days later, I came into your Lordships' House and he had changed his job. However, he was equally competent with the concept of caveat emptor, although as a Wykehamist he was nearer to the classical pronunciation than the barbarism of lawyers. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was equally classical and equally conversant on that occasion.
A number of noble Lords have spoken from the "Treasury Bench", but we must acknowledge at this moment when the Bill is being passed the initiation of the legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the admirable way that he conducted it on behalf of the Government. I venture to mention only one other noble Lord because he answered a number of my amendments.
624
I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, whose courtesy both from the Dispatch Box and in correspondence was quite exemplary.
I believe that we owe a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as, indeed, we do to all the Front-Bench speakers. I say that because, during the early stages of the Bill, the debates went on until the early hours of the morning. It meant that, if the Bill was to be scrutinised at all, the labour fell almost entirely on the few Front-Bench speakers. Latterly, however, we managed to rise much earlier. We owe the noble Lord, Lord Peston, a great deal for that fact. We are most grateful for his good humour at the Dispatch Box which certainly has not lessened his debating power. Of course, he has fielded an exceptional team of experts; but, nevertheless, he has managed them so that the Bill has been scrutinised very closely.
I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, has recovered from falling off a ladder in the garden. The noble Lord's debating skills have added a great deal to our discussions on the Bill. I believe that the Bill itself is an essay in supply-side economics. From the beginning, I have been itching to ask the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to give us the modern and authoritative explanation of it. I have refrained from so doing because, on the Finance Bill, I asked the noble Lord to explain to us the current economic theory to account for the manic-depressive cycles of the economy. Good naturedly, the noble Lord consented to do so. However, the concept was so abstruse and the terminology so recondite that we rapidly retreated to our familiar sunspots. Noble Lords on the Cross-Benches are most grateful for the way that the noble Lord has conducted the Bill. We are also grateful to the other Cross-Bench speakers and to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers.
As I said, this seems to be an essay in supply-side economics. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, valuably reminded us at the beginning, by quoting Adam Smith, that the sole object of production is consumption. We have been faced with the fact that some consumer protection on a very wide basis can be so intense as to preclude any production at all at a profit, so the consumer thereby suffers.
Your Lordships take a close interest in Henry VIII clauses and their abuse. However, while considering them we were faced with the fact that, if we were to get the Bill at all as we saw it, it was necessary to vouchsafe considerable Henry VIII power to the Executive. There were three safeguards which we thought were required. The first was an alternative method of scrutiny which we debated last week. Although it is cumbersome, I believe that we can be confident that, next to legislative scrutiny in total Parliament, we have achieved the best that we can. Secondly, we thought that we should have power finally to vote against statutory instruments. That was also conceded last week.
The third thing that we wanted—and I am sorry to say that we did not achieve it—was some term to the extreme powers that are provided by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, proposed a three-year term, but it was not a complete cut-off; indeed, the term could be renewed. If I may say so, I thought that it was a very

625
grave mistake on the part of the Government not to accept so reasonable an offer. I believe that that is the major blot on the Bill as it now stands. I shall end as I began with an expression of thanks from the Cross-Benches to all noble Lords for the way that they have shaped the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it only falls to me to thank your Lordships for having taken part in this very brief debate proposing that the Bill do now pass. I should like to reiterate my thanks for all the courtesies that have been expressed by noble Lords to the remainder of your Lordships over the conduct of the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Marriage Bill
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister and other noble Lords for the invaluable support that they have given to the Bill both this evening and on Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (Baroness Seccombe.)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My
Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Seccombe for the gracious way that she has brought forward the Bill. As your Lordships will be aware, this is a very popular measure which will extend the choice of places available for couples wishing to marry by civil ceremony. It will also remove the outdated requirement that couples have to marry in the district register office for the area in which they live.
In respect of approved premises, the Government will ensure that safeguards are introduced to prevent anything which could diminish the dignity of marriage. The regulations will clearly set out the criteria and procedures to be followed as part of the approval process. If it is the will of Parliament and this Bill becomes law, it should be possible for couples to marry at any register office of their choice from January of next year. While the provision of marriages at approved buildings will take a little longer, because of the need to make regulations, I am hopeful that they will also be put into force during the first half of next year.
The Government therefore warmly support the Bill and wish to see it given a Third Reading by your Lordships here tonight.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Seccombe.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations 1994
8.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the first two regulations introduce new arrangements to transfer legal parenthood to the commissioning couple, where a child is born to a surrogate mother. A commissioning couple is a couple who have arranged with a surrogate mother to carry a child for them using their gametes, that is the wife's eggs and, or, the husband's sperm, in the child's conception.
The regulations provide a mechanism for a court to grant a "parental order" transferring legal parenthood from the surrogate mother and the birth father to the commissioning husband and wife. At present such couples can only acquire parental responsibility by adopting the child.
The regulations are made under Section 30 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. This section was inserted because it was concluded that the full panoply of adoption procedure was not needed when a child, born through surrogacy, was genetically related to at least one of its commissioning parents.
Section 30(9) of the 1990 Act allows regulations to be made applying and modifying the relevant legislation in the United Kingdom in relation to parental orders made by the court. One set of regulations covers England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the other covers Scotland.
As in adoption, the regulations place particular emphasis on the welfare of the child throughout childhood. In the case of parental orders the court will continue to appoint a guardian ad litem, in Scotland a curator ad litem, to safeguard the welfare of the child. Their specific duties are set out in rules of court and guidance which will come into effect at the same time as these regulations.
Similarly to adoption, the birth of the child will continue to be registered as the surrogate's and her husband's or partner's, if he has agreed to the surrogacy arrangement. The regulations allow for the setting up of a parental order register to register the child and to cross reference the entry in the existing Register of Births. Provision has been made for the subject of a parental order to obtain a copy of the original record of his or her birth.
The regulations will also ensure that, after a parental order has been made, the commissioning parents and their immediate families come within the prohibited degrees in respect of the law relating to marriage and incest. Those who are within the prohibited degrees before the making of the parental order will continue to be so.
The third set of regulations, the Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations 1994 cover England and Wales only. They are needed to bring parental order proceedings within the scope of proceedings for which legal aid is available. The regulations amend Schedule 2 to the Legal Aid Act 1988.
No parallel regulations are required for Scotland because legal aid is already available for all civil proceedings in the Sheriff Court and the Court of Session,

627
which would cover parental order proceedings. In addition, the opportunity has been taken within the regulations to confirm the availability of assistance by way of representation to prisoners at disciplinary hearings in contracted out prisons: this follows an amendment to the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) Regulations 1989.I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved [24th Report front the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
Lord Rea: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his brief but very clear exposition of what is actually quite a complex small item of legislation. We on these Benches welcome the regulations as a useful clarification of what was really rather an unclear muddy area. The parents concerned will be relieved that parental orders will be available to legitimate, in both senses of the word, their rights and those of the child, whose future will now be made more secure as a result.
We are also pleased that it has been decided that the scope of legal aid in England and Wales will be able to be applied to the legal costs involved if the applicants are eligible. Considering the recent restrictions on legal aid, this is particularly welcome. I notice too—the noble and learned Lord did not mention this—that the order also allows the extension of help to prisoners in contracted out prisons, which is also a necessary and useful move.
I have only one question. If the purpose of the parental order is to make legitimate the arrangements made, obviously the couple concerned should be married. That of course is one of the conditions in Section 2 which have to be fulfilled before a parental order can be made. While nearly all surrogate arrangements will be made by a married couple, with another woman, it is at least theoretically possible that an unmarried couple will want to raise a child born of a surrogate mother, and want a legal arrangement which recognises—even if it cannot, in the strict sense, legitimate the birth—and secures their parental rights in law. We do not know whether this is a problem. In fact I believe we do not really know how many informal surrogacy arrangements are made now.
These regulations will have the benefit of allowing records to be kept. Does the noble and learned Lord think that in the future perhaps an adaptation of these regulations could be made to suit the case of unmarried but stable couples? As he well knows, a small minority of excellent parents are strongly opposed to the institution of marriage but they still might welcome a legal status as parents of a child born in the circumstances we have been discussing. However, this question is not meant to detract in any way from our support for a useful and carefully drafted item of legislation which will be greatly welcomed by the couples concerned.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I join in thanking the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of these regulations which do not make for easy reading. It is a matter of some regret that it has taken four years since the 1990 Act for these regulations to come along. I know of a number of people who are anxious to have the certainty of status which the 1990 Act and these regulations will provide. Those of us who recall the debates on the Act when it was a Bill passing through your Lordships' House will
628
remember that the analogy with adoption to which the noble and learned Lord has referred is a useful one and I am glad to see the way in which it has been followed through in these regulations. Likewise, I hope that the small, and I hope, uncontroversial extension of legal aid which has been referred to will assist in a number of the applications—which can only be very small in number— which are likely to follow the implementation of these regulations.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I, too, would like to welcome this extension of the scope; of legal aid. However, I feel that our debates about legal aid are always rather one-sided because they tend towards discussion about who is eligible and what amounts the Government are making available for legal aid. The Government have been constantly pressed over this matter, particularly by lawyers, and by lawyers through their professional bodies. Why is legal aid required in the first place? It is needed so that people can have representation in the courts and have their work prepared. This is done by solicitors and barristers.
Yesterday the House heard a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, about the case of Dr. Jawad Hashim and the total cost to public funds of that case. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who answered, said:
"The total costs claimed in this case to date amount to £4.1 million, of which £2.8 million has been paid".—[Official Report, 25/10/94; col. 442.]
This is by no means, unfortunately, untypical. I am sure the House welcomed the statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor later that he was looking at this matter very seriously and hoped to come forward with specific proposals to make sure that legal aid was not abused and that the regulations were changed so that this sort of case would be curbed in the future.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn referred to the deep public disquiet about donations of public money to such a case, but forbore from mentioning the deep public disquiet about some of the fees which are being claimed and paid to counsel in particular. In the Official Report of 10th October, at col. WA 94,I elicited from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the information that the highest paid counsel in that case to date had received £671,111.11.I believe that more claims are in the pipeline from Mr. Colin W. G. Ross-Munro. I read in the newspapers that he was not available for comment when that reply was published. However, his clerk was quoted as saying that Mr. Ross-Munro had been working on the case for some two and a half years. One wonders whether that was the sole case on which he was working, or whether there might have been one or two other items of work which he was undertaking at the time. No doubt that information will come out in due course if anyone is sufficiently interested to inquire further.
Such claims make a mockery of the legal aid process. On 10th October, in a Written Answer to a Question that I asked on claims by solicitors and counsel over the past five years, the following figures were given. For counsel, in 1989–90 the number of claims was 146,213. The total amount claimed was £885 million. The total amount paid was £656 million. Five years later, there were 157,103 claims—the number had increased by only 10,000. The

629
total amount claimed had risen to £1,875 million, an increase of £1,000 million. The total amount paid had risen to £1,272 million. In other words, in five years the amount paid out had doubled, yet the rate of inflation was nowhere near that Figure. When the legal profession is not taking time off to bleat about the lack of legal aid, the pitiful amounts available, and so on, I think that it might give us, as taxpayers, some explanation as to why there has been that grotesque increase in the amounts claimed and paid.
For solicitors the story is much the same. In 1989–90 the total paid was £486 million. In 1993–94 it was £820 million. That was for 11,000 fewer cases. Therefore before the legal profession reads lectures to the Government and to the Lord Chancellor about legal aid, we should have some explanation about those figures.
Having said that, I welcome the regulations which have been put forward tonight. I do not think that in themselves they will lead to those exorbitant claims. The regulations will be much appreciated by the people on the receiving end of legal aid. However, I hope in future that when your Lordships' House and another place are discussing legal aid, they will consider why it is required in the first place, and perhaps we can together work toward curbing the growing greed of some of the legal profession.
9 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise to ask a question of the noble and learned Lord who introduced the topic. It arises from the problems that we face with the advance of science and technology which has enabled the process of surrogacy and surrogate mothers to take place. As I understood it, the noble and learned Lord stated that the regulations enabled the providers of the original gametes to become what one might describe as the titular parent of the child. That replaces the process of adoption.
Adoption is a well understood process which has been established over many years. The relationships of the different people involved in the process are well established. One has a mother who effectively surrenders her child to other parents who then become the adoptive parents. The relationships of the individuals involved— the child, the mother and the adoptive parents—are well established and understood.
My concern about the introduction of the regulations is this. What will be the position of the surrogate mother? It is a significant relationship to the child. The process of pregnancy—gestation and giving birth—is one of the most significant events in a woman's life; and it is significant for the child. What will be the situation of the surrogate mother? Will she be described as the surrogate mother? Prior to the regulations she could be termed the mother of the child on the basis that her child was then adopted by other people. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will clarify that point.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I heartily echo that question. It is good that legal aid has been made applicable to cases arising from these regulations and their predecessors. There may be quite a few such cases—they will be difficult.
630
I have some questions for the noble and learned Lord. The first is a concrete question which should be easy to answer. What consultations took place during the drawing up of the regulations? I may have missed something, but as a habitual consultee I did not see any pieces of paper. Were the consultations carried out by the HFEA or by the department direct? What kind of response was there in the sense that did many people respond? Was it a few hundreds or hundreds of thousands? We would like reassurance about the document being based on more than simple ratiocination in the buildings of government.
I come now to my two main points. I believe that it is always a mistake to change the law unless someone is suffering and that every change in the law which is suggested to Parliament should be accompanied by an account of what those sufferings are and how widespread. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us who was suffering under the earlier regulations and the earlier regime? It would help to know what the Government intend to put right by bringing in the rather dramatic and unusual regulations.
The other principle which is far wider than anything to do with the matter is this: do not enshrine mis-statements; do not enshrine mendacity in law. As we go into the looking-glass maze of the biological and genetic revolution and try to adapt society to the quasi-miracles which can now be performed by science, we run greater and greater risks of declaring that that which is not so is so. It seems to me that there is quite a startling example of that in the order. Page 10 states that:
"the child who is the subject of the parental order shall be treated in law as if—
we should watch those words, already one is suspicious—
"he had been bom as a child of the marriage of the husband and wife, whether or not he was in fact born after the marriage was solemnized".
That is all right.
"The child who is the subject of the parental order shall be treated in law as if he were not the child of any other person than the persons who obtained the parental order".
That defines parenthood by the ability to obtain a parental order. Lastly, the order states:
"It is hereby declared that this section prevents a child who is the subject of a parental order from being illegitimate".
Hitherto there has been no way of preventing a child from being illegitimate except the rather familiar one of engendering and bearing that child in a legitimate manner.
There is also the story which appears in the regulations of the two registers of birth. In effect, there are to be two separate registers, the relationship between which is to be secret. There is to be the normal register of birth and another register which will in some sense tell you an inner truth. You will only have access to that if you can give good reasons for requiring access to it. Under no circumstances, as I understand it, will you be able to learn anything about the relationship between one register and the other. Thus the same individual may appear on both registers and it may be a secret whether or not those two entries refer to one individual or two.

631
That is not something which we should let pass without question. That it is a serious matter I deduce from the statement on the previous page, page 9, which tells us the powers which the courts will have to enforce the orders:
"A court may make an order authorising an officer of the court to search such premises as may be specified in the order for the child and if the officer finds the child, to return the child to the applicant".
Paragraph 4 states:
"He may issue a search warrant authorising a constable to search the premises for the child and if the constable, acting in pursuance of a warrant, finds the child, he shall return the child to the person on whose application the order under subsection (1) was made".
That is pretty hairy, rough stuff. It means that police constables can go into the houses of families and other people and act on the extraordinarily bureaucratic categorisations of persons which appear in the document. I should not disguise that I for one am full of alarm and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about those points.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I was not entirely sure whether the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat had offered any welcome to these regulations. I had certainly anticipated, given the remarks from the Front Benches opposite, that there would indeed be a welcome given to these important and complex regulations, which are, after all, secondary legislation and which depend for their validity on the elaborate discussions and debates that we had in this House during the course of the 1990 Act. I hope I might be forgiven for not revisiting some of the fundamentals of that debate, which were undoubtedly issues that had to be addressed with great care and anxiety.
For example, I believe I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, about the prospect of these regulations being further extended to cover the option that those who were not married might be in a position to secure a parental order. That is an option that could be pursued only if there were to be an amendment of the primary legislation of 1990. If the noble Lord would care to look at Section 30 he would find that that is a restriction on the granting of such an order.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for the welcome that he gave to the regulations and for his appreciation of how important and complex they are.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, yes indeed, there was a considerable degree of consultation. The regulations are extremely complicated. It is for that reason that there are separate sets of regulations for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Issues of adoption, succession law and a variety of other matters had to be considered in the different jurisdictions. The noble Lord also questioned me as to who was suffering. Again, I say with respect, that is to revisit the very principles that were debated during the passage of the 1990 Act. Where he has any concerns about the desirability of the granting of such parental orders—that was a conclusion that was reached
632
in the debate on the 1990 Act—namely, that an arrangement of parental orders rather than adoption should be the technique that was followed through.
What needs to be understood—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—is that of course the position of the surrogate mother is extremely important. It is for that reason that effectively it is virtually impossible to contemplate the granting of such an order if at any stage she would object to the passing of that order. That is the importance that is attached to her position in all this. There are clearly complicated reasons why she might become attached to the child that she has borne. It would not be unknown, for example, to discover that she was herself genetically related to the child that she might bear.
That brings me to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, who has yet again conducted a further part of his vigorous and relentless campaign against the excesses of lawyers. It is difficult for me, as a lawyer myself, to join with quite the same enthusiasm as the noble Lord exhibits in the onslaughts for which he is now famous, or notorious, in legal circles. I have a very clear appreciation that nothing that I can say will in any sense divert him from that campaign. I also have a very clear appreciation that the noble Lord strikes a deep chord with a wider public in his views on the apparent excesses of some of those who demand enormous fees, not from private clients but from the taxpayer through the legal aid fund.
However, I hope that on this particular set of orders— and particularly the one in relation to legal aid, the noble Lord will be mollified to this extent. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, we do not envisage that where such parental orders are granted there will be any circumstance when there will be protracted contested actions before the court. I hope that the orders will go forward simply and without complication. While, as I say, I do not expect to divert the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, from his campaign, I hope that he will be happy in regard to this one. I commend these regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) Regulations 1994
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) (Scotland) Regulations 1994
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 12th July be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.

  CIS COUNTRIES: UNITED KINGDOM ENTRY VISA ARRANGEMENTS
  CIS COUNTRIES: UNITED KINGDOM ENTRY VISA ARRANGEMENTS
  UZBEKISTAN: UNITED KINGDOM ENTRY VISA SERVICE
  UZBEKISTAN: UNITED KINGDOM ENTRY VISA SERVICE
  TORTURE: RATIFICATION OF EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  TORTURE: RATIFICATION OF EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS, DETECTION
  CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS, DETECTION
  VACCINES SIMULTANEOUS ADMINISTRATION
  VACCINES SIMULTANEOUS ADMINISTRATION
  PLAGUE VACCINE: USE DURING GULF WAR
  PLAGUE VACCINE: USE DURING GULF WAR
  UK INTERNAL SECURITY AND EC LAW
  UK INTERNAL SECURITY AND EC LAW
  CIVIL AND HOME DEFENCE RECORDS: RELEASE
  CIVIL AND HOME DEFENCE RECORDS: RELEASE
  HADRIANS WALL PATH NATIONAL TRAIL
  HADRIANS WALL PATH NATIONAL TRAIL
  DOCKLANDS
  DOCKLANDS
  NHS (PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES) REGULATIONS 1992
  NHS (PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES) REGULATIONS 1992
  NHS PRESCRIPTIONS: PHARMACISTS' DISPENSING APPLICATIONS
  NHS PRESCRIPTIONS: PHARMACISTS' DISPENSING APPLICATIONS